Sitting of 29 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Widows' Benefits
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What plans he has to amend the rights of those widowed at a young age to widows' and widowers' benefits; and if he will make a statement. [145957]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are introducing bereavement benefits in April that will be available to both men and women equally for the first time. There will be a new weekly benefit for widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions, and a new lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000, which is double the existing widows' payment.
    Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of a sad constituency case from Linlithgow on which my hon Friend has had time to reflect, should a mother who loses
    2
    her husband when she is eight weeks pregnant with a second child be entitled to full maternity allowance? Is the anomaly that that case constitutes uncommon?
    Angela Eagle: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is especially tragic. He has made me aware of it, and the person concerned has written to me. She fell into particular circumstances because of overlapping benefit rules, which have been a feature of the national insurance-based system since its inception. They enshrine the principle that flat-rate benefits, which are designed to help with income maintenance in specific contingencies, are not added together. It would be unfair and costly if the social security system allowed them to be added together, and I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that the Government have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Roger Gale: I am pleased to know that—not before time—the widow's payment will be increased from £1,000 to £2,000.
    The Under-Secretary will recall the case of Corrina Smith of Margate, which I raised in an Adjournment debate last April. As the hon. Lady will remember, Mrs. Smith's husband died tragically in a chemical fire. Mrs. Smith applied for the widows' payment of £1,000 and was told that she could not have it because her application had been made after three months and was therefore out of time. Mrs. Smith did not receive the death certificate from the coroner until the three-month period had elapsed. Has the Department considered starting the clock at the time when the death certificate is issued rather than at the time of death so that people such as Mrs. Smith get the money that they so richly deserve?
    Angela Eagle: We dealt with that matter in some detail in last year's Adjournment debate. People can apply for the benefit without a death certificate. The hon. Gentleman's constituent fell foul of backdating rules

    3
    introduced by the previous Government, for which he voted. There are no plans to change the current arrangements.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: In little over nine weeks, widows will be in a worse position because they will receive only a year's pension. When that announcement is made, the true victims of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 will be known. What provision has the Department made for offering guidance to the newly widowed so that they understand that they have only a year's pension, and not the pension for life that they had previously?
    Will the Minister answer a question to which she failed to reply in Committee: how soon after bereavement will widows be expected to have their first work-focused interview?
    Angela Eagle: The system is obviously intended to treat those who have been recently bereaved with care and respect. There will be no sudden rushes to force those who are bereaved—widows or widowers—quickly into work. However, we believe that it is important that those who have lost a spouse while still young are given a chance to retrain and to consider how they can get into the labour market when the time is appropriate.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What percentage of children live in households in the bottom (a) decile, (b) quarter and (c) half of household income; and if he will make a statement. [145959]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In 1998–99, the proportion of children living in households in the bottom decile, quarter and half of income distribution before the deduction of housing costs were 13 per cent., 33 per cent. and 61 per cent.
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful for that information. My hon. Friend knows that during the period of Conservative government between 1979 and 1997, the incidence of child poverty in Britain trebled. This Government have done a great deal to tackle that through the working families tax credit, child benefit, the minimum wage and the new deal. How will the new child tax credit help to solve the problem, especially for households with the lowest income.
    Mr. Rooker: I apologise to my hon. Friend because it is too early for me to answer a question in detail about a credit that will be introduced in the next financial year. However, it will ensure that help through the tax system is targeted on families who are raising children.
    My hon. Friend is right about child poverty: in 1996–97, approximately one in three children lived in low-income households, which was three times the rate in 1979. A substantial increase in child poverty and, as we know from our debates, pensioner poverty has therefore
    4
    occurred. The gap opened up during the 18 years when the previous Administration were in office. However, we have taken considerable steps to reverse the trend since 1997.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that a New Policy Institute report shows that 500,000 more people are living in poverty, will the Minister confirm whether the Government continue to pledge that 1 million children will be removed from poverty by the general election?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, there is no doubt about that. I was careful that my original answer was specific as to dates. The 1998–99 figures are the latest that we have. We are now at the end of January 2001, so the figures that I gave are almost two years out of date. Substantial changes have taken place—the introduction of the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage, and extra significant increases in child benefit. Given the measures in our four Budgets as a whole, we are absolutely confident that 1 million children will be taken out of poverty, if poverty is measured as 60 per cent. of median earnings after housing costs.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Minister confirm that, through the child benefit system, his Department holds the names and addresses of every child in the country, but that when the Inland Revenue tried to send out child tax credit forms, it did not use that information, but instead issued millions of forms, including 1 million to families with no children? Is it not the case that the Revenue did not use his Department's records to get the child tax credit to families because the form would have had to be sent to non-tax paying mothers, who would have had to pass it to tax-paying fathers? That would have made it apparent that the Government are not giving the support to women and mothers, but are transferring it to men.
    Mr. Rooker: I honestly think that that question should be directed at my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    Departmental IT Systems
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: How much has been spent on new technology by his Department since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145960]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Department spent £1.3 billion on information technology between May 1997 and December last year. As a result of the spending review, more money has been allocated to replace the ageing IT system that we inherited. That investment is essential if we are to drive out fraud and combat error.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give serious thought to the housing benefit crisis in Swale borough council? We are 16 weeks behind, some people are being evicted from their houses, and the housing association has complained to the

    5
    ombudsman. There is a problem with both the hardware and software for dealing with the matter. Is a task force available at headquarters that could sort out the problem?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's local authority. I realise that there is a substantial backlog of claims and that the council is trying to recruit additional staff to deal with it. I hope that that will clear the backlog.
    On my hon. Friend's central request, as I announced a short while ago, the Department is establishing specialist teams of people to go into councils where there have been difficulties. The problem is that, although some councils can administer housing benefit well, far too many cannot do so. We want to ensure that failing local authorities that are not dealing properly with housing benefit receive the skills and expertise—indeed, acquire the IT—that they need to administer the system. I hope in the near future to be able to announce the councils that will be the first to benefit from that additional assistance.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's statement that the Department will clamp down on fraud. How far is modern equipment being used across Departments? We have already heard a suggestion that it is not. For example, in a social security fraud in Northern Ireland, a social security worker who came before the courts had 28 or 29 ghost clients—he was ripping off money. Are we using modern equipment to cross-check all applicants?
    Mr. Darling: When we get the new IT equipment that we need, we will be able to cross-check information far more effectively. The problem experienced by the DSS is that some of its IT equipment is getting on for 30 years old. I am not the world's leading IT expert, but even I know that green writing on black screens is somewhat out of date. Many of our staff go home to find their children using better IT than they are expected to use at work.
    We are systematically replacing the entire IT system at the DSS. As part of that replacement programme, we will ensure that equipment is compatible with that held by the Inland Revenue and other Government agencies, precisely so as to make the necessary checks.
    The matter does not involve only IT. One of the best ways to stop fraud and error entering the system is to ensure that the front-line staff are in place, and we have stabilised DSS staffing.
    One reason why we will save £1 billion during this Parliament is that we will be getting claims right. When we took over, two in every five income support cases were wrong; we have halved that. If the Conservatives were to get in and cut civil service staffing in the way that they propose, the Benefits Agency would lose 5,000 staff in one year, which would once again open the floodgates to fraud and error.

    Compensation Payments
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: How much has been clawed back from social security benefit previously paid in each of the last three years after compensation payments have been made to social security recipients. [145962]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The compensation recovery scheme recovers money paid to people who have received benefit because of an accident, injury or illness once they receive a compensation payment from the party responsible for causing that injury or illness. The money is not recovered direct from the benefit recipient. The scheme provides protection to the taxpayer, who would otherwise subsidise the negligence of those responsible for injuries or illnesses, whether they are employers, car drivers or other people. Over the past three financial years, the compensation recovery unit has recovered a total of £570 million.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the case of an ex-miner from Pontypridd—now sadly deceased—against whom a certificate for compensation recovery for £21,700 was issued in November 1999? On appeal, the claim was reduced to £8,450, and, after several more appeals, it was reduced to £6.38. In view of the unnecessary delay, uncertainty and worry that such cases cause ex-miners and their widows, and the fact that, by now, a large proportion of clawbacks are for less than £10, would not claimants' anguish and the bureaucratic costs to the taxpayer be reduced if compensation clawbacks against coal miners were ended?
    Mr. Bayley: Several such cases have been drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Higher figures were initially sought by the compensation recovery unit because the date of the injury had not been established at the time. The compensation recovery scheme provides for the Department of Social Security to reclaim benefits for five years from the date of injury. As a result of the difficulties in the cases that my hon. Friend drew to my attention, we have introduced some changes, about which I notified the House on Friday, in answer to a parliamentary question that he tabled. Those changes will speed up the recovery process and avoid the difficulty of a higher initial claim being made, because we shall seek to establish the date at which the injury occurred before we issue a certificate for recovery.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I thank my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the considerate way in which they have paid attention to the compensation recovery cases that my hon. Friends and I have brought over the past few weeks and months. May I tell him that his Department seriously underestimates the huge administrative burden, cost and complexity involved in dealing with such claims? There are now more than 130,000 claims, and 600 new ones were received in the first couple of weeks of this year. Given the complexity and the disproportionate cost of claiming, would not the best way to simplify the process be to exempt such cases?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the meetings on the matter that he has had with me and the Secretary of State. I feel confident that the changes that we have announced will greatly reduce red tape and speed up the process. Matters of compensation take time to resolve between those acting on behalf of the employer—the Coal Board, now represented by the Department of Trade and Industry—and the solicitors

    7
    acting on behalf of the person seeking compensation. Under the arrangements for the compensation recovery unit that involve my Department, we have just 28 days in which to seek recovery, and if we do not issue a certificate within that time, we lose the right to seek recovery. Progress is being made, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.
    We do not believe that it would be right to exempt miners from the compensation recovery scheme. If we were to do so, it would be unfair to the others who seek recovery, such as the rail workers in my constituency who have died from asbestos-related diseases, or nurses who seek compensation because they have put out their backs by lifting patients. It would not be right to apply different rules to different classes of people.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my hon. Friend consider the compensation recovery scheme that may apply to the relatives of people who have died of new variant CJD? The relatives may be eligible for compensation. The compensation has been widely welcomed, but if it is given with the one hand and taken away with the other, there will be resentment.
    Mr. Bayley: I endorse the aims of the proposed scheme that the Department of Health is negotiating to compensate the victims of new variant CJD and their families. I assure my hon. Friend that officials from my Department are working closely with those from the Department of Health to ensure that the proposed new scheme fits with the current compensation scheme.

    Care Home Charges
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What representations he has received on uprating income support capital limits in line with the Department of Health limits for care home charges. [145963]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We received a letter and representations on this subject from Mr. Gordon Lishman, the Director-General of the National Council on Ageing, in November 2000.
    Mr. Burstow: Does the Secretary of State understand that the fact that the care and benefit systems are out of sync in regard to capital limits causes confusion for many care home residents and extra costs as a result of the transition from a system that is sustained by local authority contributions to care to a system that is partly funded through income support? That does not put an extra penny piece in the pockets of those in care homes. Will the Secretary of State undertake to discuss the matter again with his colleagues at the Department of Health to see whether the confusion can be removed and the two systems can be made to work better together?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the problem in the social security system is that there are far too many regimes for different benefits. Individuals can find themselves applying for several benefits and discover that the rules are different. We are trying to rationalise and simplify the system.
    8
    All new residential accommodation cases will be transferred to local authorities from next year, so the problem will not arise, because there will be only one regime. That will leave us with the problems faced by people who went into residential care between 1993 and now. I am considering those problems, because I want, as far as possible, to try to simplify the regimes for capital allowances.
    The Government want to encourage people to save. We are already increasing—and will ultimately abolish—the capital limits for pensioners under the pension credit. However, I want to ensure that whatever we do is consistent with a social security system that says to people of working age that any means that they may have should be taken into account; otherwise the whole process will become extremely expensive. However, I am considering the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred as part of a general review of capital limits in the social security system
    Mr. David Willetts: With regard to capital limits and income support, can the Secretary of State explain why the savings of disabled people on income support should be treated less favourably than the savings of pensioners on income support?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government decided to increase the capital limits next year and to abolish them for pensioners from 2003. He is also aware that capital limits are none the less imposed on other people throughout the social security system. As I told the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the Government are considering all the capital limits. However, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will be well aware that raising capital limits across the board could be very expensive, even for the Conservative party, which is making spending commitments as though there were no tomorrow.
    Mr. Willetts: I invite the Secretary of State to confirm as a matter of record that, within the income support system, the rules for the savings of pensioners and the rules for the savings of disabled people have hitherto been the same. Will he confirm that, as from April 2001, he will have one rule for pensioners and will treat disabled people as second-class citizens?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the capital limits have for some time been different for different categories of people. The Government decided to increase and then abolish the capital limits for pensioners. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that we should reimpose the capital limits for pensioners. If he is suggesting that he would lift the capital limits for disabled people and, perhaps, other groups, let him say so. At the same time, let him tell us how he would propose to pay for that. So far, he has not come up with a single credible proposal for reallocating social security spending or meeting any of the commitments that either he or his colleagues have made.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Which income group will benefit the most from stakeholder pensions. [145964]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Stakeholder pensions will particularly benefit people who earn, on today's figures, between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—£200 to £400 a week—and who do not have access to an occupational scheme. They will also be of benefit more generally, including to some non-earners. The largest single income group that will benefit comprises up to 5 million people whose income is between the figures that I have given
    Mr. Wilkinson: Why did the Secretary of State say on 6 May last year in The Times:
    "They"—
    stakeholder pensions—
    "have always been intended for moderate earners and higher-income earners"?
    Surely that contradicts the Labour party manifesto—or is it just a recognition of the reality that the average family must now pay an extra £670 a year in tax and, with the minimum income guarantee, has an earnings-related benefit from the state on which to fall back?
    Mr. Rooker: Irrespective of what was reported in The Times, we have never deviated from the stakeholder target group. Those who earn in the income ranges set out in the Green Paper have been mentioned in this House, outside and in Committee. That target group does not comprise the market for stakeholders. The market and the target group, as I have repeatedly said, are different. To confuse the two is disingenuous, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Did my right hon. Friend see the example of a personal pension introduced under the Conservative party by Skandia Life? A man discovered that, of the £25 premium that he was paying, £17.50 was taken in commission. When he stopped the premiums, the company continued to rob his fund of the £17.50 and told him that if he wanted to close the fund and take his money, it would deduct 22 per cent. of its value. That is the truth of personal pensions introduced by the Conservative party. The man was also told that if he had had a stakeholder pension, the charge would have been not £17.50 but 20p.
    Mr. Rooker: The last part of my hon. Friend's question destroyed my answer. I was about to say that we have learned the lessons provided by the pension robbers who operated under the Conservative party. That is one reason why companies are queueing up to provide stakeholder pensions—almost 30 are now regulated to do so—under which costs to individuals are controlled and capped.
    Some say that the public prints are confusing. Stakeholder pensions are so "confusing" that Tesco is planning to take contributions at its 650 supermarket checkouts, and the Trades Union Congress is to provide them. They will take off because they are safe and secure, and the pension robbers will not be able to get a look in.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Surely a Minister who is a member of a Government who extract £5 billion a year from pensions should not talk about pension robbery. Will he explain why, if stakeholder
    10
    pensions are good for those earning more than £10,000 a year, those earning less than that will be entitled to the same rebate and not allowed to opt out for a stakeholder pension?
    Mr. Rooker: That is incredibly confusing, and shows that the former pensions Minister has not followed the debate. Stakeholder pensions will be simple. Even the Pm says:
    "The new stakeholder pension is simpler than any pension yet."
    They will be widespread and safe, and available to everybody. As I have said, the target group comprises those on moderate earnings of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year who are not in occupational pension schemes and for whom, by and large, there is no other provision. Stakeholder pensions are available right up the income scale and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are not work-related.
    We have repeatedly said that it is up to those who earn below £10,000 a year to decide what to do, but that, all things being equal, they will be better off remaining in the earnings-related pension scheme, which is to be modified next year to become the state second pension, than they would be in a funded scheme. Those without earnings, be they children, non-working spouses or others, are entitled to join a stakeholder scheme.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Many people across income groups who have stakeholder pensions will be required to buy an annuity. Given the poor current returns on annuities, what is stopping the Government ending the compulsory requirement to purchase an annuity?
    Mr. Rooker: As the hon. Lady knows—we have debated these matters before—the Government are considering the report of the retirement group's income working party, chaired by my former colleague Dr. Oonagh McDonald. In due course, we shall announce our decisions.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Chris Pond: If he will make a statement on progress towards the Government target of eliminating child poverty. [145969]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are making progress towards our target of eradicating child poverty within a generation, and halving it within the next 10 years. As a result of measures introduced so far, 1 million children will be taken out of poverty. There are now 250,000 fewer children living in households where there is no one in work than there were in 1997.
    Mr. Pond: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the progress that has been made. Does he fully understand the extent of the challenge that he is facing in trying to reach the targets to which he referred? There have been references to the trebling of child poverty between 1979 and 1997. A quarter of poor children throughout the European Union were here in the United Kingdom by the mid-1990s. If we had a Government who were committed to abolishing the working families tax credit, the child tax

    11
    credit and the new deal for lone parents, how long does my right hon. Friend think it would be before we were back to 4 million of our children living in poverty?
    Mr. Darling: Many of us remember that for the 18 years the Conservatives were in government, they paid scant attention to child poverty. Many of their policies contributed actively towards children living in poverty. My hon Friend is right to refer to the fact that between 1979 and 1997 child poverty trebled. At the same time, social security spending doubled, as the Conservatives spent more and more on social security because of high unemployment.
    My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to the eradication of child poverty. We will halve it in the next 10 years. Measures have been announced already, such as increases in child benefit, an increase in the money that is given to children whose parents are on income support, the working families tax credit and the new deal for lone parents. Many lone parents have children living on unacceptably low income levels. Those are examples of measures that are helping to ensure that children have more money coming into the household. We are making sure that we tackle child poverty.
    All the evidence so far suggests that the Conservative party, far from having discovered a new concern about child poverty, is committed to policies that would be likely to lead to an increase in child poverty. I am sure that most decent people would not want that.
    Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State is abominably complacent. Given the evidence that 500,000 more people are living in poverty than when the Government took office, that 2 million families have missed out on the child tax credit on account of what a Treasury official told the Daily Mail was a "bureaucratic bungle", and that no fewer than 85 changes to the regulations affecting the administration of housing benefit have had the effect of limiting take-up and thereby damaging the living standards of children, why does the right hon. Gentleman not abandon his smug complacency and admit that, far from being the saviour of children, the Government have betrayed poor children on a monumental scale?
    Mr. Darling: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, when he rehearses his questions in front of the mirror before he comes into the Chamber, thinks about what he is going to say.
    Mr. Bercow: I never look at the mirror.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should try doing so. It might be a revelation to him.
    We are the first Government to have set ourselves the objective of eradicating child poverty within a generation. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of complacency, and criticises us, but he should examine the measures that the Government have introduced to combat child poverty and ask himself where the Conservative party stands. If he adopts that approach, he will understand the difference between us. A major contributor to reducing poverty is
    12
    an increase in child benefit, which was opposed by the Conservative party, which froze the benefit when in office.
    We have introduced the working families tax credit, which makes work pay, but the Conservative party opposes it. The child care tax credit, which will be introduced in April, will mean a £10 gain for parents who can claim the credit. Again, the Conservative party oppose it. Indeed, each and every measure that we have introduced, which are designed to make sure that children are lifted out of poverty, that their parents can get into work—or, when work is not possible, that we can put more money into people's pockets though other means of support—is opposed by the Conservative party. Because the Conservatives are committed to £16 billion worth of spending reductions, it is inconceivable that the axe would not fall on the very children about whom the hon. Gentleman pretends to be concerned.
    Mr. Terry Rooney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that workless households are a major contribution to child poverty, and that we need to look at all possible work incentives? In that vein, will he look at reintroducing free school meals with the working families tax credit, as that would be a major contribution to eliminating child poverty and a massive work incentive?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. One reason why many children were living in poverty is that their parents did not work. That is why we introduced the new deal for lone parents, which 200,000 lone parents have already joined. Almost half of them have gone into work or are in the process of working towards work through training and other enterprise. The best way to tackle poverty is to make sure that as many children as possible have parents who are in work. That is why we are making work pay and making work possible.
    Of course, we shall continue to look at other measures to make sure that children are looked after and brought up properly in an environment where they are likely to learn. The difference between us and the Conservative party is that all the measures that were introduced to combat child poverty, especially the new deal for lone parents, would be scrapped by the Conservatives, were they to get in. There is one particularly cruel measure: the Conservatives plan to remove all forms of state help from lone parents, once their children are over the age of 11. That is the only way they could save £0.5 billion in their first year of office.
    Mr. David Willetts: Has not the real problem with all the Government's anti-poverty programmes been identified by none other than the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? According to him,
    "There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved … As a result we are spending vast sums of money … on the same people through different programmes, without improving their ability to participate in the economy and society."
    Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that those words are evidence of how curiously detached his former colleague has become. Does he agree with his right hon. Friend, or are his former colleague's words already forgotten?
    Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to explain how removing

    13
    benefit from lone parents when their youngest child reaches the age of 11 can help in the drive to get rid of poverty. As for the measures that the Government have introduced to make work pay and make work possible, we have introduced a variety of them, and they are beginning to bear fruit. As a result of what we are doing, there will be a million fewer children in poverty than there were when the hon. Gentleman left office. The hon. Gentleman would have done better to come to the House with measures that would help to reduce poverty, rather than make silly points that do not add up to much at all.

    Poverty
    Mr. Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the number of households living in poverty (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145970]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): This Government are committed to eradicating pensioner poverty and, as I said a moment ago, child poverty. Our first "Opportunity for All" report outlined the extent of the poverty that we inherited in 1997. In the first two years, the number of households defined as living in poverty stabilised at about 18 per cent, but we expect the numbers to fall as the rises in the minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the increase in benefits for the poorest children take effect. As I said a few moments ago, by the end of this Parliament about 1 million fewer children will be living in poverty.
    Mr. Baldry: By the Secretary of State's own acknowledgement, the best that he can say is that the number of families living in poverty has "stabilised"—that was the word that he used in his answer. However, that hides the fact that, quite often, concentrations of families live in poverty in particular wards and areas. In Oxfordshire, for example, those areas include Blackbird Leys in Oxford and Bretch Hill in my constituency. There is a concern that measures are not sufficiently targeted on concentrations of poverty in areas outside the inner city. Will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Departments how more resources can be directed at concentrations of poverty in wards outside the city areas?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which contrasts his position with that of some of his colleagues. I take issue with just one point: yes, the number of households defined as living in poverty had stabilised, but the most recent figures available cover the period up to March 1999. Most of the measures that the Government have introduced came into effect after April 1999, and we do not yet have the figures for that period. As I said, we expect the number of households living in poverty to fall gradually, which contrasts with the earlier figure that I gave, reflecting a trebling of child poverty in the 20 years up to now.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are areas where there are concentrations of children living in poverty. Usually, they are characterised by high levels of unemployment, few employment opportunities, very low skills and schools where children do not attain the
    14
    standards achieved by comparable groups elsewhere. That is why we introduced the new deal for communities and employment zones—some of the many schemes criticised by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) a moment ago.
    All the evidence suggests that the Government should concentrate the help that they are giving to deal with low income, to make sure that people get into work, to raise educational standards and to tackle health deficiencies and housing problems. All those must be dealt with at the same time, and I am glad that at least one Opposition Member realises that that is how we must tackle the problem.
    Fiona Mactaggart: What is the best way to tackle poverty among households that include people of working age?
    Mr. Darling: The best way is to make sure that those people can get into work. The problem that has caused so much poverty is that far too many people who could work were not able to work. Many hon. Members know that during the 1980s, large parts of the country—whole communities—were laid waste. They were given no help whatever to cope with the huge industrial changes taking place and, as a result, too many children were living in houses where no one was in work. That is why the Government introduced measures to make work pay—the working families tax credit, underpinned by the national minimum wage—and to make work possible—help with child care and the new deal. All those measures were bitterly opposed by the Conservative party. Every single one of those measures would go if the Conservatives ever got back, and that would mean more children and more households living in poverty. That is not just economic madness, but morally wrong.
    Mr. Andrew George: Is the Secretary of State aware that 22 allegedly illegal immigrant workers doing short-term work on flower and bulb farms in west Cornwall were arrested at the weekend? Although that raises concerns about the poverty and quality of life of the immigrant workers, it took place in an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, not because the people there are workshy—far from it—but because of the complexities of a cumbersome benefits system, which discourages people from taking up short-term work. What will the Secretary of State do to address the problems that prevent unemployed people from taking advantage of short-term work?
    Mr. Darling: I am not aware of the detail of the case. I saw press reports at the weekend, but I have no detailed information about it. From what I understand and from what the hon. Gentleman said, it seems that the problem there is unscrupulous, collusive employers taking advantage of people, getting them to work for them and presumably paying them in cash, rather than employing people in the proper and usual way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are taking additional powers through the Social Security Fraud Bill, currently in another place and shortly to come before the House. The Bill will tighten up the powers available to us to stop such exploitation. The other problem highlighted by the case is

    15
    the need for the Government to make sure that they do everything possible to stop people entering the country when they do not have sufficient authority to do so.

    New Deal for Disabled People
    Liz Blackman: What representations he has had from employers' organisations about his Department's involvement with the new deal for disabled people. [145971]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): By the end of last year, the pilots of the new deal for disabled people had helped more than 6,000 people move into work. We are now working to extend the programme. We have consulted widely, including with employers, whose views will help us to target our measures more effectively to support those who currently claim incapacity benefits and who wish to move into work.
    Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that more help should be given to people who suffer from ill health and whose jobs are at risk? What do the Government intend to do about that?
    Mr. Bayley: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I feel passionately that the state should be able to help people who risk losing their jobs because of failing health. Under the new deal for disabled people, we have run a number of job rehabilitation pilots, from which we have learned a great deal. We hope shortly to advertise for people to run a further series of pilots focused on job retention; indeed. I hope that we shall do so next week. Through rehabilitation and job help, such pilots will enable people who have been absent from work for six weeks to retain their jobs. Each week, 17,000 people reach their sixth week of absence from work. Those people need help, as they run the grave risk of losing their jobs altogether. Such help has not been provided in the past, but the pilots will allow it to be given in future.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that, although some Opposition Members may not look in the mirror—a comment that was made earlier—Ministers and other Labour Members often look in The Guardian? Did the Under-Secretary see in The Guardian last week a statement made by the head of public policy at the Royal National Institute for the Blind? With reference to the new deal for the disabled, he said that
    "the system is very objectionable. It's treating disabled people like guinea pigs and will be seen by them to be highly discriminatory."
    What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that criticism?
    Mr. Bayley: I know Steve Winyard well. He did not say that the new deal for disabled people discriminates against people; he asked questions about the evaluation strategy for the new job-broker scheme. We have been discussing the scheme with voluntary bodies and we want to make the evaluation as user-friendly as possible. We are absolutely determined to ensure that it is thorough and robust, so that it will prove the effectiveness of work to help people on incapacity benefit to retain jobs and to get back into work. Such help can then be provided to people on incapacity benefit not on a pilot basis, but on a full-time, regular basis. We need such measures because
    16
    the number of people on incapacity benefit trebled from 600,000 to 1.8 million when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. Those people were simply dumped. The Conservative party left them high and dry, which is why we are piloting the new deal for disabled people. We want to give those 1.8 million people some hope of getting back into work.

    Pensioners (Expenditure)
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What representations he has received about the amount his Department spends on pensioners. [145973]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The extra £4.5 billion that the Government are spending over and above the amount that the Conservatives planned to spend has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsurprising that few representations have been made to the Department of Social Security about spending on pensioners, because the Government have done more for our pensioners in four years than the previous Government did in 18 years? Does he agree also that we remain committed to allowing pensioners to share in the growing prosperity of the country as it develops?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Most people welcome the increase in the basic pension of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for pensioner couples, which will happen in April. That comes together with the increase in the minimum income guarantee, which means that 2 million of the poorest pensioners in the country will be at least £15 a week better off in real terms. Those increases have been widely welcomed. I am sure, however, that the same people who welcome them will be equally apprehensive about the Opposition's proposals to scrap the winter fuel payment and to reduce the entitlement for 2.5 million pensioners, who will lose out as a result of the proposal.
    Mr. Graham Brady: How much money each year will the Government claw back from people who reach retirement age and will no longer qualify for the married couples allowance?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that we made changes to the married couples' allowance because we wanted to focus more help on families with children. We want to ensure that the Government's help goes to people on the basis of need rather than status. That is why we made those changes.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Having spoken to some pensioners in my constituency over the weekend, may I tell my right hon. Friend how much they applaud the Government's efforts in relieving them of pensioner poverty? Given the time of year, they made particular mention of the winter fuel payment. Can my right hon. Friend outline what he believes the introduction of the pension credit will do for those who fall just above that minimum income guarantee line?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government intend to introduce the pension credit

    17
    from 2003. It will guarantee that no pensioner need live on less than £100 a week and will ensure that, for every pound that they save, people qualifying for the pension credit will receive a cash top-up. For example, a pensioner saving £20 a week will get £12 a week on top of that as a reward for saving.
    The Government's objective is to ensure that it pays to save. The problem with the social security system that we inherited was that there was a positive disincentive against saving. From 2003, for the first time in the history of the social security system in this country, for every pound pensioners save they will get a credit for their thrift. That reform is long overdue. Not only does it help combat pensioner poverty but it ensures that thrifty pensioners are rewarded and not penalised, as they were for far too long.

    Poverty
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What assessment he has made of the effect of measures taken by his Department since May 1997 in tackling poverty in (a) the UK and (b) the north-west. [145976]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Full details of our policies and the indicators that we use to monitor them can be found in the "Opportunity for All" reports. Some of our indicators can be broken down to look at the regions. These show, for example, that the north-west has benefited from the increased educational achievement for 11-year-olds. Now 73 per cent. of 11-year-olds reach the required standard in maths, rather than the 63 per cent. who did in 1997. We are also seeing a reduction in the proportion of children living in workless households in the region. It is down from 22 per cent. in 1997 to 18 per cent. last year.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I have been involved in politics in Burnley for 38 years, and the Government's record in social security and taxation matters has done more to tackle poverty in my type of constituency than that of any previous Government. Will he make sure that, at the election, the people of this country know exactly what we have done to tackle poverty and what we intend to do when we are re-elected at that election?
    Mr. Bayley: We seek to tell the public what our strategy is in the "Opportunity for All" reports and what our performance has been in the indicators. As each year passes, the poverty figures improve. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, under the Conservatives the number of children living in poverty trebled. That policy trend cannot simply be switched off overnight. It is like a supertanker—it has to be slowed down, which we have done, and then turned. We are now seeing the benefits of fewer children in poverty in Burnley and in the rest of the country
    Miss Anne Begg: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen a letter in The Herald today from a volunteer in a citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen. It makes very interesting reading with regard to the figures of pensioners living in poverty. The gentleman worked out that, from this April, a pensioner couple on the minimum pension guarantee has the equivalent disposable
    18
    income of someone in work on £16,000 a year. That figure is arrived at because those in work and on that kind of income do not qualify for housing benefit or council tax rebates, but must pay national insurance contributions, must pay into a pension fund and pay for all the other things that a working person has to pay for but a pensioner does not. Does that not illustrate clearly how the Government are tackling the basis of pensioner poverty?
    Mr. Bayley: I regret that I have not seen the letter in The Herald, but I shall look for it. It clearly illustrates the point that my hon. Friend made. Opposition Members crow that all that we have achieved for pensioners is a levelling-off of the number in poverty, according to the latest "Opportunity for All" report. However, they omit to mention that the figures in the report relate to 1999, before the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.
    We introduced the minimum income guarantee to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty and, as a result of its introduction, we are doing so. I am pleased that some people in the citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen realise that it has made a big difference to the standard of living and the feeling of security of the poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the number of households living in poverty (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145979]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our first "Opportunity for All" report outlined the extent of poverty that we inherited in 1997. Our second report, published in September 2000, shows the latest information available.
    Mr. Loughton: We heard the same rather flimsy excuse from the Secretary of State in response to question 12 a short time ago. If the incidence of poverty is not declining at a time when we are constantly being told that the economy is booming, what hope will we be able to hold out when the economy starts on a downturn? The hon. Gentleman's answer is in strict contrast to the studies carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, which show a great increase in poverty.
    Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of my pensioner constituents in Worthing are among the 500,000 extra people who are now, according to the trust, living in poverty? Is he also aware that many of them are missing out on the benefits to which they are entitled because the Government have enormously complicated the way in which benefits are administered through the Benefits Agency and local authorities? When will the Government do something serious to make the system more transparent and accessible to the most vulnerable, especially pensioners?
    Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman was doing as much to help pensioners in poverty as some Labour Members, he would know that the number of pensioners living in poverty has substantially decreased as a result of the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. If he did his homework, he would know that the figures in the "Opportunity for All" report—which show a static

    19
    position—are two years old, as are the figures in the Joseph Rowntree Trust's report. Had he read the "Opportunity for All" report, he would know that. I suggest that he read it, so that he may come better informed to Question Time next month.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend knows my constituency well. I have been doing my homework: I was with representatives of Age Concern on Friday. They told me that about 700 pensioner households in the Scarborough area are still, for whatever reason, classified as being in poverty, on the measures that they use. The main problem is that households do not claim payments to which they are entitled. Will the Minister offer me and the field-workers from Age Concern some advice on how to persuade those 700 households that they are entitled to this help, and that it would not constitute a handout?
    Mr. Bayley: The Government have run the largest ever take-up campaign for pensioners. Record numbers of pensioners have applied for the minimum income guarantee and are getting it as a result. I hope that that has made a difference in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    I join my hon. Friend in wanting to ensure that the message gets across that the minimum income guarantee is not a discretionary payment but an entitlement for pensioners on low incomes, and we are determined that such pensioners should receive it. I should be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency to talk to the representatives of Age Concern about how we can ensure that the campaign is a success.

    Winter Fuel Allowance
    Mr. Denis MacShane: How many pensioners in the United Kingdom have benefited from (a) the winter fuel allowance and (b) the free television licence. [145981]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Around 11 million winter fuel payments have already been made to those entitled to them—the vast majority were made before Christmas. We are still receiving and processing claims for this winter's payments, particularly from men aged between 60 and 64. Winter fuel payments are made to people living in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has mirroring provisions. We estimate that some 3.7 million pensioner households in Great Britain qualify for a free television licence. All those provisions would be lost under the Tories' proposals, as would the 10,000 winter fuel payments made in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. MacShane: On this freezing January day, is not it right to remind the country that the extra help that we give to pensioners will be taken from them if the Conservative party ever gets anywhere near power? Specifically on television licences, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the activities of a BBC Gestapo unit that goes around removing the free licence of people who live in sheltered accommodation because of some small change in their living arrangements? Will he make clear to the BBC my concern, which I am sure is shared by other hon. Members, that that practice should stop, that pensioners aged over 65 who have the right to a free licence should keep it and that the view of many hon. Members is that the BBC licence fee will be increasingly hard to justify if the removal of the free licence for over-65s continues?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, the discrepancy over the licence rules for sheltered housing was raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and me when I was applauded by pensioners in Chorley on Friday for the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the forthcoming massive increase in the basic state retirement pension, which is already appearing in the new pension books being sent out to pensioners. The matter concerns all Members of Parliament and, indeed, the BBC. One way or another, it will have to be resolved in due course.

Earthquake (India)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): On Friday 26 January, a major earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale occurred in western India. The epicentre was 50 km north-east of the town of Bhuj in Gujarat state. It affected an area as large as Wales and was felt in Pakistan, Nepal and southern India.
The latest estimates are that more than 20,000 people are presumed dead, thousands more are missing and some 50,000 are reported injured. Initial reports suggest that 500,000 have been left homeless. As serious aftershocks continue, hundreds of thousands of people are living outside their homes. Aftershocks are also hampering the search and rescue and relief effort. Provision of water is a particular problem in Bhuj. Aerial assessments carried out by the Government of India, in which staff from my Department participated, described the situation in many areas as "utter devastation". According to the Indian authorities, 95 per cent. of buildings in Bhuj are no longer habitable and many villages are completely flattened.
Infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, communication systems and electricity lines have been severely affected and an oil slick is affecting operations at the oil terminal at Kandla port. Communication with Bhuj is gradually being restored using satellite. Indian police are leading the search and rescue effort, aided by 5,000 Indian military personnel. Priorities are water, shelter, blankets and food. The Indian authorities are mobilising significant resources to address those needs. That is being supported by international relief assistance, which has started to arrive.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy and concern to the people of Gujarat and their relatives and friends in Britain and elsewhere. The Queen and the Prime Minister have sent messages of sympathy to the Government of India.
The Department for International Development's emergency response centre has been working round the clock since the earthquake struck. We dispatched a UK search and rescue team of 69 people comprising 25 UK fire service volunteers from Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Chester and Leicestershire and specialist non-governmental organisation personnel. The Ministry of Defence provided a plane at a cost to my Department—I thought that the House may want to know this—of £98,000. Officials from my Department led the team. They arrived in Bhuj at 8 am UK time on 28 January and started work within 15 minutes. At present, they are targeting some of the worst-affected buildings. They are working in close co-operation with the Indian authorities and have so far managed to rescue four people alive.
Also in a joint operation with my Department, 75 search and rescue personnel from the Russian Ministry of Emergencies arrived in Bhachau on 28 January and have rescued eight persons to date. They also have with them an airmobile hospital. A second Russian aircraft, part-funded by my Department, is awaiting clearance from the Indian authorities to bring in 3,280 blankets and 45 family tents.
A United Nations disaster assessment co-ordination team, including one United Kingdom member, has also been dispatched, and will commence operations as soon
22
as possible. Two disaster assessment experts from my Department have helped to organise the nongovernmental organisations' relief co-ordination meeting, and have helped with aerial reconnaissance. The focus of the effort is now moving from search and rescue to the organisation of relief. All existing systems have broken down. People lack housing, blankets, clothes, food and water. We must ensure that those who survived the earthquake are cared for until normal systems can be restored.
My Department has spent £2 million on the provision of immediate relief, and a further £1 million will be allocated today. As the House knows, what is important is not general pledges of money but disbursing the money now, and providing services on the ground in Gujarat now. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has today agreed to make available £9 million from the reserve, so that we can allocate a total of £10 million to support the emergency relief effort without reducing our spending in other parts of India. We will also work in Brussels and elsewhere to ensure that other development agencies make appropriate funding available.
The Indian Government are well organised and are providing food, army personnel, heavy lifting equipment, mobile operating theatres and medical supplies, but the scale of the emergency is such that some of the resources needed cannot be supplied in the region. We are therefore also arranging to fly out three aircraft carrying 1,200 tents and other shelter items from the Department's emergency stockpile in Staffordshire. A fourth aircraft will be dispatched today from Ostend via Brindisi, carrying 10 sets of trauma equipment and plastic sheeting.
This is a very serious disaster. Organisation by the Indian Government is good, but international help is needed to ensure that all who survived the earthquake, but have lost everything, are provided with health care and other basic essentials until they can rebuild their homes and livelihoods.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to make the statement, and for letting me have a copy earlier.
Let me underline the deep shock and sadness of Conservative Members, and express our sympathy for all who have suffered in this major disaster. The tragedy is brought much closer to home for all of us by the certain knowledge that all over the United Kingdom there will be British citizens who have lost family and loved ones in India—perhaps even in Pakistan—and who are waiting desperately for news of missing relatives. I pay tribute to the Department's rapid response in releasing resources and supporting the dispatch of the British specialist search and rescue teams that are now doing such impressive work in Gujarat, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's hard-working officials.
I emphasise that Conservative Members will support any reasonable steps taken by the Government to deal with either the short-term crisis or the longer-term need for restoration work. I know it is early days, but can the Secretary of State say anything at all about the part that Britain might play in the longer-term regeneration that will be necessary? Will the Department support the Indian Government's request to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for substantial help?

23
The Secretary of State mentioned the need for shelter, blankets, clothes, food and water. Can she say a little about her assessment of the scale of those requirements—especially in the more remote areas, some of which have not yet received any help at all? Can she also say something about her Department's assessment of the risks of disease? What support can we give to help with medical supplies?
Does the Secretary of State agree that as we enjoy a very close and special relationship with this Commonwealth country, it is right and proper for Britain to be at the forefront of the humanitarian aid effort? I welcome the co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence in making aircraft available.
Can the right hon. Lady say a little more about how the £3 million of aid that we have made available will be disbursed? May I repeat the concerns that I mentioned during discussion on El Salvador about the pumping of our aid through United Nations agencies? I suspect that the right hon. Lady has not done that this time, but does she agree that, more often than not, NGOs and charities based on the ground are the right vehicles for British taxpayers' funds?
Does the Secretary of State agree that although earthquakes are inevitable, death on this scale is not? Does she agree that much more needs to be done the world over in terms of earthquake preparedness? Given that India is by far the largest recipient of British aid, does she ensure that disaster management forms part of the on-going dialogue between our two countries? During her recent trip to India, did she have discussions with Indian Ministers about disaster management? If so, can she say a little about that?
I again thank the Secretary of State and her Department for their rapid response—which is made on behalf of all of us—to a very serious disaster.
Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him very much that the British people can feel proud that we—with some of the fine officials in my Department—are among the fastest in the world in responding to this type of emergency. We can be proud, too, of the fact that British fire fighters and others working in search and rescue operations will drop everything at a moment's notice and fly around the world to try to help people in distress. I think that we are all proud to live in a country that can make such an effort.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—we are very aware of this—that the families of very many British citizens originated in that part of India. As telephone and other systems have broken down, people here have been unable to receive news of their family in India and are deeply anxious. They are of course devastated and we feel very deeply for them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the part that we will play in the longer term. As we tend to move faster than others and can get on site very quickly, we will probably make a lot of the early, up-front provision. We can then ensure that organisations such as the European Community make resources available. It will be some months before the big reconstruction effort can begin. People have lost their houses and absolutely everything else, and they will have to be provided with health care and food before the reconstruction effort can start.
24
It is the reconstruction effort that the IMF and the World Bank will have to help with. I met World Bank authorities recently when I was in India, and they are hoping and planning to increase their support and lending to India. We have also been talking about assisting the bank to be able to deploy more resources in India. I think that we can continue those conversations to ensure that Gujarat receives help for the reconstruction effort.
The hon. Gentleman is right that, in some villages, everything has been destroyed. An aerial reconnaissance has been conducted, but no help has yet been provided to people in some smaller communities which have lost everything. The relief effort has to spread very rapidly. We should remember, however, that very considerable territory—an area the size of Wales—has been devastated and that some of the villages are remote.
There is always a risk of disease after a major disruption, when water, sanitation and health systems are affected. That is why the big relief effort is now focused on ensuring that those who survive do not become ill and perhaps—after surviving the earthquake—die because of a lack of support.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that all United Nations agencies are inefficient. UNICEF, for example, is an extremely efficient agency that is particularly good at water supply, which is an issue in this case. We shall use whatever agencies are already present and able to operate in the locality. That is what we always do. It is no good giving grants to non-governmental organisations that are still in the United Kingdom and not in the country concerned. We have to see who is already in the country and provide to them.
The Red Cross was the fastest to the scene and we provided it with the first grant. Blankets are needed, as it is quite cold in that part of India and people are sleeping outside their houses. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall provide to those agencies that are efficient, already at the scene and can get material through to people. However, only the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs can do the co-ordinating job. It can get in there, assess the situation and make calls around the world to ensure that the effort is co-ordinated and resources are not unnecessarily duplicated.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's final point—we are working on the matter throughout the world system—that earthquakes and other disasters are acts of nature or of God, and that perhaps there will be more of them because of greater global warming, atmospheric turbulence and increasing world population, which forces people on to more marginal land. However, people's chances of surviving a disaster depend on local disaster preparedness. Systems in countries around the world have to be strengthened so that people are always there, ready to move instantly. When people are under rubble, it is no good waiting for people and materials to be flown in from elsewhere in the world. We need to have local people who can move very rapidly to the rescue.
As I said, the Indian Government's efforts are very good and organised. However, it is a phenomenal disaster.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express support for the fact that my right hon. Friend did say that the Indian Government and the Indian authorities were well organised? I went last night to a big meeting in the

25
constituency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which was hosted by the police for our Asian communities, and gentle sadness was expressed that the attitude of much of the British press had been somewhat patronising towards the organisation of the Indian authorities. As a member of the Budget Committee of the European Union, I have seen the effects of an earthquake days after it happened. Anyone who has seen that knows that the effects are stunning and appalling. People cannot be well organised, so I am glad that she paid tribute to the Indian authorities.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the oil slick. We have great expertise in such matters, so is British expertise being sent to do something about the slick, which is a real problem?
Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is always a tendency for the media to look for someone to blame; they say, "If only there were not all this chaos and disorganisation, it would all be okay." This was a natural disaster of monumental proportions. People were going to be hurt and there was nothing anyone could do to stop that. However, we can respond quickly to people's needs. The Indian Government's lead has been excellent and we have been fast in assisting, which makes a lot of difference. In other countries where disasters have occurred and where there has been bad local organisation, there has been much more disruption, death and ill-health because of the follow-on chaos. In this case, not every village has been reached, but the organisation is good. That is a blessing and the Indian Government are to be congratulated.
The oil slick to which my hon. Friend refers has been caused by a fracture in a tank, as a result of the earthquake. I do not know whether we have offered help, but I shall find out and get back to him.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: My party wishes to join all hon. Members in sending sincere condolences to the Hindu communities affected by the earthquake, both here and in India. We commend the speedy action by organisations such as the UK search and rescue team and the £10 million of assistance pledged by the British Government. We commend also the action taken by the Gujarat communities in the United Kingdom which, amazingly quickly, have established appeals and information centres for Gujarati people who live in this country.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), are any specific measures being taken to combat cholera which no doubt will spread if the water supply is not secured? Does the Minister agree that it is buildings, not earthquakes, that kill people? Can we have an assurance that any reconstruction that takes place with money from this country will involve the building of earthquake-resistant buildings? Can the Government help the relatives from this country to get information about their relatives in India or to go out there to join other family members?
Clare Short: The Red Cross issued an early appeal and, if people want to give, the Red Cross is efficient, on the ground and getting help through. People should be proud that their tax money is contributing, as the £10 million is taxpayers' money. Every British citizen
26
is making a contribution—as they would want—and everyone should be aware of that. That sum is greater than the voluntary donations, welcome though those are.
Many measures have been taken to deal with health problems and possible cholera. The major hospital in Bhuj was flattened, but there is a military hospital and mobile hospitals. A lot of effort is being made to provide health care and prevent the spread of disease. On whether buildings and not earthquakes kill people, we have no evidence of the really dreadful building that was seen following the earthquake in Turkey, although we will find out more as the information comes in. However, many villages with traditional low-rise buildings have been flattened, too. It is a question not of bad building, but of a dreadful earthquake.
On reconstruction, the Indian Government will wish to learn lessons about what kind of buildings should be built. It will take big support from the IMF and the World Bank; we must remember that an area the size of Wales will have to be rebuilt. The UK aid budget will not be enough and major resources will be required. Gujarat is not one of the poorest areas of India and local resources can be mobilised.
The Foreign Office is providing all the help and information to relatives that it can. Satellite communications have been established and telephone calls are getting through. However, I would not advise people to go out to look. The area is in chaos, and it would not be helpful. I understand how worried relatives must be, but if lots of people start arriving, it will add to the strain on airports and make matters worse.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I represent a large Gujarati community, and I add my expressions of sympathy to those of my right hon. Friend, especially to those directly affected, whether they are living in Gujarat, in Bolton or anywhere else. The local community has mobilised very quickly, and the first shipment of clothing and blankets is due to leave Bolton this afternoon. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in her power to help those communities to get goods and finance through to Gujarat as quickly as possible?
Clare Short: Many people in the UK have families in Bhuj, where 95 per cent. of the buildings have been destroyed, so there must be terrible worry in our communities, and we all feel deeply about that, but it is much better to offer money than goods, because of the shipping costs and the organisational effort. I appeal to those who want to help to give money, which is much more flexible. We will then be able to purchase vast supplies of what is needed. The bulk of clothing and other goods makes all the arrangements more difficult. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their communities to provide money rather than goods.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the report that the Secretary of State has given us. On behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy, too. As minister of a church that has been closely associated with work in Gujarat for about 150 years, I know something of what the people there are going through. I know that the House will also feel sympathy with and empathy for the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because I understand that his family background is in Gujarat.

27
In the light of press reports that there are some in the Gujarat authorities who want to go ahead with clearing away the rubble, I urge the Secretary of State at least to encourage them to let the searchers continue, in the light of experience elsewhere, where some miraculous escapes have taken place. We understand why they want to get on with clearing up, but it is equally important to consider searching for those who may still be alive. We will pledge our support at any level to the Department, as it continues to co-operate with others in the search and rescue and rebuilding operations.
Clare Short: Yes, indeed, we learned in Turkey that it is extraordinary how long people can survive under the rubble. India has provided a lot of military personnel, but outside teams have the expertise and the listening equipment. Some villages have not yet been reached. We must be careful to save all the lives that we can. Obviously, time is running on, and we all worry about that, but I completely agree that we must save every life that can be saved.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: There are 10,000 families of Gujarati origin in my constituency, and approximately 3,000 specifically from Bhuj. As can be imagined, the whole community, especially in Wembley and Kenton, has been traumatised by recent events.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and in particular for the increase to £10 million in the money that is to be made available. Will she ensure that there is co-ordination of local community relief efforts in this country, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, are already under way? I understand her point that it is much better to contribute money, because that can buy the necessary goods that are immediately available on the ground, but communities have already mobilised and collected blankets and foodstuffs to send, and there will be an understandable frustration if all the efforts that relatives here have made appear to be thwarted and not to be productive.
My right hon. Friend said that Gujarat was one of the wealthier states in India. That is true: it has a £29 billion development programme of inward investment. Will she consider not only the immediate relief but how Britain can be involved in the long-term programme of building that will be necessary in the state?
My right hon. Friend spoke about remote villages and the need for the relief effort to reach them. Many families in my constituency who have been contacted by their relatives have been told that nothing is happening in the remoter villages. I urge my right hon. Friend to expand the efforts to reach the British citizens' relatives who are trapped and without relief. I also urge her to liaise with her Cabinet colleagues about any counselling that is available to relatives in this country who are traumatised by events in India.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the Indian Government, who have made every effort to provide telecommunications for people to contact their relatives. I believe that 2,000 lines have been made available, and I want to record the praise of my
28
community for the Indian Government and also for Sewa International, the Indian charity that is doing much to co-ordinate work on the ground.
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that we all feel for his constituents. I stress that I am grateful to the Treasury for the £10 million. We are nearly at year's end, and all our money in India is programmed. We were therefore planning to redeploy money that would otherwise be spent elsewhere on other poor people in that country. However, the Treasury came forward with extra money, and I am very pleased about that.
I understand my hon. Friend's comments about people who have collected blankets and foodstuffs. However, I ask anyone who has done that to consider selling them and giving money instead. I am sorry, but it is not right to use resources inefficiently simply to make people feel better when it is desperately urgent to get money to buy food and other necessities. Some people have lost everything; they have simply walked out of their houses. They have no clothes and it is cold. We cannot make ourselves less efficient in those circumstances, and we will not be able to send bulk supplies. I therefore encourage people to give money to the Red Cross or other agencies that are working in India. I am sorry to disappoint people, but the point is important; this is about saving people's lives.
My hon. Friend is right about the massive rebuilding effort. As I told the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), it will take a great deal of resources. We shall therefore look to international agencies to which we contribute, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to provide large, long-term loans with a low rate of interest to accomplish the enormous rebuilding effort. We work with both banks in India. Apart from our existing commitments to those institutions we will do any partnering that we can to help them bring their programmes forward.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the remote villages. The effort to reach out is happening now. Everything happened so fast, and it is true that some villages have not been reached. We must do everything in our power to get to those people.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I think that everyone would commend the Chief Secretary on providing the £10 million so speedily. As the Secretary of State says, a massive rebuilding effort will be required, backed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. After the Turkish earthquake, the Minister for Housing and Planning led a construction mission to Turkey. The United Kingdom construction industry is carrying out much rebuilding in the earthquake zone in Turkey. Could the right hon. Lady liaise with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to establish whether there is again scope for the UK construction industry to contribute in the Indian earthquake zone?
Clare Short: Yes, indeed. I hope that everyone will welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the Front Bench to speak on international development. He said that a Minister from DETR had telephoned earlier on the very matter that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) raised. We must be ready to go, but we must not go too early and get in

29
the way. Let us get the relief effort organised first. When people can turn their minds to reconstruction, that will be the right time to move.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that most of the tragedy has occurred in India, and, as secretary of the all-party Pakistan group, I extend sincere sympathy to all who are affected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity not only for the Commonwealth to respond positively, but for Pakistan, India's nearest neighbour, which is also affected, to work with India, despite those countries' differences, to tackle the tragedy?
Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is my understanding that, because buildings tumbled, there has been some loss of life in Pakistan and Nepal—but on nothing like the same scale. My hon. Friend is right: if any help can be offered to Gujarat from Pakistan, I am sure that Pakistan would want to consider that. My hon. Friend's suggestion will have been heard and I am sure Pakistan will do what it can to help.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her Department's initial response and, with other right hon. and hon. Members, echo her remarks about the performance thus far of the Government of India. Clearly, this matter is a priority for the UK because of our historic trading and family relations with India. However, as half our aid is disbursed through the European Union, will she tell us how the matter can be made to have the same priority for the EU that it so clearly has for us?
Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right: a third of our development budget goes through the EU. We are in touch with Brussels and I think—I speak from memory—that about 3 million euros have been pledged. That is not in proportion to the need, so we shall hold further talks both about the size of the pledge and about speed. Often, in such disasters, Governments make pledges, but it takes months and months before anything arrives and it is then discovered that the money was already in their budget for India in any case. We must make sure that the money is new money and that it is rapidly disbursed—we shall be working on that.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to 3 million euros. That is an extremely small amount—incredibly small. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much individual EU nation
30
states are allocating, bilaterally? Is that information in her departmental briefing? What co-ordination will there be with states outside the EU structure to ensure that there is no overlap?
Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, I spoke from memory; the figure was mentioned in a meeting and I think that it was 3 million euros. It is not enough in proportion to the need.
At present, a Swiss search and rescue team is in the area—because of the geography of Switzerland, the Swiss are extremely good at such work. The Russians are there; they too are good at that work, because of the size of their country. They have never previously operated internationally, but we have linked up with them and they are going to undertake more of that work.
I do not yet have information about pledges from EU member states. We shall find out, and I shall let my hon. Friend and the House know about that. During the next few months, we shall need a great deal of resources for emergency relief. All development agencies throughout the world will need to contribute because so many people are affected. We shall encourage everyone to do so. I shall keep the House informed.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the right hon. Lady and her Department on the fast action that they have taken. She touched briefly on one aspect of co-operation with the Ministry of Defence. Is she satisfied that arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination between her Department and the MOD are working well? In particular, were there other major MOD assets in the area—such as naval units—that might have been able to help? Have any steps been taken in that direction?
Clare Short: Yes, I am pleased to be able to say that, since the discussions on the Mozambique disaster, arrangements are better and the price is better. I am grateful to the House for securing the outcome that I think everyone, on all sides, wanted to achieve.
I am not aware of any request for naval assets. The Indian armed forces are large and efficient. A large number of them are in theatre. They have not requested our armed forces. I will find out whether we have ships in the vicinity—if we did, I suspect that I would know. The Indian Government are controlling the emergency; they are appealing for certain kinds of help—for example, there are many military bodies, but they do not have search and rescue or listening equipment. We are complementing their capacity to bring many people into play. I will check on that matter.

Points of Order
4.4 pm
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that, on 18 January, during the Opposition day debate on teacher supply and standards in education, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment moved a motion in the Prime Minister's name stating:
"there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years."—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 537.]
Yet in a written reply from the Minister for School Standards to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 January, figures supplied by the Department for Education and Employment showed that in four of the past eight years, more people were training to be teachers than currently. The statement made in the Prime Minister's motion was thus wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I seek your guidance as to how we may ensure that the true position is put before the House, that that statement is corrected and that Members of the House are not misled by misinformation from Ministers.
Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady is referring to an amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. During the debate, it was open to the hon. Lady, or any other hon. Member, to put the record straight as to the accuracy of the amendment.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, last Friday, the Home Secretary responded to several questions, including one that I asked on the date and time of a telephone conversation between the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). The Home Secretary confirmed that he was not prepared
"to pre-empt the outcome of a review".—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 709W.]
That review is being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond. Will you confirm that, on the rules for reference in debate to matters awaiting judicial decision, "Erskine May" states that such a restriction
"does not apply to ad hoc inquiries established by Ministers even when presided over by a judge, nor does it apply to matters referred to a departmental inquiry."?
Will you therefore confirm that there is no constraint whatever on Ministers on how they might reply to debates or parliamentary questions on the Hinduja passport application? In addition, is it in order for the Home Secretary to refuse to answer questions relating to the matter in the House on Friday, but on Sunday to answer questions relating to such conversations asked by Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that point of order. I have already made it clear that the inquiry set up by the Prime Minister does not render the matter sub judice. I have also made it clear that the substance of ministerial replies is not my responsibility. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other ways in which to raise his concerns.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving
32
you notice, but my point of order relates to the previous matter. In 1996, the House passed a motion describing the accountability of Ministers to the House. It now appears on page 63 of "Erskine May", which states:
"ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute, and the government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".
I have a copy of the code of practice on access to information, and it does indeed lay down certain conditions for confidentiality, but none relating to an inquiry set up by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our rights in this respect. Only you can make the Government comply with a motion, passed by the House in 1996, that does not give them the right to use their own inquiry as an excuse to block the scrutiny powers of hon. Members. I therefore appeal to you to enforce the letter of that motion, which we passed only a few years ago.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On that very matter—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer that very matter.
I have ruled that the matter is not sub judice. It is up to hon. Members to keep persevering and asking questions of Ministers.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not allowed to say that those points of order were bogus, because that is your function, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot challenge what you wish to say. However, they were bogus. Perhaps hon. Members should recall what happened during 17 years of Tory Government, when Ministers repeatedly told us from the Dispatch Box that they could not answer parliamentary questions. Indeed, I was repeatedly blocked in the Table Office on the basis that ministerial inquiries were under way, following instructions from those in the private office, who spoke to the Clerks in the Table Office. Those points of order are totally spurious and totally bogus, and we will not be fooled.
Mr. Speaker: I am always reluctant to say that an hon. Member has raised—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, but he is continuing to talk. I am always reluctant to say that hon. Members have raised bogus points of order, but what we heard from the hon. Gentleman was, indeed, a bogus point of order.
Mr. John Bercow: My point of order is, as always, entirely genuine, Mr. Speaker. Given the growing concern about the unlawful activities of many animal rights protesters in this country, have you received any indication that a Home Office Minister wishes shortly to make a statement about the new and additional means by which the Government intend that people who are suspected of harassment, intimidation or violence can be identified and prosecuted without delay?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should wait for the debate.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance

33
notice of my point, but it relates to the points of order on the Hammond inquiry. It is becoming daily more clear that the reason for the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was the insistence of a civil servant—the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman—that he must resign. if the Hammond inquiry finds that that is so, what recourse will Members have to hold an unelected civil servant to account when issues of such gravity as the resignation of a Cabinet Minister are precipitated by that civil servant?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical question to me, and I am not in the business of answering hypothetical questions.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that, from 7 pm to 9.30 pm, there will be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  4.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has a simple aim: it is to aid the police and the courts in further reducing crime and the fear of crime. Crime is still too high, but we have sought to make considerable progress in reducing it. Last October's British crime survey showed that crime had fallen by 10 per cent. between 1997 and 1999, and it is worth bearing it in mind that that survey seeks to measure all crime committed against property belonging to individuals or against the person. It included a recording of a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime overall. As we know from the recorded crime figures that were issued recently, recorded crime dropped by 7 per cent. between March 1997 and September 2000. Burglary and vehicle crime are now at their lowest levels for a decade.
  No one is remotely complacent about overall levels of crime and disorder, not least against the background of the fact that crime doubled during the 1980s and early 1990s. Along with that, the proportion of people convicted of crimes fell by a third.
  Mr. John Major: I think that everyone is pleased to hear about the reductions in crime from 1997, but they may be equally interested to hear about the reductions in crime from 1992 onwards. They were also substantial, but, in a curious way, the figures on that have slipped out of the Home Secretary's brief for this debate.
  Mr. Straw: As I recall it, the reduction in recorded crime began in 1993 and not in 1992, but I am willing to concede that point. Interestingly enough, the reduction in crime as measured by the British crime survey, which measures overall levels of crime, did not start until 1995. If the right hon. Gentleman wants, I would be very happy to trade statistics with him about what happened during his period of office and what has happened under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Let us take the first three and a half years of each of the last Administrations. During the first three and a half years of the Thatcher Administration, recorded crime rose by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Those figures were inherited.
  Mr. Straw: Certainly the inheritance of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was a terrible one.
  During the first three and a half years of the Major Administration, crime rose by getting on for 40 per cent., whereas during the first three and a half years of my right

  35
  hon. Friend's Administration, crime fell by 7 per cent. That is the best record of any incoming Administration for 50 years.
  Mr. Major: I do not want remotely to make the Home Secretary unhappy, but he will concede that the trend had begun and continued. It is precisely because of the basis that the right hon. Gentleman inherited that he saw that continuing trend. After some years of the present Administration, crime does not seem to be falling at the same rate.
  Mr. Straw: According to the most accurate measure—the British crime survey—the trend did not start until 1995. Indeed, the same statisticians who put those figures together warned me when I took office that all the demographic and economic factors were suggesting that crime would start to rise. I am pleased to say that it has not done so.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: I know of the right hon. Lady's anxiety to start ranting, but will she hang on for one second? Despite the fall that occurred in the last two years of the Major Administration, all the evidence which has been published was that crime was likely to rise if we did not do something about it. I am pleased to say that we have done something about it.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the following facts: over the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration, recorded crime fell by 16 per cent., and on the same measurement, the latest fall in crime is only 0.2 per cent? Could he listen? Since he is so fond of the British crime survey, will he please confirm that the fall measured by the most recent survey is less than that measured by the previous survey? Whereas we left steeper falls, he has presided over at best a slowing up and at worst a reverse.
  Mr. Straw: I will move on to the contents of the Bill, although I accept my responsibility for putting it in context.
  Miss Widdecombe: Answer the question.
  Mr. Straw: I am answering the question. The right hon. Lady asks a question, usually at great length, and before one has the chance even to take a breath, she always twitters, "Answer the question." She sometimes may not like the answers, but I always do my best to answer the questions put to me—especially if I can follow them.
  Mr. John Bercow: The Home Secretary is playing for time.
  Mr. Straw: I am not playing for time in the least.
  The figures are clear; I just gave them to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. They show that, from about 1993, recorded crime fell. Crime was measured by the
  36
  BCS from 1995. As we are talking about the records of Governments, it must be said that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a member of a Government who left two indelible marks. Even allowing for a tail-end fall, crime doubled under the previous Administration and the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by a third. That is why such public confidence in the Conservatives' efforts to make this country safe as existed in 1979 will not be restored for a very long time and why the public continue to have confidence in us.
  We are about a major programme of reform and investment in the criminal justice system in order to ensure that the progress that we have made—as I say, crime is still far too high—continues at a greater pace.
  We are investing 20 per cent. in cash terms over the next three years—a real increase of 12 per cent.—in policing. It will be the greatest increase for 15 years. However, with that investment, we need reform. The goal behind the Bill is to strengthen and to modernise law enforcement. The Bill contains a wide range of measures that will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with improved powers to enable them better to enforce the law and to protect the public.
  Part I deals with one of the most unpleasant aspects of modern life—the antisocial behaviour of a yobbish minority, which can all too often impinge on the quality of life of the law-abiding majority.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress.
  The Bill gives the police new powers to issue penalty notices for a number of offences which are antisocial and which in some cases make life decidedly unpleasant for others. These offences, which are set out in the Bill, include being drunk and disorderly, and wasting the emergency services' time by making fraudulent 999 calls. Part I also targets the misuse of alcohol, especially by young people, in our society. The Bill includes a series of measures that will make it easier for local authorities to ban drinking in designated areas where it causes public nuisance or annoyance. These measures will give the police the necessary enforcement powers.
  There are examples of innovative local authorities—not least Coventry and Liverpool—that have made use of existing byelaw powers to ban on-street drinking. However, as I discovered when I received representations about 18 months ago from an individual police officer who is responsible for drafting byelaws, the current process for obtaining clearance is rather convoluted.
  We have therefore sought to establish a clear framework of powers that devolves decisions to local authorities. They will not have to go backwards and forwards to the Home Office to check whether the drafting is in order. If they wish in this context to designate an area within their town or city centre and to make use of on-street alcohol bans, they will be able to do so without going through the bureaucracy of coming back to the Home Office. I think that that will be widely welcomed.
  Mr. Baldry: What is the point of the Government's bringing forward fresh legislation to deal with antisocial

  37
  behaviour when their last flagship Bill providing for antisocial behaviour orders led to legislation that is not working? Should not the long title of this Bill read, "We are approaching a general election and we should be seen to be doing something about crime"?
  Mr. Straw: That is an absurd remark. The use of antisocial behaviour orders is working in my constituency, as it is in Hyndburn and Preston. More than 150 orders have been issued in large cities and in smaller shire districts. The hon. Gentleman asked a more serious question when we last debated ASBOs. Some local authorities said, "We cannot use them because they involve the criminal process." The Lord Chief Justice—I took the trouble to write to the hon. Gentleman about the decision—has made it clear in an important judgment of the divisional court that the process for obtaining antisocial behaviour orders is, as Parliament intended, a civil process, and one which is there to be used.
  Mr. Alun Michael: At a conference that I chaired and at which my hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke the other week, the enthusiasm of people within the system—the police, local authorities and others—for getting on with the job and using the tools provided in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was palpable. People were keen to understand why antisocial behaviour orders had not been sufficiently used, and recognised that they now need to be used properly.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention and for the work that he did in ensuring that the 1998 Act reached the statute book.
  Other measures—
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, as many hon. Members wish to speak. There will be other opportunities later in the debate and in Committee.
  Other powers will permit the police immediately to close disorderly or excessively noisy pubs and clubs, and to prevent unlicensed premises from reopening following police action to arrest offenders.
  There are new provisions to deal with under-age drinking, which require those selling alcohol to check the age of young people who may be, or appear to be, under 18. The police and local authorities will also be permitted to use young people to test-purchase to check that the law is being obeyed.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to ask the Home Secretary about test purchases. Many of my constituents feel that under-age drinking is fuelling much of the yob behaviour in my constituency. Just how soon will the police and trading standards officers have those new powers to authorise test purchases?
  Mr. Straw: As soon as the Bill goes on the statute book, which I very much hope will be within a matter of months. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is little doubt in my mind that much—although not all—of the serious antisocial behaviour that takes place in our
  38
  town and city centres, and in many residential areas as well, is almost literally fuelled by serious under-age drinking. I am sure that I speak for the whole House—except those brought up in teetotal families, of which mine was not one—in saying that, to a degree, under-age drinking has been around as long as the licensing laws, but the problem has got very much worse in terms of the quantity of drink, and particularly the quantity of spirits, drunk by youngsters these days. The way in which plainly under-age youngsters are being targeted by the alcohol industry is a growing problem.
  Mr. Malins rose—
  Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make progress?
  Mr. Malins: The right hon. Gentleman never gives way to me.
  Mr. Straw: That is simply not true, but if the hon. Gentleman carries on saying that, I shall certainly not give way to him. I promise to give way to him in a moment.
  Measures aimed at ensuring responsible behaviour by those selling alcohol will extend to all those working in pubs, rather than simply the licensee. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
  Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary, and take back everything that I said about him: he is very generous.
  Most of the offences in the preamble to the Bill tend to be committed by under-18s. The real problem is with under-18s behaving in that way, wasting police time with phone calls and so on. But am I not right in thinking that the Bill does not apply to under-18s; that the penalties are only for over-18s; and that a great section of our youngsters are excluded from its provisions?
  Mr. Straw: At the moment—
  Mr. Malins: At the moment.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has caught an infection from his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. He asks a question, wants an explanation and then offers me the answer before I have got it out. As drafted, the Bill's provisions on fixed-penalty notices—not other matters—apply to those who are over 18. We are happy to hear opinions from hon. Members on both sides of the House on that matter.
  A balanced judgment was taken as to whether we should have fixed-penalty notices for 16 and l7-year-olds. However, the reforms to the youth justice system introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are already on the statute book and working well, as I can testify. Until now, the opinion that we have received is that, on balance—I am not suggesting that this is a unanimous view—it is better to stick with those provisions, which are working well, rather than extend fixed-penalty notices down. However, I am open to argument and am happy to listen to the views of the hon. Member for Woking.

  39
  We have already heard about the Crime and Disorder Act, which established a wide range of measures and reforms primarily for dealing with low-level criminality, including ASBOs. Those orders are intended for use against those who are severely disruptive to their communities, and who do not heed repeated warnings unless they are backed by the threat of criminal charges. As I said, ASBOs have been very successful, with 150 granted already and many more applications in the pipeline. Conservative Members who disagree should look at the areas in which ASBOs have been successful. I should be interested to learn whether at the election—whenever that takes place—they will abolish that key tool, which helps to deal with a matter that they never dealt with in power.
  By definition, those targeted by ASBOs will also be likely to resort to intimidation if there is a prospect of members of the public giving evidence against them in court proceedings or providing information for use in those proceedings. The Bill therefore extends to witnesses in other court proceedings, such as civil proceedings, the existing protection afforded by statute law to witnesses in criminal proceedings. It will make it a criminal offence to intimidate those giving evidence in civil proceedings, including a hearing on an ASBO.
  As I have explained, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 set in motion radical reform of the youth justice system, featuring youth offending teams and a series of new orders that have been rolled out over the past two years. These measures are working extremely well overall: to date, some 7,814 orders under the Crime and Disorder Act and directly in respect of juveniles have been issued. That includes more than 200 parenting orders, about which there was scepticism when they were introduced, but which have worked well.
  In addition to those orders, which have been successful, the 1998 Act introduced local child curfew schemes. At the time when that Act was debated, there was a view that those schemes would be more effective if extended to those under the age of 16, instead of to those under the age of 10, as the Act provides. Clause 43 of the Bill does just that, allowing curfews to be imposed on children up to the age of 15. It also enables police, as well as local authorities, to impose curfew schemes. We believe that these changes will increase the flexibility and use of curfew schemes, thereby helping to curb antisocial behaviour by children and young people.
  A similar scheme in Scotland, the Hamilton child safety initiative in respect of children up to the age of 16, has operated successfully. Under the scheme, the police removed children from the "street environment" in what were perceived to be potentially harmful situations. Following the introduction of the scheme, 87 per cent. of parents of children returned home by police approved of the initiative. Crime and disorder complaints fell by 23 per cent. and crime associated with juveniles, including theft and vandalism, fell by 49 per cent. We have studied the experience in Hamilton to see how the scheme for England and Wales can be improved.
  In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 we took powers in respect of truants, and proposed a similar, although not the same, power for what have come to be called truancy sweeps, allowing the police and the local education
  40
  service to pick up kids who have been truanting and take them back to school or other appropriate accommodation. Again, there was scepticism when we proposed the powers, but they have been used in many parts of the country, including my constituency, and have proved extremely effective, both in getting kids back to school and in ensuring that fewer of those kids commit crime when they should be at school.
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I have received many representations urging us to make two serious acts of criminality—kerb crawling and hit and run—arrestable offences. Kerb crawling is a crime already. The practice of kerb crawling can seriously disrupt and disfigure communities, but the police lack the power to arrest offenders and therefore lack the power to take DNA samples from them. In respect of hit-and-run drivers, the police do not have a general power to arrest them, which can often lead to drivers who have committed quite serious offences fleeing successfully from the scene of crime and not being susceptible to immediate apprehension.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The inclusion of the measure to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence has been warmly welcomed by the police and by local residents in my constituency. Both groups have said that it is an excellent example of the Government responding to the needs of people in an area where kerb crawling is a big problem. The only concern that has been raised relates to the strength of the penalties, particularly for persistent kerb crawlers. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the range of penalties that will be available to the courts?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the change has been welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents. On penalties, I do not have the answer immediately to hand, but I am happy to examine the adequacy of the penalties.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I wanted to catch the Home Secretary before he left the subject of child curfews and other general responses. Given that, by my calculation, we had 19 crime or police Bills during 18 years of Tory rule, and this is the seventh such Bill under almost four years of Labour rule, I do not take the simplistic view of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) that a bit of legislation suddenly produces a reduction in crime. The situation is much more complex than that.
  Fixed-penalty notices, child curfews and the proposals for extending the right to hold DNA samples are extremely controversial, and arguably not likely to be effective. Instead of setting out countrywide powers, as the Bill proposes, would it not have been better for the Government to pilot some of the proposals to see whether they work, and to present Parliament with measures that are not just ideas that sound good but ideas that might do good?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raised three different issues. First, curfews do not need to be piloted because it is for individual local authorities to decide whether to use them. They are based on a discretionary power, so one would have assumed that they would appeal to the

  41
  Liberals. We thought about piloting curfews—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will remember this—but we decided that it is almost logically impossible to pilot a scheme that depends on a local initiative.
  Secondly, there is an argument for the piloting of fixed-penalty notices. After undertaking a consultation process, we came down on one side of that argument and decided not to introduce such pilots. However, we are not saying that the arguments favour only one view: we remain open minded.
  Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned DNA. When suspects' rights are being dealt with, a single system must apply throughout the country. I do not see any basis for pilots. It would be different if the technology was not quite right, but it clearly works no matter where it is used.
  The provisions that I have outlined so far deal primarily with relatively low-level crime. None the less, they deal with activities that can disfigure communities. Such behaviour can be profoundly disruptive and distressing and can lead to more serious offending if it is not checked.
  The Bill's other provisions are aimed at more serious and organised crime. For example, it gives the courts power to confiscate the passports of convicted drug traffickers, which will restrict them from travelling overseas to continue their illegal trade after they have been released from custody—if such was the sentence that they received.
  Part VII contains an important provision on the granting of bail. Like other hon. Members, I have received many representations from police officers who are concerned about bail. Sometimes, they have spent weeks bringing prolific offenders to court only for them to be granted bail and return to the streets to reoffend. It is not only magistrates' right, but their duty, to grant bail where they think it appropriate. Equally, however, it is their duty not to do so where all the evidence favours a remand in custody. The Bill seeks to encourage a responsible approach to the granting of bail by amending the Bail Act 1976 to require courts to give reasons for granting bail where the prosecutor makes representations against doing so.
  Parts II and III include measures to strengthen the powers of law enforcement agencies. Part II deals with the disclosure of confidential information for the purposes of criminal investigations and procedures. It tidies up disclosure provisions in the 74 measures set out in schedule 1, which are diverse enough to include the National Savings Bank Act 1971 and the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. Part II also provides a statutory power for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to disclose information to other law enforcement agencies. That will allow a reciprocal flow of information between those bodies, the police and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
  Part III will further bolster the powers of law enforcement agencies by modernising powers of seizure. The Bill gives the police and other law enforcement agencies powers to seize material and remove it for sifting elsewhere. The new measures address two separate issues. They deal with the problems identified in the Bramley judgment, which brought into focus the difficulties faced by the police and other investigators when the material that they are entitled to seize is mixed with a collection of material to which that entitlement does not apply.
  42
  Sometimes, those investigating a crime may not know to which part their entitlement applies, especially when the material is stored electronically. In the Bramley judgment, the divisional court recognised the defect in the law, but said that it could be overcome only by making changes in primary legislation. The Bill removes those difficulties by giving police and other law enforcement agencies power to remove material from premises for examination where constraints of time or technology make it not reasonably possible to carry out the process on the premises.
  In part IV, significant changes are made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. One of the most important types of evidence used by the police in a wide range of criminal cases today comes from DNA samples. We have extended, in practice, this scope and use of DNA by substantial investment in the forensic science service and in the availability of scenes-of-crime officers. The police, in turn, are using DNA testing not only for very serious crimes but as a way of identifying prolific offenders such as burglars and car criminals.
  In almost every criminal case, the first and overwhelming question before the police and the courts is the identity of the person who committed the offence. Who was it? Before the turn of the last century, when the first fingerprint standard was agreed by New Scotland Yard, identity could be established only through the testimony of witnesses or through the accused's confession. Over the past 100 years, science and technology has come to the aid of justice, moving in fingerprinting from visual comparisons of images on paper to digital capture and searching, with the ability to make more than 1 million fingerprint comparisons every second. However, the use of DNA profiling—first developed in 1985 and, happily, in this country—offered the most important forensic advance of the late 20th century.
  DNA profiling is a very powerful tool—an objective form of evidence. Its values lies as much, if not more, in its ability to exclude the innocent as in its ability to convict the guilty. When the police investigate a case, if they do not proceed with a prosecution or the suspect is acquitted, they routinely retain all the records of the investigation, including the notes of interviews with suspects and other interviews. That has always been the case. The police would not dream of throwing away their memory on the offchance that the offender may or may not commit a further offence. Yet the law requires that the most objective and powerful forms of evidence—fingerprints and DNA—have to be destroyed if a conviction does not follow from the taking of the sample in question.
  This has already led to serious miscarriages of justice. In two recent cases, R v. B and R v. Weir, compelling DNA evidence that linked one suspect to a rape and the other to a murder could not be used, and neither suspect could be convicted, because it turned out that at the time when the matches were made, the defendants had either been acquitted of another crime, or a decision had been made not to proceed with the offences for which the DNA profiles were originally taken. Under the existing provisions, the profiles should have been destroyed.
  Those who believe that we should leave the law as it is, following the decision of the Law Lords in the case of R v. B, should, I suggest, look at the narrative of Lord Steyn in that case. Their lordships sought to bring the law as near as possible to common sense without actually

  43
  murdering the text of the statute, but they could not go the whole way. Lord Steyn pointed out that there were added injustices in the R v. B case. First, it was unjust to the victim and the community that compelling evidence against this man could not be used to convict him when everyone knew it existed. Secondly, the man was able to escape that conviction altogether only because of another trick—another offence—that he had played on the police. It turned out subsequently that, at the time of his arrest on this charge, he had already been convicted of affray. Had the DNA technology been available and in use when he was arrested on that affray charge and subsequently convicted, it would have been perfectly lawful to take a DNA sample from him and for that to remain on the record for ever. However, the sample was not taken.
  As the law stands, to deal with such situations, when someone is convicted of an offence and a sample that could have been taken is not taken and he is arrested in respect of another offence, the police have powers to take a sample at that stage and retain it for ever. That should have happened in this case. If it had, there would subsequently have been a conviction for rape. However, the police did not know—and could not have known—of the original conviction because the defendant gave a false name, which put them off the trail for some time.
  I accept that the use of DNA and fingerprinting must be carefully controlled, precisely because they are powerful tools. However, anyone who has visited a forensic service science laboratory, as I have, and seen the huge care that is taken, will know that it is virtually impossible for any scientist to know whether a sample is to be used to identify a suspect or a victim, and will appreciate the substantial safeguards that are in place. Furthermore, an important role is played by defence counsel in challenging the integrity of the lifting of samples at a scene of crime—by definition, a less controlled environment—and such issues sometimes have to be challenged by the courts.
  Taking all those arguments together, I believe that the current state of the law is wholly unsatisfactory. We cannot continue to have cases such as that in which a man commits an act of violence—an affray—then a burglary, and then—as compelling evidence suggests—a rape. Such people cannot be allowed to continue to play games with the technicalities of the law, while rape victims go in fear of further crimes being committed by the person against whom compelling evidence exists to show that they committed a rape. The other case in question was a murder case—the most serious crime in the criminal calendar.
  I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the Bill is far from controversial. I notice that the briefing submitted by Liberty is very sotto voce and without a great deal of conviction on the issue. The public are ready for this change, as are the police and the victims' organisations.
  We propose that, when a DNA sample is taken lawfully from a suspect—not under conditions of false imprisonment—it should remain available to the police, whatever happens at a later date in terms of a conviction or otherwise. We also propose separate changes in respect of the volunteering of DNA samples. The Law Society's briefing on this proposal was rather muddled. In many cases—in which innocent people have been eliminated
  44
  from inquiries and guilty people identified—the police have gone to all the men in a village and asked them to volunteer a DNA sample. At present, the police have to destroy those samples even if the volunteers say, "For God's sake, please keep the sample. I have nothing to fear."
  In one such case, the present law caused immense problems. A serial rapist was operating and the police could not catch him as a result of their first investigation, so they had to destroy all the samples that they had collected. The man struck again, and the police had to go back to the volunteers to obtain further samples. They did not catch him that time either, so those samples also had to be destroyed, and further ones subsequently collected. In my judgment, and that of the police, that is ridiculous. Yes, the volunteers should have an absolute right to say, "You can use this sample only for this inquiry. You must destroy it afterwards." That should be the end of the matter. However, if the volunteers want to say, "Keep it," as I think most of them would, the law should allow that to happen, as we propose.
  Mr. Simon Thomas:rose—
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way, and I want to make progress.
  I have not yet dealt with one important aspect of the Bill, which is the issue of animal rights, which has caused considerable concern among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have already set out my views, but I shall briefly reiterate them. Peaceful protest is, of course, acceptable. However, seeking to disrupt, frighten and harass other individuals and their lawful businesses by the means that so-called animal rights people adopt is totally unacceptable in the kind of society that we want.
  Some people have hesitations about this matter, so I want to place on record my personal thanks and admiration for the very difficult work undertaken by those who conduct research on animals. None of the people who conduct such research like doing it. They all wish that alternatives were available, and as soon as they are—and have attained an acceptable standard—those people will be the first to move away from those procedures and to start using procedures that do not involve animals.
  The experiments are conducted in this country under legislation passed by the previous Administration, with which we have continued, in a regime that is tougher than any other in the western world that I know of. The consequences of being able to conduct such research are that a range of drugs and other procedures are now available that have ensured that many of us—including, I might say, myself—are able to lead a decent life, and that many people's lives have been extended. Many would simply have died were such drug therapy not available—no doubt many of those who masquerade as animal rights protesters among them.
  Protecting such research is not an incidental, but of profound importance. For that reason, thanks to representations from the right hon. Members for Huntingdon and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I quickly agreed that

  45
  Cambridgeshire constabulary, which is a small force, should receive an extra £1 million for this year to recognise the additional, and what all of us believe to be otherwise unnecessary, costs of having to police those terrible protests.
  Furthermore, I told the House that we would conduct urgent consultations about changing the law. Those changes are not in the Bill for reasons that the House will understand. We are urgently consulting on two matters. One is a change to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which would make it an offence for people—even an individual—to protest outside people's houses. I have been on loads of protests, but I have never considered that any part of peaceful protest requires people to protest outside other people's private houses. When I was on demonstrations, we wanted to protest in the main street. Protesting outside people's houses is an outrageous piece of harassment. We have to deal with that.
  The second change is to make the test in the malicious communications offences objective, not one that essentially allows people who send malicious communications to escape because the defence is subjective.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary: when he spoke about those who work in animal research institutions, he spoke for the whole House. I also thank him for redeeming the promise to introduce legislation, which will be extremely important to constituents of mine and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) whose properties have been fire-bombed. They have been harassed and intimidated in a quite disgraceful way. Will the Home Secretary be kind enough to make every effort to introduce the proposals in Committee so that they can be considered in depth rather than on Report, when there will be less opportunity?
  Mr. Straw: The answer is, yes, I promise to do my best to do so, although the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps more familiar with the legislative process than I, and we are already consulting. We are very open about the consultation and want it to continue.
  I do not happen to know people in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency or that of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon who have been involved, but I do happen to know those who were involved in similar animal experimentation in Oxfordshire. The distress caused to decent, law-abiding people is just unbelievable. Most Members of the House are willing to put up with a bit of protest against them. Certainly those in posts such as mine know that that is par for the course, but it is not par for the course for decent people who are not in public life and just want to go about their business.
  Mr. Major: I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to speak about this matter at greater length, but it might be appropriate to put on record my unambiguous thanks to the Home Secretary for obtaining the money from the Treasury, which is not lightly done. No Chief Secretary lightly coughs up money; if he does so, he should not be Chief Secretary.
  46
  I also thank the Home Secretary for his willingness to accept representations about changing the law and to introduce such changes. I have more representations to make to him—some this afternoon, some later—but I say on behalf of my constituents that that willingness has been well received. The right hon. Gentleman has been supportive of the work that goes on both in helping to meet the extra policing costs caused by the demonstrations and in his determination to change the law—through the Bill, I hope.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—I mean the right hon. Gentleman. He is a personal friend, but that is another matter.
  I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I say how warmly my right hon. Friend's remarks will be welcomed in my constituency? My constituents include not only people who work at Huntingdon Life Sciences, but many scientists who work with animals on medical research. During the last week I have received more than 50 letters and e-mails from scientists, some of whom have been so intimidated and harassed that they have been afraid to put their addresses on the letters. I am very pleased about my right hon. Friend's determination to tackle this difficult situation.
  Mr. Straw: This is easy enough to say, but I hope that those people will withstand the intimidation as best they can.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not. I have been speaking for more than 40 minutes, and I want to finish my speech.
  The Bill provides for a number of improvements in the training organisation of the police service, and includes other important measures. It draws together proposals to modernise a wide range of powers for the police, the courts and other law enforcement agencies. It also seeks to make changes relating to the funding and organisation of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. Overall, it seeks to enable those services to perform more effectively, and to tackle criminal behaviour better in the 21st century.
  I believe that the Bill will substantially improve the tools available to those in the front line of the battle against crime and disorder, and I commend it to the House.
  4.57 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Let me make it clear—as my predecessors and I have done on other occasions during this Parliament—that, unlike the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary when they were in opposition, we always seek to give a fair wind to law and order measures if they are sensible. Although we have some reservations about parts of the Bill, therefore, we shall not divide the House at this stage. That does not mean, however, that we are content with the detail of all the measures proposed.

  47
  Last March, on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the Home Secretary himself stated:
  "As I have said before, no Bill that I have taken through the House has been perfect in all its particulars."—[Official Report, 28 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 227.]
  Indeed, had it not been for the Opposition's attention to detail, that Bill would have gone through Parliament without the important amendments that were made to it—amendments that, for instance, introduced tougher sentences for child pornography offences, and made those who deal drugs to children subject to disqualification from working with them. Those are just two examples of the numerous Opposition amendments that the Government eventually accepted. I hope that the Home Secretary will view all the amendments tabled by the Opposition to this Bill in the constructive spirit in which they will be proposed, because the Bill is by no means perfect as it stands.
  Mr. Straw: Never perfect.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: That should be the title of his autobiography.
  Miss Widdecombe: It has been suggested that that might be the title of the Home Secretary's autobiography. I would not normally repeat sedentary interventions, but I could not resist that one.
  We have three main areas of concern. The first relates to what the Bill does not do. That is especially important, because this will certainly be our last opportunity to enact criminal justice legislation in the current Parliament.
  The Bill is devoid of measures to tackle the wave of violent crime that is sweeping the country under this Government. It contains little to improve the rights and position of victims in the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] Labour Members think violent crime is funny: perhaps their constituents will note that.
  The Bill contains nothing to improve the morale of the police, which is at rock bottom. The Home Secretary—no doubt at the Prime Minister's request—has included what he describes as headline-grabbing measures, but the approach, mirroring that of the Prime Minister, is more spin than substance.
  We know from recent events that Ministers cannot remember everything, but the Home Secretary clearly takes pride in his own powers of recall. He will therefore doubtless remember his flagship consultation on the reform of the law against violent crime, a document issued as long ago as February 1998. The Home Secretary cannot claim to have undersold those proposals, describing them at the time as
  "the Government's proposals for reforming out-moded and unclear Victorian legislation."
  I used the word "flagship" because that is the word that the Home Secretary himself used in his foreword to the consultation paper. Indeed, he was so keen to associate himself with those proposals that they were presented next to a photograph of him, with his own signature at the bottom.
  48
  The introduction to the document stated that the law in this sphere was
  "in urgent need of reform";
  and that:
  "It is … particularly important that the law governing such behaviour should be robust, clear and well understood … That is what the draft Bill contained in this consultation paper does. It is intended to help not only practitioners of the law but anyone who finds themselves involved in court cases, whether as a defendant, victim or witness."
  Given the importance attached to those proposals three years ago, the fact that consultation on them closed in May 1998 and the fact that a draft Bill emerged during the consultation, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what has happened to them? He himself has said that offences of violence are
  "the offences that most worry people".
  At a time when violent crime is soaring—to the amusement of Labour Members—and the Government have themselves said that they have measures available to strengthen the law in this area, it does seem odd that, instead of those proposals on violent crime, we end up with a rather pick-and-mix Bill of which the centrepieces are the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman to salvage his failed child curfew schemes and the Prime Minister's now infamous £100 cashpoint fines for drunks.
  That brings me to the first major issue in the Bill—fixed-penalty notices, which are there to spare the Prime Minister's blushes after the disastrous reception that his £100 cashpoint fines idea received in July 2000. The House will know that I am not opposed in principle to fixed-penalty notices—
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady has paid one herself.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who gets others to do his speeding for him.
  We shall want detailed consideration in Committee of the way in which it is proposed that those fines will operate. In particular—this is our second major concern about the Bill—we must ensure that the system does not add to the bureaucratic burdens on police, and also that it is properly targeted.
  Clause 8 appears to require the constable issuing a fixed-penalty notice to take the offender to a police station and provide a full witness statement with that notice, which will obviously have implications for police time. In that respect at least, the proposals are not similar to tickets for minor parking or speeding offences. I know that the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation have concerns about that particular point. The Justices' Clerks Society has also highlighted difficulties, not least with identification and the giving of false details to police.
  Those are some of the procedural issues that have been raised already about the Bill's contents. How is a police officer going to know whether someone to whom he has given a fixed-penalty notice has had perhaps 10 or a dozen notices issued for the same offence in other parts of the country? Will there be a central record of such notices? What recourse will victims of criminal damage have if offenders are given fixed-penalty notices rather than being prosecuted? Will they still be able to obtain compensation through the courts?

  49
  The fixed-penalty provisions will now apply only to adults rather than to the over-16s, as originally envisaged. I note that the Home Office consultation paper said:
  "A significant amount of disorderly behaviour in public places is committed by people under the age of 18."
  I am therefore somewhat surprised that the Government have targeted their fixed-penalty fines—which will apply only to over- 18s—at offences such as hoax 999 calls, trespassing on the railway, throwing stones at trains and spray-painting graffiti, when it is certainly the general impression that most of those offences are committed by juveniles rather than by adults.
  As far as the proposals for alcohol-free zones are concerned, they appear, at first glance, to be little more than an extension of what is available to councils at the moment in the terms of byelaws. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. What is new about this? What is the power that is not already available to councils? We have concerns about the proposed procedures for imposing those bans, which are not specified in the Bill. Would an elected mayor, an individual executive member or even a council official with delegated authority be able to impose such a ban, perhaps by using the "behind closed doors" provisions of the Government's legislation, which encourages more secrecy in local decision making? Surely decisions such as that are best left to an open and accountable forum.
  Perhaps the most crucial element in deciding whether or not the measure is effective will be the number of police officers putting it into effect. Given that the chairman of the Police Federation says that there is
  a sense of disorder and anarchy on our streets.
  that police numbers have fallen by more than 2,500 under the Government, and that violent crime is rising so alarmingly, will the police have the manpower or the time to enforce these bans effectively, in addition to issuing fixed-penalty notices and enforcing child curfew orders, especially if local authorities begin making them in large numbers?
  Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the experience in my constituency is not that police officers are not present when disorder occurs, but that they do not have the relevant powers to deal with some of these issues? It is primarily not a matter of police numbers but of what officers can do when they come across problems.
  Miss Widdecombe: I must disagree with the hon. Lady, although I appreciate what is behind her point. If the police are dealing with one thing, they cannot be dealing with others. I went out recently with police in central London on a Friday night patrol, and the issue was not that they did not have the powers. It was that there were simply so many things that they might have investigated that they had to prioritise because there were too few officers. If extra powers are given to the police, will they be used if there are not enough officers, or if any extra numbers are deploying their time not on the streets, but in bureaucracy at the station? That is a valid point.
  Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the police spend a great deal of time re-dealing with the same issue time and time again because they are not able to nip things in the bud? That is why the targeted
  50
  powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has pointed out, strengthen the position of the police, rather than waste their resources.
  Miss Widdecombe: Theoretically, giving the police extra powers is usually helpful; in fact, it is nearly always helpful. However, the issue is whether there are enough officers and whether they have the time to be able to use their powers effectively. A clear example is the child curfew power; there has not been a single such order in the 28 months that they have been available. Yes, extra activity may be available to the police, but will it be possible, given the numbers we have at the moment?
  Mr. Michael: But does the right hon. Lady—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Lady has not yet given way to him.
  Miss Widdecombe: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he must take into account the fact that 10 out of 12 offences committed in this field are already arrestable.
  Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that many members of the public who approach police officers on these issues are told that there is nothing that the police can do because they do not have a power that they can use in practice? That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right to introduce the power.
  Miss Widdecombe: What the police say is that there are not enough of them to do the job. If 10 of the 12 offences are already arrestable, it cannot be that the police do not have powers of arrest. It is simply the case that there are not enough of them.
  It would be helpful if the Government clarified how it is intended that the new police powers to close licensed premises are to work. The industry is concerned that the Home Office estimate of the annual cost of the proposals to business varies from £1.1 million to £60 million. The Home Secretary looks confused; his memory has failed him for once. He should look at his own regulatory impact assessment.
  Mr. Heald: Page 68.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend. I admit that I did not remember the precise page on which the figures are to be found.
  That wide range of costs suggests that the Government have not yet worked out exactly how the powers are to be implemented in practice. The trade is also concerned that new duties are being imposed on licensees in relation to underage drinking, but no new offence of attempting to purchase alcohol when under 18 is being created. It is an offence to purchase it, but not to attempt to purchase it. Why have the Government chosen not to go down that route? There may be good reasons, but we need to hear them.
  I wholly understand why test purchasing is desirable, but I hope that we can have an assurance that it will not be used unfairly, and that any child taking part in such an operation will be fairly easily identifiable as under 18.

  51
  Clause 43 contains the Home Secretary's latest desperate attempt to salvage his failed child curfews. He is in a hole and he just keeps digging. I remind the House of what was said on page 23 of the Labour party manifesto:
  "Child protection orders will deal with young children suffering neglect by parents because they are left out on their own far too late at night."
  The Home Secretary himself said that the powers would
  "protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime"
  and
  "serve the dual purpose of protecting the community and young children."
  In fact, as I have just said, in the 28 months since those powers came into force, not one order has been made; not one child, left out on its own far too late at night, has been rescued; not one community has been protected, contrary to the Home Secretary's promise.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested three years ago upping the age limit, in Committee on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), vigorously opposed it, yet now the Home Secretary himself is proposing it.
  The problems that were identified three years ago with the orders applying to the under-10s, which have perhaps contributed to the failure of the policy to date, apply equally to the proposals in the Bill. How are the police to sort out, in a group of 15 and 16-year-olds, exactly who is 15 and who is 16? I am sure that the Home Secretary will admit that some 15-year-olds these days can look as if they are in their early 20s.
  The Home Office has admitted that such a problem exists, as shown by the following quotation:
  "There is always a difficulty for the police in determining age … Simply raising the limit would not remove the problem, but would change its focus."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1998; c. 297.]
  Those are the words of the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Perhaps the Home Secretary or the current Minister of State could address the problem that he so ably outlined.
  As the Home Secretary's statement implies, the efficacy of the policy depends on the number of police officers available to enforce it. Labour's most senior councillor, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham, in an article entitled "Yob Crackdown Doomed to Fail: New Curfew Plans based on powers never used in the North", published in the Newcastle Journal last month, said:
  "The move … is unlikely to be used … curfews are not the most important thing that could be done."
  Perhaps the final word should go to the Prime Minister, who described these powers, when first proposed in. 1996 by the now Home Secretary, as "eminently sensible"—another eloquent comment on his judgment.
  I acknowledge that clauses 80 and 81, relating to DNA and fingerprints, provide that those who give their samples voluntarily—for example, in a mass screening exercise in high-profile murder cases, as the Home Secretary said, or in cases involving serious sex offences
  52
  or offences against children—will have to provide consent in writing for the retention and further use of those samples.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to assure us once more that the clauses genuinely provide for informed consent, and that those who are tested will be told when they make their decision the exact way in which their samples will be used. That is especially important when dealing with those who may be vulnerable or lacking in mental capacity. Such people are screened in mass screenings.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady makes an important point, and I am happy to give the assurance that she seeks. The use of the powers depends on people coming forward voluntarily, and it is therefore important to maintain public confidence in the system. That must include giving clear information about people's rights when they initially volunteer.
  Miss Widdecombe: We shall test that in Committee, but I am grateful for that assurance in principle. Before the Home Secretary intervened, I said that such an assurance was especially important when dealing with those who may be vulnerable or lacking in mental capacity. I hope that the provisions will not be drafted in such a way as to discourage people from coming forward voluntarily to take part in large-scale testing or to eliminate themselves from inquiries.
  There is anxiety about the civil liberties implications of the proposal in clause 81 to allow the police to retain DNA samples without consent, even when a person has been found not guilty or when a prosecution has not taken place. Many people and organisations have expressed profound anxieties about that. The Home Secretary tried hard in his opening speech to dispel some of the doubts. Many of his comments are reassuring if the provision is used in the restricted way that he outlined. However, it will require further consideration in Committee, and I flag that up to the right hon. Gentleman now.
  The Home Secretary and I—and, I suspect, most hon. Members—agree that the advances in DNA technology over recent years, and the DNA database that was set up under the previous Administration, have provided the police with an important tool in the fight against crime. We should therefore be extra careful before writing into law any measures that might adversely affect public confidence in the use of DNA by the police. I hope that the Home Secretary acknowledges that, and that we shall have a constructive debate on the matter in Committee.
  There are also civil liberties concerns about the proposals on Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise records. It has been pointed out that a court order is required for the release of much confidential information which most people would regard as privileged. We want assurances from the Home Secretary that disclosure will take place only when it is manifestly required in connection with a serious investigation.
  Will the Home Secretary also tackle the anxieties of the Confederation of British Industry? It fears that disclosure to overseas anti-trust authorities of information held by the Office of Fair Trading could lead to criminal anti-trust proceedings in other countries where competition laws are enforced in the criminal courts on a different basis.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Lady object to the transfer of

  53
  information between the Department of Social Security and other Departments about social security fraud? How is the problem that she outlines different from that?
  Miss Widdecombe: I have not objected in principle to the provision. I do not object in principle to the transfer of information between Departments. Indeed, I applaud it. I have often wished that rather more of it could be done and that it was more effective. I am raising a specific issue, to which the CBI drew attention, about the way in which information is transferred to other countries, where people might be vulnerable to prosecution because the law is different from ours. There might be a perfectly good answer that might reassure us. Even without one, however, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages. However, we would be wholly lacking in our duty if we did not consider a major concern raised by the CBI. I did not say, "Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon his proposals?" I asked him to address the concerns expressed by the CBI. I should have thought that the answer to that was yes.
  The Bill also provides the opportunity, by way of amendment, to tackle violence and intimidation against scientists and staff at facilities such as the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory and other research centres throughout the country. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—as are Members on both sides of the House—for the announcement that he made in that respect. However, will he also comment on the report in The Times today, which states:
  "Measures drawn up by … the Home Secretary … will address only four of the main 20 tactics used to intimidate researchers"?
  Is he considering further the representations made to him by the Research Defence Society for even stronger action to prevent the harassment and violence to which workers at those facilities have been subjected? Perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), will be able to clarify the situation when he winds up the debate.
  Today is the second anniversary of the introduction of the Home Secretary's special early release scheme—the home detention curfew programme—that has seen more than 30,000 convicted criminals released from prison before they served even half their sentence. That fact is far more indicative of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards crime and the criminals who commit it than any of his protestations about being "tough on crime", either today or previously.
  The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to tackle disorderly conduct on our streets—but he has let out of prison thousands of offenders convicted of violent disorder, affray, aggravated bodily harm and grievous bodily harm before they served even half the sentence imposed by the courts. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to crack down on drug dealers and traffickers by handing out travel restriction orders—but his promises ring hollow when we know that, under his scheme, he has released 4,000 drug dealers and traffickers early. He says that he supports the police, yet under his policy more than 200 criminals convicted and sent to prison for assaulting police officers have been let out early.
  That the Bill contains no provisions to ameliorate the worst excesses of that scheme—or, indeed, to abolish it altogether—is yet another indictment of the approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall introduce such provisions in Committee, on Report and, if necessary, in another place.
  54
  The Opposition will give the right hon. Gentleman the chance to admit his mistakes and to amend his Bill. However, we know—and, I suspect, the Home Secretary is even now beginning to realise—that the country will not be so ready to give him a second chance on polling day. The people of this country—having seen the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's policies—will make the ultimate amendment.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Apart from that final peroration and rant, it is disconcerting to follow so bewilderingly reasonable a speech from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
  The right hon. Lady ran amok only once or twice—once when she referred to the wave of violent crime sweeping the country. On that point, it is appropriate to quote from a letter that I received last Friday from the chief constable of Greater Manchester, which dealt with the crime statistics for our area. He stated:
  "Violent crime rates have been exacerbated by a change in the counting rules, by the inclusion of incidents of common assault."
  We have experienced not so much a wave of violent crime as a wave of statistical reform. However, I do not blame the right hon. Lady for trying to profit from that. When I was shadow Home Secretary, I used what little ammunition I had at the time—she has even less.
  That is further demonstrated by the fact that, in her interesting and, in essence, responsible speech, the right hon. Lady failed to refer to the criminalisation of drug use. We were waiting to hear more from her about her proposals on that matter, because the country took such a keen interest in them when she put them to the Conservative party conference last autumn.
  I pay tribute to the police force in general and, in particular, to Greater Manchester police, especially the local police who work in my constituency and are so valued by my constituents. I also pay tribute to the concerned constituents of Gorton and elsewhere who do not simply express an interest in such issues and attend meetings about them, but are willing to have a go against criminals and to provide evidence and act as witnesses when there is such fear of intimidation. I am glad that the Bill will help to reduce the fear of intimidation among those who come forward as witnesses, although some fear will, of course, always exist.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the phrase "low-level crime" in his speech, but he was careful to say that, although much of the crime that affects our constituents may be described as such, it nevertheless has a serious effect on their quality of life, and on their sense of being safe in their homes, on the streets, in their neighbourhoods and when going about their lawful occasions.
  Statistics can be looked at in many ways. The chief constable of Greater Manchester has been good enough to write to me about the statistics in our area and in the police division that covers my constituency. It is interesting that some of those statistics go against the common perceptions about crime. For example, under this Government, there has been a substantial reduction in the burglary of dwellings in Manchester's C division. There has also been a considerable reduction in vehicle crime. Most of our constituents would not believe that that was so from their experience.

  55
  Given that I have been a victim of burglary and vehicle crime during the past few months, I might contribute my own anecdotal evidence, but the fact is that the police are dealing with such crimes more effectively. The number of offences is falling because being caught is the best deterrent. Of course, we want the number of crimes to fall even further. That will happen, we hope, because despite the statistics offered by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the Government have, in fact, given a great deal more money to the Greater Manchester police and the number of police in that force has increased.
  I am sure that the chief constable and the men and women who work with him would say that the increase is not enough and that not enough people are being recruited to the force. However, Greater Manchester police has received a 15.6 per cent. increase in finance, and the number of police officers is steadily increasing. The chief constable has told me that the projected force strength for 31 March 2002 is 7,242—an increase of 389 officers since 31 March 2000.
  Problems are being tackled, but those efforts do not always succeed by any means, and any hon. Member who is complacent about crime and the resources given to the police to tackle it would be ill serving his or her constituents. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the efforts of the police and the efforts of the Government in backing the police are showing results. We want more. My constituents will judge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government not only by the legislation that they introduce and the will that they show, but by results and by what happens on their streets and in their neighbourhoods. I know that my right hon. Friend would not wish any other criteria to be used.
  Of the many provisions in the Bill, I shall refer to only a handful. It should not need to be said, but I shall make it clear that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens not only do not commit crime, but would never dream of committing crime. We are talking about a small number of people whose effect on society is out of all proportion to their number.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to this point, and I very much welcome the provisions that will allow the police to designate those areas where drinking in public places disrupts the community. I often go for a quiet drink in my constituency, but not on a pub crawl; and I never have 14 drinks at one time. Most of the people who drink in pubs simply want a quiet night out and a drink with friends, but there is no doubt that behaviour takes place inside and, more often, outside pubs that disrupts local community life. I very much welcome the measures in the Bill that will enable the police to take a firmer grip of that problem.
  The measures will give the police the power to close licensed premises. I hope that they will not have to use the power too often, but I have strongly in mind one pub in my constituency—I could, but will not name it—where the people who live nearby would clamour for such a closure to take place if need be.
  I also welcome the Bill's provisions for the protection of witnesses. Some very tough people in my constituency are ready to come forward. For example, Irene Thorp—
  56
  who lives in Craig road, Gorton—is not very tall, but she is a giant in her courage and readiness to combat criminals even though she herself has been violently assaulted. She and other groups of concerned citizens in different parts of my constituency would be assisted if people were able to come forward with greater confidence that they would not be intimidated and that their houses would not be attacked. Therefore, I am very pleased with the measures that will enhance the protection of witnesses.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the issue of alcohol-related crimes, does he agree that many of them take place not where the alcohol is purchased, but at the sites of others businesses, such as the local kebab shop or taxi rank? The introduction of on-the-spot penalties is important to deal with such crimes.
  Mr. Kaufman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, with one proviso. One stretch in my constituency—it is near where I live—has so many kebab shops that, if there were an outbreak of violence there, we would not be able to contain it however strong the curry. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
  I welcome another provision that my constituents have asked me for again and again in the meetings about crime that we hold all over the constituency. In that regard, I thank the priest of the Sacred Heart church who makes his church hall available. Numerous requests have been made for the extension of curfews to cover teenagers. The readiness of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to extend curfew provisions to people below the age of 16 will be greatly welcomed. I say again that we want not only the powers but for them to be exercised. I therefore very much welcome the ability of the police, on their own judgment, to impose curfews, if they believe that to be appropriate.
  There is one provision among all the others that I welcome and which the police in my area will greatly welcome: clause 128, which requires reasons to be given for granting, as well as for declining to grant, bail. I recently had a meeting with the chief constable of Greater Manchester and Superintendent Brinnand, who is responsible for much of my constituency. The police are frustrated when they take effective and efficient action and get culprits to court, but the courts are excessively lenient not only in sentencing but in the way in which bail is handled. That deeply exasperates the police and therefore those whom they exist to serve. I shall give three examples of the way in which the police in my constituency do their job, but with the best will in the world, the courts are not backing them up as they ought.
  I am sorry to say that in certain parts of my constituency large gangs of youths commit numerous violent street robberies and other antisocial offences. In one area, the problem was so serious that the police mounted an expensive operation specifically targeted at a gang of street robbers. Earlier this very month, the police observed four members of the gang assault a lone male and attempt to rob him. The offence was extremely violent and was observed in its entirety by several police officers—bearing out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said. There was no question, therefore, of poor identification.

  57
  All four were charged with assault with intent to rob and remanded in custody until a court hearing was available. Two of the four were bailed by the court and robberies have since continued in the area. Both of those bailed were 21 years of age, with previous convictions for violence, and both are being investigated concerning further robbery offences in the area.
  I give another example. A youth, whom one might almost call a child, since he is only 14 years old, is one of the two still in custody for the offence about which I have just talked. He has been arrested for more than 50 offences since 1997, when he committed his first robbery at the age of 11. Most of the offences are street robberies and others violent crimes. Most of them have been committed while he has been on bail. On numerous occasions, he has been remanded in custody or in the care of social services only to be released on bail to commit further offences.
  Finally, I refer to another individual, whose name I have. I will not name him; I do not in any way want to violate police activity or any sub judice rule. The man is a prominent member of a gang that has been involved in numerous shooting incidents, including several murders. He was arrested and charged with numerous offences, including conspiracy to supply firearms and drugs, rape and kidnapping. Three female witnesses are under protection such is the danger from him and the gang. He is still being investigated for several murders and shootings. He was remanded in custody by the police but granted bail by a judge in chambers at the end of 2000. He was set stringent bail conditions, none of which he complied with.
  Such were the fears of the police that a large police operation was set up to recapture him. He was eventually arrested at a cost of £30,000 of police money. The man remains in custody. He was one of 14 members of his gang who have been arrested and charged with firearms and drug offences since last year. Despite the best efforts of the police, the serious nature of the charges and continuing problems in the area in which the gang was operating, 11 of the 14 gang members, including the man to whom I am referring, were given bail by the courts. Ten remain large.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is rehearsing the inadequacies of the bail system. I agree with him. There is no disagreement on that. Does he accept, however, that the Bill will only compel a judge to give reasons? It will not restrict the availability of bail. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about wanting to tackle the inappropriate use of bail, would it not be better to do what we want to do, which is to provide that one breach of bail conditions is enough, and that there must never be more than one chance?
  Mr. Kaufman: I would not like to be as categorical as the right hon. Lady on this issue. Sometimes, when I listen to her, I think to myself, "I wish that I were as confident of anything as she is of everything."
  The key feature is that the courts should use their judgment. Magistrates and judges know the facts. There are cases where the accused have a right to bail, but I do not want what might be called the profligate use of bail in circumstances such as those that I have described. I do not think that there is any serious difference between the
  58
  right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and myself. She will serve in Committee, and thank heavens, I will not. It will be for her to propose amendments and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with them.
  I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work and for the close attention that he pays to the situation in my constituency and to legislation as a whole. I say on behalf of my constituents that we look to ever-increasing results. We do not want only some crime statistics to be improved; we want them all to be better. We want villains like those to whom I have referred not to be let out on bail. We want them to be sent to prison with long sentences so that they are not a danger to the community. As the Bill is moving towards that situation and has many good provisions, I welcome it. As always, in my sycophantic way, I congratulate my right hon. Friend.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. John Major: There is a great deal in the Bill with which I can agree and to which I offer a fair wind. I would have happily said much of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said. Indeed, in some instances I did so some years ago. I am delighted that we share a view. He mentioned in passing that he was a shadow Home Secretary. He was too modest to say that he was a first-class shadow Home Secretary. I always admired his work. I trust that one day he will be able to resume that eminent role, and that day may not be too far away.
  I shall concentrate on what is in the Bill and on what I hope the Home Secretary may be inclined to add to the Bill in Committee. For years, Huntingdon Life Sciences in my constituency has been conducting Government-licensed experiments on animals to help research into cures for human ailments. The vast majority of local and political opinion on both sides of the political fence has been outspoken in favour of the research—not least, perhaps, because the Thalidomide Trust is based in my constituency. If experiments to the same depth as are now undertaken on animals had previously been conducted, the thalidomide tragedy might well have been avoided.
  At Huntingdon, and at other places, experiments are taking place in an effort to try to find cures for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma and other life-threatening ailments. I strongly support that valuable and necessary research. Others, however, do not: animal rights activists have opposed all of it. Some of them are animal lovers who wish to demonstrate peaceful opposition to something that they find distasteful. I believe that they are wrong, but they are entitled to their views. We have a long tradition of tolerance of peaceful protest, even concerning views with which we personally tend to disagree.
  However, the animal rights movement is not composed wholly of such peaceful protesters—far from it. It is led and guided by what I can only call an anarchist minority using the tactics of urban terrorism. It is worth illustrating briefly some of the things that have happened in Huntingdon. Activists have fire-bombed cars outside my constituents' homes; they have attacked cars by throwing concrete blocks at them; and they have assaulted employees physically by spraying cleaning fluid in their eyes. There have been threatening phone calls by day and night and abusive letters—having seen some of them, hate

  59
  mail would be a more apt description—as well as direct, terrifying threats to kill or maim employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences.
  Those threats are made against ordinary people carrying out their work, licensed, as necessary, by successive Governments. That is by no means all that the animal rights activists have done. They have used other unpleasant tactics: they have ordered services or purchases in the names of employees working on experimentation; published false advertisements in their names; and even, distastefully, ordered a hearse to collect the body of a loved one from someone's house.
  It is easy for us to understand how distressing that thuggish behaviour can be. I stress that it is by good fortune alone that no one has yet been killed by those anarchists. One day, however, if those people continue to act as they have been doing, somebody will be killed. They have held demonstrations, sometimes large ones, outside private homes, including mine—but, unlike my constituents, I am pretty well protected. There have been large demonstrations in Cambridgeshire, not least in the city of Cambridge, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will know. They are carefully planned and generally controlled by their leaders, not at the demonstrations themselves but some way away on mobile phones. Although far from the action, the leaders are intent on creating maximum disruption.
  I accept peaceful protest, but such actions go far beyond peaceful demonstrations. The activists use similar tactics against secondary targets, especially if they think that they will be weak-kneed enough to give in to their threats. None of that behaviour is acceptable, and we need changes in the law—in the Bill, I hope—to protect innocent employees, companies, directors and shareholders alike. I had an opportunity to thank the Home Secretary for his actions on that front a few moments ago. I also express my thanks to the noble Lord Sainsbury for his action in helping to bring about the financial rescue of Huntingdon Life Sciences from the difficulties that it had run into, predominantly as a result of those demonstrations. Lord Sainsbury did an excellent job and I am most grateful to him.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It is not only at Huntingdon that the effects have been felt; staff in many other places are fearful. Many research companies are internationally owned, and it is important that it be clear that we are taking active steps to deal with such things, because investment decisions are being made about the future location of that research.
  Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I intend to turn to that point later. We are of one mind on this issue.
  I understand that the Home Secretary has some proposals in mind. I strongly welcome his willingness to take action, although I have not yet had the opportunity to study his proposals in detail. It is essential that we soon amend existing legislation to prevent violent activists from maintaining personal information that enables them to target individual employees, directors and shareholders. Such targeting is unpleasant and often frightening for people going about their ordinary business. They are not
  60
  used to the targeting that people in public life sadly become accustomed to these days. They are people going about their ordinary life, for whom the experience is extremely frightening and unpleasant. They are going about their lawful business, which has been licensed by Parliament. They must have protection from such harassment.
  I shall briefly touch on some of the changes that are necessary. We must look at ways to make it possible for all directors and shareholders potentially at risk—not every director and shareholder, but those who could arguably be at risk from the activists—to register their interest in a company such as Huntingdon Life Sciences in a fashion that protects their private addresses from public scrutiny. Of course, the registrar should have their private addresses, but we should consider the various options for preventing that information becoming generally available to people who will misuse it.
  That will not be easy, and the change will need to be carefully managed, but there are a number of ways in which it could be achieved, and I hope that the Home Secretary will incorporate one or other of them in the Bill. I look forward to discussing that with him on another occasion. I regard the change as extremely important, for I have seen the anguish caused by what has happened.
  I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). After Huntingdon Life Sciences obtained new financial backers from abroad, and the protesters were frustrated in their bid to close down the company and its work, one of the leading activists appeared on the media claiming that his movement would soon identify the new financial backers and target them.
  I cannot recall the exact words that that activist used, but I recall the flavour of them, and I recall the gist of what he said. It was, I thought, a threat: "We have friends even in America, and we will get them." As I heard the interview, that seemed, given the activists' record, to be a threat of promised violence which ought of itself to be an offence, not something to be uttered with impunity time after time in various parts of the media.
  We need also to borrow from trade union legislation and make it an offence—the Home Secretary touched on this—to protest against individuals in their homes and, in addition, to prevent secondary activity, such as protests against financial institutions or pension fund investors, and the staff who work for financial institutions or pension investors.
  The present laws are shown by the new problem to be inadequate on a number of fronts. The harassment legislation certainly needs amendment, not least to make it more appropriate for the police to use it to prohibit the incitement of harassment and intimidation. At present, it is ineffective for that purpose. I have had some experience of trying to frame ways of dealing with such problems, and I understand only too clearly the difficulties that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have in framing legislation to cover these points. It will not be easy, but it is possible and we must reconsider existing legislation.

  61
  The Malicious Communications Act 1988, for example, illustrates the problem. The Home Secretary touched on that earlier. Section 1(2) of that Act states:
  "A person is not guilty of an offence … if he shows—(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and (b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
  That dates from some way back, and I can imagine the sort of late amendment that was rushed through to make sure that the Bill met its timetable. Every Minister has had experience of that, but let us consider what the provision says. It says that a threat is not an offence if there were reasons to make it to reinforce a demand. What nonsense is that?
  Threats against individuals are not justifiable in any circumstances. In any event, without wishing to be flippant. I should have thought that the precise wording of that subsection was so woolly that it would make it possible for any taxpayer to indict the Inland Revenue under it. Unless the Home Secretary amends it, people may take that advice and do so.
  We clearly need to examine existing legislation to deal with emerging problems. Many other changes need to be made, but discussion of those may not be appropriate for a Second Reading debate in which many hon. Members want to speak. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to see me so that I may put some detailed suggestions to him. I look forward to that meeting.
  I shall touch on one other point, in conclusion. It would be immensely helpful to the industry, to which the Minister and his team have recently given such support, if in his winding-up speech this evening, the Minister of State could confirm the following points unambiguously: first, that the present UK legislation governing the introduction of new medicines demands that they be tested on animals before human trials can occur; secondly, that animal tests are also demanded by regulatory authorities to ensure the safe manufacture, transport and use of agrochemical s and other chemicals; thirdly, to confirm that, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 enforced by the Home Office inspectorate, as the Home Secretary said earlier, the UK has the strictest regulations governing the conduct of animal research that can be found in any country in the world; and fourthly, that the current legislation demands that in safety testing, researchers must assure the Home Office that no non-animal alternative tests are available before authority is given for any testing on animals.
  I ask for those points to be unambiguously made by the Minister of State, because each and every one of them is perverted by those who oppose the research, and much public opinion accepts the rebuttal of those points. It would be immensely helpful to have them clearly and unambiguously stated by a responsible Minister.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I never thought that I would be able to say that I agree 100 per cent. with his speech, but will he go a little further? Much of what he said has been about the threat to animal experimenters. Will he go on to say that we need to make sure that the changes to the legislation cover attacks on all scientists? Much of what the right hon. Gentleman says applies to people in GM research, the nuclear industry and many other fields of scientific endeavour.
  Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and I am happy to endorse that. He must forgive me if, having
  62
  seen what has happened in my constituency over the past three years, I focused on the problems there, so that my constituents are aware that the Government take the problems seriously—as, indeed, the Government do—and intend to take action. However, the hon. Gentleman is right and I endorse everything that he said.
  The companies carrying out scientific research on animals are not operating casually outside the law. They operate within a tightly regulated and strictly controlled environment. They are doing work that they have been required to do by successive Governments. Their work is necessary to protect public health, to advance medical research, and to safeguard and improve the well-being of every citizen. They are carrying out work on behalf of the public and in the interests of the public, and they deserve the legislative protection of this House.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on an outstanding and thoughtful speech. It is a privilege to follow both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whose contributions have shown the importance of the debate. It may not catch the headlines that other debates in the House sometimes catch, but if the media regard this as a less than all-important debate, I am certain that our constituents will not agree.
  I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton from the time when I was a young magistrate. As the then shadow Home Secretary, he listened to us and understood the obstacles that were placed in the way of our doing what the public and the criminal justice system needed. I dare say that if my right hon. Friend had been Home Secretary 15 years ago, instead of shadow Home Secretary, we might not have had to endure some of the pain that we have gone through in the criminal justice system in recent years.
  I am rather sad that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not more constructive. She said that she did not oppose the Bill, but all her language—including body language—spoke of arrogance and opposition. As shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demonstrated that one can look serious on crime and disorder only by being serious on them. I am afraid that the Opposition have not yet learned that lesson.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Did my right hon. Friend share my concern about the lukewarm reception given by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to the extension of curfew schemes? He will have received the same Local Government Association briefing as has been submitted to me. Is he pleased that the LGA has welcomed the introduction of curfews for the under-16s? The measure begins to address an age group that is more likely to be involved in public disturbances than the under-10s. I know that he has experience of the joint problem-solving groups so will he acknowledge their important role in implementing the provisions?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I shall deal with curfews in a moment, as they are an

  63
  important aspect of the Bill. However, I should like first to set out the context of a Bill that is about crime reduction and a wide range of criminal justice issues. At first glance, one might think it is a minor Bill but it is not, as it complements and advances the programme of reform that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has consistently pursued for a number of years.
  The Bill takes us forward to the next stage in four different ways: it helps to continue the creation of a comprehensive approach to cutting crime; it helps to fill the gaps in the mechanisms, including sentences, that are used to deal with crime and the causes of crime; it makes progress on nipping problems in the bud, especially in respect of young offenders; and it focuses on cutting crime. The latter does not necessarily follow from crime measures, as it must be ensured that legislation, intentions and policy perspectives are carried through in practice. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree that it is vital to keep our eyes on those outcomes at every stage of the process.
  The Bill contains a programme of sustainable crime reduction which falls well within the pattern of crime and disorder audits and strategies that are currently maturing. I mentioned in an intervention my delight the other week when I heard some 120 people from the police, local authorities and so on having a debate about continuing to push down crime. Three or four years ago, none of them would even have dreamed of having such a debate. That is a tribute not only to the decisions taken at that time, but to the way in which the ministerial team and the various professions that are involved are pushing the process forward, week after week and year after year.
  The Bill deals with many important issues. The need to provide full reasons in respect of bail is far more important than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald seemed to think. Currently, those responsible for decisions on bail must give reasons for refusing it, with the awareness that their decision might be tested. Surely it is an effective counter-balance for them to have to give reasons why bail should be granted. Such a measure will bring back into balance an arrangement that has been unbalanced for many years. It has previously been far too easy to test the intention of the court to refuse bail and to push for larger numbers to be given bail because that is the safe decision. A balance will now be in place.
  Witness protection is crucial and the Bill is an important step forward in that respect. I am concerned that the antisocial behaviour orders involve something of a drift with regard to the bringing of matters to court by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and with regard to the court itself, which can demand the test of the criminal law. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows and as the Bill intends, it is the civil test that must be applied. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take this opportunity to remind the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts that it is the civil test that must apply. That practice is necessary specifically to ensure that people do not face the onerous burden of having to risk danger by coming to give evidence, as it will enable the court quickly to place the order, the breach of which becomes the criminal punishment.
  64
  The Bill also deals with drugs and violent crime, on which it is excellent to see progress. Having heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton mention the Greater Manchester police, I should like to speak about my constituency. I am certain that the police there will welcome the detail of the Bill with enthusiasm. I am especially pleased about the commitment shown by the police service, which is currently led by Tony Burden, who is president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  Cardiff county local authority has also shown great commitment. In particular, I pay tribute to Gordon Houlston, who has taken a lead role. Safer Cardiff is bringing together a partnership approach, and I mention Barbara Natesagara in that regard. Unusually—although it should not be unusual—a great contribution has been made by Professor John Shepherd, nurses, other care staff and voluntary organisations in identifying people who experience violent crime and in trying thereby to avoid repeat offending. The health service's involvement in that partnership is a crucial step forward and should be encouraged.
  As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested, the issues with which the Bill tries to deal seem intractable. However, examples of progress, such as the reduction in violent crime in Cardiff and the other steps forward to which my hon. Friends have referred, show that circumstances are improving and that effective action can be taken.
  The Bill contains some important steps to speed up youth justice. I pay tribute to the continued pressure exerted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the ministerial team for delivery on reduction of the time that it takes to get youngsters to court. That commitment is being carried through into practice. Goodness knows it is a difficult one to fulfil, as anyone who has tried to do so will confirm. I pay particular tribute to Gillian Beranksi and her team in south Wales. When I met them the other week, I was delighted to see not only that they are getting on with the job, but that they are so enthusiastic. It has been good to see CPS lawyers working with the courts and the police to deliver and improve quality of justice, as well as deliver faster justice.
  The enthusiasm of magistrates was also encouraging. I suppose that I was a bit ground down by the time that I entered the House. Indeed, it sometimes seemed that we could never speed things up. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that magistrates feel liberated at being part of a system that is working and delivering. We should applaud that progress. Such development will occur in all parts of the country. All the partners need the tools, but the message is that they are up for it.
  We were wary of curfews from the beginning. I remember the advice that I offered the Opposition in the Standing Committee that debated the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. My advice then was that the curfew should be first established for under-11s, after which we could go on to consider the question of ages. Concerns were expressed about massive numbers. It was suggested that we would be overwhelmed and that youngsters would be so constrained by curfews that the measure would be an onerous burden. Of course, none of that happened. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald recognised that, but she was not as generous as she might have been.

  65
  I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making two changes on curfew orders. First. the Bill gives the police the same powers as local authorities. Secondly, it increases to 16 the age at which they can apply. Those changes are crucial for a reason that has not been mentioned: they will end the culture of prevarication and excuses. Too often we hear that people are frustrated and angry about the continued harassment that they experience in their streets and the bad behaviour of groups of young people late at night. Such groups are often small, but they grow quickly if they are not nipped in the bud. Too often people come to me or to their respective Members of Parliament and say that nothing is being done. They say that they have talked to the police but are told that no action can be taken. Now, the instrument is in place and it can be used for young people of up to the age of 16.
  Mr. Heald: We broadly agree about this issue now. However, would the right hon. Gentleman care to contemplate why child curfew orders have been such a failure so far? Not one has been granted. Why does Labour's most senior councillor, Sir Jeremy Beecham, say that the extension is unlikely to be used and that curfews are not the most important measure that could be taken? There seems to be lack of enthusiasm on the subject from some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
  Mr. Michael: I am glad to hear the grudging admission that the Opposition are now in favour of child curfew orders, and that they broadly agree with us. I wish that they would give a little more thought to the subject.
  Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Michael: In a moment; let me develop my thought first. I will return to Sir Jeremy Beecham in a moment.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has understood the curfew order or the system. We need to ensure that this is not a bureaucratic process. As set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is not. The local authority—now it could be the police or the local authority—has to set out a scheme. It will have to make simple rules to the effect that, in certain circumstances, it will apply the scheme to young people in an area. It is a warning that the authority is serious; it is a warning to young people that unless they start to behave better, they may lose their liberty. Will the loss of that liberty to be out late at night be onerous? I have never understood why seven-year-olds should be out at 3 o'clock in the morning.
  Such a step does not need to be onerous if the measures are used appropriately. First, curfew orders need not be used if partners can succeed with other powers. This is where I agree with Sir Jeremy Beecham. I think that, for many areas, the existence in the background of the curfew power will be sufficient to allow steps to be taken locally, for co-operation to be won with the local community and for something to be done. There are examples of where this has been achieved. Hamilton has been referred to on many occasions, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, in framing guidance, will be looking to the acknowledged success in the Hamilton area.
  The measure will succeed if the ground is well prepared. It is not a case of saying, "We want you all to stop coming out at night." The police and the local authority have to discuss the problem that they are facing and how to target the orders to get rid of the problem.
  66
  Why is the curfew order needed? Let me give one example. In my constituency, we were discussing the disorder on an estate and a lot of people in the room were saying, "Those youngsters are out of control. Something needs to be done about them. We' need to stop them creating havoc around the estate." One woman got up and said, "My little Johnny is one of those youngsters." Everyone said, "Johnny isn't too bad, he's a good lad." She said, "He's a good lad, he's a nice lad, but he's 6 ft 6 in and I'm 5 ft 2 in. His dad left home some years ago. I can't make Johnny stay in if he wants to go out; he says that everybody else is out, so why shouldn't he be?"
  The curfew orders are about giving authority back to parents and communities, not about being excessively onerous. The more we can carry on without the need for specific curfews because people have understood the message and the community is being given back authority, the better it will be. Those are the sort of circumstances in which it is important for this mechanism to be used. Communities and parents need to be given back authority. They have to know that they have the support of the local authority and the police, as they have the support of the Government.
  My final point is about partnership. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will assure us that it is not intended that the police could go off at a tangent and impose curfews at will, any more than it was the intention that local authorities should be able to do so, nor that the consultation is simply a matter of going through the form. We expect the police, local authorities and communities to work together, do we not? We expect them to co-operate and to address the real issues of their area. Then the result will be liberating rather than onerous.
  The crime and disorder partnerships work. Why is that? First, they focus clearly on a problem. They make sure that they have the facts through the crime and disorder audit. Secondly, they focus on outcomes—they want to see crime going down. Thirdly, they operate through a partnership that shares responsibility. In that case, the police and the local authority both have that responsibility. That is not appropriate for the curfew. It is likely that if both bodies had the responsibility, neither of them would exercise it. That is why I think that the proposed dual mandate is right. Otherwise, it would be a recipe for neither to make a move, and we need both of them to move together.
  We must have that partnership. Use of the curfew must be set within the framework of the crime and disorder partnership.
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has not really answered my question, and I would like him to. Why has not a single child curfew order so far been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) proposed in the Standing Committee considering the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that curfew orders should apply up to the age of 16, which is what is now proposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shows that the procedures for child curfew orders are too leaden and bureaucratic and that something must be done about them?
  Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid everything that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) proposed in Committee, he would be

  67
  defending an awful lot of indefensible measures. No, it shows nothing of the sort—it shows that they have not been tested. It shows that although we have heard a lot of rhetoric about the police not having the powers to deal with young offenders, those powers have not been tested. However, we accept that the younger age group has been targeted while the older age group really needs to be targeted. With the combination of the curfew extending to the age of 16 and the antisocial behaviour orders that can be targeted at the older age group, the tools are there to do the job.
  As long as we hear in a couple of years that there are no more problems with youngsters on the streets causing mayhem late at night, I will not want the test to be how many curfew orders have been imposed; I will want it to be standards of behaviour in the community, protection of the public and communities that are strengthened by this measure and a proper understanding of it. I suggest that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire seek to understand the reasoning behind the measure and how it fits in with the reasoning behind the crime and disorder strategies that have been so successful but which have not had the enthusiasm and support from Conservative Members that we might have hoped for. Such strategies are based on the evidence of need; they target the appropriate groups, share support and are clear about outcomes. We can see from the enthusiasm of the partners in the crime and disorder strategies that those aims can be achieved.
  I hope that in the guidance, the Home Secretary will point to the strength of partnerships as the core for creating stronger, safer communities, cutting crime and nipping things in the bud in respect of younger offenders. In particular, we do not want local authorities saying, "Let the police do it" or the police saying, "Let the local authority do it." We want them both to have the powers and to share the responsibility so that they do what is necessary, where the community wants it. That will build on the culture of sharing responsibility and effectiveness that we have started to build. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares those views and wishes the police and local authorities to push forward together. Let the philosophy be, "Together, let's do it."
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have now clocked up about 30 Home Office Bills since they came to power. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that there may be some merit in the fact that, for a change, there has not been a lot of sound and fury surrounding the Bill. Instead, there has been a welcome degree of discussion of the issues, some interesting and some also controversial. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I disagree with him about child curfews. He put the case for them, and I will put the case against them. There is much debate still to be had.
  This is a long Bill, with 132 clauses and eight schedules. It is another example of a Bill that is much longer than it should be. It is probably a response to last year's request from the Prime Minister to give him something eye-catching before the election. Headline-grabbing, eye-catching ideas were looked for all over the Home Office departments. There are some things in the
  68
  Bill to do with police powers; it changes a few offences here, a bit of procedure there. It is a Christmas tree decoration Bill—the baubles are on the tree, because the Government need something to show in the window. The reality is that the Government wanted measures that made them look as though they were doing something in the run-up to the election. They have not had quite the success that they expected in their first three and a half years, given that the former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, said that, if elected, the Labour Government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
  I took some guests round Portcullis House the other day, and they asked me whether the trees in there were really fig trees. I said that I was not an expert, but I had been told that they were. My visitors said that, for fig trees, they had mighty small leaves. I reflected that the Bill does not provide fig leaves big enough to cover the Government's embarrassment.
  Mr. Baldry: They are olive trees.
  Mr. Hughes: If they are olive trees, that is the answer to the question.
  It is a matter of record that the Government made three specific law and order pledges—I appreciate their honesty about the issue—and it appears that none of them will be met. It is clearly not the perception of the British public that the Government have been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. All the opinion polls show that the public are not persuaded by the Labour Government's record on that issue. On the pledge for more bobbies on the beat, the Home Secretary struggled manfully on television yesterday to explain how that did not really mean more bobbies on the beat—just relatively more bobbies on the beat than before.
  Mr. Heald: It was a metaphor.
  Mr. Hughes: Well, it was not quite a metaphor, but it was an explanation that was certainly not persuasive.
  Furthermore, it looks as though the target to cut by half the time for dealing with offending by persistent young offenders will not be achieved either. The Government have failed in their objectives and the resulting Bill is a rag-bag of bits and pieces—some good, some bad, some debatable, some not so important.
  I am sad that we are being forced by the election timetable into a way of law-making which other countries wisely do not follow. Many of the Bill's proposals may have merit, but no one has ever checked to find out. It would have been better to have a more considered process for examining some of these controversial measures, instead of simply pulling them off the tree, as it were, and putting them into the Bill. We could have had a special Standing Committee, as we have with other Bills, or a draft Bill.
  We could have done as the Finnish Parliament does, and taken the Bill proposed by the Government, given it a quick Second Reading, then sent it to a Select Committee where evidence could have been taken. A report could then have been brought back to the Government. In that way, a more considered way of legislating could have been achieved. Furthermore, we could have implemented a measure that the Association

  69
  of Police Authorities and I have called for: a standing conference on policing and law and order involving the police, police authorities, magistrates, lay people and politicians. Such a body could consider matters of this nature. However, we have none of those. Indeed, we are discussing measures concerning criminal justice literally a matter of days before we expect Lord Justice Auld to produce his review of the criminal justice system. That review may produce similar proposals to those in the Bill, or different ones. In any event, it is meant to be a comprehensive review.
  It is sad that we are considering a controversial Bill containing some untested proposals—I share the view of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point—a matter of weeks before the expected date of the election. The Bill will probably not become law before the election. If it does not finish in Standing Committee until 8 March, I can assure the House that the Lords are unlikely to whip it through in double-quick time, because its provisions have profound implications for civil liberties, among other things.
  On a further practical point, we really should not have Bills in which one clause applies to England and Wales, another to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the next to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the next only to Northern Ireland. That is nonsense. Northern Ireland-only provisions, England and Wales-only provisions, and UK provisions are spread around the Bill. It would be far better to try to legislate more tidily, so that the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the English would know what was in store for them and have a chance to debate it properly themselves.
  Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is part of the nature of the devolution process to have different responsibilities in relation to different parts of these islands? It is therefore sensible to deal with them in the context in which they make sense.
  Mr. Hughes: Rather, this Bill may show up the weakness of the Government's devolution system, since I am sure that the Welsh Assembly would be interested in formally being consulted on the matters in the Bill that affect Wales—even if they do not relate to devolved issues—and in expressing a view on them. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be similarly interested. There are lessons to be learned for the wider constitutional debate.
  I have tried to distil the provisions of the Bill, which I believe raises 10 important questions. Should we have fixed-penalty systems, and if so when? Should we have curfews, and if so when? Those are two big, controversial issues. How should we deal with alcohol-related offences and offenders? How should we deal with drug-related offences and offenders? How should we protect witnesses and possible witnesses? When should people be granted bail? That central question was raised by the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  What should the information exchange entitlement between public authorities be? For example, should we allow information collected by the Inland Revenue to be passed to the social security system and vice versa? We have never had a great debate about that, but such measures are provided for in the Bill. What should the checks and balances on the powers of detention be? The Bill contains various proposals about that.
  70
  On the rights of the state to take and hold information, should it have the power to collect DNA samples and hold them without people's consent, even though those people have been found innocent? That is a very big issue, which we as a nation have never debated properly and widely. The Icelandic people, I understand, have had a great national debate about it and agreed that everyone would have their information put on the national database. Lastly, what should the structure nationally, regionally and locally of our police service be? The last two parts of the Bill deal with that question.
  The Bill raises huge issues and I want to flag up the view held by me and my colleagues, which is in some respects similar to that held by the Conservative party. Some of the provisions in the Bill are reasonable and unexceptionable. We shall not, therefore, vote against the Bill on Second Reading; we shall support it tonight. We shall then seek to amend it in Committee and on Report, and we reserve the right to vote against it on Third Reading if some of the provisions that we regard as unacceptable have not been removed in the process. We hope to persuade people of our arguments between now and then.
  One provision that is not in the Bill was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and by the Secretary of State, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have particular concerns about it. It touches on the issue of campaigners for animal rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) all have constituency interests in the matter, as do other hon. Members.
  I share the general view that the right to protest and to express one's view is one thing. but that to do those things in a manner that intimidates and frightens not only those directly affected but many who are indirectly affected—the families and colleagues of those concerned—is entirely unacceptable. Whatever one's view about the rights and welfare of animals, one should not be entitled to behave exceptionally badly, as some people have in this country. I spoke to the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences the other day, and to others. The problem seems to be much worse in this country than elsewhere, and we therefore need to deal with it in a way that will reduce that ability to threaten and intimidate.
  I shall comment on the less controversial matters in the Bill first, before dealing with the three most controversial issues. On the alcohol-related measures, it seems entirely proper that if one is going to give a power to restrict the drinking of alcohol in public places, it should be given to the democratically elected local authority. We support that proposal. It involves a restriction of liberty, but it is one that a democratically elected local authority could adopt, although only after consultation with the police.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue for a moment?
  On the closure of licensed premises, we support the proposal that in exceptional circumstances the police should have the ability to say, "I'm sorry, you can't carry on. Your pub is threatening the neighbourhood and

  71
  causing trouble." As drafted, however, the proposal is draconian and we would be better served by a yellow card, red card system in which a warning was followed by a closure. There is no such provision in the Bill. Under the current proposals, the police could go into licensed premises and close them unfairly, and, once the matter got into the court system, it could be difficult for the licensee to persuade the magistrates to allow him to reopen.
  The proposals on the closure of unlicensed premises seem entirely justifiable, as are those for confiscating containers of drink. I understand that the police might not know whether there was drink in such containers, so the measures are necessary to protect the police from what might otherwise be an unjustified allegation.
  The proposals to tighten up on serving drink to ensure that it does not go to under-age drinkers are also justified. However, I am not yet persuaded that the wording is right and we must ensure that we have a system that respects the interests of those whose job may mean that they encounter people who represent themselves as being of drinking age—over 18—but who are not. The postscript is that it is of course right to allow test-purchasing of drink by youngsters under the proper controls, just as tobacco is test-purchased to detect people who break the law.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that non-drinking zones and the powers of local authorities to designate them must be considered widely in the council and that the decision should perhaps be debated in full council rather than delegated to one cabinet member, because that could lead to difficulties?
  Mr. Hughes: I have not talked to all my colleagues about that, but my initial response is that I share the hon. Gentleman's view. Liberty could be restricted in public places and such a big decision should I believe properly be taken by the full council.
  I support the drug trafficking proposals. It is right that people could have their liberty to travel, to which they would otherwise be entitled, restricted if after conviction they could traffic in drugs while travelling. The only issue is that the Bill allows restriction without end, and we may need a maximum restriction. No one should have their ability to travel written off for the rest of their life because of offences they have committed, and I hope that the measure can be amended.
  It is of course acceptable that the proposal on intimidation of witnesses should relate to civil as well as criminal proceedings. However, I am concerned that there is a burden of proof issue—the Minister will be aware of it—and simply using certain language or acting in a certain way should not immediately make it people's responsibility to show that they do not intend to pervert the course of justice.
  More widely, and for all sorts of reasons—not just constituency experience over recent years—I say to the Minister that we still do badly in ensuring that witnesses and would-be witnesses are protected. The police struggle to protect such people and we do not yet have a system that works quickly. This very week, I am again trying to get somebody moved. Unless they move, they will not
  72
  feel confident enough to give evidence in a criminal case. The Crown Prosecution Service says that the case cannot be taken to court unless they give evidence. Therefore, it will be unable to prosecute an assailant. The current system depends too much on accidental opportunities to persuade local authorities to move people and we need a much better one.
  There is a big question regarding the powers to transfer information between one authority and another. When people give information to the Revenue, do they expect it to go to all the other state authorities? The Revenue is concerned that people may not be as honest if they think that information will go elsewhere. There is an issue there and a further problem in relation to whether we should allow the Bill to be retrospective. I hope that we can amend it to prevent that from being the case, although it obviously has the endorsement of the Scottish Executive, as it is a United Kingdom provision.
  The powers of seizure, which are to be extended, are welcome, but we must ensure that we do not give more power than is necessary.
  I support the three proposals for making offences arrestable, although, again, they have been picked out of a list and many others could have been chosen. The categories are kerb crawling, failure to stop and report an accident resulting in injury, and importing to the UK indecent or obscene articles. It is perfectly reasonable for those to be arrestable offences and we would support that.
  There are generally uncontroversial changes to the way in which we manage people in detention, but we must be careful about thinking that it is acceptable for the police to decide at a distance to extend someone's detention—it is proposed to allow that down the videolink or down the telephone. If someone's liberty is in question, the presumption must be that the person reviewing his or her detention is not 50 miles away at the end of a telephone, but close to the person who is in the cell. We must be careful about giving such extensive powers and careful about giving up the right of the House to consider all secondary legislation. We should not change the procedure from the affirmative to the negative resolution procedure.
  Of the remaining non-controversial proposals, the two relating to the police include a proposed improved system for training. That I welcome, but the proposals on structures, particularly for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and others, are not uncontroversial and, as the Minister knows, the Association of Police Authorities has concerns. They appear to increase central Government control and reduce public and police authority control. Debates about control of the special police services and what to do with the police service are going on, but I am not sure that we have so far had the breadth of discussion that we need.
  That leaves three issues: DNA, fixed penalty notices and curfews. The Liberal Democrats have never signed up to people who have not consented having their DNA held after being found not guilty or when a case does not proceed. Doing so represents a big step forward—in my view, a dangerous step forward in civil liberty terms. Of course DNA is helpful, but if the Government think that it would help if everybody's DNA was held, let them say, "When a baby is registered, a sample has to be supplied

  73
  to the registrar of births, marriages and deaths." That, effectively, is what the Bill suggests. If the Minister wants to confirm that, I should be happy to hear from him.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): To clarify, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats will oppose the Bill on Third Reading, following consideration in Committee, if the DNA proposals remain in their current form?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a good and intelligent Minister, but that was a cheap and silly question, not least because I have already answered it. I said that we shall seek to amend various aspects, that our judgment as to whether we can support the Bill will depend on our success in getting amendments accepted and that we can give no guarantee at this stage that we will support it on Third Reading. We think that certain provisions need to be amended.
  Mr. Clarke: With respect, I did not ask for a guarantee. I asked about the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the DNA point, which is one of the range of issues that he will reconsider after the Bill has been examined in Committee. It would be of interest to the House to know where the Liberal Democrats stand on that important issue.
  Mr. Hughes: Where we stand is straightforward: we are not persuaded that we ought to give a further power to the state—the police—to hold a sample taken in respect of a case that is not proceeded with or in which a person is found not guilty. If we remain unpersuaded, we shall consider that a possible ground for voting against Third Reading.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I am trying to allow time for other colleagues, as many want to speak.
  Fixed-penalty notices strike me as fine to deal with a cyclist on the pavement or illegal car parking. Indeed, they are perfectly reasonable for dog fouling and litter dropping. However, it is unlikely that they will work in relation to drunken adults who may not stand around long enough to receive them or may not remember much about receiving them. Some cases may be prejudiced by a person's relative inability to comply with the fixed penalty. The proposal is unfair. The rich can pay up easily; the poor cannot. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) wants to intervene.
  Those with learning difficulties, those who are less intelligent and those who are homeless may not be able to cope with the paperwork in the way that someone with all the time in the world and high intelligence can. The proposal is highly likely to be discriminatory. Summary justice, not normal procedural justice, may be done at the hands of the police in a system under which, the Library research note confirms, millions of pounds worth of fines already go unpaid. Last year, about £80 million of fines went uncollected and now we are to have another system that imposes fines on people who are least likely to pay up and will have to be monitored.
  We are by no means persuaded in regard to fixed-penalty notices. I consider the proposal a fig leaf, intended to cover up the extraordinary content of a speech
  74
  delivered by the Prime Minister to academics in Tubingen, when he said that he would march people along to cashpoints. It is a fallback, intended to give the impression that that was not a completely barmy idea but only a half-barmy idea. The police are unlikely to have enough staff to deal with it, and would be perfectly happy for it not to be included. People such as Fred Broughton have made that abundantly clear.
  The curfew proposal has been supported by, for instance, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It would be one thing if such action were to be proposed and agreed by local authorities, but the Bill goes further, allowing the police to impose a curfew irrespective of a local authority's view. Admittedly the police must talk to local authorities, but they can go ahead even if local authorities say no.
  When I talked to youngsters at Walworth school about the proposal, one said, "It's like keeping the whole class in when a few have misbehaved." It certainly strikes me as an entirely unfair principle in the context of civil liberties. Of course seven-year-olds should not be out on the street at 3 am, but 14 and 15-year-olds might have perfectly good reasons to be out at 9, 10 or 11 pm. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that community relations between police and young people will be helped if the police pick on young people regularly, he may be sadly mistaken.
  The other day I spoke to some youngsters on the street—youngsters under 16, hanging around in just the sort of group that the right hon. Gentleman described. The public say that something must be done, but according to my experience the more the police stop and search them, the more likely they are to be antagonistic, unhelpful and unco-operative. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the curfew proposal will make all difficult youngsters suddenly disappear—that youngsters will become smilingly happy, feeling that the police are the most wonderful people in the world—Cardiff, South and Penarth has changed a lot since I was there in my youth.
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman was probably one of the youths who caused trouble there in those days. He has clearly not learned from those days to do his homework first. He has not read the requirements, conditions, advice and guidance, any more than he listened to what I said. The measure can succeed only in the context of community support and a joint effort to tackle the problem, involving communities, parents, local authorities and the police; but that is what is proposed. Did the hon. Gentleman not understand that?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course I did. The right hon. Gentleman should not become so excitable so quickly. If, however, he thinks it a good idea to start stereotyping, and to say that the Peckhams or Penarths of this world should contain no-go areas—curfew areas; "can't go out late" areas—I must tell him that I do not think it will be good for the law-abiding people, including young people, who live in those areas. It can only paint bad pictures: it can only make areas that look as though they have trouble look even worse. By all means let the police concentrate on the troublemakers, but they should concentrate on the troublemakers rather than the places where they live.

  75
  I hope I have demonstrated straightforwardly that Liberal Democrats have considerable concerns about a Bill that is good in parts, but very worrying in parts. We shall do our utmost to make sure that it is much better by the time it returns to this House.
  6.44 pm
  Joan Ruddock: Last week one of my local newspapers, the News Shopper, featured a banner headline: "Crime is on the rise—report". A subhead referred to an increase of £30,000. It dealt a tremendous blow to both the police and the local authority, which had forged an extremely effective community safety partnership. It was, moreover, distressing for all of us because it was simply untrue.
  In Lewisham, crime fell by 5 per cent. between the period from March 1999 to December 1999 and the corresponding period in 2000. Burglary fell by 16 per cent., and the borough was top of the Metropolitan police league table in respect of judicial disposals of such crimes. Car crime also decreased, and Lewisham was near the top of the league table in respect of clear-up rates.
  The headline might have been justified, although clearly to a lesser extent, with regard to reporting of street crime, which has been on the increase in Lewisham and throughout the country—although the number of such crimes in Lewisham is lower than the Met average.
  Mr. Chris Pond: I have here a copy of one of my little newspapers, which reports a crime increase of 10 per cent., and states that, in Kent, crime fell by 23 per cent. during the same period. That paper is the Gravesham News Shopper. Do we detect a trend?
  Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
  Even where certain crimes have increased, most people are not the direct victims. Most people feel, however, that their quality of life is threatened and often diminished by the fear of crime, which is why it is so reprehensible that local newspapers exaggerate crime levels. Antisocial behaviour gives rise to anxiety, and also creates an impression of lawlessness. That is why I welcome the Bill.
  I want to talk mostly about low-level crime. I welcome the measures relating to young people. Let me also say, however, how much I appreciate the provisions for enhanced witness protection. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have dealt with a small but terribly distressing number of cases involving people who have been willing to come forward, but have subsequently lived in terror of victimisation. We owe it to them to improve their treatment.
  In Lewisham, as elsewhere, young people commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. In our crime and disorder audit, the statistics relating to robbery, violence against the person, theft and handling all demonstrate that the highest offending rate was among those aged between 15 and 24, and that the second highest was among those aged between 10 and 14. Victimisation of those same groups is equally high, however. In the context of robbery and violence, the highest rate of victimisation was among those aged between 10 and 24.
  76
  A raft of Government measures are already addressing many of the underlying causes of crime. Unemployment—to name but one—is falling dramatically in my constituency. Nevertheless, there is a real need for more deterrence. Both my local authority and the Lewisham police service generally welcome the Bill: they are delighted by the Government's recognition that the yob culture will no longer be tolerated.
  At present, most people arrested for drunkenness—certainly in my area—get off with a caution. Not even a night in the cells seems to act as a deterrent, and there is a feeling that the courts do not view drunkenness as a serious matter. Such is the frustration of my constituents and my local authority that they are in the process of constructing a case for a byelaw on street drinking. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about such applications for byelaws: they are difficult to draft, and the local authority has been greatly concerned about the difficulties involved. The Bill will be helpful in that regard as well.
  In my experience, there are two kinds of street drinker. There are the long-term alcoholics, who are usually older and penniless, and there are the daytime drinkers, who cause serious offence but who really need "wet centres" and other ways of being helped to overcome a habit that can no longer be deterred. I trust that we can give more help to local authorities and volunteer organisations to try to tackle the—admittedly small—number of people who engage in such disruptive activities.
  A much more widespread problem is that of young people who are fit and healthy and who seemingly have unlimited funds with which to purchase alcohol. They cause continual misery to my constituents in their rowdiness in the streets and around drinking places—not only licensed premises, but off-licences as well—particularly in the evenings and at night, on the buses, the tubes and the trains, where they are intimidating and cause real concerns. Indeed, they probably deter many people from travelling when they would wish to do so. It is for that reason that we believe that fixed-penalty notices will be a deterrent and very helpful in trying to deal with that type of antisocial behaviour.
  There will always be a limit on the number of those who can be arrested, however many police officers there are on the streets. On the issue of police officers, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that my borough commander, Mike Humphrey, is very much of the view that the increased payment for police officers in London, and the free travel to be introduced next month, will greatly aid recruitment and retention.
  We cannot, however, reduce this debate to simple numbers. As I said, it will never be possible to arrest all who are involved in antisocial behaviour, regardless of what powers or penalties we have. That is why the rest of the Government's initiatives on youth offending are so important and why local partnerships are crucial too.
  In Lewisham, the arrest-to-charge target of two days and the first court appearance target of seven days have been met in 84 per cent. of cases, and that is a very considerable achievement. However, it should be seen alongside the many new and imaginative programmes that never existed before the Government were elected. I think that Lewisham was even ahead of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in targeting mobile telephone crime. We have a special scheme whereby people are encouraged

  77
  to protect their telephones by recording the IMEI—international mobile equipment identity—number which is unique to every telephone. That programme has gone to our primary and secondary schools and our local colleges.
  Additionally, 10 schools have been targeted with theatre workshops that help children to define robbery and bullying, to consider their legal and social consequences, and to help them to judge their peers and to attempt to modify their own behaviour. The programme is enormously important, and it is to be properly tested so that, when it is in operation, measurements of street crime and bullying will be taken within a half-mile radius of schools participating in the programme.
  We are also grateful to my right hon. Friend for selecting Lewisham borough as a pilot for testing the effect of restorative justice on reducing offending by young individuals. Young people will be confronted with their actions and made to realise the consequences of their crime, both for their victims and for the wider community. It is a pilot, building on an already successful scheme that has involved 40 people in the past year in making some type of reparation.
  Finally, I should like to say a few words on the issue of new measures to close down licensed premises. In the past year, I have been dealing with some very serious nuisances at two public houses in my constituency. Both premises are in entirely residential areas where their large back gardens abut the gardens of many neighbours.
  As we all know, today's pubs are completely different from the drinking places that were established many years ago. I am speaking about Victorian and Edwardian terraces and public houses. Today, amplified music and eating and drinking outdoors, which are associated with licensed premises, have become a major problem to many of the people living around those areas. I am told by residents that, in the summer, they cannot hear themselves speak indoors because of the noise. They also cannot go into their gardens because of the noise, the bad behaviour, the bad language and the quantities of food that are consumed—with the associated smells—and even thrown into their own gardens.
  The problem has become a nightmare for very many people in my constituency. Many of them thought that, come winter, the nightmare would end, but for the advent of outdoor heaters and new year's day barbecues in Deptford. It has become a very serious problem. A great deal of drunkenness and riotous behaviour are occurring in just a few of our public houses and in the surrounds of those buildings; and they have to be dealt with. It is utterly unacceptable to us that the rights of those who run public houses and the rights of those who seek to enjoy themselves should have more sway than those of the hapless victims who are the neighbours of those licensed premises.
  I join my right. hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the Bill, which gives us new opportunities to build on the highly successful crime and disorder partnerships that have brought new hope of crime reduction and reduction in antisocial behaviour to so many of our local communities.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest, as always, as a recorder of the Crown court, an acting deputy district judge in the magistrates courts, and a solicitor.
  78
  It would be very churlish of me not to wish the Bill well. It is well intentioned. However, it is also rather feeble. We have to consider it against the backcloth of the current situation in the world of crime and the world of law and order. We have decreasing police numbers and a collapse in police morale in many parts of the United Kingdom. Gun crime is at its highest for seven years, with 42 deaths from 4,000 incidents last year involving handguns. That just proves to all of us, if we did not know it, that gun legislation was a mistake.
  We have a massive increase in violent crime. In many areas, robbery—much of it street robbery—has increased by more than 20 per cent., especially among under-18s. Additionally, drug-related crime—which is committed to finance a heroin or cocaine addiction—is increasing relentlessly.
  I therefore looked forward with some interest to the Government's flagship crime Bill, which is possibly the seventh such Bill that we have had in the past three and a half years. However, I was very disappointed when I read the Bill's opening provisions. Speaking from a practitioner's point of view, I am bound to say that, although the provisions on penalty offences may be well intentioned, they have not been thought through and they will consequently be ineffective.
  I should like to focus on clause 1, which is annotated in the Bill as dealing with
  "Offences leading to penalties on the spot".
  However, that is the first inaccuracy, because the penalties are payable not on the spot, but at a later stage.
  The clause then describes a motley collection of about one dozen offences, from the very minor—such as being drunk in a highway—to very serious public order offences. Apparently all the offences qualify, at a policeman' s discretion, for a so-called penalty ticket. Goodness knows who dreamed up and drafted the Bill's penalty-notice provisions. Whoever it was, I suggest that he or she knows not a great deal about the criminal law and even less about the real world of crime, criminals and the courts in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it was someone who rarely steps out of his or her closeted office in Whitehall.
  The truth is that the proposals are cumbersome and fraught with difficulty. A great deal more work needs to be done on them. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who really does know what he is talking about on so many of these issues—that prior consultation on the provisions would have been so helpful.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: It has been made clear—perhaps it should be made clearer—that there was full consultation on the Bill. The precise list of offences that was drawn up came as a result of representations from precisely the organisations the hon. Gentleman is talking about, and was not drawn up in any ivory tower.
  Mr. Malins: I have not mentioned any organisations. I wonder whether the stipendiary bench, the Crown court judges or the solicitors who practice in the criminal courts were consulted.
  I wish to set out a few problem areas to which insufficient thought has been given. The penalty notice provisions apply only to somebody over 18, but most of

  79
  the offences under the clause are much more likely to be committed by persons under 18, who are completely exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Why is that? Is it sensible?
  Who selected these particular twelve offences, and on what basis? They vary from the not so serious to the very serious. Wasting police time is a serious offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967 and, rightly, carries up to six months in custody. In what circumstances should a policeman merely issue a ticket for such a serious offence? Likewise, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1967, threatening behaviour is another offence which can be minor or really quite serious.
  The Minister ought to focus on the age problem. Take this example. A constable sees two persons trespassing on the railway, which is a penalty ticket offence. One looks over 18, but is not. The other is over 18, but does not look it. What does the constable do? Can he demand proof of age? Is the constable to make up his or her mind? What if a constable gives a ticket to someone whom he believes to be under 18, only to discover that the person is not? Would what the lawyers call an estoppel operate, preventing a charge being brought against that youngster? That is a serious issue, given that someone receiving a penalty ticket and paying it quickly completely escapes a criminal conviction.
  Here is another example. A known 17-year-old and a known 19-year-old are jointly sending telephone messages to cause annoyance, which is another penalty offence. How fair is it for the 19-year-old to escape without conviction because he pays a penalty, while the 17-year-old inevitably gets a criminal record for the same activity?
  How many penalty notices can be acquired before a person is brought to court? Is there any provision in terms of building up a record of notices? We have no idea under the Bill what the financial penalty will be. We are told that there is to be a certain maximum, but no guidance is given. Can the Minister help? Does the police officer issuing the penalty have any discretion as to the amount? That is a most important question.
  Dr. Ladyman: My reading of the Bill suggests that the constable has the option of taking the individual back to the police station before issuing the penalty notice, so such matters could be determined there. Also, the constable has the option of not giving the penalty notice, but proceeding with a court action in the usual way.
  Mr. Malin: The hon. Gentleman is right; perhaps the constable has too much discretion. If he has discretion as to the amount of the penalty that he can give on the spot—despite his other possibilities—there will be a problem as to how he accurately assesses the offender's means. Is it wise for him to be allowed, in effect, to take powers of judicial discretion? Or is the penalty absolutely fixed for every single offender?
  We must remember that public order offences cover a wide spectrum of behaviour and in court would command widely differing fines, depending on the facts. If the penalty were fixed, it could be much too high or much too low for particular offenders. Offenders of different means would be severely affected. Courts always take into
  80
  account the defendant's means before fixing a fine and they give poor defendants time to pay. if a poor offender were given a penalty notice without being given time to pay, that might be grossly unfair. A poor offender who could not pay within 21 days would have to go to court and get a conviction, merely because of his poverty.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, collection of the penalties will be difficult in the courts around London. It is worth remembering that most of the offences that come before me in the London courts are committed by those who are on benefits, out of work and without a bean in their pocket. It should not be imagined that we have courts filled with queues of defendants wearing smart suits. Our courts are full of people who are on the breadline. How are they treated by the Bill? Do they get the same fixed penalty? Who makes the decision?
  Where does a fixed penalty stand in relation to a caution? Is it to be recordable? Will magistrates be told in later court proceedings about previous fixed penalties? Would not a formal caution have a greater deterrent effect than a fixed penalty, especially if the offender denied the offence but did not bother to ask for a trial? He would then get a fine registered against him, which he would ignore because he does not believe it to be fair.
  Furthermore, there will be pressure on people to pay the penalty to avoid having a trial and the risk of conviction and a criminal record. It is manifestly wrong to put pressure on people in this way. A penalty does not amount to a criminal record; the Bill makes it clear that the person concerned shall escape conviction. However, poorer people are disadvantaged by their inability to pay up whatever is demanded within the time demanded.
  If the Minister cannot deal with my questions, I would ask him to ask his officials to draft some answers and let me have a full response. People are entitled to answers to these genuine questions. How can a person who fails to request a trial within the time limit avoid the penalty plus 50 per cent? He may have been ill or have had an accident; there are all kinds of possibilities. This could be yet another fine mess for the courts to sort out.
  I am worried about the burdens on the police. Clause 3 talks about the notice that had to be served. Can anyone imagine a policeman in the street issuing to some potential offender a notice stating the offences, giving the particulars of the circumstances, specifying the suspended enforcement period, stating the amount of the penalty, stating the justice's chief executive to whom it should be paid—I need not go on. I say to anyone who believes that that will happen on the streets of London, or any other city, with any effect: get real.
  The provisions on licensed premises seek to impose a reverse burden of proof on the defendant. That seems to be open to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights, as indeed may be the concept of travel restrictions on drug traffickers who have completed their sentences.
  Many things that the Government have tried have been well intentioned. Antisocial behaviour orders were well intentioned, but they have failed. Drug treatment and testing orders were well intentioned but—particularly in the Gloucester experiment—they have failed too. I fear that many of the provisions in the Bill are well intentioned, but will have no real impact on the amount of street crime in this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now until 9.30.
  7.10 pm
  Maria Eagle: As I have just caught the 10-minute limit, my contribution will be a little shorter than it would have been—but perhaps it will be the better for that.
  Liverpool is one of the safest cities in the country. The fact that I can say that so confidently is a tribute to the people of the city, to Merseyside police and to the other partners in the local crime reduction partnerships. It is no surprise that the crime reduction partnerships are known as Citysafe, because we are proclaiming something of which we are all very proud.
  Since the election of the Labour Government, there has been a 2.5 per cent. fall in recorded crime, with especially large falls in domestic burglary and robbery, although there have been increases in certain other crimes, and I want to concentrate on those. The city of Liverpool has pioneered the use of antisocial behaviour orders, with a concentration on youth disorder and low-level disruptive criminal behaviour.
  For two and a half years, we have had a central antisocial behaviour unit in Liverpool, in which expertise has been gathered and through which cases have been taken to court. One of the first antisocial behaviour orders was made in Liverpool. When orders have been obtained, they have been relatively successful, in that serious problems of antisocial behaviour have been dealt with, but a difficulty has developed over the past couple of years, and in particular over the past six months, as the local authority has allowed staffing levels at the unit to fall, partly because it took its eye off the ball and froze the posts when staff left. That has now changed, and recruitment is going ahead.
  The crime reduction partnerships, the city council and the police have established protocols that mean that all serious cases of antisocial behaviour have to be routed through the antisocial behaviour unit. The problem with that is the one that we had in Liverpool before the orders were available or the unit was set up: the local police and housing officers can pass the cases on to somebody else. It is not appropriate for every case to be passed to a central unit: serious cases should be dealt with at such a unit, where the expertise, the lawyers and the enforcement officers are available to deal with them, but I have always viewed the orders as a tool of early intervention rather than a weapon of last resort, and I am very much afraid that in Liverpool they are becoming a weapon of last resort.
  In a recent article in the Liverpool Echo, the councillor responsible for the antisocial behaviour unit said:
  "We try to do all sorts of things before we serve an ASBO. We only go to court if we have no alternative."
  To me, that is a misunderstanding of the nature and aim of the orders, and I have been doing my bit to try to persuade people that it is more appropriate in more minor cases—which are none the less serious to neighbours who are badly affected—for the local chief inspectors and housing officers to go to the magistrates court and obtain
  82
  the orders, without having to bother the central unit. I would like the city council and the police to co-operate in making that a reality.
  The Bill contains provisions for police training. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is no longer here, because she and I have been developing a dialogue about the importance of police numbers. In Liverpool, police numbers have gradually, gently fallen over the past 10 years—the fall has now stabilised, and there is a planned increase—yet over that period, and especially over the past three or four years, crime has fallen. Increased police numbers do not necessarily reduce crime. I want to discuss why that is, and what the police can do to make themselves more effective.
  In the Merseyside police area, in an experiment in Knowsley—it is not in my constituency, but it is close by—a reorganisation of community policing has led to a 71 per cent. fall in youth nuisance. The experiment was dreamed up by a superintendent and a local chief inspector. There is a permanent police presence. The local officers stay in the area and get to be known by everyone there; there is a response team for emergencies; and a problem-solving approach is taken. It has been remarkably successful. In April, Merseyside police plan to reorganise all their community policing in that way. I think that that will be tremendously effective, and I congratulate them.
  There are still problems in Merseyside police, however, that mean that a lot of resources are wasted that could be used to deal with low-level disorder and youth crime, which is the type of crime that upsets my constituents the most and adds to the impression that crime is increasing, when in fact it is decreasing.
  Over the previous year, the wages of suspended officers cost the Merseyside police £320,000. The police cannot always deal with the cases of suspended officers as quickly as they might like—because of court cases, for instance—but two of the suspended officers had been on suspension for more than two years.
  Suspensions are not the only problem: there are sickness and disciplinary matters. I was approached by a constituent who is a female detective constable who joined the force in January 1978. After 20 years of exemplary service, she was forced to go sick in August 1997, following what can only be described as bullying, sex discrimination and harassment. The grievance that she registered shortly thereafter was resolved only late last year.
  The investigating officers retired, witnesses suddenly found that they themselves were under investigation, and there were medical retirements—all of which cost money and made the case drag on for three years. My constituent is unlikely to be able to return to work, while the officers who subjected her to bullying and intimidation have not even received words of advice. That is not acceptable in the modern police service.
  In a 1999 Merseyside police staff survey, 17 per cent. of police officers said that they had been bullied in the previous year; 59 per cent. had experienced some form of harassment; 4 per cent. had considered leaving the service as a result of sexual, racial or homophobic harassment; and a further 18 per cent. had considered leaving as a result of another form of harassment.

  83
  Those figures are shocking. They show that good forces such as Merseyside police have serious internal management problems and problems of dealing with bullying and harassment that are costing the police, and therefore the taxpayer, hundreds of thousands of pounds a year that could be better directed to dealing with antisocial behaviour on our streets.
  That is why I sometimes disagree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that increasing police numbers is the answer. I would like more police to be recruited in Liverpool, but I want them to do a job for the people of Liverpool, not to spend their time bullying each other, being suspended or being off sick because of what other officers have done, and not being able to provide the service that they should.
  Merseyside police are changing in a good way. They are seriously considering changing the way in which they police our communities. That is necessary, but there is more to do and I hope that they will do it. I want Liverpool city council and the local police to be more proactive in implementing antisocial behaviour orders, taking such cases to court and dealing with those matters as soon as possible.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief because I want to make only two points, either of which could have been made in an intervention. Although the Home Secretary was generous with his time, he obviously wished to proceed with his speech and I was unable to intervene on him. I hope that the Minister will consider the two points in his winding-up speech.
  I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have decided not to vote against Second Reading, but my first point is that any good in the Bill is likely to be negated in my county of Hampshire. The Minister will be familiar with the argument about that, but I want briefly to bring it to his attention again.
  The chief constable of Hampshire readily talks about a crisis in police numbers in the county. It arises from peculiar circumstances. The Government have provided funding for extra police in Hampshire this year, next year and the following year, but our problem is difficulty in recruiting. The crisis is such that the 62 places for which we hoped to recruit this year remain unfilled, and the police authority has approached the Home Office for permission to defer recruiting for those numbers until next year.
  If we take normal wastage into account, Hampshire faces the problem of trying to recruit 300 officers. We fear that that cannot be achieved, and that any merits in the Bill and other comparable measures will be negated by the shortage of police numbers. The root of the problem is that police forces in counties such as Hampshire are simply uncompetitive. In places of high employment, high housing costs and relatively high salaries, the starting conditions in the police force are uncompetitive. I urge the Minister to consider that seriously.
  Attention has already been drawn to the harassment and intimidation by animal rights extremists of scientists and others involved in medical tests. I welcome the Government's intention to introduce new powers to tackle
  84
  that serious problem. I want to make one point that relates to an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I hope that the Government's intentions will be framed in measures that are not selective. Immediate attention is focused on the harassment and intimidation of those involved in medical tests on animals, but they are by no means the only people who are targeted. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the intimidation of scientists whose work relates to nuclear energy or genetically modified food. I hope that the Government will ensure that the measures are not selective and that they will apply to all those who may be affected.
  I appreciate that the subject is controversial, but I want to refer to one specific category—the organised harassment and intimidation of those involved in the fur trade and fur retailing. The Home Office knows about the problem through correspondence and meetings with the victims of animal terrorists. The Minister has had several meetings and corresponded with representatives of the British Fur Trade Association, whose anxieties are real. Every act of violence and harassment that is perpetrated against those who work in animal testing laboratories has also been suffered by those who work in the fur trade. I hope that the Minister will consider that long-running problem and ensure that the Government's measures will also be effective for the fur trade.
  7.24 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate. I want to concentrate on the Bill's provisions for combating crime and disorder. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned that some of my constituents work at Huntingdon Life Sciences, although the company is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I want to consider the harassment and intimidation suffered not only by the workers and shareholders of that company, but by other scientists who work with animals.
  There may be more medical research staff in Cambridge than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. They do valuable work, which enables us to find drugs that alleviate suffering from crippling diseases and helps us to make progress in many other spheres. For many years, Huntingdon Life Sciences has tested drugs and chemicals. Such testing is required by law. I wish that we could test drugs in other ways, without using animals. New methods are becoming available, but the law currently requires drugs to be tested on animals before they are used on humans. I do not believe that there is much choice about the matter. If a new drug is not tested on animals, it must initially be tested on humans. It is difficult to convey that message to some animal rights protesters.
  I am pleased about our progress in the past three years on the use of animals in scientific procedures. There have been recent developments, and the Home Office has an excellent website that promotes the three Rs. They are:
  "reducing the number of animals used, refining procedures to minimise suffering and replacing animal use."
  There will be an end to testing cosmetics, tobacco or alcohol products on animals. Animals will not be used to develop or test offensive weapons, and the use of great apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and

  85
  orang-utans will not be authorised. A great deal of progress has therefore already been made. I hope that animal rights protesters will listen to my comments and to those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, who gave an excellent description of the stringent precautions that are taken to safeguard animals in testing.
  Despite those comments, many of my constituents believe that animal testing is wrong. One lady, who speaks to me regularly, declares that she will refuse drugs because she does not want animals to die so that she can be cured. That is a consistent position, which I respect, although I do not share it. Many others believe that drugs should not be tested on animals, and they protest against the use of animals in tests although they take the drugs that have been developed as a result. I do not condemn that group of people, as long as their protests are peaceful. I believe that everyone has a right to make their opinions known, even if their behaviour is inconsistent. Whatever amendments are made to the Bill, we should ensure the preservation of the right to peaceful protest.
  However, the people whom we are discussing are the others; those who use harassment and intimidation to force their views on workers and shareholders at Huntingdon Life Sciences and other scientific research establishments. I should like the Bill to tackle the activities of that group. It is wholly unacceptable for people who work within the law, carrying out work that is required by Government, to be subject to the harassment that they currently suffer.
  In this financial year, Cambridge police authority has spent £2.6 million on policing demonstrations by animal rights protesters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently authorised a special payment to Cambridgeshire police and I have received a letter from the chief constable of Cambridgeshire that expresses his gratitude for the extra resources.
  I should like to thank the officers of Cambridgeshire police who have been almost unbearably stretched in the past few months. Leave has often had to be cancelled at short notice. The demonstrations have not been easy to police and officers have become involved in ugly incidents as tempers have frayed. Officers have policed those demonstrations extremely well, although many more of them suffer stress and illness as a result of constantly working with insufficient breaks.
  At present, the Bill does not offer much protection from the activities of animal rights protesters, so I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to introduce amendments to make such activities illegal. For instance, at present, it is not illegal for protesters to demonstrate outside the homes of people whom they decide to target. During the past few weeks, that has happened to some of my constituents. In one case, the protesters believed—mistakenly—that one of the companies of which my constituent is a director is a customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences. That is not true, but even if it were, my constituents should not have to suffer harassment and intimidation in their home.
  Not only scientists are being targeted. Protesters have obtained the names and addresses of shareholders in Huntingdon Life Sciences. Last year, a group of members of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection—calling themselves the BUAV reform group—wrote to 1,700 individuals who hold shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences. The letter stated that, from 5 April onwards,
  86
  the group would start to hold 24-hour demonstrations outside shareholders' homes unless they sold their shares by 3 April and sent the reform group a copy of the contract note. That is appalling.
  As a result, the share price of Huntingdon Life Sciences collapsed. That is one of the reasons why the organisation had so much difficulty in raising the finance to continue. Surely, such practices are wholly unacceptable. People should not be intimidated such that they feel that they have to sell their shares. We need to introduce legislation urgently. The legislation should allow company directors and shareholders to use service addresses to prevent activists from obtaining their home addresses.
  It is not only demonstrations outside the homes of scientists and shareholders that cause anxiety. My constituents have suffered from abusive telephone calls, abusive letters, cards, leaflets and graffiti, and posters and stickers on their homes and cars and around the area in which they live. They have also suffered from abusive telephone calls to their relatives, friends and even to their children's schools. Some have been threatened by telephone and letter. A few months ago, cars were fire-bombed in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon.
  The law should clearly define what peaceful protest is. It should be an offence to protest in an intimidatory manner. Shouting abuse and veiled threats, such as, "We know where you live", are unacceptable.
  I understand that the extremists have turned their attention to some of the large drug companies that use Huntingdon Life Sciences—one of which is Glaxo Wellcome. The world is a large place, and if companies experience harassment and intimidation, they will simply move to another country. I am concerned that those extremist protesters will drive medical research abroad. That is ironic indeed, because we have the best regulated research in the world. Less distress is caused to animals in this country than in any other. If the animal rights protesters are successful in their aims, that will result in more distress—not less—and we in Britain will have lost an extremely valuable facility that is important for human health and for the quality of life.
  I conclude by reading a paragraph from a letter from one of my constituents. He writes:
  "We have the most effective legislation in the world to protect experimental animals from undue suffering. It would be ironic if the animal right groups force UK research to take place in another country where the protection for laboratory animals is not as good as in this country. It would also be an economic disaster for the UK if pharmaceutical and biotech companies move their research abroad as a result of increasing difficulties in pursuing animal research in this country."
  I could not agree more.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: For a number of years, my father was research secretary of the British Tuberculosis Association. I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has just said. I hope that one thing that emerges from this debate is the united voice of the House telling some people that the demonstrations and behaviour in which they engage are not acceptable in a mature, democratic society.
  That is where my consensus politics finish, however. At the previous general election, Labour candidates in my constituency and in other constituencies went around with

  87
  pledge cards—rather like blood donor cards. There were several pledges on the cards, described as early promises. My electors thought that was because they would be delivered early. However, we discovered that it was because they were promises that had been made early in the election campaign.
  The promises were pretty modest. The crime promise was not that Labour would increase police numbers or reduce crime, but a modest pledge that it would reduce the time between the arrest and sentencing of young offenders. That pledge—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) scowls, but it was an extremely modest pledge and her party has not managed to deliver it. I suspect that many people in Lincoln and in other constituencies will produce those pledge cards at the next general election and ask why the Labour Government have not delivered that pledge.
  The Government realise that as they are approaching a general election they need to be seen to be doing something about crime. This measure is very much a "We are approaching a general election and we need to be seen to be doing something about crime" Bill. I say that because if we consider the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we would be entitled to describe it as a "We have just been elected and we need to be seen to be doing something about crime" Bill.
  The first part of that Act deals with antisocial behaviour orders. I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) who said that those orders seem to be being used only as a last resort. Since their introduction, they have been used on only two occasions in the whole Thames valley area.
  Since the debates on the Queen's Speech, I have done some research on that matter. Everyone tries to blame someone else. Magistrates express their concern that human rights legislation would mean that they could not introduce ASBOs. They say that if the police and local authorities had proposed ASBOs, they would have considered such cases on their merits. The chief constable of the Thames Valley force, Sir Charles Pollard, tells me that the police find the use of ASBOs difficult because of the need
  "to prove that there is a pattern of behaviour which continues over a period of time and which cannot be dealt with adequately by the prosecution of those concerned for a single one-off incident or criminal act … the above requirement, plus the cumbersome evidential requirements that are inevitable whenever an adversarial judicial process is used to resolve a social problem, mean that ASBOs are not likely to be the preferred option when alternatives exist."
  We are entitled to point out to the Government that the 1998 Act is a dead-letter for my constituents—it simply does not work. As the chief constable acknowledges:
  "in Thames Valley Police area or elsewhere, there remain a significant number of people who have the effect of actively degrading the safety, environment and confidence of the immediate vicinity of where they live. Many but not all of these people are young."
  In his speech, the Home Secretary said that the Bill would bear down on yobbish behaviour. However, if legislation already introduced by the Government fails to bear down on such behaviour and is a dead-letter because the police and local authorities are not using it, what hope is there that the provisions in the Bill will be implemented?
  88
  I suspect that one reason why the police and local authorities do not use ASBOs is that they have to pay for the orders. The Crown Prosecution Service has no role. If a prosecution is brought for other offences, the CPS has a budget to pay for it. There is still some confusion about who bears the cost of bringing cases involving antisocial behaviour orders before the courts and about who bears the cost if there is an appeal. ASBOs are not being obtained, and the Government are sadly neglecting other aspects of the youth justice system.
  This week, I received a letter from the clerk to the Oxfordshire magistrates that makes rather sad reading. She tells me that on 19 January—just 10 days ago—
  "the magistrates considered an application by Oxfordshire County Council, for an order, in accordance with S25 Children Act 1989, authorising them to keep a fifteen year old boy in Secure Accommodation.
  The court was told that the boy, who turned fifteen last November, had been voluntarily accommodated at a local children's home since 8th January. However, as he regularly absconded from the children's home in order to obtain illegal drugs it was feared he would suffer significant harm unless he could be contained.
  In addition, the boy was at risk of causing himself serious harm, having, on 16th January, repeatedly run headlong at a wall and later attempted to hang himself using an electric flex.
  Information provided to the court confirmed that the boy used a variety of drugs, including heroin which he injected intravenously. As he was known to share needles doctors recommended he urgently needed a medial examination and to be screened for communicable diseases.
  In the absence of any authority to restrain the boy he had absconded from the children's home on a daily basis often being returned to the home by the police. More than once he has been found staggering along the street in a distressed state with blood dripping down his arms from intravenous drugs use.
  After contacting over fifty residential rehabilitation centres, social workers had identified only one centre in the whole country that was prepared to take a person aged under sixteen. This establishment is in Lincolnshire and will not have a bed available until March 2001.
  In the interim period the Oxfordshire County Council sought an order enabling them to hold the boy in Secure Accommodation. This order was granted by the Magistrates who were then horrified to learn that there was currently no bed available in a secure unit anywhere in the country. Social workers therefore had no alternative but to return the boy to the children's home until a bed becomes available."
  There is little point in the Government introducing further measures to deal with young people if comparatively recent legislation simply is not working. It is pointless introducing legislation on curfews if no curfew order has yet been implemented. There seems to be no suggestion that local authorities are keen to introduce curfews. Indeed, all the representations that I have received from local authorities state that they have considerable reservations about introducing curfews.
  Although some parts of the Bill may well be worth while and commendable, the Government have to accept that there is considerable skepticism—
  Mr. Charles Clarke: And cynicism.
  Mr. Baldry: There is considerable scepticism and cynicism. People living in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House are sceptical and cynical about the fact that the Government have been prolific in introducing measures, spinning them and talking about flagship legislation. However, until people

  89
  can see things happening on the ground and local residents can see that the tearaways, teenagers and young thugs who daily make their lives a misery are being dealt with, they will believe that all such legislation is simply spin and no substance.
  7.44 pm
  Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Bill contains many measures that will be widely welcomed and which many people think are long overdue, such as making kerb crawling and hit-and-run driving arrestable offences. Much has been said about animal rights activities, and it is important to recognise that it is not just the laboratories that have been, and are, under attack by animal rights demonstrators.
  There is a guinea-pig farm on the border of my constituency and the activities of animal rights demonstrators has been causing great concern to some of my constituents. I acknowledge that many people sincerely hold the view that there should be no animal experimentation whatever—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I am sure that we all look forward to the day when such experiments are no longer necessary. It is a fundamental right of citizens to take part in peaceful protests, but it cannot be right that people are terrorised in their own homes.
  In my constituency, as in other parts of the country, demonstrators have targeted the homes of those connected with animal rearing and testing establishments. They live in continual fear, and it is not only those who have such connections who are affected—the neighbours of employees, contractors and sometimes whole streets of people have their lives disrupted.
  I received a letter from a young father, who said:
  "Today is Christmas day and I have just spent the last two hours playing outside in the street with my three children on their new bicycles. A nice picture … except for the fact that a dozen Animal Rights protesters joined us and about the same number of Police officers."
  My constituent went on to say:
  "My children demand the protection that I as a father should give. We have the choice to live in a quiet cul de sac and we have the right to freedom of movement. At this moment in time we do not have this."
  The farmer and his neighbours suffer from the protesters' actions. During most of last Saturday night, they had to listen to large explosions that took place on their land. Those explosions were not only frightening to humans, but, I suspect, were pretty frightening to guinea-pigs and other animals as well, yet it does not enter the heads of the animal rights protesters that they might be harming the animals that they are protesting about.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will consider amending the Bill to try to introduce measures that will give the police the powers so that the lives of people, such as my constituents, will not be blighted by threats, intimidation and fear.
  I turn now to other proposals in the Bill. It is right to give the police extra powers to tackle disorder in public places. However, it is important that in proposing to raise the age involved in the child curfew scheme and tackling the yob culture, we remember that we are talking about
  90
  measures to tackle a problem caused by a very small minority of young people. It is important to remember that most young people today, and in any generation, are great. They are enthusiastic, caring, law-abiding members of society and, too often, wrongly condemned by some older people. However, today's young people have more pressures on them. The availability on our streets of alcohol and drugs has increased over the years.
  I welcome the proposals to tackle under-age drinking, but we need to continue to consider the level of excise duty on alcohol, not only because I represent the capital of brewing, but because of the effect on our young people of the sale of illegally imported alcohol. Most young people are well behaved, and we should listen to them and try to meet their needs, but a small minority cause intolerable disruption. The Bill will give extra powers to the police to address the problems that can wreak havoc on local neighbourhoods.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the extension of curfews could help parents to support their children when the parents may be in despair because their offspring will not accept their care and advice. I hope that they will find the backing of curfew orders helpful.
  The Bill contains good proposals to make the licensing laws more effective. Several hon. Members have mentioned the crime figures. We sometimes think that violent crime affects only the elderly. They are certainly frightened about the crime statistics, especially when we talk about increases in violent crime. It is important to recognise that most violent crime is perpetrated by one young person, usually male, on another. I hope that the measures to tackle the excessive consumption of alcohol will have an impact on that violent crime.
  In supporting the Bill, including the proposals to tidy up and strengthen laws relating to alcohol abuse, I hope that, in the near future, legislation will be introduced to modernise fully our rather antiquated licensing laws.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I support the specific provision in the Bill that relates to the handling of DNA samples collected as part of a mass screening inquiry.
  I raise this issue because of a constituency case that I brought before the House in an Adjournment debate on 10 March 1999. It was about my constituents, Robert and Gill Smith and their late daughter, Louise. To put it briefly, Louise left home on the Christmas eve of 1995 to go with her friends to a local night club, and she never came back. On Christmas day, her family reported to the police that she had not returned home and a long investigation followed.
  There was a mass search for Louise's body and it was eventually found eight weeks later. A DNA sample was taken and the police were faced with the task of trying to match that sample as part of their inquiry. The largest mass screening that had ever been undertaken began and, by the following April, 400 tests had been carried out on local young men. By November, the figure had reached 2,000 and, by the following Easter, it had reached 4,500. Eventually, along with other elements of proof, the DNA match enabled the killer to be identified and he was convicted of this dreadful crime. As the Home Secretary suggested earlier, the DNA was also used to clear the innocent early in the inquiry and to ensure that the police were not diverted down a false avenue.

  91
  However, the family were disturbed to learn that those 4,500 samples could not be retained even if those who had given them wanted them to be kept because the police were obliged to destroy the samples. I wish to explain the scale of the effort involved. The samples were collected over 16 months. The estimated cost of collecting and analysing each swab is a little under £40. If we add to that the costs of cameras, film, cool boxes and other items, the whole inquiry involved about £250,000 of police expenditure. It also involved the expenditure of police time and the time of the volunteers who gave the samples and who in most cases would probably not have had any problem if the samples had been retained with their informed consent.
  Louise's parents came to me about the issue and they were determined that something positive should emerge out of something so dreadful. They launched a petition with the aid of a local newspaper, The Gazette, and my support, and it was not an easy campaign to run. It is easy to obtain signatures against a proposal to shut a hospital, but it was difficult to explain the complexities of this issue given the intense personal pain that the family felt. They stood out in shopping centres, explaining to passers by why the campaign was necessary, and they accumulated nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition that I presented to the House in March 1999.
  The following day I had the Adjournment debate to which I referred earlier and to which the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), responded. He was very generous in giving time to the family that day and they very much appreciated that. He assured us then that legislation would be forthcoming on this issue, and I am pleased to welcome the fact that the promise has been honoured in clause 81.
  I have looked at the Bill and the Library's notes on it and would like clarification on one point. When the Home Office consulted on this issue in July 1999, it said:
  "The police believe that amendment of section 64"—
  of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—
  "to permit the retention of samples, and the DNA profiles derived from samples, for use in future investigations would be mutually beneficial as volunteers would need to approached … on only one occasion."
  Such an approach would also be beneficial to the police.
  The consultation document added:
  "The practicalities … would need to be considered but clearly appropriate safeguards would be required to ensure, as a minimum, that samples were indeed being given and retained voluntarily".
  That point is covered in the Bill, but the consultation document also refers to the need to ensure that
  "the right to withdraw consent at any time was available."
  That was the Home Office's view in the summer of 1999, and safeguards are valuable in ensuring that the people providing the samples willingly give consent. We want them to provide samples and they are more likely to do that if there are safeguards on the giving of consent. The Home Office rightly said that they would be able to withdraw their consent if, for example, they feel uncertain about the use of the sample or another reason.
  People who are told that, if they give a sample they will never be able to revoke their consent, are less likely to consent in the first place. We want them to consent,
  92
  so I agree with the position that the Home Office took in July 1999. However, clause 81 suggests that consent, once given, can never be revoked. When the Minister sums up, will he comment on why there has been that change in approach?
  I do not want to detract from the warm welcome that I give to the fact that the Government have introduced the specific provision to deal with DNA samples and mass screening in which consent can be voluntarily given. I welcome the fact that the Government have honoured their promise to introduce such a change in the law.
  7.56 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Over the past three and a half years, the Government and the police working together have undoubtedly had a considerable measure of success in bringing about significant reductions in those crimes that affect ordinary people most—domestic burglary and car crime. Domestic burglary has fallen by 28 per cent. since the general election, and car crime by 20 per cent. In my constituency, the reductions in the levels of these crimes have been far more impressive, and are well above the national average. I therefore place on record my sincere thanks to Chief Superintendent Stuart Kirby for the superb job that he and his officers do in tackling crime throughout the Morecambe and Lancaster area.
  Despite the fact that overall crime has fallen by 7 per cent. nationally since 1997, crime, the fear of crime and violence and disorderly conduct remain a matter of grave concern to me and many of my constituents. I therefore welcome many of the measures in the Bill, because they provide the police with an additional range of tools that will greatly assist them in carrying out their extremely difficult and dangerous task of protecting the public from criminal activity and bringing those who transgress the law to justice.
  The introduction of fixed-penalty notices for offences, such as drunken and disorderly behaviour, will provide an imaginative option for the police to deal more effectively with the yobbish behaviour that pervades our towns and cities particularly at the weekends and on Saturday night. The further measures to combat alcohol-related disorder are also most welcome. The ability of the police immediately to close down disorderly licensed premises will prove a potent weapon in dealing with those establishments that are notorious for violent, drunken and loutish behaviour.
  The measures that will allow local authorities to prevent the consumption of alcohol in inappropriate public places will certainly receive widespread public support in my constituency, where we faced a problem with drinking in public places. It took about seven years to introduce a byelaw to stop it happening. These measures will speed things up and will enable action to be taken more quickly. I also welcome the toughening up of the law relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18.
  Further measures to combat crime in this wide-ranging Bill—such as the travel restrictions on drugs traffickers, the measures to prevent the intimidation of witnesses, child curfew schemes, the police's additional powers of seizure, new powers of arrest and detention and the new procedures relating to the taking and retention of DNA samples and fingerprints—all have the common aim of

  93
  strengthening the position of the police and other law-enforcement agencies in their continual battle against crime. As such, they should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
  However, the full potential of the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly not be realised unless they are accompanied by substantial increases in police numbers.
  The public's confidence in the ability of the police to win the war against crime will not be restored until the police are able to provide a regular, high profile and visible presence on the streets of our towns and cities, particularly in the evenings and at night. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority in my constituency feel it essential to have more police on the beat. I make no apology to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for saying that I entirely support that view.
  Having said that, unlike Conservative Members, who try to give the impression that everything on law and order was fine when they were in power, I do not seek to lay blame on this Government for the situation that they inherited from their predecessors. It is a fact that, in common with the rest of our public services, the police suffered underinvestment under the Tories, and as a result police numbers have steadily declined since 1993.
  Mr. Heald: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to give a false impression. Surely she is aware that the number of constables on the beat—the people about whom she is concerned—went up every year under the Conservatives. Police numbers rose by 15,000.
  Miss Smith: One can say many things with statistics. This Government are committed to additional funding over the next three years—huge Home Office spending. Will the hon. Gentleman intervene to tell me whether his party will match that spending if elected?
  Mr. Heald: We have made it perfectly clear that one would have to be a fool to think that the Conservatives would not match the sort of budget that the Labour party has set.
  Miss Smith: I am not quite sure whether that was a yes or a no.
  If, when they came to power, the Government had been faced only with finding additional resources to fund extra police, I would have demanded that it be made available immediately. However, as all Labour Members know, as do the public, when the Conservatives left office in 1997, virtually all our public services were in crisis and the national debt was spiralling out of control. Such was the Tory legacy. In case Conservative Members should delude themselves that people have forgotten their miserable record on public services, let me assure them that they have not. If any should do so, we shall certainly remind them. Given such a background, the Government's tardiness in dealing with the issue of police numbers is, if not acceptable, at least clearly understandable.
  Virtually everyone agrees that those who commit crimes should be caught, convicted and punished appropriately, but what people really want is not to be a victim of crime in the first place. Extra police on the streets can play a vital part in a cohesive crime prevention strategy. Apart from the physical deterrent of a visible
  94
  police presence, the intelligence gleaned by police patrolling on foot cannot be replicated by officers sitting in vehicles patrolling huge areas.
  Even if accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of police on the beat, the measures in the Bill are by no means all that needs to be done to address criminal behaviour. The link between criminal activity and high unemployment, deprivation and social exclusion is now almost universally accepted. Although such behaviour can never be condoned, it does not take too much stretching of the imagination to understand how people living in areas suffering from such problems can be drawn into a life of crime.
  I am well aware that tackling social exclusion is at the centre of the Government's social policy and that successful delivery of it will make the biggest single contribution to crime prevention. However, there is still a long way to go. In the meantime, areas of severe social deprivation will benefit most from high profile policing. That point was made time and again at recent public meetings that I held in the west end of Morecambe and in Heysham. Although local police have undertaken to do as much as they can to raise their profile in such areas, limited resources will restrict their achievements.
  One other point that came from those public meetings was concern about the small number of antisocial behaviour orders issued to date. Although antisocial behaviour is a real problem in my constituency, only one such order has been issued. There appears to be a reluctance and lack of enthusiasm in the police and on the local council to pursue that course of action. They say that it is because of the time and resources required to collect the evidence. I am well aware that that is not unique to my constituency; indeed, many Members have mentioned it in the debate. What measures are in place to audit the operation of antisocial behaviour orders legislation, and what remedial action can be taken if it is not properly applied?
  For far too long, the quality of life of many has been wrecked by the fear of crime, especially of violent crime. They have become virtual prisoners in their own homes because they feel that it is no longer safe for them to walk the streets, visit their friends, use public transport or undertake a whole host of other activities that would constitute a normal life.
  I quote as an example one of my constituents, Mr. Kenneth Appleby, who came to see me about the serious problems with antisocial behaviour in the Kingsway area of Heysham. He has been the victim of repeated attacks of extreme vandalism, believed to be by children. His car was covered in black paint on two occasions, even when it was on his drive and the gate was locked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I should like to follow the path of responsible opposition taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in welcoming some of the Bill's provisions, subject to appropriate scrutiny. Such a course was not always taken by the then Opposition prior to 1997, but is appropriate for a criminal justice Bill containing a variety of measures.

  95
  In my comments on the generality of the Government's policies on law and order, I would not want to be taken as opposing some of the individual measures which deserve a fair wind, subject to appropriate scrutiny. I am thinking of two provisions. The provisions relating to DNA could be an important step in assisting the administration of justice, making it more efficient, and in helping the police investigate crime and the courts avoid miscarriages of justice. They will also help in cases such as the tragic one of Louise Smith, properly raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
  The Government's provisions on animal rights protests also deserve a fair wind. Indeed, to go a little further, I very much endorse the Home Secretary's approach on the matter. He was clearly speaking for Members on both sides of the House in taking such a robust approach. People who are engaged in research on animals are doing very important work. They deserve recognition for the importance of their work and certainly deserve the full protection of the law. I should like to add one more point to those already made in the debate.
  Besides the illegal protests, threats and intimidation, we have seen in the name of the animal rights protest in recent times some serious and horrific acts of violence against innocent members of the public. That was brought home to me some weeks ago when, in the village where I grew up, a member of a well-known local family who was working as a secretary in an estate agents' office opened a parcel only to find it explode in her face, damaging one of her eyes. I know that that was a terrible experience for that lady. It must be deprecated. The full weight and force of law and order must be brought against those who participate in criminal offences of that general character, so I shall give a fair wind to anything that helps to deal with such problems.
  I now turn to more controversial matters—in particular, child curfew orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was good enough to mention the amendment that I tabled to the Crime and Disorder Bill two years ago which would have extended the age range up to 16. The amendment was rejected out of hand by the Government. I am pleased, however, that the Government have now adopted the proposal. I am slightly surprised because, notwithstanding the Government's attitude originally, in recent weeks and months I have seen the proposal being trailed as the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme and one of the flagship measures in the Queen's Speech. It has been trailed across newspaper front pages as one of the Government's principal so-called solutions for the problem of low-level disorder.
  I am surprised that the Government have placed such weight on the proposal, but perhaps the change was inevitable. The success of the order in its original form—it was restricted to children of up to 10 years of age—was not entirely self-evident because no such order was made. In addition, the number of antisocial behaviour orders made was pitifully small. Against that background, the Government tried initially to argue that the number of orders made was not the measure of success. Instead, they tried to argue that the orders were a success because knowledge of their existence deterred youngsters from taking part in the activities that the orders were directed against. That assumes a knowledge of the law and a
  96
  degree of sophistication that is beyond most under-10s. I am pleased that the Government have abandoned that line of argument.
  The Government are still clinging to antisocial behaviour orders. These orders were the flagship of the Government's Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In their original form, the child curfew orders were only the supporting act. The star turn was the antisocial behaviour order. It was trailed by the Labour party when in opposition and it was included in amendments to Bills. It was highlighted as being the linchpin of the "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" campaign. It led to many visits by Ministers to inner-city risk estates and to the launching of many press releases and initiatives. It was to be the answer to disorder.
  The order may have been the flagship, but it was beached long ago. There have been numerous attempts to relaunch it, none of which has been successful. At first, the Government tried to argue that antisocial behaviour orders had been successful. When so few were made, the Government began to try to find someone to blame. By implication, the Government tried to blame magistrates. When it became apparent that magistrates were not imposing the orders because so few applications for them were being made, by implication the Government tried to blame the police and local authorities.
  The Home Secretary even tried to blame civil liberties lawyers, one of his favourite targets. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful in that direction. There is no evidence that they have had anything to do with the failure of antisocial behaviour orders. The Minister of State, who has taken his place on the Government Front Bench, even tried to blame the Opposition. He said that we should not have opposed the orders in Committee. He missed the simple point that the Opposition did not oppose them. We simply said that they would not be of much use. That has not been entirely disproved.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): If the hon. Gentleman considers that antisocial behaviour orders are full of problems and to be deprecated, is he looking to a future Conservative Government to repeal them?
  Mr. Clappison: It is pathetic that Ministers rely on such an argument. As far as I am aware, no one has said that a future Conservative Government, which I hope will come about, will repeal the orders. Ministers must face the fact—the Home Secretary made the point—that the orders have not lived up to expectations. Will the Minister say that about 150 antisocial behaviour orders—if that is the number—over two years have delivered on Labour's promises to tackle disorder in our inner cities? Does he think that all the disorder is being caused by 150 individuals? If so, that is pathetic.
  We have a small foretaste of the Government's re-election campaign. Their orders have failed and the Government have failed to give people what they were led to believe they would get. The Government have now made a last-ditch attempt to blame the Conservative party.
  Once again, law and order is being taken from the top shelf, dusted down and put in front of the electorate. It is an ingredient of the Government's failed campaign. We know that an election is coming when we hear the Government start to talk about the yob culture. There can

  97
  be no more convincing evidence that the Government's policies over three and a half to four years have failed to deliver what the people were led to believe they would get, which was decent law and order. They are now trying to cover up for their failures. Given the way in which it has been presented, the Bill is the most cogent and compelling admission of the Government's failure. They deserve to get a kick up the backside from the voters for their failure, and they will.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I declare an interest: I am a barrister.
  The Bill is a substantial measure. It contains 132 clauses and it is divided into seven parts, one of which is divided into three chapters. I shall be brief because I wish to speak on only one of those chapters, which relates to alcohol-related crime. I shall do so because of the crime figures in my constituency, which includes Wellingborough and Rushden.
  Over the past few years we have heard from some Opposition Members that crime has risen, but it has not risen in my constituency. Indeed, it has fallen year on year since the election. In the past year it has fallen by 5 per cent. overall. There has been a fall in auto-crime of more than 12 per cent. The fall in burglaries has been nearly 22 per cent. In target areas, where Home Office money has been invested in certain estates, there has been a fall in crime of about 25 per cent.
  Some hon. Members have traded their local evening newspaper headlines. There have been headlines in my constituency. On 12 January, there was a report headed "Dramatic Drop in Burglaries". That was a drop in the Christmas month 1999 to 2000 of 50 per cent., and there has been a drop of 62 per cent. over the past two years. There is a fall not only in burglaries but in violent crime. At the end of last year, there was a month-on-month reduction of 31 per cent.
  Crime is falling and police numbers are increasing. Nearly 50 new full-time officers joined the Northampton-shire police force during the six months between April and September last year. These facts and figures are causes of considerable celebration, but not complacency. Although the figures overall are good, there are disturbing trends within them.
  Violent crimes in licensed premises rose from 51 in 1999 to 71 in 2000, which is a rise of 40 per cent. I understand that we may be getting off lightly in Wellingborough. It appears that about 13,000 violent incidents take place in or near licensed premises every week. More than 30 per cent. of violent attacks that involve strangers occur in or near pubs and clubs. That means people being bottled or glassed, hit with pool cues, knifed, headbutted, kicked or stamped on. People are attacked inside pubs when they are having a drink or attacked outside when they are trying to go home.
  If we are to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, we must tackle more than poverty, drug addiction, homelessness and helplessness, the areas in which crime breeds. We must be tough on alcohol abuse as well. This abuse makes its criminal manifestations known in many forms. There is drink-driving, domestic violence, being drunk and disorderly and drunk and incapable in public.
  98
  In Wellingborough, these events take place outside the pubs and between the pubs and on the streets as people walk to clubs.
  We have developed anti-crime orders and strategies; we have consulted and there has been a full household survey; and we know what people in Wellingborough fear most about alcohol-related crime. They are concerned about the rising crime that takes place outside licensed premises. They are concerned especially about youngsters who drink too much. They are concerned most of all about kicking-out time, when dozens of youngsters spill into the streets at the same time, often intent on walking to the same night club.
  Are the measures included in the chapter designed to curb drinking, youthful drinking and violent crime induced by alcohol going to work? One has only to note the particular concern in my constituency to realise an inherent irony. We are concerned about licensed premises, and such concern means that a system of control and regulation should already be in place. If licensing already exists, one should have a system that works to prevent violent crime from arising. Manifestly, however, that has not been the case: violent crime is endemic throughout the country and is focused on areas outside pubs and clubs.
  I shall look at a few practical problems and see whether the measures in the Bill will address them. I shall deal with just four features of alcohol-influenced violence: first, the pressures from breweries to sell more alcohol; secondly, under-age drinkers; thirdly, door-to-door management of pubs and clubs; and, finally, licensing hours.
  I shall start with the breweries, not because I want to take on big business but simply because huge pressure is placed on pub managers to sell more alcohol. There is nothing surprising about that; that is the job of breweries. They raise targets year on year. The bonuses of pub managers are linked to those targets and when managers fail to meet targets, breweries immediately suggest that they undertake promotions. Those promotions always focus on youngsters and, increasingly, on high-percentage spirits.
  A pub manager may not want to follow those promotions because he does not want to deal with the resulting drunkenness but, with no viable alternative and with bonuses at stake, the pressure can become irresistible. One then has happy hours, alcopops and the promotion of shots, such as Aftershocks in red or blue, and the pornography, in my view, of adverts offering two double vodkas and a Red Bull at a cut price—which is four shots in one go. Inevitably, all of that encourages binge drinking, especially by youngsters.
  That leads me on to the second feature that I mentioned—the risks of alcohol-influenced violent crime are surely exacerbated if there are inadequate controls on under-age drinking. I am not seeking to take any high moral ground. Like, I suspect, most people in this country, when I was 15 or 16 I thought that it was a positive challenge to try to get served in pubs. With the maturity of hindsight, I can say that if that remains the reality for youth today, if advertisements put pressure on young people to buy more high-alcohol spirits, and if pressure is put on pub managers to sell those drinks, it is essential that we take sensible measures to try to restrict the potentially adverse consequences.

  99
  That leads me to the third factor, for one such measure would be to tackle the problem of door-to-door pub management. We need more than bar management to try to stop someone selling alcohol to people who are getting drunk or are already drunk. We need more than door management to kick them out or stop them coming in if they are drunk. We need door-to-door management to alert neighbouring pubs and clubs to the problem of a drunk customer who is about to arrive. If there is one bad publican in a high street, all the other publicans there can suffer, as drunks then turn up at their public houses, making drink-related violence real and obvious.
  Finally, those risks are exacerbated by the current licensing hours. Last orders are uniformly at 11 pm and drinking up takes place at 11.20 pm. Large numbers of youngsters are therefore all deposited in the street at the same time, often intent on going to the same club. Many of them will have sunk the last few rounds as quickly as possible to make sure that they downed them before closing time.
  There is a fairly potent cocktail of problems. There are four features of drink-related activity outside licensed premises that need to be addressed. We need to see action on brewery promotions, under-age drinking, door-to-door management and out-of-date, poorly thought out licensing hours. The question is whether the Bill, in its relevant chapter, deals with those factors. I have come to the conclusion that it does so in part and after a fashion. It does so only in part because it does not contain any provisions on licensing hours, on which reform is now long overdue, and because it does not say anything about the compulsory use of proof-of-age cards. The proof-of-age scheme promoted by the council in my constituency did not meet with the marked approval of many of those selling alcohol.
  The Bill deals with those factors after a fashion because the tool that we are using to close down disorderly pubs—although welcomed by the police in my constituency—is blunt and indirect. It puts pressure on the publican, but does not target minds, as it should in my view, or the breweries or the specific problem of door-to-door management.
  Those on the Front Bench are routinely challenged at Question Time about who is responsible for crime. Criminals are responsible for crime. In this case, it is drunken thugs. Crime is not the responsibility of Government, nor indeed is it their responsibility to do everything they can to prevent it. We live in a free world and sometimes the price of freedom is exposing ourselves to the risk of criminal activity. There is always a balance of liberty against justice and victims' rights, but liberty is not so important as to allow people to be drunk and then be violent, nor to sell alcohol to those who are drunk and may become violent. The liberty of us all is the ability to go to the pub and drink in peace.
  8.25 pm
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, as I believe that the Bill offers a package of measures that will help the police and others to deal effectively with a range of disorderly and criminal behaviour. In doing so, it builds on the excellent Crime and Disorder Act 1998 pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
  100
  According to the British crime survey, crime has gone down by 10 per cent. by since 1997; recorded crime, which is based on police figures, has gone down by 7 per cent. The Bill gives the police further powers to build on that very good start. The Government are committed to reducing and preventing crime; part of the strategy for doing that is to support the police, who are at the front line in grappling with crime. While being far from expert in the field, I have certainly gained more personal insight into the problems confronting police forces through my participation in the past year in the excellent police parliamentary scheme. I have discussed the Bill with the police and, in particular, with my own force in Cambridgeshire.
  Tonight, however, I shall voice more of a constituency concern. For some time, I have been extremely concerned about the level and nature of protests by animal rights activists against employees and others associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences. I am not alone in that. I am proud that five Cambridgeshire MPs on both sides of the House have expressed their concern tonight—as I am doing—and have written to the Home Secretary. They are pleased to welcome the extra resources that the Government are providing.
  Huntingdon Life Sciences is not in my constituency, but I am none the less concerned. We have already heard excellent speeches on the topic, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). However, the most outstanding speech was given by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
  I speak on behalf of those in my constituency of Peterborough who work for or have connections with HLS. Like the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, I believe that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough to protect my constituents and his. Over the past three years, individuals, including my constituents, have suffered a horrifying range and number of illegal—I believe—tactics used by animal rights extremists. I use that word advisedly. I shall give the House a selection of complaints and abuses in relation to which my constituents have e-mailed and spoken to me and have come to visit me in my surgery. It is a long list, and I shall read only part of it.
  The list includes demonstrations outside people's homes; verbal abuse using a loudhailer outside the home or workplace; goods and services ordered in an employee's name, and hoax free advertisements placed, resulting in one person receiving 50 response calls in one day; abusive graffiti, posters and stickers on people's homes and cars and in the area where they live; abusive telephone calls to relatives, friends and children's schools—the lowest of the low, in my view; telephone calls threatening to kill or injure the employee, partner or children; and letters making similar threats. It makes people feel dirty and contaminated even to touch such writing paper.
  The list continues, with arrangements for the undertaker to call to collect the employee's body or the body of a child or partner; physical assaults on employees and their partners, including spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes; the smashing of all the windows in a person's home while the family was at home watching television; sledgehammer attacks to a car when the owner was in it; the fire-bombing of a car parked next to a house; the fire-bombing of sheds and garages; bomb hoaxes; and nail bombs in the post.

  101
  Most people would say that all those acts were criminal, but at present not all of them are. Some of them fall within the current definition of peaceful protest. My constituents do not understand that. I would be the first to defend the right to peaceful protest, but there is a world of difference between what most civilised, ordinary people understand by the term "peaceful protest" and the vile, evil acts of aggression and intimidation that I have listed.
  People living in a democracy, as we should be grateful that we do, have a right to expect protection from such acts. Our police must have the powers to provide that protection. The House must examine how the law can more clearly define peaceful protest, and we must make it an offence to protest in an overtly threatening manner.
  Finally, I shall comment briefly on what some have called secondary targeting—the targeting by activists not only of direct employees of HLS and their families but of HLS's suppliers, customers, shareholders and company directors at their homes. I understand that the Bill may not be the best vehicle for all the changes that may be necessary, and that amendment of existing legislation may be more appropriate.
  However, we must act urgently to restrict access to the addresses of such groups, and secondary targeting should be an offence. Surely it is unacceptable that, as has happened, electricians should feel compelled to cancel their work for a targeted firm, or cleaners should feel personally threatened if they continue with their honourable day-to-day work at the firm. Of course, it is another matter if they choose to dissociate themselves from the targeted firm, but that must be their free choice and action, and it must be protected.
  I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I trust that in Committee these issues and others will duly receive careful cross-party consideration. That would be the best approach. I know that serious concerns have been expressed by civil liberties and human rights organisations about individual freedoms and rights, which we will debate at a later stage. Such concerns should not be used to legitimise the serious infringement of liberty or the harassment and the intimidation which I—and, I am glad to say, others—have described in our debate.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), whose powerful speech concentrated on alcohol-related violence and crime and the parts of the Bill dealing with that scourge and blight on so many of our communities.
  In particular, I shall consider the practical implementation of clause 32, which deals with sales of alcohol to those who are under age. The explanatory notes are instructive about the meaning of the clause, which increases the responsibility of all licence holders, whether they be on-licence holders or off-licence holders, to seek proof of age. The notes state:
  "The defendant will be deemed to have taken 'all reasonable steps' if he asked the customer for evidence of his age."
  They continue:
  "The intention is to ensure that licensees and their staff seek proof of age before making sales."
  I want to examine how we can make that process of seeking proof of age as smooth and as routine as possible. Only if that is achieved will the Bill work in practice.
  102
  Many of the alcohol crime measures contained in the Bill were previewed in the White Paper on liquor licensing reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly said that we must not forget the other measures proposed in that White Paper. In particular, flexibility of licensing hours was designed as an anti-crime measure. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the kebab shops that grace his constituency. He told us about one street in particular. I would almost bet that his local police will tell him that any violence outside the kebab shops occurs at closing time for the pubs or clubs. I hope that, before long—and certainly before the Bill completes its passage—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House on the consultation undertaken by the Government on the White Paper on liquor licensing reform and again commit them to implementing its broad principles.
  I am a member of the all-party beer group and am currently a member of a panel that is taking evidence on proof-of-age cards and their practical implementation. The country currently has three schemes: the validate scheme, which is especially prevalent in the north of England and Scotland; the citizen card scheme, which is backed by the retail industry; and the "Prove It" card, which is backed by the Portman group. As was pointed out in the validate scheme evidence, use of the cards applies not only to alcohol, as age restrictions apply to a range of products.
  The all-party beer group has received evidence from more than 15 organisations, ranging from the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Association of Convenience Stores. Common to the evidence is a concern about the difficulties associated with a plethora of schemes that work to different standards. The Association of Chief Police Officers perhaps put that view most cogently. It stated:
  "This lack of a consistent standard across the country makes it difficult to train staff as to what to look out for. It also makes it comparatively easy to produce forged cards thus undermining the value of the scheme."
  ACPO went on to state:
  "The mere fact that there are so many different methods in use … detracts from their usefulness as a reliable tool."
  The Association of Convenience Stores pointed out that routine requests for proof of age would be a big cultural change for retailers and publicans, and that, unlike America, Britain has no culture of proving age. ACS argued that requests for identification in this country sometimes cause offence and can lead to staff intimidation. The Portman group commented on the voluntary schemes that are currently in operation and referred to a survey in which 59 per cent. of managers said that they had suffered verbal abuse as a consequence of asking for proof of age. Of the managers questioned, 52 per cent. said that they had suffered shoplifting as a result of having made such requests.
  We must do more to help retailers, publicans and youngsters themselves. The British Retail Consortium pointed out that if a scheme is especially strong in one area, youngsters who travel away from that area may find that their card becomes useless and is no longer recognised. Such factors could demotivate young people who are considering whether to apply for a card.
  No one is asking the Government to introduce a national identity card, but people are asking them to use their influence to try to bring some coherence to

  103
  arrangements in respect of proof of age. The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers accepts that the Government might be reluctant to endorse a single commercial venture, but believes that they could set out criteria against which schemes can be judged. The ALMR states:
  "This should include the geographic and age-related coverage of the scheme. Ideally, ALMR would wish to see a national scheme that adopts an integrated approach to proof of age and is not simply restricted to the age of 18. Other criteria would include anti-forgery measures, including a secure photo and date of birth. Effective schemes could be granted a Government kite-mark or badge of approval."
  The attitude of young people to proof-of-age cards is interesting. No opinion survey has been conducted recently, but the qualitative and anecdotal evidence suggests that such cards are popular among young people. The Local Government Association says that experience among local authorities
  "supports the view that the majority of young people would welcome the introduction of a national proof of age scheme."
  It goes on to say:
  "The marketing of the scheme would be vital to its success, however it is possible to make the card an 'attractive' item for the individual to carry thus it becomes a 'must have' item for every young person."
  The National Union of Students did not come out against a more national, coherent approach to proof-of-age cards, but merely asked to be involved in consultations. It pointed out that the cost of introduction for individuals could be a factor in how uniform the system was, and said that reassurances must be given on the data and information held on the card.
  It is useful to look at the United States experience. During his first term, President Clinton firmly associated his office with the campaign to cut down under-age drinking. There was a significant marketing campaign, with posters in bars saying, "No ID, No Sale". That helped retailers, publicans and bar owners in the United States because it reinforced the culture of asking for a card. It also helped youngsters realise the importance of carrying the card.
  Mr. Heald: When the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill was going through the House, the Minister suggested that the Department for Education and Employment card, Connexions, could be used as a national proof-of-age card. Does the hon. Gentleman have any further views on that?
  Mr. Grogan: The hon. Gentleman gives me a perfect cue. We are now at a crucial stage of deciding whether to adopt the Connexions card. My understanding is that in the pilot scheme in Merseyside, there was provision for a proof-of-age element to be included on one side of the Connexions card. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that we are down to the last two tenderers for the Connexions card and that the decision will be made in March. At least one tenderer intends to incorporate a proof-of-age element in its card. Clearly, if the Connexions card is to be used for proof of age, a disadvantage is that it was intended to provide it only to those in full-time education over the age of 16. However, at least one of the tenderers sees no reason why a
  104
  proof-of-age element could not be made available to all youngsters. Indeed, the proof-of-age logo could be common throughout the United Kingdom. A problem with the Connexions card, if used for this purpose, is that it is available only in England.
  If we are to make this a responsibility that licensees and retailers can exercise effectively, we need to do more to help them—whether by public education, providing leadership or co-ordinating the various cards.
  I have two further comments on other aspects of the Bill. I welcome the statutory force given for the first time to test-purchasing, which was pioneered by North Yorkshire police and is now used not only by police but by many pub companies as a method of improving standards and employee practice. That is greatly to be welcomed.
  It is important to recognise that, under the Bill, the closure of pubs would take place only when there was a risk of public disorder. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to the sounds and smells of a new year's eve party in her constituency. Unless there was a threat to public order, the Bill would not—quite rightly—lead to the closure of that pub as a temporary measure. The answer to her constituents' problems is the complete reform of the licensing laws and the introduction of a premises licence which specifies what activities should go on in a pub at any time.
  I hope that we never reach the stage where publicans of well run pubs are frightened to call the police because they fear that their pub will be closed down. Many senior police officers see this as essentially a reserve power to deal with badly run pubs. The best way of ensuring that our pubs and bars are well run is a close partnership, such as the many pub-watch schemes involving police and licensees up and down the land.
  8.44 pm
  Siobhain McDonagh: Any Bill to reduce crime is to be welcomed. Any Bill that tackles head on the burgeoning yob culture prevalent in so many parts of society will be warmly greeted by our constituents.
  I, too, welcome all the measures in the Bill, but I think that the Government have missed an opportunity to tackle a serious antisocial offence. I offer one or two suggestions as to how to improve the legislation to make it even more effective in the war against crime.
  During the debate on the Gracious Speech, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
  "Three years ago, evidence was produced showing that, unfortunately, compared with otherwise similar low-income estates, disorderly estates on which there were higher levels of graffiti and litter and a greater sense of abuse had higher crime levels. If we nip lower-level offending in the bud, we can stop offending entirely."—[Official Report, 12 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 518.]
  I could not agree more. That is why I find it disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity afforded by the Bill to tackle one of the prime causes of our graffiti-ridden neighbourhoods: the easy availability of spray paints.
  Graffiti is a blight on even the best neighbourhoods, and costs councils a fortune to clean up. The London borough of Merton, in my constituency, calculated that if it were to clear up every piece of graffiti tomorrow,

  105
  it would cost £60,000—enough money to employ two extra teachers. Furthermore, as we all know, the graffiti would re-appear within days and the expense of the clear-up would be money down the drain.
  We often talk about crime in terms of vast statistics, and the media focus is on extreme cases such as murder, which is, thankfully, relatively rare. However, the experience of crime for the vast majority of ordinary people—our constituents—is having their garage doors sprayed with idiotic slogans, or their lifts vandalised and defaced. Just as importantly, graffiti has an impact on the fear of crime, which is out of all proportion to actual crime levels. If an otherwise safe and decent area experiences a wave of graffiti-writing, people begin to feel unsafe.
  The Bill seeks to crack down on the sale of alcohol to children, and we all agree with that. I wonder whether the Government might consider tabling an amendment in Committee to extend the prohibition to the sale of spray paints to minors. My local police inspector reckons that the average age of graffiti writers is between 12 and 14. I can think of only one reason why a 12-year-old would want to buy a can of spray paint: to create graffiti. An unpleasant side effect of the use of spray paint is that the cans are frequently used by teenagers to gain the same effect as drugs, only more quickly and much more cheaply.
  Making the acquisition of spray paint more difficult would certainly result in an immediate and dramatic decrease in instances of graffiti. As has been pointed out, that would lead to a fall in other crimes as well. I referred to the acquisition of spray paints, because many of the cans used to create graffiti have been stolen. We should try to make the sale of spray paint to minors illegal, and shops should be required to store cans of spray paint in secure areas, as they currently do with fireworks.
  That provision could be extended to the sale of indelible marker pens, which are also used to disfigure and vandalise property. I never thought that I would say such a thing in the House of Commons, but I have received extensive lobbying on the issue from the chief inspector of my local police force and by councillors and council officers. Such a step would be drastic, and would have connotations of the nanny state, but something needs to be done to stamp on this problem, which is getting worse, and is not peculiar to my constituency.
  I would go further, and suggest that we introduce a 10:1 ratio for fines involving graffiti. In other words, if it cost a council £100 to clean up someone's mess, that person should be fined £1,000, and so on. That would certainly have a shock effect. My hon. Friend the Minister might point out that steps to tackle the problem can be taken by means of council byelaws, and he would be right. My borough is actively considering taking action in that way, in partnership with the local police. Examples of good practice by responsible retailers already exist. However, byelaws are not enough. There would be little point in making the acquisition of spray paints difficult in one borough, if all an enterprising graffiti artist had to do was hop on the bus to the next borough to buy some.
  The Bill seeks to extend certain schemes that were initiated through byelaws, and the Government could take this opportunity to send a clear signal that they are declaring war on graffiti. My constituents—and, no doubt, those of the Minister—would warmly welcome such a
  106
  declaration. If, for whatever reason, it proves impossible to amend the Bill, will the Minister at least undertake to consider the matter with a view to future legislation?
  This is a good Bill that will have a positive impact on crime reduction. If the Government could incorporate some tough action on graffiti, it would be even better.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: I begin on a note of some consensus. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on an excellent speech, full of constructive ideas. I hope that the Minister will have time to reflect on a number of them and will respond—although not tonight, perhaps—not just to the hon. Lady, but to the House in general. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that her suggestions have much to commend them. As she pointed out, the problem of graffiti is not confined to her borough or her area.
  Also in the spirit of consensus, let me say that my constituency neighbour—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) who, sadly, is not in her place—was correct to say that crime is a problem in the north-west of England. She rightly identified instances of crime increasing and said also that the problems did not begin in 1997, although I think that she was trying to be controversial, as no Conservative Member has ever pretended that Britain was without crime in 1997. Of course it was not; Britain certainly had problems with crime then.
  I differ with Labour Members over their belief that the answer to Britain's crime problems somehow lies in providing the police with additional powers rather than additional numbers. The police's principal difficulty is not a lack of legislation, which they could study, be trained in and implement, but the lack of numbers to cope with the legislation and powers that Parliament has already given them.
  Helen Jones: May I put to the hon. Gentleman a constituency case involving an elderly gentleman? He has been tormented constantly by gangs of youths fuelled by alcohol. The police know who the youths are and are aware of what is going on, but under current legislation, they lack the power to take swift action. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Bill is useless, what has he to say to that elderly gentleman?
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Lady perhaps ought to make a point to her elderly constituent—one that he probably believes anyway. He will undoubtedly remember a time in this country which is well within the memory of many people, not just the elderly, when all the disorder problems to which she referred—not least drunkenness and disorderliness—were substantially less than they are today. A reason for that was that police numbers were greater and the restraints under which they operated were fewer. An important way in which the House can assist the police to provide the underpinnings for a law-abiding society is to provide the resources and the help to enable the police to get back on the streets. That is one of the best ways to tackle the range of problems that she mentioned.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that most offences of the sort to which the hon. Member for

  107
  Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred are arrestable? If the police know who those people are, they can arrest them and take them to court. Is not the problem the fact that there simply are not enough police to do so? Perhaps he read the story in the Yorkshire Post last week about an elderly gentleman who has to ring the police so often that he has arranged a cheap deal with BT so that he can do so at a discount.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is right. That service, which provides for a customer's top 10 numbers, is called "friends and family". Sadly, such examples occur all too often.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made clear, we do not oppose any and every aspect of the Bill. There are proposals that Conservatives will be able to support following due consideration, but Labour Members should not kid themselves. People who voted for them thought that their platform of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime would result in more police, not fewer, and tougher action on crime. Unfortunately, there has been tougher action on the crimefighters instead.
  For example, in my area, Cumbria constabulary has done an excellent job in many respects. It has managed to produce reductions in several of the crime statistics and has coped with a great difficulty relating to the way in which it is funded. That difficulty is caused by the failure of the police funding formula to take enough account of the huge number of visitors to the lake district. The area covered by my constituency and those surrounding it is the most visited part of the United Kingdom, after Greater London, but that is rarely if ever taken into account.
  Police numbers have fallen by some 5 per cent. in Cumbria since this Government came to power. The chief constable has repeatedly appealed to Ministers to address the issue of underfunding, and in particular to consider including a full and permanent sparsity factor in the allocation of Home Office grant. I am glad that some months ago the Minister of State was able to announce a one-off, temporary half-provision of sparsity funding; that was a great deal better than nothing. It was not, however, the same as a permanent allocation on which the chief constable could rely. It provided only about half the resources that he wanted.
  Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
  Mr. Collins: The Minister clearly wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Clarke: Just for the record. I would not normally have intervened on such a specious contribution, but the fact is that the rural funding we have announced will last for three and a half years. It is substantial funding: the total provided nationally is roughly equivalent to the sparsity costs suggested in the report involved. The money is being distributed to forces—including the hon. Gentleman's—with that very much in mind. It has, incidentally, been welcomed by both the hon. Gentleman's police authority and his chief constable.
  Mr. Collins: It is no surprise that the police authority welcomes it, as the police authority is run by Cumbria
  108
  county council, which is run by the Labour party. The Minister has given us the staggering information that the Labour party welcomes things that the Labour party does. When I tell my constituents that, no doubt they will feel much happier.
  Mr. Heald: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has looked at the Cumbria police website recently, but the chief constable there makes the point that there will be cuts again this year. Are there not great concerns about funding in Cumbria?
  Mr. Collins: Indeed; the chief constable remains concerned. Police stations continue to close in my constituency and across Cumbria, police numbers continue to be lower than they were when the Government came to office, and Cumbria constabulary continues to feel that it cannot cope with the pressures imposed on it.
  One provision in the Bill demonstrates the Government's funding priorities. According to the summary of the financial effects, the transitional—that is, the one-off—cost of establishing the new central police training and development authority will be £3.5 million. The explanatory notes tell us that, as recently as 1993, an organisation called Police Training was set up to carry out the same functions. Now we are being told that a new quango will be established, with its own chief executive, its own chairman and its own authority, at a cost of £3.5 million. That happens to be three times the shortfall about which the Cumbrian chief constable is complaining.
  The Government seem to be demonstrating a wholly false sense of priorities. Of course police training matters—
  Mr. Charles Clarke rose—
  Mr. Collins: The Minister knows that I cannot give way. I shall have to end my speech in the next minute.
  Throughout all this, my concern is not that the Government are doing things that are in themselves automatically wrong; it is simply that they are setting out the wrong set of priorities. If they had wanted people to feel that their priority of tackling crime was being actioned, they would have tabled measures, even at this late stage of the Parliament, to return police numbers to the levels that they inherited in 1997.
  The Conservative party will do that, and it has said how it will do it. As Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald will deliver greater police numbers, and that will contribute more to the fight against crime than everything that has been said and done by the Labour party in four wasted years.
  8.59 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: There is no doubt that crime is falling. We can have our knockabouts over whether it was falling when the last Government were in power, and whether it is falling faster now, but it is certainly falling. In Kent, my county, it is falling substantially: the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has just left the Chamber, will know that it is down by 23 per cent.
  What is not decreasing—although not many hon. Members have mentioned it today—is the perception of crime. If hon. Members were to knock on doors in their

  109
  constituencies, they would find people who believe that crime is soaring when it simply is not. I welcome the Bill because it targets the most appropriate crime and disorder issues to help people realise that crime is decreasing and that the streets can be made safe again for them.
  On-the-spot penalties, for example, will give police a real opportunity to make a dramatic impact in our economically important town centres, where there are often high levels of disorderliness that are often associated with drink. Like other hon. Members, however, I should like to know how those penalties will be enforced. Taxi drivers in my constituency have told me of cases in which their taxis had been vandalised or they had been the victims of other types of crime, but the fines and costs imposed by the court on those who committed the offences were not enforced. I should therefore like my hon. Friend the Minister to address the enforcement issue.
  There are questions, too, about the age of those who will be subject to on-the-spot penalties. I would quite welcome the imposition of such penalties on youngsters' parents. I think that we should investigate the possibility of extending the provision in that manner.
  My constituents are aware of the advantages of DNA evidence, and they will welcome our extension of the law to make that evidence a more powerful tool for police. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had serious civil liberties concerns about the proposals. However, I do not know how it can harm an innocent individual for his or her DNA to be on record. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who gave a moving account of why it is so important to build up such a database.
  Today, however, I should like to focus on the important issue of attacks on scientists. The subject is very important to me because my constituency contains a major pharmaceutical company that employs 5,000 people and represents a £1 billion United States investment in the United Kingdom. That type of investment will stop unless we can give those investors confidence that the United Kingdom is a place where they can do business and their work in freedom.
  I have another interest in the matter. I am what animal rights activists like to call—when they scream out to me in the street—a vivisector. I started my scientific career doing animal experiments. I have no fear of saying that whatsoever. I am proud of the work that I did.
  When I first started that work, at the Medical Research Council, my then boss had been newly appointed from Huntingdon Research Centre, which is now Huntingdon Life Sciences. Soon after I started working there, I went to him and said, "I feel very uncomfortable doing these experiments." His response was, "Good. That's the way you should stay feeling throughout your career. No one who feels comfortable doing these experiments should be doing them. That's how we keep them to a minimum. That's how we keep standards high and ensure that we do not cause any unnecessary suffering to animals."
  I saw those high standards being pursued throughout my career in the pharmaceutical industry, not only in that job and in subsequent jobs, but in everything that I observed in the industry. It is downright wrong for those who are doing vital and important work to be intimidated, threatened and bullied.
  110
  I think that I owe the House an apology. I have been banging on about this subject since I was first elected to the House. A few months ago, I spoke to the Research Defence Society's annual general meeting and said that I did not think that there were more than a dozen Members of Parliament who would be prepared to put their heads above the parapet on the issue. Over the past few weeks, I have been delighted to realise that I was wrong. If what has happened has given the House a wake-up call, so that we realise that we are in danger of putting off huge investment in the UK and stopping vital research work, all that the poor people who worked at Huntingdon Life Sciences had to put up with will not be in vain.
  I am delighted by the response in the House today and recently, but I am not so delighted by the reports that I have heard so far about how the Government are intending to tackle the matter. I have heard good words, but there are some holes in what the Government are proposing. I will be looking for proposals to deal with the way in which campaigns are organised, so that responsibility for what activists do is taken by the leaders of campaigns. I shall be looking for changes to the legislation on harassment and for the limits on peaceful protest to be defined, as well as proposals to deal with secondary targeting. The addresses of shareholders and directors of companies should be protected and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 needs to be reformed, as the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in a very good speech. Protests outside people's homes also need to be dealt with. All those issues are vital.
  I hope that before my hon. Friend the Minister tables amendments to the Bill, he will meet the Research Defence Society, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries and other leaders in the industry to discuss proposals to deal with all of their concerns. If he has any difficulty in putting together the meetings, I would be delighted to facilitate them.
  This is an important issue, and I have been delighted by the response of the House today. I am looking forward to the Government making my constituents safe so that they can continue their vital work in creating drugs that will be vital to every man, woman and child in the country.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Chris Pond: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in underlining the fact that crime in Kent has fallen by 23 per cent. However, that is not matched by the perception of what is happening, or by a fall in the fear of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to her local newspaper, which comes from the same stable as my local paper. Both papers said that crime was increasing in our areas, although it has been falling.
  We must pay tribute to the work of the Government since 1997 in providing mechanisms for the police. We must commend also the work of the police, the partnerships between the police and local authorities and the way in which the police have operated, particularly in Kent. Under the leadership of Sir David Phillips and with an intelligence-led approach, we have seen some dramatic changes.
  Extra resources are important and Kent police has earned the extra 6.9 per cent. that was announced recently; for the second year running, Kent has received the largest

  111
  increase of any police force in the country. My local superintendent was able to provide me with a briefing as to what he will be able to do with the extra funding. In Dartford and Gravesham alone, 23 additional officer posts will be provided, including seven officers to work in rural areas and an extra two on rural crime, plus a team of eleven operating strategically for north Kent and Medway.
  All this is part of the initiatives on the crimefighting fund and on dealing with rural crime; it will mean that, by 2002–03, Kent will have an additional 250 officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said earlier, however, it is not simply about numbers or resources but about how those numbers and resources are used.
  I want to highlight two initiatives in Kent that I hope Ministers will not only encourage but build into legislation as the Bill develops. The first is an initiative on cell intervention: going into the cells and providing advice on debt and employment to people in police custody. That small-scale project, piloted by my local police force, has had dramatic results in leading people away from a life of crime and towards a life of more productive employment.
  Alongside an overall reduction in crime, there has been a worrying increase in racially motivated crimes in my area. I am pleased that the Government have been tough on such crimes. One of my constituents noted a catalogue of incidents over two years, which included:
  "Bricks thrown through the conservatory roof … Stones and sticks thrown at the house around midnight by a group of six youths … I was attacked outside my house … punched in the face and my hair yanked out … My car was vandalised … Bag of dog faeces thrown on my patio … Racial abusing, threatening my children. They climbed on our fence and threatened to kill my children if they showed their little black faces outside or even dare peeped out of the window … Petrol bomb thrown outside my front door."
  We have to be tough on the perpetrators of such activities, but we must also be tough on the causes by making sure that young people understand the implications at an early age. The second initiative that I commend to Ministers is the project which my local police force hopes to develop of working closely with schools on issues of race and the effects of racial crime.
  My constituents will certainly welcome the Bill, and in particular the fixed penalties. Opposition Members have made some criticisms, but my local police have welcomed the fixed penalties and think that they are a useful additional weapon to deal with the one in six crimes in Gravesham and Dartford that are not serious enough to take the offender through arrest and the court process but which can create a climate of anxiety, fear and yob rule. We must deal with those crimes, and if the Bill can take us further in that direction, I welcome it.
  9.13 pm
  Helen Jones: The Bill is wide-ranging, but I intend to confine my comments largely to those aspects that directly affect the lives of the people whom I represent, and to the problems that most concern them.
  Civil liberties objections have been made to the Bill, and that is an important issue that deserves serious consideration. We should be very careful about restricting
  112
  civil liberties unless there is good reason to do so, but we must not confuse liberty with licence. When I see some of my constituents who are tormented in their own homes and fear to walk the streets because of the abuse and intimidation to which they are subjected, or who are insulted and abused when going about their lawful business, I have to ask whose civil liberties are being restricted. We must be concerned not about the perpetrators but about the ordinary, decent people who are subjected to such torment.
  I see the Bill through the eyes of my constituents. mentioned earlier an elderly gentleman who was subjected to abuse, night after night, by a gang of youths, usually fuelled by alcohol, often bought for them by an adult and handed to them outside the shop in return for a share of the goods. Decent, honest shopkeepers in my constituency who try to prevent sales to minors say that they are powerless when such incidents occur. They will welcome the provisions that prevent people from buying alcohol for minors in that way.
  We also welcome the provisions that require those who sell alcohol to take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves of the age of the person to whom they are selling. That strengthens the hand of decent, honest people in the trade and helps to get at rogue traders, who do not care about the damage that they cause to others when they flout the law. I suspect that hon. Members could point to such people in their constituencies. I can do that in my constituency, and so can local people. The police know about the problem, but it is difficult for them to take action. Strengthening the law is therefore important.
  I have believed for some time that we should extend to trading standards officers the power to use minors in test purchases. No honest shopkeeper or licensee has anything to fear from that. If we fail to tackle such problems, we abandon people such as the elderly gentleman who was tormented day in, day out. week in, week out. It is not my role as a Member of Parliament to protect his persecutors. We need swift action to deal with causes, and we also need fixed-penalty notices, which will enable the perpetrators to be tackled quickly and efficiently.
  There is merit in the argument that orders should apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. The groups of youths are often of mixed ages; some may be 18 but others are not. We should not underestimate the problems that harassment causes. The damage to people's health can be incalculable. I, like other hon. Members, have seen the victims of harassment in my surgery.
  I remember two, quiet, middle-aged ladies, who had been tormented day after day in their homes by a neighbour. They could not even go into the garden without being sworn at and abused. They had never caused trouble in their lives; they had never owed the council a penny in rent. They deserve better protection from us. So do people who have been threatened, had graffiti daubed on their houses, objects thrown at their windows, and their children threatened, often for no apparent reason, except that some local group had decided to target them, sometimes because they were from a different area, sometimes because they had intervened when people were behaving badly. They need the full protection of the law.
  Child curfews and action on the sale of alcohol will help the people whom I described. Extending the criminal law to cover witnesses in civil cases is also important.

  113
  Those witnesses are often afraid to give evidence in harassment cases or applications for antisocial behaviour orders. I cannot blame them for that. If I had been subjected to some of the torment that they suffered, I would also be afraid. The provision will give them more security.
  We are not simply considering law enforcement. That is important, but, in tackling yobbish behaviour, the Bill stands alongside other measures that the Government have introduced to promote social inclusion and to tackle poverty. It is often rightly said that, when we were younger, any passing adult would probably have intervened if we were behaving badly. However, it is not often said that in those days, that passing adult would have known our mums, our dads and most of our relatives. That community spirit has broken down in many areas. It was destroyed in the 1980s and early 1990s by poverty and unemployment, which was caused by a Government who said that there was no such thing as society. We have to remember where the blame belongs. As well as tackling yobs, we should encourage the people who are doing their best to repair that damage and to rebuild a sense of community. Members of residents associations in my area—in places such as Blackbrook, Grasmere and Greenwood—invest a great deal of their time in such activity. Their work should be supported and valued by the Government.
  Most of all, we need to offer our young people an alternative and to realise that most of them are not badly behaved, but have much talent and potential. It is no use complaining that they hang around the streets if we offer them nowhere else to go. It is no use saying that they are irresponsible if we do not help them to accept responsibility.
  Last Friday, I had the privilege of opening a new youth centre at Birchwood in my constituency. The young people put on a marvellous display—dancing, singing and poetry. They showed what a wealth of talent is available. The people who set up that club deserve our congratulations. Sadly, however, such facilities are extremely rare. We need to invest in our young people and to show our confidence in them. As well as introducing measures such as this Bill to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, we need to start seeing our young people as part of the solution and not just part of the problem.
  The Bill goes a long way towards tackling the problems that affect my constituents and it will be welcomed by many of them. However, I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will put the measure in the context of the Government's overall strategy. We need to recreate a civil society in which people can feel safe in their own homes and on the streets. That is about taking back our communities and regaining control of them. I hope that the measure will help decent people to do that. I commend it to the House.
  9.22 pm
  Gillian Merron: I welcome the Bill as another step on the way to refining our approach to tackling and preventing crime. It confirms to me and to many of us the effectiveness of a partnership approach in which the Government are prepared to take a pivotal role in meeting their full responsibility in preventing and solving crime and—crucially—in reducing the fear of crime that blights the lives of many of our constituents.
  114
  Under the Labour Government, crime in Lincolnshire has reduced by a fifth—twice the national reduction. Lincolnshire police have confirmed to me that, by April, their officer strength will be 1,240—the highest-ever in our county. It is important to talk up the above-average effectiveness of the Lincolnshire police force, because I am concerned that many of the comments made by Opposition Members serve to paint a somewhat inaccurate picture of policing and of crime rates. That stirs up the fear of crime and is irresponsible.
  Lincolnshire police are to be congratulated on their above-average performance in the following matters. They are among the top ten forces in solving crimes of violence. More than nine in 10 phone calls are answered within the 10-second target time. They have reorganised the force by putting more officers in the front line and by reducing the burden of management. We should pay tribute to them for their first-rate efforts in policing our county.
  In my constituency and throughout the country, it is unacceptable that an elderly lady cannot go to bingo with her friends; that a young man has to steel himself against the possibility of a fight while he is in a city centre on a Friday night; or that neighbours act in a less than neighbourly fashion—terrorising people both inside and outside their homes. Some people might regard those matters as minor nuisances. I do not. No one should be frightened to go about their daily life in peace. We are all entitled to be and to feel safe.
  I shall focus on the child curfew scheme—one of the many down-to-earth provisions that offer opportunities both to prevent and cure problems of public disorder. My constituents look to the Government for such provisions. I welcome the proposal to improve the scheme by applying such curfews to people up to and including the age of 15. That was proposed in a ten-minute Bill—of which I was pleased to be a sponsor—introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). I pay tribute to him for championing such proposals.
  The overwhelming majority of young people are law abiding and have a sense of community. In my experience, they want that sense of community and responsibility to be supported and protected by measures such as those in the Bill. Child curfew schemes involve designating a particular area—for example, a park, an alleyway or shop fronts—for a specific, fixed period between 9 pm and 6 am as being out of bounds to young people of a particular age unless they are accompanied by a responsible adult.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was somewhat alarmist in his explanation of what he believed child curfew schemes involve. Indeed, the purpose of the schemes is to take the very action that worried constituents say that they want. They want to protect themselves in certain areas where children may gather and engage in threatening and/or criminal behaviour. However, the schemes are also intended to protect the children themselves. They may be at risk from their older peers, who may encourage them to offend, or from adult drug dealers or pimps—something about which every parent has a fear. The changes will make child curfew schemes more useful; they will certainly be taken up more widely. Extending the age range will recognise the fact that intimidating groups of children often comprise young people of different ages, and we need to tackle that problem.

  115
  The Bill is intended to give the police, as well as local authorities, the practical tools needed to do a practical job, which many of our constituents want to be done without criminalising children. Of course, we all know that peace and order in many local communities can be thrown into disarray by just a few people or households, and they cannot be allowed to continue to keep their unhealthy hold on a community. That is why the extension of witness protection to those giving evidence in cases involving antisocial behaviour orders is also to be welcomed.
  There is an urgent need to promote the use of the numerous new measures in the Bill. They are very much what people in Lincoln want, but we must continue to work in partnership with the police, local authorities and local communities to ensure that people, such as those in Lincoln, see the measures working to protect them.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate with some moving contributions, as well as some thoughtful ones. I should like to highlight the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who in representing a constituency interest, expressed the concern that we all feel about what is happening with Huntingdon Life Sciences and other companies. My constituency is about equidistant from Huntingdon, Cambridge and Peterborough, and some of my constituents are being treated in the way that has been described. We must all feel their sense of terror when they experience fire-bomb incidents; cleaning fluid is thrown in their eyes; they receive hate mail; and their children are threatened.
  My right hon. Friend described incidents such as that in which undertakers were called to a house to take away someone's child when, of course, the child was alive and well. The distress caused by such behaviour has been recognised on both sides of the House, and by the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has worked in the industry, and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and others. So it is right to concentrate on that issue.
  The Home Secretary said that he is prepared to consider amending the Public Order Act 1986 to protect people in their houses and to curtail protests outside houses. That is welcome. He has told us that he is prepared to consider the way in which the Malicious Communications Act 1988 works and to consider an objective rather than a subjective test.
  Is the Minister still considering what other measures might be possible? Some of the incidents that have been described do not fall into a clear category, but they were very threatening. It would help if the Minister were to make a commitment on issues such as secondary action and to give the clear statements that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon wanted. The Minister should point out that United Kingdom legislation demands tests on animals; animal tests are required by regulators; the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has the strictest requirements for animal research anywhere in the world; and the legislation demands that animal tests should not be available if other non-animal testing is possible. It would be good if the Minister could give such clear statements tonight. This important issue is worrying the country, but all Members agree about it.
  116
  The same cannot be said of all the other matters that have been debated. Although the Opposition take the view that this is a crimefighting measure that will give powers to police officers and others to help in the fight against crime, we have the important reservations that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members have highlighted in their contributions.
  First, we are concerned by what the Bill has left out. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) painted a picture of a Christmas tree with empty baubles on it and the Minister rushing from the Home Office to each Department to ask, "Have you got anything on the shelf that we can trot out in this pre-election period?"
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Perhaps I should be called Santa.
  Mr. Heald: The Minister would like to be called Santa. Perhaps this Christmas tree has lights, but they are not twinkling.
  The country faces important challenges. Violent crime, street crime and the incidence of robbery are rising. Yet, when the Home Secretary and the Minister have the time available to consult on the offences against the person legislation and the means to provide modern laws to strengthen the fight against violent crime, they do nothing. They have had the opportunity to reform the early release scheme so that those who assault police officers in the execution of their duty are not released before they have served half their sentence, and we have managed to convert the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on that point. He used to take the same line on this as the Minister, but he is now a convert. Come on, Minister—we want him to decide that the police should be protected in that way.
  As one of the largest reviews ever of the criminal justice system is about to report, it is curious that the Minister is putting before the House a set of slighter measures simply because an election is in the offing. They are slight measures by comparison with the challenge that the country faces in terms of violent crime, falling police numbers and all the problems that he and I have debated on many occasions.
  The Bill raises concerns about bureaucracy. The Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association wonder whether the fixed penalties notices will save any of their time so that the police can have a more visible presence on the streets. The worry is that clause 8 seems to require a police statement to be prepared in every case, so where will the saving be made? It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us and the police that the new procedure will serve to save police time and give them a greater ability to do the job that they and the public want them to do.
  It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who explained, given his experience as a recorder and a stipendiary magistrate, the difficulties of distinguishing between an 18-year-old and an under-l8-year-old who are drunk in the street. He described the difficulties of finding out how many times a person had had the benefit of fixed-penalty notices. Will notice after notice be served without the person ever ending up in court?

  117
  One thing that victims of criminal damage want is some compensation, but it is available only on conviction. Will the Minister give victims some consolation? Will they be able in some way to receive compensation if their fence is kicked in or other criminal damage is done, for example, to their vehicle? There is a range of practical issues to do with fixed penalty notices on which we are looking for answers.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was generous about my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and considered the issue of non-drinking zones and closure orders. [Interruption.] No, he was generous—for him. There are questions about how non-drinking zones will be implemented. Will councils decide such issues in full council, or under the new system will one Cabinet Member be in charge of designating the zones? That concern has been raised with me by councillors, and it would be helpful if the Minister reassured us that there will be a proper debate in full council on the designation of zones.
  We heard important comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who pointed out that it is all very well introducing measures such as child curfew orders, fixed penalty notices and so on, but there is not much point to them if there are not enough police officers to enforce them. Many Labour Members proudly read out how burglaries and car crime have fallen in their areas, which is good news. [Interruption.] That is good news, but they also said, "But we are very worried about street crime, robberies and violence." They might like to ponder the fact that intensive police operations targeting known car thieves and burglars use a lot of manpower that could be providing a visible presence on the streets. If there are enough police officers to go round, both can be achieved. At the moment, however, assigning police officers to particular campaigns makes the streets less safe.
  Maria Eagle: If police numbers are the only thing that matters, will the hon. Gentleman explain why between 1980 and 1989 police numbers increased but crime went up by 40 per cent?
  Mr. Heald: I have never said that it did not take us a long time to turn round the disastrous Labour years of the 1970s. This Government inherited falling crime and rising police numbers. The Home Secretary likes to say that he has had the best start of any Home Secretary since the war. The truth is that he did because we gave it to him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) introduced tough measures and always, year on year, increased the number of police constables. It was his legacy that the Home Secretary took on, and squandered.
  Mr. Straw: There is a serious point about the relationship between police numbers at the margin and overall levels of crime. If the hon. Gentleman seriously examines figures for the past four years, he will see that police forces with the best record in reducing crime are not necessarily those that received the largest increases in budget or in police numbers, of which there are quite a number. Does he accept that the critical issue is not police
  118
  numbers at the margin—although of course I want them to increase—but the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service in any area?
  Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated the issue on other occasions. He knows that I say that if there are two police forces that are efficient, and one of them has more than 1,000 more officers than the other for the same head of population, it will do more. We cannot assume that each police force will for ever remain inefficient here and efficient there. We should be aiming for the best standards for them all. If that is achieved, the force with the more police officers will do more work. That makes sense.
  The Home Secretary must recognise that by letting police numbers fall by 2,500 and by allowing the number of special constables to collapse by almost one third, it is no coincidence that we have soaring violent crime. Letting out prisoners early means they are outside committing crimes. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. There is the irony of the right hon. Gentleman saying that we need tougher measures on bail so that those who have not been convicted will be put more regularly into custody awaiting trial, when at the same time he is saying that those who are known to have committed crime—those who have been convicted—should leave prison before serving half their term. How can that be explained? The Government are nonsensical on law and order on so many occasions. There is a great deal of spin but there is not much delivery.
  Civil rights constitute an important issue for the House, for Conservatives and for Liberal Democrats. We support measures that make crimefighting easier. For example, we support a wider dissemination of information between the Inland Revenue and crimefighters. However, it is important to uphold the principle that confidentiality should be breached only in circumstances where that is necessary; that is, where there are good reasons and where there is a serious investigation. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that he will not establish a general principle that confidential information can float around government without proper controls being in place.
  Mr. Straw: What about benefit fraud?
  Mr. Heald: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
  I was the Minister who took through the House the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, which allowed data matching. It enabled the information that the Department of Social Security had as to whether people were claiming benefit to be matched with the information that the Inland Revenue had about whether they were working. We were able to find numerous cases of people who were working and claiming. That was a good reason for introducing the Bill, and I make no apology for doing so. The Minister must come up with a similarly good reason for his proposed measures. Given the context, and given that Inland Revenue information would be involved, it would seem that a serious investigation should be in hand.
  The Minister must answer the CBI's concern that information that is held by the Office of Fair Trading will be given to overseas authorities for criminal anti-trust

  119
  investigations where the same circumstances would not lead either to a criminal or a civil investigation. Is that right? If so, why?
  Many issues arise from the Bill. It is good if we can close rowdy pubs, provided that there are proper protections. It is good if we can limit drug traffickers' travel. It is good if we can have better witness protection. It is good if we can stop the importation of obscene and paedophiliac information. It is good if we can strengthen bail laws and it is good also if we can have new powers of arrest for kerb crawling, for example. It is good if we can improve the life of scientists, whose lives are being made a misery.
  Against the scale of the challenge on law and order, the Conservative party's contention is that the Bill is a disappointment because it will not meet the challenge of the time. It is a Christmas tree of a Bill, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said. It is disappointing when it comes to bureaucracy, practicability, targeting and civil rights. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not prepared to debate law and order matters with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about one thing: generally, it has been a good debate which, for the most part, has not been politically partisan. However, interestingly, there were 17 contributions from Government Members and 10 from Members of Opposition parties, including two from Liberal Democrat Members. I was a little disappointed that the Conservative Benches were often empty during our debate.
  I do not intend to address in detail very familiar discussions about falling crime, rising police numbers, growing police morale and early release issues. We had an Opposition day debate on those matters just a few days ago and on Wednesday this week we shall debate the police grant settlement. Those are full opportunities for addressing what are, I acknowledge, important issues. I do not therefore intend to address them in detail this evening, except to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the principle of partnership underlying it are at the core of everything that the Government are seeking to do and of the Bill itself.
  I shall deal first with matters not included in the Bill, of which criticism has been made. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a point about victims. There are provisions on witness protection in the Bill, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) spoke eloquently.
  A victims' rights consultation paper will shortly be launched, with a series of key proposals, to transform the position of victims throughout the country. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, a question of four years; it is a question of 18 years during which nothing was done and four years in which we have been developing a programme of action to support the
  120
  position of victims. The way to deal with legislation in that area is to be coherent on the position of victims of a range of crimes.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has raised the question of changes to the offences against the person legislation, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised the matter at the end of our debate. The Opposition are right to say that we issued a consultation document on the matter in February 1998. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may disagree but, in our view, an overhaul of the offences against the person legislation is best handled in the context of a law reform Bill, which would also include changes to the law on involuntary manslaughter and corporate killing. We are still considering the final shape of our policy in the light of responses to and debates on those matters, but we think that that is the best way to deal with those circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised the matter of graffiti. I can give her the assurance that she sought. We are considering the matter—in fact, I addressed it in a substantive Adjournment debate at the end of last year—and we are looking at introducing measures. However, we did not consider them appropriate for the Bill.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) addressed the need for fuller reform of the licensing law. Perhaps I can help them by indicating that, as is well known, we are committed to reforming the whole licensing situation as a result of the White Paper. Licensing legislation takes high priority. We have included only certain measures from the White Paper in the Bill because of the need to give the legislation a comprehensive nature. However, I can give my hon. Friends the assurance that they sought: licensing reform remains a high priority, not only for general reasons concerning the civilisation of our country but for the crime reduction reasons discussed in some contributions.
  The main matter not included in the Bill that was addressed in debate concerned animal rights and protests on that issue. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised that matter, perfectly reasonably, in his winding-up speech. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the position clear in his opening speech, but we heard excellent speeches on the matter from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—whose speech was outstanding—the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mrs. Dean), for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). Those Members focused on the matter, but it was also raised by others.
  We will try to table amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill, as requested. We will examine carefully points made in this debate and those made by the Research Defence Society. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, we are familiar with the RDS's specific proposals, which have been echoed by some speakers in the House this evening. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is dealing with the matter, is already meeting people involved in those areas and will continue to do so. We are happy to have meetings to discuss the issues in great detail.

  121
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon made several specific points, to which he asked for responses. Out of courtesy, I shall give them from the Dispatch Box now. The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, whether the present UK legislation required new medicines to be tested on animals, and whether animal tests were also required by regulatory bodies for agrochemicals, pesticides and so on. The answer is that where manufacturers of medicines and agricultural products have to provide safety data relating to their products, they must find the most suitable tests to provide that data. In many cases, the only suitable tests involve the use of animals.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 contains the strictest rules governing animal research. Again, I can confirm that he is correct. The Government consider that legislation to be the strictest of its kind in the world. That endorses the various points made in all parts of the House about the quality of the safeguards, which are the best in the world. If we threaten the industry in this country, that will have the direct effect of impairing conditions for animals throughout the world.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could confirm that before animal research is licensed, the Home Office must be assured that tests could not be adequately be carried out without animal experiments. That is indeed the case. If there is a non-animal alternative, a test cannot be licensed. That is a requirement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
  I can confirm various points that were made. In the light of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, I confirm also that any new powers will be directed at intimidating protests outside homes generally. They will not relate only to Huntingdon Life Sciences or only to animal rights protesters, but to other scientists such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  As a result of the strong feeling expressed during the debate, I am confident that proposed legislation and Government amendments on the matter will receive widespread support in this House and in the other place. We will consult other political parties about the amendments that the Government intend to introduce. We are keen to carry through the clear feeling of the House this evening, to ensure that the appalling behaviour about which we have heard is isolated and rendered unacceptable in this country.
  I shall deal with the matters that are included in the Bill, but which are controversial. The first is the issue of DNA sampling and testing. I was delighted by the general agreement about the need to include legislation on that. I except from that the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and, to some extent, those of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who expressed doubt.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made a powerful and moving speech from his own experience, and indicated—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—his strong support for legislation on the matter, for reasons that he identified from his constituency experience, with which many hon. Members would agree. He is correct to say that under the Bill, consent to retain samples cannot be revoked. No doubt that will be debated in Committee.
  We believe that the provision will not deter volunteers from giving informed consent, whereas allowing consent to be withdrawn would lead back to the problems of the
  122
  current law, which were exposed in the R. v. B. case, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred. If a match were made in the context of a serious crime after a person had withdrawn his consent, what would be the situation? Our proposal is intended to cover that case. I acknowledge the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and we are prepared to consider the matter in detail in Committee.
  I asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to be clear about his party's position on the matter, but I do not think that he was clear. Given the feeling in the House on the DNA issue, it is important that the hon. Gentleman's party should make its position clear by the time the Bill reaches Committee. The Government's proposal will undoubtedly bring benefits to crime solving.
  The second issue on which there was controversy concerned fixed-penalty notices, about which we heard comments from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). Many of those speeches were strongly in favour of the Government's proposals and set out clear arguments for improving the weapons available to the police to deal with low-level disorder. Some doubts were expressed, and the issues will be debated in Committee. The hon. Member for Woking asked about the logic behind the list of offences, and suggested, in an uncharacteristically insulting way, that insufficient thought had been given to the matter. Several offences on the list were originally proposed in our consultation paper for inclusion in the scheme. A range of other possible offences were suggested by those who responded to the paper. The list covers a wide range of offending behaviour. The Government consider that some examples of the behaviour covered by each offence would be suitably dealt with by means of fixed penalties.
  The organisations whose views we requested provided a substantial response. They include the Justices' Clerks Society, the Magistrates Association, the Law Society and a wide range of other organisations. Of course, they had different opinions, which I am sure will be reflected in Committee. I said in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the responses would be placed in the Library for hon. Members to consider before they participate in Standing Committee debates. There will be full debate on the points that have been made, which will be considered in great detail.
  Curfew orders were the third controversial issue in the debate. They were dealt with in the powerful speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I associate myself with the praise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for his consistent campaigning to ensure that the matters with which the Bill deals featured properly on the statute book.

  123
  I have some key points about the concerns expressed. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the critical importance of partnership. Indeed, all the measures are products to be used in partnership. That is the approach that we are trying constantly to build, as it is critically important in achieving our aims. Secondly, the measures must be targeted at the troublemakers and the people who are creating the difficulty. They do not ensure a universal curfew for everyone. They are intended to be targeted on particular individuals who are making other people's lives a misery. It is important to have power to deal with such people.
  Thirdly, Opposition Members did not appreciate that the purpose of the range of measures—the antisocial behaviour orders, curfew orders and so on—is as much to prohibit and prevent antisocial behaviour as to punish it. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our measures are achieving that purpose in a wide variety of ways. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet rightly referred to parents. In Islington, police and housing services are working together exceptionally closely and involving parents in the conduct of their children. That is an excellent example of such activities. The threat of antisocial behaviour orders and other measures is available to ensure that other arrangements can be properly enforced—an important factor to which sufficient attention has not always been paid.
  The final point of controversy in the Bill is the range of alcohol measures, which will again be considered in Committee. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about the difference between the Bill and current local arrangements and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked about council approvals. Many local authorities already have alcohol byelaw s. The Bill provides a uniform and comprehensive set of powers, as it is vital for such powers to exist. The police will be able to direct people not to continue drinking and to confiscate glasses and bottles that might otherwise be used as weapons. The council need only designate the area and the police powers will apply, which is a far less bureaucratic arrangement than the current byelaw procedures.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall not do so as I have so little time; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The procedure for the council to make the designation—the point that he mentioned—will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. There will be parliamentary scrutiny of those points.
  The Government believe that the legislation is necessary. It will extend civil liberties, help to drive down crime levels, give more targeted weapons to partnerships, improve detection and the solution of crimes, build up intelligence-led policing and improve police training. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill (Programme)
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill:

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

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

  3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th March 2001.

  Consideration and Third Reading
  4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past eight o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at half past five o'clock on that day.

  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.

  6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords
  7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heald.
  Mr. Heald rose—
  Mr. Speaker: My apologies. I should have called Mr. Clarke.
  10 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House for not being quick enough off the mark.
  The motion proposes that the Committee stage of the Bill should finish by Thursday 8 March. By suggesting that date, we believe that we have allowed adequate time in Committee—that is, a total of 16 sittings. Of course, the Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable and may decide that it is necessary for the Committee to sit more frequently than usual.
  The Programming Sub-Committee will also enable Conservative Members to decide to spend more time on the parts of the Bill that they most wish to discuss. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate what we see as one of the most positive aspects of the programming of debates: it offers the Opposition the opportunity to determine the structure and focus of the debate.

  125
  We believe that the arrangement of business within the time allocated should be a matter principally for the Opposition and for Back-Bench Members.
  It may be of interest to reflect on the experience of the programming of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, on which I led for the Government. The Government's stance throughout, in the Programming Sub-Committee and elsewhere, was very simple: we wanted to have debates in which there was cogent argument and room for full discussion. We were less concerned with some of the techniques that certain Opposition Members sought to use and develop to take up time. Our experience was that the programme motion allowed the issues to be fully and cogently debated despite the substantial effort to consume time of some Opposition Members of the Committee, who preferred listening to their own voices to debating the points before them.
  We believe that it should be for the Opposition to come forward and say, within the time available, "These are the issues that we most want to debate." I place it on record that we will listen and that we will honour that wish as we proceed.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It has already been said in the House that Programming Sub-Committees are unaccountable. Their proceedings are not transparent and there is no record of them. Now the Minister is giving an account of what happened on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill as a way of explaining how everything is working perfectly. Is the hon. Gentleman now a convert to the idea of having a proper record of the proceedings?
  Mr. Clarke: I did not suggest that it was working perfectly. In fact, the Government's view, as clearly set out, was that they were very happy with whatever arrangements were made in that regard. However, the rules of conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee were a matter for the Chair, and you, Mr. Speaker, have made your judgment on that. I think I am right in saying that the Chair's decision was that the Programming Sub-Committee was to be treated broadly speaking as a Select Committee.
  I am saying that, above and beyond that, there is in my opinion an obligation on all members of the Committee to take the debate on the legislation seriously and make a distinction between points that are serious and substantive and those that are not. As Conservative Members in Committee and even the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may concede from our experience of Bills in the last Session of Parliament, as a Minister I sought at all times to take seriously the serious points that were made and to accept amendments that were put forward, including those from the Opposition, if they seemed right. However, there is a distinction between serious debate, which the procedure is designed to encourage, and the kind of time-wasting filibustering that some Conservative Members sought to engage in.
  Mr. Heald: Is not the problem that, according to the programme motion, on a substantial Bill with more than 130 clauses, we will have to finish consideration by 8.30 pm and Third Reading by 10 pm? That really is not good enough. If there were a statement on the day in question and the time was even further constrained, it would not leave us enough time to debate such a substantial Bill. Does the Minister not agree that, with a
  126
  Bill of this size, it is inevitable that a significant number of amendments will be tabled? He has already mentioned that.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I accept that his points are legitimate. By that, I mean that he is right to focus on the amount of time that will be taken up with genuine debate—and I believe that the hon. Gentleman will engage in serious debate rather than in the kind of filibustering that I have just described. He raises an important and legitimate point. However, when he asks whether I think we shall have enough time, my answer is that I think we shall.
  Furthermore, we have the ability, through the Programming Sub-Committee procedure, to extend the amount of time available by increasing the frequency of our sittings or by whatever means may be necessary in order to achieve that end, if it is desirable. To give an example from our deliberations on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, we reconvened the Programming Sub-Committee at one point during the Committee stage to change our timetable. That was entirely legitimate and was done with the agreement of all members of the Committee.
  Mr. Malins: I want to make a serious point, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying this. Will he accept that the Bill covers territory with which I am very familiar through my judicial work? Will he also accept that I cannot serve on the Committee because I am on the Chairmen's Panel? Thirdly, will he accept that I asked him a dozen questions during the course of this afternoon's debate, and that he has not been able to answer any of them? I appreciate that he might possibly write to me about them.
  Does the Minister accept that someone in my position finds the prospect of so truncated a consideration of the Bill on Report quite impossible? I have at least a dozen amendments to table on Report which I cannot table in Committee, all of which will need the proper scrutiny of the House.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first two points, relating to his expertise and his membership of the Chairmen's Panel, and to the consequence of that membership on his ability to serve in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, Mr. Speaker, I asked for and received your guidance as to whether people on the Chairmen's Panel could serve in Committee. You confirmed to me the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
  I can commit myself to answering in detail the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in debate this afternoon. I am sorry that I could not do so in the short time available for summation earlier. Secondly, I also guarantee that all the points that he raised will be addressed in Committee. If they are not addressed to his satisfaction, he may wish to table amendments at a later stage. However, I remain of the view that the amount of time allocated in the programme motion is perfectly sufficient to allow us to debate the issues at great length. I am therefore delighted to support the motion.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Heald: The Opposition find this procedure unacceptable. Before Second Reading, the Government tabled a motion setting out how much time there would be for debate in Committee. At that point, we had heard neither the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) nor any of the range of views expressed in almost 20 other speeches made today.
  The Bill clearly throws up a range of issues, including the practical issues about the way in which fixed-penalty notices will work, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) brought his knowledge. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) proved an expert on curfews and told the House how good they would be, despite the fact that not one has been granted under the present regime, which he introduced. A range of issues on civil rights, among other matters, was also raised.
  What makes this programme motion even worse than the others that have gone before it is that, this time, the Government are seeking in advance to programme consideration and Third Reading. That has never been done before in a programme motion, and it should not happen. The idea that a Standing Committee's proceedings can be programmed without hon. Members' having heard the Second Reading debate is laughable. The idea that we can say how much time will be needed for consideration and Third Reading, when we do not have a clue what the Committee will throw up, is even worse. It is time for those who understand the procedures of the House in detail, and the usual channels, to reconsider the matter. How can it be right to programme proceedings when we do not know the ambit of debate? That is nonsense.
  We know that a significant number of amendments to the Bill will be tabled on the range of issues outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon—issues relating to the scientists being persecuted at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and to other scientists referred to tonight. It seems daft to say, "Oh well, we haven't seen the amendments, but we know that we need 16 sittings." More than 16 sittings are provided for us to consider the Finance Bill, which is usually about the same length as this Bill, even though the range of issues considered by a Finance Bill Committee is in some ways narrower.
  The Government are wrong to have tabled the motion. If consideration is taken on a day on which there is a statement, it may begin at five o'clock but it will still have to finish by 8.30 pm—even though the Bill deals with a range of issues such as civil rights, fixed-penalty notices, curfews and evidential requirements involved with disclosure of information. That is unrealistic and I ask the Minister to think again. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill—as he will remember, I complained loudly about the programme motion—and said, "Actually, you were right because we had to change the timetable mid-way through the proceedings." That represents a concession that the procedure is flawed.
  Mr. Clarke: May I clarify that? We changed the timetable, but we did not lengthen it. The time allocated remained the same and we completed our debates within it, to the satisfaction of all sides.
  Mr. Heald: But does not the Minister agree that the fact that the programme had to be changed while the
  128
  Committee was in full flow showed that deciding all such matters at the outset is wrong? It is not in the Opposition's gift to say how long will be needed in Committee and how long will be needed for consideration and Third Reading. The Opposition used to have more locus and more ability to influence such matters. The change is bad for democracy.
  This big Bill deals with many issues and it will take a long time to consider them thoroughly. As the Minister said, I am not one for filibustering, although I like to take him to task on the provisions in detail, but we simply cannot say at this stage that 16 sittings are enough; nor can we say that it is adequate—and I am sure it is not right—for consideration and Third Reading to take place on one curtailed day.
  A considerable number of new clauses will be tabled on matters other than Huntingdon Life Sciences and its problems—on prisoners who have been released early, for example. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but that is a serious point. Large numbers of police officers are being assaulted and the people going to prison for such assaults are being released having served less than half their time. That is an insult to the police, who feel that early releases are bad for morale. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) originally agreed with the Minister on that matter but has been converted. It is time that the Minister also came round. Police morale is a serious issue and letting people who have assaulted officers out of prison early is an insult. The Minister can be fairly sure that there will be a new clause on that, because I have just tabled one. Similarly, he can be pretty sure that there will be a new clause on the important issue of the early release of child sex offenders, because I have just tabled one. There is a range of new clauses that will require debate.
  We ought to reflect on the issue of modernisation. Is it progress to say that the Opposition cannot have the time they need to debate important issues? What could be more important than how we deal with the persecution of people in their own homes and how we tackle violence in our streets? Confidentiality and the Inland Revenue, documents that may help in huge investigations, and importing pornography are big issues; and it is not right for the Minister to guillotine proceedings, particularly as he always appears to enjoy engaging in debate. Why be so sparing with time?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether it would help the hon. Gentleman if I gave him the assurance that I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in connection with the Vehicles (Crime Bill); but in the event of serious debate of serious issues in Committee, if there is no attempt to filibuster and if we seem to be running short of time, I am prepared to commit myself to discussing with Opposition parties the possibility of reconvening the Programming Sub-Committee to establish how we can make time available.
  Mr. Heald: I realise that the Minister feels he has made a great concession. That is marvellous for him, but we should not have to request time for debate from him; the Opposition should have a right to the time that they need to scrutinise the Government's legislation. It should indeed be a right, not a privilege. I made the same point when we discussed the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. "Modernisation" is a backward step if it means inadequate time for scrutiny.

  129
  In a way, it is typical of Labour to describe something so retrogressive as modernisation. If anything, it means returning to an era when there was no true democracy, and a Member could not argue his case. The whole principle is wrong. There is likely to be an election and the Bill may well not make the statute book, but we could at least do it the justice of debating each and every clause in detail.
  Mr. Clarke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can refresh our memories. Was there any occasion in the 18 years during which his party was in government when it guillotined consideration of these matters, in Committee or at any other stage?
  Mr. Heald: There were guillotines—no one would argue with that—and Labour Members often objected. It is rather sad when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says "Oh, you were absolute shockers, and we are going to be worse." That is no way in which to govern the country sensibly.
  The Government are developing a bad reputation. There were 118 amendments to the Bill that became the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 77 of which were not debated here. There were 268 amendments to what became the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, 47 of which were not debated here. There were 666 amendments to what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, 522 of which were not debated here. Those amendments were debated more extensively in the House of Lords, where people are not elected to represent the interests of electors, than here in the House of Commons, where we are all elected to come and do this job. Is it right for Labour Members, in the interests of finishing early or having an easy ride in debate, to deprive the Opposition of the time that is needed?
  Let me make two more points. First, the Minister has made an offer regarding the Standing Committee, but what about Report and Third Reading? Not everyone can be on the Committee, but issues involving civil rights and the like are of great interest to members of all parties. It seems wrong that the debate on Report—when members of the Committee give the House their views, and others can consider what happened in Committee and present their own opinions—should be so curtailed. What account is being taken of all the Members who cannot be on the Committee?
  Secondly, what about Back Benchers? True, the Minister and I, and doubtless a Whip from each side—perhaps more—will go into a huddle, and there will be no record of the proceedings. In Committee I may unburden myself a little, so that other Committee members know something of what happened. But the fact is that we shall be there making judgments on how long Back Benchers want to discuss particular issues in Committee, which is not an easy exercise.
  When I was a silent one, I did quite a lot of trying to timetable debates involving the whole House—on, for instance, the Bills that became the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. We often found, with the best will in the world—having worked hard to decide how long was needed—that a Member from Scotland or Wales would have a perfectly legitimate point to make about a particular aspect of the legislation, and others would not be able to make their points. In a number of
  130
  debates significant points could not be debated because we had not managed to secure the fingertip control of timing that we wanted. It is unfair to Back Benchers if a heavy-handed approach is taken.
  I therefore ask the Minister whether it is not time to reconsider, to withdraw the programme motion and to allow matters to proceed as they used to in the good old days—when time was allowed seriously to debate the issues for as long as was warranted. Is not the motion a backward step, and should not the Government think again?
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Malins: This programme motion—I have not spoken to a programme motion before—is shameful. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to listen to my arguments.
  Never mind for now that the Minister and the Government have decided that the Committee should finish by 8 March—although I simply do not know where they got that date from. Let us consider how consideration on Report will operate. As described on the Order Paper, it seems that Report may last for less than four hours. The Bill has well over 130 clauses and various schedules. Moreover, it raises a great many issues.
  The Minister will know that, today, on Second Reading, I spoke for 14 minutes and never strayed from the subject, focusing only on the Bill's first dozen or so clauses. He knows that the penalty issues—the so-called on-the-spot penalties—are themselves a fairly major topic that has to be examined very closely by people who know what they are talking about, but the Government are offering us only four hours to consider those provisions.
  It is worse than that. As I said earlier, the Committee will include only three or four Opposition Members, each of whom may or may not have some expertise on the subject. Other Labour Members and Opposition Members will not be able to serve in Committee. Believe it or not, some of those hon. Members may have real expert knowledge of the subject. In my view, one of the great tragedies of this Chamber is the amount of our debate that consists of our doing no more than mouthing platitudes at one another or watching the clock until there is another vote. There may be another shout and another rampage, but where, oh where is the constructive, sensible thinking?
  Today, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alluded to the fact that many hon. Members have some knowledge of a subject but that very rarely do they have the chance to share it. As he said, there are so many ways of approaching a Bill to make it better.
  It is not many weeks since the House considered two quite important pieces of legislation—the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill and the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which had to do with jury trial and with preventing some football fans from going abroad. I may lack absolute knowledge of many subjects, but I worked very hard on those two Bills, preparing amendments for consideration on Report.
  I thought that my amendments were worthy of debate, so I sat in the Chamber all day in the hope of speaking to them. I had not spoken in the House for weeks, but I wanted to comment on an issue about which I knew. Is anyone surprised to learn that our consideration was

  131
  guillotined and that not one of my amendments was touched? That made me sad, not because I have that much great wisdom but because I had something to say on those matters. There are hon. Members who have something to say about the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
  So the Bill will be considered in Committee and the usual formalities will be observed. As we know, someone will say, "Please speak for 20 minutes." If another hon. Member asks me to speak for 20 minutes, I shall go mad. I may want to speak for 20 seconds, five minutes or 25 minutes. I want to speak about things that really matter. I do not mind instructions telling me to speak for 15 minutes, except that Labour Members have been told the same thing. What type of Chamber is this? How often do hon. Members with real expertise have a chance to make a difference? It is a tragedy.
  Some hon. Members may want to table new clauses on Report. Some will have something positive to say about the remaining stages of the Bill. However, I know what will happen, as does the Minister. We will not have the time. What were we elected to this place for? Was I elected to go through the Lobbies night after night? Was I elected to be told to speak for 15 minutes? Was any Member to this place elected for that? It is sad, but many of us feel that we were.
  The Minister knows as well as I do that four hours on Report may not be enough for the serious debate that the Bill deserves. To force us to complete the debate in four hours is to attack the rights of Back Benchers. It is sad that we have reached this stage, which is why I repeat that this is a shameful motion.
  10.26 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: These programme motion debates are now colloquially referred to as "pot and kettle" debates, because so much time is spent trying to pretend that the sins of the previous regime somehow mitigate those of the present regime—or vice versa.
  There is however a serious issue here. The motion is defective in two important respects. The Minister made the best of a bad brief, but frankly, had he been a member of the Modernisation Committee, he would have known that his explanation this evening was misleading. The Modernisation Committee wished to make it certain that Opposition parties and Back Benchers on both sides had a real opportunity to debate issues in a Bill that were important to them.
  The Government have a right to expect that their legislation will get through in due course, assuming that they maintain their majority in the House, and they may seek to put a marker down for when they want the Committee to be completed. However, they do not have a right to determine precisely what debate takes place in the intervening period.
  In advance of the Second Reading of the Bill, it is ludicrous to determine precisely how much time will be required for Report and Third Reading. If the Minister made a genuine concession just now by saying that he was prepared to listen to arguments from other parts of the House about the progress of the Bill, let him say clearly now from the Dispatch Box that he is also prepared to take back to his colleagues the proposal that Report and Third Reading may also have to be extended if necessary.
  132
  This is a Bill different from many of the others that have been programmed in recent weeks. First and foremost, there has been no preliminary discussion, draft Bill or inquiry by a Committee. The House has never looked at most of the issues before. Secondly, there are huge issues that are not even in the Bill, yet which the Minister has said he intends to try to include in it. I know that amendments have already been taken to the Clerk for tabling. When preparing the programme motion, how did the Minister and his colleagues know how many amendments were to be tabled or how significant they would be? How many new clauses will be tabled by the Government to deal with issues that are outwith the Bill?
  This is very much a tentative Bill; it is not by any means a complete work. There are already in excess of 132 clauses. I wager that there will be a considerable increase in that number and, if anything, we may find that the existing clauses are subject to substantial Government amendment.
  The timing is absurd. To table a programme motion even before the Second Reading debate has taken place is to make an absurd presumption about the views of both Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers. I serve on the Selection Committee. On Wednesday, we will appoint the members of a Committee to consider the Bill. We will look at the contributions made by hon. Members on Second Reading. Without knowing who the Committee members will be, how can we pre-determine how they will want to handle the Bill? How can they decide how they want to handle it before they know who they are?
  There is no practical reason why the Government should continue to insist on taking programme motions on the same day as Second Reading. It flies in the face of common sense and practical reality. Incidentally, if the Conservatives have not decided whether to force a vote on Second Reading, we can end up with very late votes on programme motions, directly contrary to the Modernisation Committee's intentions of trying to ensure that main votes are taken at 10 pm and not thereafter.
  The motion is a bad one, and I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Clappison: I agree with the description applied to the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins): it is shameful. He made more eloquently than I could the point that the amount of time allotted for Report will prevent many of us from contributing at that stage.
  That also casts a reflection on how the Government intend to approach the Committee stage. Whoever is in government, Ministers will rarely accept in Committee amendments tabled by the Opposition. They more commonly say that they will reflect on the point and perhaps table an amendment on Report. The shortness of the time allowed for Report stage means that it will be very difficult to do that.
  The Minister spoke about past guillotines. I cannot recall an occasion when a criminal justice Bill of this length has had such a short Report stage. For example, I remember that the then Opposition spent several days on Report on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of 1994, introducing matters such as the right to silence—an important and sensitive subject that it was right to

  133
  debate—and it is interesting to see that, in government, Labour has gone back on what it said then and abolished the right to silence for 10 to 14-year-olds.
  The motion suggests to me that the Government are not interested in listening to argument and certainly not interested in the details of the legislation, which is being pushed contemptuously through the House. It suggests that what really matters to them is not getting the detail right so that the legislation works in practice but all the headlines that were generated some weeks ago, before the Queen's Speech, when Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister was wheeled out to talk about the yob culture.
  We even heard the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he was still one of the band of brothers, saying that the Bill was an attack on yob culture. The only time I have heard him saying something deranged is when he said that the Government were winning the war on crime. The rest of the time, he has made perfect sense.
  This contemptuous motion says all that we need to know about the Government's attitude towards policy, towards the House and towards democracy.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Indeed, I agree with all the comments by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about the programme motion.
  I was unfortunately unable to attend the whole debate, but I heard some of the Home Secretary's remarks on the issue that worries many hon. Members: the attacks on scientific workers who practise around the country. The problem affects many constituencies, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). When my right hon. Friend mentioned his anxieties about Huntingdon Life Sciences, the Home Secretary was good enough to say that he hoped to table amendments in Committee to deal with the serious problem that affects so many ordinary people around the country who feel intimidated. The headquarters of Novartis is in my constituency. I met the staff on Friday, and they are worried about what is happening.
  However, the Home Secretary said that he could not give an undertaking to table amendments in Committee that are capable of dealing with that genuine problem. The public expect Parliament to respond to the serious problem of intimidation. If, for good and valid reasons, the Home Secretary is unable to table well drafted amendments in Committee because the Government have so programmed that stage of our proceedings that it must end by 8 March, there will be no other opportunity to table them. The idea that the Home Secretary will be able to table them on Report is unrealistic. If Report lasts only hours, and there is a statement on the relevant day, the debate will be truncated even more. We will then be in the farcical position that, although the Home Secretary has told the House that he wants to table the amendments and hopes to do so in Committee, after failing to do that, he is unable to do so on Report.
  The Minister is a reasonable man; we believe that he is being groomed for even higher office. Would it not be bizarre if a matter of such importance could not be decided or even properly debated in the House because tonight the Government have hamstrung themselves with
  134
  a timetable motion which will prevent a serious matter from being resolved in the House? It would therefore be the responsibility of the other place to try to resolve the matter. I have great confidence in the ability of the hereditary peers to do their constitutional duty. I believe that immense wisdom reposes in their Lordships, and I have no doubt that they would be able to deal with the matter. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they are enabled to do so by birth. That is true, but they also have the wisdom of experience.
  Mr. Malins: They are independent.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right.
  It is not good enough for the Government to table such a motion. It is inconsistent with the Home Secretary's earlier commitment to deal with the matter to which I referred. The Government are curtailing the debate so that even if they are able to table amendments in Committee, there will be only four hours on Report for other hon. Members who are not members of the Committee to comment on important measures for dealing with intimidation at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and also with the hunt saboteurs who go round disrupting hunting in this country.
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that some Members whose constituents are affected—perhaps even our right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—will not be able to sit on the Committee, but will be desperately keen to attend the debate on Report—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It will not be possible for every Member with a constituency interest in the matter to be a member of the Committee, so it would be wrong if they did not have the opportunity on Report to propose new clauses or amendments on further points that needed to be dealt with.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The case that the measure is shameful is overwhelmingly made. The motion does not even meet the Government's own requirements; it puts a straitjacket on their intentions for the Bill. It undermines one's confidence in the Government's commitment to address the serious issues.
  If we can deal with the problems for scientists on Report, I hope that I shall be able to raise the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875—many of whose provisions could well do with re-enactment in the Bill.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The manner of the programme motion is not just shameful—it is scandalous. The motion brings the House into grave disrepute—as do all its predecessors during this Session.
  It is an example of the complete contempt in which the Executive hold the legislature that a representative of the Executive can tell the House that he thinks there is enough time for the Committee to discuss the Bill. In a fit of seeming generosity, the Minister of State responded to an intervention by saying that, of course, if he considered that there had been serious discussion in Committee of the proposed amendments, he would generously be prepared to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee to see whether a few more sittings could be squeezed in for the House to consider the measure. That is

  135
  an appalling example of an overweening Executive, supported by legislators on the Labour Benches who betray their duty to the people whom they represent.
  The motion is a scandal. We do not yet know who is to be appointed to the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that only six Back-Bench Conservative Members contributed to the Second Reading debate?
  Mr. Blunt: I am glad that the Minister made that point. He draws attention to the extraordinary fact that the number of contributions made in the debate by Members on both sides of the House reflects the relative number of Members elected to the Chamber—in other words, there were 17 speeches from Labour Members and 10 from Opposition Members, of which six were made by Conservatives. That is almost a precise reflection of the make-up of the House of Commons.
  For it to be a matter of such extraordinary note that Government Back Benchers contribute to a debate in the same ratio as their election to this place shows what an idle lot they normally are, because they do not turn up to represent the interests of their own constituents. Now that we have timetabled programmes for Standing Committees, they have no excuse not to make contributions. It can make no difference to the passage of the Bill. Labour Members should be able to turn up and speak on the interests that they are supposed to represent rather than sitting in Standing Committee like a lot of jellyfish, saying nothing that would disturb the Executive.
  The problem is that there is a large number of newly elected Labour Members who see their duty as simply to support the Executive. In this Parliament, legislators are betraying their duty to the people who elected them—they are betraying the House of Commons. These programme motions and the contempt they show for our legislative duty are a prime example of that. Such motions should earn the Executive the calumny that they so thoroughly deserve.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Charles Clarke: There is, of course, room for argument as to whether there should be programming. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is a serious debate and it divides the House. In my opinion, and that of the Government, programming allows more contributions from the House than would otherwise be made. That key point needs to be understood. I believe that the current system is vastly superior to what went before, when debates were curtailed and guillotined all the way through. As it happens, I respect the contributions made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—
  It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 137.

  Division No. 88]

  [10.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Allen, Graham

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Denham, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Austin, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bailey, Adrian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Banks, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Barnes, Harry

  Edwards, Huw

  Efford, Clive

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ennis, Jeff

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Etherington, Bill

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Benton, Joe

  Flint, Caroline

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Best, Harold

  Follett, Barbara

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Godsiff, Roger

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Goggins, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hepburn, Stephen

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cox, Tom

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  (Copeland)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Joyce, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  137

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pound, Stephen

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  (Makerfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McFall, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  MacShane, Denis

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWalter, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Maxton, John

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Merron, Gillian

  Stringer, Graham

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Miller, Andrew

  (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Ellitot

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Tipping, Paddy

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Todd, Mark

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tynan, Bill

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Watts, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  White, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  (Swansea W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter L

  Winnick, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  138

  Wood, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Don Touhig.

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Amess, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Leigh, Edward

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Baldry, Tony

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Lidington, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Madel, Sir David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mates, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Burnett, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Burns, Simon

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Burstow, Paul

  Norman, Archie

  Cash, William

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Öpik, Lembit

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Paice, James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Pickles, Eric

  (Rushcliffe)

  Portillo, Ftt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Randall, John

  Cran, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Rendel, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Ruffley, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fabricant, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Sanders, Adrian

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gibb, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gray, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hammond, Philip

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Townend, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tredinnick, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Hayes, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Horam, John

  Webb, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Whittingdale, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wilkinson, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Willetts, David

  Key, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  139

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Allen.]

  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 0.

  Division No. 89]

  [11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Ashton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Crausby, David

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cummings, John

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Bermingham, Gerald

  (Copeland)

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burden, Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burgon, Colin

  Denham, John

  Burnett, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Clapham, Michael

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Flynn, Paul

  140

  Follett, Barbara

  Lock, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Gapes, Mike

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  (Makerfield)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNulty, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Meale, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hoey, Kate

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Öpik, Lembit

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Plaskitt, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Purchase, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rapson, Syd

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lammy, David

  Rendel, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robertson, John

  Lepper, David

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  141

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Salter, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Timms, Stephen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Todd, Mark

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Touhig, Don

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Tyler, Paul

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Snape, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Watts, David

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wray, James

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Clive Betts.

  (Dewsbury)

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions of that Act relating to the treatment for the purposes of the Tax Acts of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad; and

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State by the Central Police Training and Development Authority.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 0.

  Division No. 90]

  [11.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try HE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Austin, John

  Benton, Joe

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Banks, Tony

  Best, Harold

  Barnes, Harry

  Blackman, Liz

  142

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Goggins, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burgon, Colin

  Hain, Peter

  Burnett, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hancock, Mike

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Heppell, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cox, Tom

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  (Copeland)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foulkes, George

  (Makerfield)

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  143

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mullin, Chris

  (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Tynan, Bill

  Pound, Stephen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Raynstbrd, Nick

  Winnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robertson, John

  Wood, Mike

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Worthington, Tony

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wray, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Clive Betts.

  Rowlands, Ted

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

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

    COMPANIES
    That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3325), which were laid before this House on 19th December 2000, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    COMPANIES
    That the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3324), which were laid before this House on 19th December 2000, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Hon. Members Hon. Members: Object.

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

  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. Mike Hall.]
  Hon. Members Hon. Members: Object.

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, That

  1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and

  3. At that meeting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

  (b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and

  (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

  Hon. Members: Object.

  TREASURY
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Liz Blackman be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Judy Mallaber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Fluoridation
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: I begin by explaining to my hon. Friend the Minister that no discourtesy was intended on my part when I failed to get in touch with her. When I arrived this afternoon, I phoned her office and got an answerphone; I left word that I would be present at 7.15 pm but got no word back. I apologise only when I do things wrong so I am not apologising, but I regret that this has happened, because it puts a person at a disadvantage, and I would not seek to do that.
  Since coming to this House in 1992, it has been my opinion that the Department of Health is absolutely paranoic in its support for fluoridation of water on the basis that it goes a long way to help reduce dental caries during the formative years of a child's growth. I am pleased to say that, since my party came to power, two significant moves have alleviated that position to some extent, although there is still a long way to go.
  The first big step forward was when the Government agreed that, instead of local health authorities having the power to decide whether water should be fluoridated, it would be left to local councils to consult the people living in the area and to make a recommendation to the local health authority, which the health authority would accept.
  The importance of that change is that health authorities do their work as they are told to do it by the Department of Health. There is no independence, and anyone who thinks otherwise does not have much knowledge of the Government or of those whom they appoint to do a job for them. Councils are rather different. They are, to some degree, influenced by the fact they can be removed by the people in their area, if they do not provide what the people want. That change was particularly welcome to me.
  When this matter was discussed at great length in my constituency four years ago, there was a phone-in to a local newspaper in which more than 2,000 people took part. More than 90 per cent. of those who responded were against the fluoridation of water supplies. I have no fears about this matter. If we can go out and campaign fairly, I have no doubt that the public will democratically decide that they do not want fluoridation.
  There was a second important factor. There must have been some doubt on the matter somewhere in the Department of Health, because last year it set up a review procedure under Professor Sheldon at York university. That review would take note of whatever evidence was available on the advantages and disadvantages of the fluoridation of water, and notice would, of course, be taken of the resulting report.
  When the report came out in late autumn last year, I was delighted, as someone who is opposed to fluoridation and the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group against fluoridation. Having read the report, my view was that it in no way endorsed the views that we have been given for many years about the tremendous benefits of fluoridation, about there being no danger involved and about there being no evidence that it could be harmful.
  I say to the Minister with all sincerity that I am very disappointed that the Department of Health has joined forces with the British Dental Association, the British

  147
  Medical Association and the British Fluoridation Society in a pre-emptive strike to try to undermine the report. I make no apology for reading out a letter that was sent to the Government on 10 September by Professor Sheldon. I shall read it word for word, although I do not like doing that; I like spontaneity rather than chuntering on. Professor Sheldon wrote:
  "In my capacity as chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.

  1 Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15 per cent., is far from 'massive'.

  2 The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as 'just a cosmetic issue'.

  3 The review did not show fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.

  4 There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.

  5 The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.

  6 Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.

  7 The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."

  I pay tribute to Lord Baldwin, who has been an inspiration to all those who are worried about water fluoridation. I shall now pick out one or two highlights from a piece by Jerome Burne in the Financial Times on 27 January. The article is headed "Fluoridation findings set teeth gnashing" and says:
  "A systematic research review has failed to find reliable evidence that it works, but doctors and dentists are refusing to accept the fact".
  I do not have time to read out the whole article, but it also says:
  "Anyone who thinks this report a ringing endorsement is either scientifically illiterate or dishonest".
  Those are not my words, but I certainly go along with them.
  Several statements have been made since the York review. I shall call it that because everyone—not that many are here—will understand it. The BDA said:
  "The review … confirms that water fluoridation is safe and effective."
  148
  The York review said:
  "The studies included for [effectiveness] were of moderate quality (level B [moderate risk of bias]), and limited quantity."
  John Hunt, chief executive of the BDA, refers to the
  "compelling evidence provided by the review",
  but the review says:
  "Any future research … [should use] … appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base."
  The BDA says:
  "The report confirms that there is clear evidence that fluoridation reduces [decay]."
  The York review says:
  "To have clear confidence in the ability to answer the question [on caries reduction], the quality of the evidence would need to be higher."
  The BDA says:
  "The report confirms that fluoridation reduces dental health inequalities … [and] significantly narrows the dental health gap".
  The York review, in its executive summary conclusions, says:
  "The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms [than dental fluorosis] or whether there is an impact on social inequalities."
  The BDA says:
  "There is no evidence that water fluoridation is linked to cancer, bone disease, or any other adverse effect."
  The York review says:
  "High quality research [into adverse effects] that takes confounding factors into account is needed."
  The BDA says:
  "Dental fluorosis is recognised by the York review as a cosmetic issue, not a health problem."
  The York review says:
  "This is nowhere to be found in the report. The lead researcher confirms 'we … did not say it was a cosmetic issue."
  The BDA says:
  "projections in the review estimate that fluoridation might … increase … dental fluorosis of 'aesthetic concern' … to around 10 per cent."
  The York review says:
  "The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5 per cent."
  That is pretty good for the BDA: it was only 25 per cent. out on that issue, whereas on all the others it was nearly 100 per cent. out. I could go on indefinitely with those quotations, but I shall not.
  According to a BDA parliamentary newsletter, the York review
  "confirmed that water fluoridation is safe and effective".
  The York review replied:
  "Interpreting the results of studies of other possible negative effects is very difficult because of the small numbers of studies … and poor study quality … other potential adverse effects"—
  other than dental fluorosis, that is
  "may take longer to occur, or may occur largely in an adult population … High quality research is needed."

  149
  I think I have made my point in that regard, but the Department of Health, which commissioned the report, has made statements on one or two issues. It has said:
  "This report clearly shows that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay."
  The York review said:
  "The studies included"
  for effectiveness—
  "were of moderate quality … and limited quantity … Only one study addressed the positive effect of fluoridation in the adult population. Assessment of the long-term benefits of water fluoridation is needed."
  According to the Department of Health,
  "The findings show that water fluoridation improves dental health".
  The York review said:
  "it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken."
  Perhaps the most surprising aspect involves a statement by the British Fluoridation Society, which compared dental health in fluoridated Sandwell with that in unfluoridated Bolton. to Bolton' s disadvantage. According to the York review:
  "Crude league tables cannot be scientific, as they do not control for other variables. Ireland for example, most heavily fluoridated in Europe, ranks below 4 unfluoridated countries for dental health in 12-year-olds."
  I have quoted quite enough, and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply—after all, she has already suffered one disadvantage—but I think that the present situation is untenable. I want the Department of Health not to try to rubbish reports that it has commissioned, and to ensure that what goes out to the public uses such reports in their proper context. I consider it scandalous for a Government Department to act in such a way: I cannot put it more strongly than that.
  This is nothing short of deception. It is not for me to say whether it constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead people—I leave others to judge that—but I know that it does mislead people. Despite all its problems, most of the population have a high regard for the Department of Health; I have myself, but not on this issue. It is about time the Department took another look at the matter.
  I should like to know why we are about the only European country that tolerates the poison that is put into our water—for that is what we are talking about: it is a poison, nothing else. The Government themselves have said that fluorosis is a sign of toxicity, although people are saying that it is only cosmetic.
  Let me say to the Minister again, in all honesty and sincerity, that if we do not get this matter right there will be a public backlash that will make many other recent events seem fairly small. There has been a bad misjudgment for many years, and it is time that it was corrected.
  11.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this debate on the important issue of oral health. The subject provokes strong reactions, both for and against the fluoridation of water supplies. His speech showed great passion, but I accept
  150
  that he has never intended any discourtesy. I am just sorry that we were not able previously to speak about the subject so that I could address the specific issues that he has raised.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's record on the issue. Not only has he expressed his concerns in today's Adjournment debate, but he has a long track record of tabling parliamentary questions on the issue. He also paid tribute to Lord Baldwin, who in the past few months has pursued the issue in the other place.
  The United Kingdom has seen dramatic improvements in health, and that includes oral health. Last July, to build on those improvements, the Government published the NHS plan, which is the most far-reaching reform programme in the history of the national health service. Part of the plan details how we intend to redesign the NHS around patients and deliver fast and accessible care. We should remember that the fluoridation debate has arisen because we wanted to improve dental health.
  In September, the dental strategy "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" dealt in greater detail with oral health matters. The strategy essentially will
  "give the next generation a healthier start with oral hygiene that will benefit them throughout their lives".
  The strategy also has the support of the British Dental Association's recently published five-point plan, which includes a comprehensive programme to improve oral health and reduce inequalities.
  Quite apart from the fluoridation issue, which I shall address in a moment, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to address oral health inequalities and to allow everyone who wants it access to NHS dentistry. At the front door to those services will be NHS Direct. When it goes live for dentistry, NHS Direct will be a convenient route for patients to access NHS dentistry whether for urgent or routine treatment. No matter where in the country one lives, one telephone call to NHS Direct or logging on to NHS Direct Online will enable one to find the nearest NHS dentist or dental access centre.
  Additionally, NHS Direct will provide information on self-care and patients' rights and charges, so that patients are fully informed about dental treatment and services. Currently, two pilot projects—one in the south-west and the other in the north-east, which covers the Newcastle and north Tyneside area—are testing NHS Direct's ability to direct callers to dental treatment. NHS Direct will also provide useful information and feedback to health authorities about dental services, ensuring that access difficulties are identified and dealt with in all parts of the country, and will help to tackle inequality in dental services.
  However good the access to dental treatment is, people still need help in reducing their need for restorative treatment. Oral health is central to healthy living and contributes to the well-being of us all. We know that children who start brushing their teeth in infancy are less likely to experience tooth decay than those who start brushing later. We also know that using fluoride toothpaste is an effective way of preventing decay.
  We cannot, however, be complacent, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Government are not complacent on the issue. Later I shall outline in more

  151
  detail what we are doing as a result of the York research. However, the fact is that more than half the country's 15-year-olds still experience decay in their permanent teeth. We also have very good evidence that significant inequalities remain throughout the population. Children from deprived communities, for example, including some black and minority ethnic communities, are less likely to visit a dentist regularly. Even at regional level, there are major differences in the levels of tooth decay in children.
  In 1999, for example, five-year-olds in the west midlands had on average less than half the number of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth than those in the north-west. Moreover, 19 per cent. more five-year-olds in the west midlands had no tooth decay at all compared with their counterparts in the north-west. A similar picture emerges in relation to 12-year-olds and their permanent teeth.
  The challenge for local health authorities is how to improve oral health generally and to tackle those inequalities in health status. Reducing inequalities in dental health is not easy. One option that was considered was to add fluoride to school milk. A number of health authorities—such as Knowsley, St. Helens and the Wirral, where water is not fluoridated—are currently running pilot schemes. However, although those are worthwhile initiatives, for the best benefits children need to start using fluoride before the age at which they start school. That is why successive Governments have preferred the further option of fluoridating the water supply in areas with high levels of dental decay. It is the view of dental professionals that the fluoridation of water offers the most effective means of reducing tooth decay.
  As the recent review of the evidence shows, fluoridation of the water supply to the optimum level of one part in a million can significantly reduce the amount of tooth decay in children from similar backgrounds. About 500,000 people in this country receive water that is naturally fluoridated at, or about, this level. I was interested in the reports about the mottling of teeth. One of my children has mottling, simply by virtue of growing up in a part of Essex which has extremely high natural levels of fluoride.
  A further 1 million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still provides some dental benefit. These areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north, down to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to this level. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands, and also in Tyneside.
  Successive Governments have recognised that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. In "Modernising NHS Dentistry", we quoted the example of Sandwell, which is next to my constituency. The water supply there was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period, Bolton—an area with a similar population mix, but without fluoridated water—saw little change in its children's oral health.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the example of Ireland and I will look at the comparison he raised. That example has been replicated in many other places
  152
  over the past 50 years. Sadly, it is also true that where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn—in Anglesey and Kilmarnock, for example—levels of tooth decay in children have risen after having fallen during the periods of fluoridation.
  Nevertheless, we have a duty—as my hon. Friend forcefully reminded me—to examine carefully any claims that there are risks which may be attached to fluoridation, as well as benefits. It was for this reason that we commissioned the NHS centre for reviews and dissemination at the university of York to review the evidence on the relationship between fluoride and health. The report of the review was published last October.
  The review confirmed that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay and that there is no clear evidence of other adverse effects on general health associated with water fluoridation. The only problem identified was the cosmetic side effect of fluoridation—dental fluorosis. The report did, however, identify the need for more good-quality research on the effect of water fluoridation.
  The final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act (1991), section 87(i) of which states:
  "Where a Health Authority has applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area."
  Since 1985, nearly half of all health authorities in England have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation. None of these requests has been accepted. The reason for that is, quite simply, that none of the water companies has exercised the discretion to agree to a health authority's request. The key issue here is whether the "may" should become "shall".
  We have been encouraged by the readiness with which the water industry has indicated that it is prepared to look again at both the legal and practical problems around fluoridation. What the water operators want, above anything else, is clarity over the distribution of responsibilities. They have emphasised that their primary duty is to provide a sufficient and wholesome supply of water. They consider that the question of whether a water supply should also contribute to wider public health objectives should be for the health service to decide. When a fluoridation scheme is approved, the health service meets the operational costs and indemnifies the water operator against any unforeseen cost consequences. There is little that we can disagree with in that.
  How, then, are we to proceed? I have seen evidence in the west midlands that fluoridation can reduce dental decay, but there is strong public opinion against it. My hon. Friend cited a radio phone-in. National opinion polls show that about 70 per cent. are in favour of fluoridation, but environmentalists have considerable concerns. The York study showed that there are some shortcomings.
  Oral health measures, such as regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, can achieve good results, but experience shows that the best reduction in dental decay, particularly among deprived communities, is achieved when the fluoride is added to the water, so we will

  153
  encourage health authorities in areas of high dental decay to consider holding consultations with local people to discuss current views on fluoridation, in light of the York report's findings. No community would or should be required to fluoridate unless there is a significant majority in favour.
  The York report highlighted the need for more good-quality research. We have asked the Medical Research Council to suggest where it might be possible to strengthen the evidence currently available. It is certainly not our intention to cover the same ground, but rather to give advice on how to fill in the gaps identified in the York report. We are also discussing the report with representatives of the water industry. When the discussions are complete, we will review the need for legislation.
  The MRC has provisionally agreed terms of reference stating that it should
  "Provide advice on current scientific evidence regarding the health effects of water fluoridation …
  Consider whether further research in this area is required to inform public health policy …
  154
  Report to the MRC Physiological Medicine and Infections Board and the MRC Health Services and Public Health Research Board"
  and
  "Report to the Department of Health."
  The MRC has let us know that its working group may want to refine those terms of reference. Its first meeting will be in February.
  Any proposals for change will, of course, be brought to the House and right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate further this sensitive issue before any decisions are reached. We are clear that we need a good, solid evidence base, but we are also clear that we need the support of the public. The two elements will go forward in tandem.
  I respect my hon. Friend's strong views. I hope that he is reassured by the fact that we are commissioning further research to fill in the gaps clearly identified in the York study. I thank him warmly for raising the issue tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Social Housing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the resources available to meet the Government's target of bringing social housing up to a decent standard by 2010, and of achieving one third of the target by 2004; [146836]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of bringing social housing up to a decent standard. [146834]

  1999–2000 figures

  £million

  Authority

  Primary education SSA

  Secondary education SSA

  Primary education net current expenditure1

  Secondary education net current expenditure1

  Greater London

  City of London

  0.541

  0.030

  1.136

  0.060

  Camden

  29.653

  35.789

  33.388

  39.805

  Greenwich

  54.220

  50.127

  59.039

  49.348

  Hackney

  48.693

  35.981

  58.176

  29.869

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  24.814

  23.972

  28.544

  26.939

  Islington

  42.498

  33.265

  44.153

  29.795

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17.420

  12.748

  23.895

  15.230

  Lambeth

  54.036

  35.279

  56.661

  27.354

  Lewisham

  58.465

  46.899

  60.869

  47.333

  Southwark

  60.335

  42.789

  70.798

  39.807

  Tower Hamlets

  60.756

  60.509

  59.653

  57.263

  Wandsworth

  41.746

  35.173

  46.555

  33.770

  Westminster

  24.575

  26.647

  31.379

  28.184

  Barking and Dagenham

  36.966

  33.039

  43.487

  34.382

  Barnet

  53.310

  56.035

  62.778

  64.201

  Bexley

  44.252

  45.219

  47.265

  44.512

  Brent

  51.488

  45.779

  57.369

  47.397

  Bromley

  50.555

  51.840

  55.235

  55.317

  Croydon

  65.682

  54.694

  69.505

  44.995

  Ealing

  57.007

  48.225

  63.574

  46.546

  Enfield

  56.843

  57.463

  62.830

  62.827

  Haringey

  50.404

  39.085

  60.580

  42.019

  Harrow

  37.163

  33.970

  49.160

  26.834

  Havering

  42.624

  43.876

  45.232

  46.040

  Hillingdon

  46.587

  42.839

  49.481

  48.807

  Hounslow

  40.749

  45.261

  49.036

  48.123

  Kingston upon Thames

  21.900

  21.287

  24.754

  23.688

  Merton

  29.370

  26.775

  34.843

  22.674

  Newham

  70.180

  64.557

  74.578

  57.675

  Redbridge

  46.053

  48.383

  49.740

  54.268

  Richmond upon Thames

  23.252

  23.131

  27.409

  22.292

  Sutton

  30.673

  34.605

  33.955

  36.861

  Waltham Forest

  50.480

  44.416

  58.748

  41.937

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  51.086

  50.659

  60.280

  50.519

  Bury

  31.763

  32.439

  34.917

  32.065

  Manchester

  94.322

  82.912

  96.170

  73.862

  Oldham

  45.806

  48.934

  54.254

  47.063

  Rochdale

  43.238

  40.147

  45.338

  39.346

  2W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The backlog of renovation and improvement work required to the council housing stock in England is estimated to be around £19 billion. This backlog will be addressed through a combination of increased investment in council stock and, where it has the support of tenants, transfer to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). Last year's Spending Review announced significant increases in resources for the next three years provided to local authorities for housing investment, including £460 million for arms length companies and £760 million for council housing PFI schemes, and funds to support transfer of up to 600,000 dwellings over the period. The total resources for 2003–04 will be more than £2.9 billion, three times the amount provided in 1997–98.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) SSA allocation and (b) actual expenditure of each local education authority in England for the (i) primary and (ii) secondary education sectors in the last year for which figures are available. [147167]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is given in the table.
  3W

  1999–2000 figures

  £million

  Authority

  Primary education SSA

  Secondary education SSA

  Primary education net current expenditure1

  Secondary education net current expenditure1

  Salford

  44.224

  39.474

  49.203

  36.270

  Stockport

  47.839

  45.977

  49.652

  41.628

  Tameside

  42.162

  43.128

  45.269

  38.594

  Trafford

  36.386

  41.187

  40.185

  43.628

  Wigan

  54.123

  57.564

  59.913

  58.390

  Knowsley

  39.098

  34.618

  41.851

  31.482

  Liverpool

  97.745

  100.029

  97.614

  96.701

  St. Helens

  32.704

  32.925

  38.305

  35.142

  Sefton

  50.693

  53.695

  57.928

  57.553

  Wirral

  60.714

  63.088

  63.039

  67.447

  Barnsley

  39.928

  37.963

  46.180

  36.266

  Doncaster

  57.398

  57.893

  64.600

  61.913

  Rotherham

  47.741

  52.703

  53.675

  53.069

  Sheffield

  86.122

  81.997

  98.051

  80.260

  Gateshead

  33.636

  32.080

  35.881

  30.739

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  45.217

  45.435

  46.560

  53.463

  North Tyneside

  33.298

  32.274

  34.724

  40.391

  South Tyneside

  29.262

  31.409

  31.005

  27.501

  Sunderland

  55.379

  57.615

  59.000

  52.199

  Birmingham

  218.656

  206.467

  266.896

  202.792

  Coventry

  57.620

  55.793

  68.730

  62.151

  Dudley

  52.507

  54.655

  64.479

  53.997

  Sandwell

  59.512

  58.126

  72.753

  56.438

  Solihull

  37.489

  40.118

  45.020

  39.714

  Walsall

  50.256

  54.500

  57.024

  58.721

  Wolverhampton

  48.244

  44.321

  54.928

  48.924

  Bradford

  99.492

  93.943

  96.661

  114.127

  Calderdale

  36.975

  37.079

  42.853

  39.958

  Kirklees

  72.029

  69.387

  81.544

  72.730

  Leeds

  124.590

  120.714

  150.100

  128.017

  Wakefield

  56.511

  57.182

  64.028

  53.957

  Shire Counties

  Cornwall

  81.285

  84.335

  86.643

  86.189

  Cumbria

  81.260

  84.398

  97.629

  95.202

  Gloucestershire

  89.208

  91.656

  91.784

  100.033

  Hertfordshire

  183.980

  186.640

  189.146

  208.858

  Lincolnshire

  103.346

  109.077

  109.030

  119.232

  Norfolk

  120.664

  123.768

  141.606

  126.369

  Northamptonshire

  110.605

  105.949

  109.669

  127.445

  Northumberland

  51.326

  55.515

  43.291

  78.389

  Oxfordshire

  94.498

  90.027

  91.284

  99.603

  Somerset

  78.454

  75.464

  76.484

  79.293

  Suffolk

  107.072

  104.740

  103.904

  131.504

  Surrey

  155.874

  148.714

  166.329

  149.937

  Warwickshire

  80.391

  80.816

  89.278

  87.802

  West Sussex

  115.935

  115.298

  127.777

  116.644

  North Yorkshire

  89.617

  96.293

  104.575

  105.261

  Bedfordshire

  67.540

  66.269

  54.612

  95.194

  Buckinghamshire

  79.231

  80.276

  81.557

  87.213

  Derbyshire

  118.175

  116.069

  128.229

  120.693

  Dorset

  56.094

  58.653

  49.662

  73.442

  Durham

  86.097

  88.105

  99.041

  89.034

  East Sussex

  76.252

  74.095

  79.355

  76.005

  Hampshire

  202.419

  194.709

  222.476

  181.314

  Leicestershire

  95.562

  96.748

  103.706

  117.852

  Staffordshire

  135.600

  140.157

  138.095

  155.788

  Wiltshire

  68.885

  66.067

  76.281

  72.464

  Cambridgeshire

  85.221

  79.399

  95.894

  81.635

  Cheshire

  108.986

  114.218

  126.390

  127.484

  Devon

  105.727

  103.297

  117.219

  107.115

  Essex

  223.301

  227.552

  233.236

  243.366

  Kent

  229.133

  231.163

  245.655

  248.405

  Lancashire

  203.387

  206.280

  218.166

  203.139

  Nottinghamshire

  123.602

  130.741

  143.180

  148.463

  Shropshire

  43.759

  45.589

  46.845

  48.195

  Worcestershire

  84.099

  84.456

  79.951

  99.265

  4W

  5W

  1999–2001figures

  £

  Authority

  Primary education SSA

  Secondary education SSA

  Primary education net current expenditure1

  Secondary education net current expenditure1

  All Purpose Authorities

  Isle of Wight Council

  21.519

  23.182

  16.862

  32.188

  Bath and North East Somerset

  23.698

  28.151

  29.027

  35.182

  Bristol

  63.028

  49.779

  75.976

  55.756

  South Gloucestershire

  40.980

  37.802

  48.612

  44.968

  North Somerset

  27.562

  29.341

  31.517

  34.763

  Hartlepool

  18.307

  19.136

  19.139

  18.082

  Middlesbrough

  31.239

  28.999

  31.799

  25.904

  Redcar and Cleveland

  28.288

  31.157

  32.018

  29.852

  Stockton-on-Tees

  34.993

  37.274

  42.152

  34.111

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  49.668

  53.772

  52.102

  59.126

  Kingston upon Hull

  52.922

  48.006

  58.852

  45.439

  North East Lincolnshire

  32.244

  32.705

  36.813

  31.443

  North Lincolnshire

  27.619

  30.501

  31.807

  30.936

  York

  26.653

  25.430

  33.447

  25.903

  Luton

  40.285

  37.287

  42.203

  36.618

  Milton Keynes

  40.009

  38.216

  45.245

  35.180

  Derby

  42.922

  40.634

  47.621

  40.366

  Bournemouth

  21.963

  24.865

  22.811

  26.457

  Poole

  20.189

  20.934

  22.830

  21.435

  Darlington

  17.870

  17.148

  18.505

  15.894

  Brighton and Hove

  36.437

  33.380

  37.510

  33.440

  Portsmouth

  33.270

  30.220

  37.332

  29.735

  Southampton

  38.501

  37.852

  42.977

  34.685

  Leicester

  58.974

  56.462

  63.018

  57.970

  Rutland

  4.857

  5.767

  6.043

  6.691

  Stoke-on-Trent

  45.034

  42.712

  55.301

  38.778

  Swindon

  33.376

  31.248

  35.332

  30.859

  Bracknell Forest

  19.054

  16.175

  18.768

  17.252

  West Berkshire

  24.278

  27.302

  24.885

  31.453

  Reading

  22.453

  17.031

  24.181

  18.803

  Slough

  25.189

  23.494

  24.551

  23.537

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  19.603

  23.185

  19.119

  28.808

  Wokingham

  24.767

  24.865

  24.754

  28.113

  Peterborough

  31.478

  33.273

  35.720

  37.421

  Halton

  25.559

  25.820

  2—

  2—

  Warrington

  33.231

  34.203

  37.717

  36.019

  Plymouth

  42.494

  45.983

  45.099

  50.475

  Torbay

  19.437

  22.121

  20.979

  23.443

  Southend-on-Sea

  27.890

  29.139

  30.482

  31.778

  Thurrock

  28.383

  25.708

  32.041

  23.504

  Herefordshire

  28.035

  26.359

  29.185

  27.179

  Medway

  49.999

  48.957

  54.461

  54.832

  Blackburn with Darwen

  31.548

  30.272

  33.449

  28.242

  Blackpool

  24.571

  21.554

  26.692

  20.495

  Nottingham

  56.307

  43.947

  62.719

  43.877

  Telford and the Wrekin

  29.543

  29.319

  32.344

  30.623

  Isles of Scilly

  0.534

  0.580

  0.616

  0.653

  1 The primary and secondary education expenditure data in columns three and four is net current expenditure as reported by local authorities on the revenue outturn (RO) forms for 1999–2000. It is defined as expenditure on employees and running expenses less income from sales, fees and charges, internal recharges, and other non-grant income but it is gross of expenditure funded by specific grants. It is therefore not comparable with SSA sub-blocks which do not include specific grants. It is not possible to derive expenditure that is comparable with education SSA sub-blocks.

  2 The net current expenditure data is not available for Halton, as we are still awaiting the receipt of their completed returns.

  Local Authorities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) those local authorities that are debt free, (b) the 10 least indebted authorities and (c) the 10 most indebted authorities. [147168]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  An authority is defined as debt free if:6W

  (i) it has no money outstanding by way of long-term borrowing, from the Public Works Loan Board, the Bank of England and institutions authorised by it, and building societies;

  (ii) at the end of the previous financial year, it has a nil or negative credit ceiling.

  It should be noted that authorities with high levels of debt are generally those which have undertaken capital investment and that longer-term borrowing to finance capital expenditure is regulated by Government through the issue of

  7W
  credit approvals. Total debt for all English local authorities will be available at http://www.local.detr.gov.uk/finance/stats/ in February 2001.

  On the latest information available the following English local authorities are debt free:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Bedford

  Bracknell Forest UA

  Breckland

  Broadland

  Bromley

  Bromsgrove

  Chiltern

  Christchurch

  City of London

  Congleton

  Corby

  Cotswold

  Crawley

  Dacorum

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Dorset

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Dorset

  Eden

  Elmsbridge

  Epsom and Ewell

  Forest Heath

  Hambleton

  Hart

  Havant

  Hertsmere

  Huntingdonshire

  Kennet

  Lichfield

  Malvern Hills Mid Bedfordshire Mid Sussex Mole Valley North Dorset North Wiltshire Penwith

  Reigate and Banstead

  Runnymede

  Rushmoor

  Ryedale

  Salisbury

  Sevenoaks

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Northamptonshire

  South Oxfordshire

  South Ribble

  South Shropshire

  Spelthorne

  St. Edmundsbury

  8W

  Straford-on-Avon

  Suffolk Coastal

  Surrey Heath

  Swale

  Tandridge

  Tewkesbury

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tunbridge Wells

  Uttlesford

  Vale of White Horse

  Watford

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Berkshire UA

  West Sussex

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  Wychavon

  Wyre

  Source:

  Capital Payments and Receipts Return 2000–01.

  This list is updated regularly and can be found at http://www.local.detr.gov.uk/finance/stats/debtfree.htm

  (a)The 10 English local authorities, that have the least gross debt and are not debt free, at 31 March 2000, are:

  Poole UA

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Tynedale

  North Cornwall

  South Holland

  Waverley

  Epping Forest

  Maldon

  Oadby and Wigston

  Teignbridge.

  (b)The 10 English local authorities, that have the most gross debt, at 31 March 2000, are:

  Manchester

  Birmingham

  Lambeth

  Southwark

  Hackney

  Islington

  Sheffield

  Liverpool

  Leeds

  Tower Hamlets

  Source:

  Borrowing and Lending Survey—March 2000.

  Single Regeneration Budge
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the Single Regeneration Budget 7; [147128]

  (2) if he will list the funding available for SRB activities over and above existing SRB commitments for 2001–02 for each RDA area in England; [147130]
  9W
  (3) if his Department's grant to RDAs for 2001–02 will fund new unannounced Single Regeneration Budget activities over and above existing SRB commitments for that year. [147129]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 129–30W, where detailed arrangements for new Single Regeneration Budget activities in the transitional year 2001–02 are currently being considered. An announcement will be made very shortly. We issued RDAs with guidance for corporate plans and indicative allocations for 2001–02 just before Christmas. RDAs are now preparing their proposals for submission by 23 February 2001 and I look forward to receiving these for consideration.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what statutory powers the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority has to withdraw from a driver the provisions of a certificate of passing a test of competence to drive, issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972; [147200]

  (2) what powers he uses in deciding that the validity of a certificate of passing a test of competence to drive has expired through the passage of time. [147201]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State, acting through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, has power to revoke a test pass certificate only under the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 8 of schedule 1 to the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. However, by virtue of section 89(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which replaced the 1972 Act) a test pass certificate may be produced as evidence of entitlement to the granting of a full driving licence only if the test was passed during a period of two years ending with the date of the licence application.

  A driving test must be passed in two parts, the theory test being taken first. By virtue of regulation 47(6) of The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999— made under the 1988 Act—a theory test pass certificate has a validity period of two years.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an announcement on the outstanding planning appeals in respect of motorway service areas on the M25 south-western quadrant, following the decision of Mr. Justice Richards. [147416]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department issued statements to the interested parties on 24 January inviting representations on the matter the Secretary of State wishes to consider further in redetermining the outstanding proposals on the M25 western quadrant and the M4.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Worcestershire county council submitted a draft plan for dealing with its waste; and what assessment he has made of it. [147505]
  10W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Worcestershire county council placed a draft Structure Plan on deposit in January 2000, part of which contains strategic policies on waste management. The Secretary of State made three objections on waste matters. He was concerned about matters of self-sufficiency at County and Regional levels and the need to take account of the draft national waste strategy and the recent guidance on waste planning in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10, particularly the application of the principal of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). He also wished for clarification on when it is necessary to demonstrate need in relation to landfill sites. The county council's proposed modifications to its plan are expected shortly. In addition, the county council has a duty under Section 38 (2) of the Planning and Compensation Act 1992 to prepare a Waste Local Plan, which will set out detailed policies for the management of waste.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to waste disposal authorities and planning authorities considering applications connected with waste disposal to ensure that waste is generally disposed of as near to its place of production as possible; and if he will make a statement. [147507]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 2000 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 set out the principles on which the Government wish to see waste management decisions based. One of these principles is that waste should generally be disposed of as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what commencement orders he intends to make under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [147701]

  Mr. Meacher
  Section 103(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides for a number of the Act's provisions to come into force on 30 January 2001. I have now made the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 114(C.4)) which brings additional provisions into force in England on 30 January 2001 and certain other provisions on 1 April 2001. Further commencement orders will be made in due course.

  I will shortly be issuing a circular to local authorities explaining the implications for local authorities of the provisions that have now commenced. I will place copies of both the order and the circular in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulations under section 68 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [147809]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Officials are currently drafting the regulations. Although we have a good overview of the provisions to be included, considerable work is needed on the detail. Provided no unforeseen
  11W
  problems arise, we expect to publish draft regulations for public consultation in March, and lay these before Parliament for approval in May.

  Pinewoods
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with English Nature regarding the felling of pinewoods around Formby in Lancashire. [147482]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: My Department has not specifically discussed with English Nature its proposals to fell pinewoods on a nature reserve near pinewood. This is a nature reserve management issue for English Nature to take forward.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the report of the Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, regarding the felling of pinewoods around Formby in Lancashire; and if he will issue new guidance to English Nature regarding protection of the red squirrel habitats. [147483]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, on behalf on English Nature, has carried out a review and consultation considering the management of the Ainsdale Sand Dunes National Nature Reserve. The review, commissioned by English Nature to inform its work managing the nature reserve, considered the overall objective of dune restoration in areas of existing frontal woodland to be appropriate and makes detailed recommendations.

  It is not a report to Government and therefore I have no plans to assess the report. It is for English Nature, on the Government's behalf, to take this issue forward.

  There are no plans at present for new guidance on protection of red squirrel habitats.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the felling of pinewoods in red squirrel habitats around Formby in Lancashire. [147481]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I understand English Nature is reviewing the management of the Ainsdale Sand Dunes National Nature Reserve and has commissioned a consultation exercise on its proposals to fell pinewoods within a nature reserve. However, my Department has not been able to trace any representations made specifically on this issue.

  English Nature
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with English Nature regarding increasing transparency and public accountability of its activities. [147484]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of English Nature in July and October last year for discussions including the Corporate Plan, plans for greater openness, increasing availability of information, more e-communication and e-commerce.
  12W

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the level of the red squirrel population in the UK. [147487]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: My Department occasionally receives representations from members of the public about red squirrel populations. This species is afforded full protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Temple Sowerby Bypass
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to start work on the Temple Sowerby bypass on the A66. [147545]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. David Maclean, dated 29 January 2001

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked Tim Matthews, Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent question about the timing of the start of works for the A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass. I am replying in the absence of Tim Matthews.

  The Temple Sowerby Bypass is listed in the Government's strategic review of the roads programme 'A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England' as a scheme to be progressed through its preparatory stages so that, if after full appraisal and subject to the views of the regional planning conference and statutory procedure, it is eventually endorsed it can be taken forward without delay. We are currently carrying out detailed survey work for the scheme with a view to starting the necessary statutory procedures around Spring 2002. Beyond then, progress will be subject to the satisfactory completion of those statutory procedures, including, if necessary, a Public Inquiry.

  I am enclosing a leaflet which was circulated locally last year describing the background and current position on the bypass.

  If you would like any further information, please contact the Highways Agency's Project Manager for the scheme, John Yellowley, at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester, M1 4BE (telephone 0161 930 5685).

  A66
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to complete the safety study of the A66; [147540]

  (2) what the expected total cost is of the safety study of the A66. [147541]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. David Maclean, dated 29 January 2001

  A66 Safety Study

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on when the A66 Safety Study is expected to be completed and what is the expected total cost.

  The draft final report of the study is to be submitted to the Study Steering Group in Spring, following which it will be presented to the Regional Planning bodies for their consideration.
  13W
  In respect of the cost this is an ongoing commission and the final amount will be dependent on the amount of work ordered. Based on actual payments made to date plus outstanding work currently envisaged, it is anticipated that the final outturn will be in the region of £200,000.

  Should you require any further information, please contact the Team Leader for this project, Francis Carlyle at our Leeds office, on 0113 283 5358.

  Endangered Species
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been prosecuted in respect of a failure to uphold international obligations on the protection of endangered species in each of the last five years. [147712]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Endangered species are protected under the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This convention is implemented throughout the European Union under EC regulations and enforced in the UK under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES).

  There is no central record of prosecutions or convictions for offences under the COTES regulations. However the number of prosecutions we are aware of in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  3

  1999

  6

  2000

  8

  I have been advised by HM Customs and Excise that the number of prosecutions in respect of endangered species under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  1

  1997

  0

  1998

  0

  1999

  0

  2000

  1

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what obligations the United Kingdom has under international treaties to police the protection of endangered species. [147713]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom, as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, is required under Article VIII of the convention to take appropriate measures to enforce the provisions of the convention and to prohibit trade in specimens in violation of those provisions. Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 sets out the requirements on member states to implement the convention. The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Control of 14W
  Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1372) provide the means for enforcement in the United Kingdom.

  Wildlife Crime Unit
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the achievements and future of the Wildlife Crime Unit of the Metropolitan police. [147714]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been impressed by the achievements of the Metropolitan police in the fight against wildlife crime. They have investigated a number of significant cases, including the recent successful prosecution of a north London taxidermist for illegally trading in large numbers of endangered species. The Metropolitan police have also worked with London's Chinese community in "Operation Charm"—an ongoing initiative to raise awareness of the consequences for conservation of the use of endangered species derivatives in traditional medicines.

  How they structure and manage their responsibilities for enforcing wildlife legislation in future is, as now, entirely a matter for the Commissioner to decide.

  Biocidal Products Directive
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the extent to which toilet soaps will be included within the terms of reference of the regulations relating to the Biocidal Products Directive. [146307]

  Mr. Meacher
  Generally, toilet soaps are controlled under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996. However, some manufacturers make specific biocidal claims on their soap products.

  The forthcoming Biocidal Product Regulations will exclude cosmetic products from scope. Cosmetics are defined as products which "exclusively or mainly" perform certain functions among which is cleaning the skin. Where a cosmetic product has a minor use as a biocide, it will be excluded from the forthcoming Biocidal Products Regulations.

  The Environment Directorate of the European Commission (DG Env) has produced a discussion paper revisiting the interface between the Biocidal Products and Cosmetic Products Directives, and suggesting a different view from the current UK position. If DG Env's position gains wide support among member states it could ultimately lead to the need to amend the Biocidal Products Regulations.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for consultation with representatives of soap and detergent manufacturers on the forthcoming regulations relating to the Biocidal Products Directive. [146308]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has led for the Government on implementing the Biocidal Products Directive in Great Britain. A full public consultation on implementing Regulations was carried out in the second half of 1999. During the last five years HSE officials have regularly met with trade associations representing the biocides industry, including the Soap and Detergent Industry Association. They and the Department
  15W
  of Trade and Industry continue to have informal discussions with representatives of the soap and detergent manufacturers.

  St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date his Department received the planning appeal in respect of St. Leonard's hospital, Dorset, Ref. 3/99/0861; on what date he expects it to be determined; and if he will make a statement. [147819]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Planning appeal by the Secretary of State for Health was received on 1 June 2000. The Planning Inspectorate are currently waiting for the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) from the appellant. As soon as the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been received, arrangements will be made for a public inquiry. It is anticipated the appeal will be determined by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the autumn.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) telephone calls and (b) letters have been received by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency from keepers of vehicles inquiring about the implementation of the new excise duty rates for vehicles of 1500 cc and less announced in the pre-Budget report; and what the estimated cost to public funds is of responding to them. [147822]

  Mr. Hill
  In the period 9 November 2000–19 January 2001, DVLA staff handled(a) some 9,100 telephone and (b) some 600 written (including E-mail) inquiries concerning the 1500 cc proposal. In addition some 32,000 inquiries covering both the 1200 cc and 1500 cc schemes, were handled by the agency's automated VOICE system.

  These volumes represent a small proportion of the inquiry work handled by the agency, and no additional resources were needed to deal with them.

  Circulatory Disorders
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research he has commissioned into the level of risk to(a) passengers and (b) aircrew of circulatory disorders associated with commercial flying; and if he will make a statement. [147193]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  When giving evidence to the recent House of Lords Inquiry into Air Travel and Health, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) announced that we would be launching a study to identify those health issues related to air travel which are of most concern. This study will take into consideration the level of risk to both passengers and aircrew and will assess the existing research into circulatory disorders and other health issues that might be associated with air travel. In the light of the findings of this study, which should be published early in the summer, we will commission substantive research to fill any gaps in our knowledge which are revealed.
  16W
  I am also aware that the CAA has funded some research, on behalf of the Joint Aviation Authorities, to consider the relationship between aircraft seat dimensions and passenger sizes. This research should be published shortly.

  Road Fatalities
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children have been killed in road accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147501]

  Mr. Hill
  The following table shows the number of children killed in road accidents for all available years since 1992.

  Accident year

  Number of deaths

  1992

  310

  1993

  306

  1994

  299

  1995

  270

  1996

  270

  1997

  255

  1998

  206

  1999

  201

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the largest number of people killed in a single road accident was in each year since 1992–93. [147498]

  Mr. Hill
  The highest numbers of fatalities recorded in a single road accident each year are shown in the table. However, some accidents involving numerous vehicles may be reported by the police to DETR as a series of individual accidents. Hence, in some instances, the figures shown might represent an underestimate.

  Fatalities: Great Britain 1992–99

  Number

  1992

  6

  1993

  13

  1994

  5

  1995

  13

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  5

  1999

  5

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public inquiries have been held into road accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147499]

  Mr. Hill
  None; other than regular Coroners' Inquiries (or Fatal Accident inquiries in Scotland).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average number of people killed at weekends in road accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147494]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  17W

  Average weekend fatalities: Great Britain 1992–99

  Average number

  1992

  24

  1993

  20

  1994

  21

  1995

  22

  1996

  21

  1997

  22

  1998

  21

  1999

  20

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the largest number of people killed in road accidents was in a single day in each year since 1992–93. [147495]

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

  Fatalities in a single day: Great Britain 1992–99

  Year

  Fatalities

  1992

  34

  1993

  23

  1994

  >24

  1995

  22

  1996

  27

  1997

  22

  1998

  21

  1999

  23

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many child pedestrians have been killed in road accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147500]

  Mr. Hill
  The following table shows the number of child pedestrians killed in road accidents for all available years since 1992.

  Accident year

  Number of deaths

  1992

  180

  1993

  165

  1994

  160

  1995

  132

  1996

  131

  1997

  138

  1998

  103

  1999

  107

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the daily average number of people killed in road accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147493]

  Mr. Hill
  The following table shows the daily average number of people killed in road accidents for all available years since 1992.

  Accident year

  Daily average number of deaths

  1992

  12

  1993

  10

  1994

  10

  1995

  10

  1996

  10

  1997

  10

  1998

  9

  1999

  9

  18W

  Rail Fatalities
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children travelling by train have been killed in rail accidents in each year since 1992–93. [147496]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table, which covers fatalities on the national railway and the London Underground. Two of the fatalities were on the national railway and one on the London Underground. "Children" is defined as passengers under the age of 16. Further data can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Reports on Railway Safety, copies of which are available in both Libraries of the House.

  Fitalities to children while travelling by train 1992–93 to 1999–2000

  Number

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  0

  1994–95

  0

  1995–96

  1

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  1

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  0

  Total

  3

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children have been killed on railway lines in each year since 1992–93. [147497]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is shown in the table. Further data including details of the prevention of child trespasser fatalities can be found in the Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Reports on Railway Safety. Copies are available in both Libraries of the House. "Children" is defined as persons under the age of 16.

  Year

  Passenger

  Level crossing user

  Other member of the public

  Trespasser/ Suicide

  Total

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  1993–94

  0

  1

  0

  8

  9

  1994–95

  0

  1

  0

  6

  7

  1995–96

  1

  0

  0

  7

  8

  1996–97

  0

  0

  0

  10

  10

  1997–98

  1

  0

  1

  5

  7

  1998–99

  1

  0

  0

  7

  8

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  Total

  3

  2

  1

  52

  58

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the local government finance settlement for 2001–02; and what conclusions he has reached. [147872]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2001–02 and the Special Grant Report (No. 72). These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities
  19W
  in 2001–02, and the basis of their distribution; and provide for Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant to be paid to certain authorities for 2001–02. Drafts of these reports were issued for consultation on 27 November 2000, and updated information on grant allocations was published on 15 December. The Department received a total of 315 written representations within the consultation deadlines from the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government, as well as from 224 local authorities, local authority groups and hon. Members.

  Having considered the views of the local authority associations and others who have commented on my initial proposals, I have decided to confirm in virtually all respects my original proposals on grant distribution. The final figures published today may be slightly different from those issued on 15 December, generally reflecting more accurate data that have become available since then. I am therefore confirming my proposal to set a floor of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent., on general grant increases for authorities with responsibilities for education and social services. This will set limits on what would otherwise be a very wide range of grant increases, which would have made service planning very difficult for authorities. A 6.5 per cent. increase in general grant should be sufficient for most ceiling authorities, even after allowing for the fact that they have growing populations to cater for. And a 3.2 per cent. increase is reasonable for floor authorities, taking into account the fact that most of them face reductions in population. In each case, these increases will be accompanied by substantial increases in ring-fenced grant.

  The ceiling will help support the cost of introducing the floor, but cannot cover the whole cost. I therefore also confirm my proposal to scale back marginally the grant increases of authorities who are neither at the ceiling or the floor.

  Following careful consideration, I propose to make one exception to the ceiling rule. Quite exceptional circumstances apply to the Isles of Scilly Council. Their annual budget is extremely small, and they cannot avoid substantial capital expenditure to maintain essential waste disposal services. I shall therefore not limit their grant increase this year.

  This year's settlement provides an increase of 7.2 per cent. in total Government grant and a 4.9 per cent. increase in general grant. This is on top of substantial increases each year since 1997–98: in the four years since then, Government grant to local government has gone up by 14 per cent. in real terms, compared with a 7 per cent. cut in the previous four years.

  Given these good increases in grant, I would therefore expect the majority of local authorities to be setting a lower Council Tax increase this year than last year, when the increase was 6.1 per cent.

  Local authorities also made representations on council tax benefit subsidy limitation. I have considered these carefully but decided to make no change to the scheme I proposed on 27 November, as amended on 15 December.

  I shall be sending copies of these reports and the Plain English guide to all authorities, together with tables showing each authority's Standard Spending Assessment
  20W
  and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grant. I have placed copies of the reports in the Journal Office; and copies of the reports, tables, and the guide in the Vote Office and the Library.

  However, the local government finance settlement should not be seen in isolation. The Government have identified four specific problem cases, and have responded to these.

  We have looked again at the funding position of authorities in areas with the most serious deprivation problems. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 24 January a doubling of the provision for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund in 2001–02, from £100 million to £200 million. These additional resources will help local authorities improve services in the most deprived neighbourhoods and therefore to improve the outcomes that are achieved in these areas.

  In some areas where there have been serious floods this year, authorities faced the prospect of an increased levy from the Environment Agency to cover the costs that it had incurred in dealing with this year's floods. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 26 January that he will provide an additional £11.6 million for the Agency to limit the burden falling on local authorities.

  My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Social Security is today announcing additional funding of £25 million to help local authorities facing significant increases in the cost of housing homeless households in temporary accommodation.

  Finally, my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is today announcing a new £52 million grant to help some education authorities manage funding changes and deal with particular education spending pressures.

  National Air Traffic Service
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, columns 529–30W, how much the X factor will be tightened to reflect the proposed delay term; who will be responsible for its enforcement; if there will be discretion in the application of such tightening; and what risk assessment of the proposal has been made. [147770]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The formula by which the delay factor will be incorporated in the charge cap for National Air Traffic Services (NATS) will be set out in the licence for en route services which will be issued to NATS when the public/private partnership is established. A draft of that licence is in the Library of the House.

  The delay term will reduce the maximum charges which NATS can derive from its UK en route business where the delays attributable to NATS in a preceding period exceed a defined standard. This standard will be based initially on the level of delays in 1999 and be specified to improve by 1 per cent. per annum thereafter. The detailed figures to be inserted in the formula will be calculated in such a way as to limit the penalty for delays to £2.0 million a year in respect of delays arising in 2001

  21W
  and 2002 and to £5.7 million a year in respect of delays arising in the remainder of the first five-year regulatory period.

  The delay term will be enforced by the Civil Aviation Authority as the economic regulator of NATS. Its enforcement will not be discretionary. The term has been set at a level designed to give NATS an incentive to reduce delays without in any way undermining the primacy of safety as a factor in NATS' operations.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which water companies have informed their customers of their duty to install a free water meter; and what sanctions exist for those that have not. [147754]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that all companies include details of their free meter options within their Charges Schemes and associated leaflets which are available to customers. As part of its examination of companies' Charges Schemes for the year beginning 1 April 2001, Ofwat wrote to companies which it considered did not contain sufficient information. Most companies also promote the availability of the free meter option either on the bill or in accompanying literature.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the take-up of free water meters. [147756]

  Mr. Meacher
  No targets have been set for the take-up of free water meters. The option is left to the free choice of customers.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) water companies and (b) consumer groups about the provision of free water meters. [147755]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most water companies and several consumer groups made representations about various aspects of the free meter option in response to public consultation papers and at other times during our review of water charging in 1997 to 1998, during the passage of the Water Industry Act 1999 and during and since the introduction of regulations and guidance under the Act.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of deaths and injuries to cyclists; and if he will make a statement. [147589]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", was launched by the Prime Minister on 1 March last year. It sets a new target to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads by 40 per cent. by the year 2010, a separate target of 50 per cent. for children, and a 10 per cent. reduction in the slight casualty rate.

  Special measures for cyclists are detailed in chapters two and nine of the strategy, but measures described elsewhere, particularly our driver training, will be to their benefit.
  22W
  Copies of 'Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone" are in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to introduce legislation to regulate the sale of park and mobile homes; and if he will make a statement. [147587]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Proposals to amend the provisions of the sale of park homes were included in the recommendations of the Park Homes Working Party. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who is responsible for enforcing the provisions of(a) the Mobile Homes Act 1983, (b) the Energy Act 1983 and (c) the Electricity Act 1947. [147588]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Residents or site owners of park homes who are in dispute about the operation of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 can ask a court or arbitrator to settle the issue.

  (b) and (c) The Electricity Act 1947, and Part I and Schedules 1–3 of the Energy Act 1983, were repealed by the Electricity Act 1989. Responsibility for enforcing Parts II and III of the Energy Act 1983 rests with the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional money for the redevelopment of rural towns he expects to provide following the publication of the Rural White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [147586]

  Mr. Meacher
  We will be increasing funding by £37 million over three years to create a £100 million regeneration programme with partnership funds for 100 towns in or near the most deprived rural areas. The £37 million is pump-priming money which will help towns themselves start the process of regeneration and fund some new projects.

  National Forest Company
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to undertake a review of the National Forest Company. [147948]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  My Department has today launched a review of the National Forest Company. The Company was established as a non-departmental public body in April 1995 and, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines for all such bodies, must be reviewed at least every five years.

  The review will consider all the organisational options for the Company, but will concentrate on the effectiveness of its delivery mechanisms.
  23W
  The review will be led by DETR, but the Review Group will also include representatives from Forestry Commission and the Company itself. The Company's partners and other interested parties will be consulted.

  The review is expected to be completed within four to five months.

  Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd.
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Health and Safety Executive on the consequences of the collapse of Chester Street Insurance Holdings Ltd. for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases; and if he will make a statement. [147311]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. Neither the Health and Safety Executive nor the Health and Safety Commission has any direct responsibility in relation to the consequences mentioned. However, I feel sure that the Health and Safety Commission will share the Government's concern that such victims should receive what compensation they are due in a fair and speedy manner. I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Threatened Species
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will implement fully the EU regulation 338/97 on certain threatened species. [147758]

  Mr. Meacher
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 sets out the requirements on member states to implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The United Kingdom already fully implements these Regulations, under which all commercial trade in critically endangered species is prohibited and trade in less endangered species is strictly regulated. In the United Kingdom the Regulations are enforced by means of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (S. I. No. 1372).

  Cellular Telephone Network
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote an improvement in the cellular telephone network coverage of the mainline rail network. [147530]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Government policy is to promote competition in the cellular radiocommunications market. The UK has licensed four cellular operators—BT Cellnet, Vodafone, One-2-One and Orange. The operators have coverage obligations in their licences to serve 90 per cent. of the UK population. Competitive pressure between the operators has resulted in coverage levels of 98–99 per cent. The Government have introduced further competition into the market by the award of a 3G licence to a new entrant—Hutchison 3G. This competition drives coverage and capacity improvements which will benefit travellers using the mainline rail network.
  24W
  Oftel is participating to produce quality of service measurements for mobile phone networks to assist customers in making an informed choice. Details are available on the Oftel website at www.oftel.gov.uk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if BNFL this year has disposed of any form of depleted uranium at the Clifton Marsh tip in Lancashire. [146709]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]BNFL is authorised by the Environment Agency (EA) to dispose of material at Clifton Marsh which has not more than 0.2 per cent. of the radioactivity of natural uranium by weight. Because small quantities of depleted uranium have been handled at BNFL's Springfields site, waste may also be contaminated with trace quantities of depleted uranium and this is allowed for in the disposal authorisation. EA have made clear that they have no reason to believe that BNFL has operated outside their authorisation regime.

  Statutory Minimum Wage
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of people employed on term-time only contracts whose wages, annualised over the year, are below the level of the statutory minimum wage. [147151]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The National Minimum Wage Regulations include special provisions for workers who work only during term-time and whose pay is annualised over the year ensuring that the minimum wage is applied to such cases in a way that is both flexible and fair. I have made no estimate of the number of workers on term-time only contracts who are paid below the national minimum wage.

  Sugar Regime
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had on the reform of the sugar regime; and if he will make a statement. [147185]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]The reform of the sugar regime is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, I have had frequent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and her officials, about the interaction between the proposals from the European Commission for reform of the sugar regime and the proposal to provide duty and quota-free access for all LDC goods except arms. The Government regret the inconsistency between these two proposals and are pressing in Brussels for this issue to be addressed.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the sectoral working parties his Department has in connection with different sections of current United Kingdom manufacturing industry. [146920]
  25W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department works in partnership with manufacturing sectors to help UK manufacturing compete effectively, and has developed strong working relationships with companies, trade associations, trade unions and other business organisations.

  There is no precise definition of which of the partnerships concerned constitute a sectoral working party. However, formal groupings include the Shipbuilding Forum, the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, the Aerospace Committee and the Electronics Manufacturing Industry Forum.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist small businesses with management and ITC needs. [147406]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 24 January 2001,Official Report, columns 631–32W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Screen Finance
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what income has accrued to date to the Film Council from assets previously owned by British Screen Finance. [147708]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Income accruing to the Film Council from assets previously owned by British Screen Finance, for the period 1 October 2000 to 31 December 2000, is £510,850. This includes income of £347,634 received from British Screen, the European Co-production Fund and British Screen Rights, and income of £163,216 received from the National Film Finance Corporation as repayment or profit and interest on film loans.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in the Christchurch constituency have a free television licence under the scheme for pensioners aged over 75 years. [147826]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 11,100 people aged 75 or over in the Christchurch constituency.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in Thurrock will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [147086]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,800 people aged 75 or over in the Thurrock constituency.
  26W

  Subtitling and Signing
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish his conclusions concerning his review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description services; and if he will make a statement. [148090]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am pleased to announce that our conclusions have been published today. We have carefully considered the detailed responses from the Independent Television Commission, broadcasters, groups representing viewers with sensory impairments and those providing subtitling, signing and audio description services. We have concluded that:the target for the provision of subtitling on digital terrestrial television (DTT) should be raised from 50 per cent. of programmes by the tenth anniversary of the start of the service to 80 per cent. by the tenth anniversary;
  the targets for sign language and audio description services should remain unchanged, but will be kept under regular review; and
  the requirements on DTT should be extended to digital cable and satellite services when legislation permits.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the House Libraries and is also available on my Department's website at www.culture.gov.uk

  Millennium Dome
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 646, if he will make a statement on the involvement of Ministers in the sponsorship of the Faith Zone at the Millennium Dome by the Hinduja brothers. [147442]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 January 2001, c. 590W]: In my reply to the House on 22 January 2001, Official Report, column 646, I stated that my right hon. Friend's 'Private Secretary' had told Mr. Hinduja about his passport application. This was incorrectly recorded in the unbound Official Report as 'Parliamentary Private Secretary'. I have asked for the bound volume to be corrected to record what I actually said to the House. The error was unfortunately copied into my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) on 24 January 2001, Official Report, column 590W; that answer should of course also have read 'Private Secretary' rather than 'Parliamentary Private Secretary'.

  Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers and officials will represent the UK at the next UNESCO meeting on the Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage; and where, and on what date, the meeting will be held. [147710]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next UNESCO meeting of governmental experts on the Draft Convention for Underwater Cultural Heritage will be held in Paris on 26 March to 6 April. The UK will be represented by officials from a number of Government Departments and will be led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  27W

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Commission of the Bishop's Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, when he last received representations from the Commission of the Bishop's Conferences of the European Community; and if he will make a statement. [147518]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners have received no such representations. It would fall to other organisations within the Church of England to do so. The Church Commissioners' primary responsibility is to manage their assets for the financial support of the Church of England's ministry.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Students
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met groups of students, sponsored by his Department for a week-long study of the European institutions; what the nature of that study was; what the role of his Department was; what funds were available to the groups; and if he will make a statement. [144570]

  Mr. Wicks
  There are no arrangements for the Department for Education and Employment to sponsor students to study European Institutions.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) supply and (b) relief teachers work in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools; how many full-time teachers have left the profession during the last 12 months; and if he will list by country the numbers of teachers from overseas who are teaching in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [144862]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  At January 2000 there were 10,520 nursery and primary and 5,320 secondary school teachers in occasional service (short-term supply) in England.

  It is estimated provisionally that 20,800 full-time teachers who were in the maintained schools sector in England in March 1998 were not in service at March 1999 (the latest leavers' figures available). A further 8,100 changed from full-time to part-time service within the maintained sector. These figures exclude teachers who left and re-entered, or entered and left, within the year. All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Information about teachers from overseas teaching in primary and secondary schools in England is not available.

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools in England increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.
  28W
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in the north-west had a shortage of teachers in 2000. [144910]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There were 180 vacancies (0.3 per cent.) in the maintained schools sector in the north-west in January 2000.

  The number of regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents aged(a) under 18, (b) 18 to 34, (c) 35 to 50, and (d) over 50 years have joined the New Deal since 1998 (i) nationally, (ii) in the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead and (iii) the boroughs of (I) Waltham Forest and (II) Redbridge. [146978]

  Ms Jowell
  Latest figures to the end of October 2000 are summarised in the following table:

  Number agreeing to join NDLP to end October 2000

  Great Britain

  Leyton and Wanstead constituency

  Aged

  Under 18

  1,310

  1—

  18–34

  112,170

  1—

  35–50

  56,400

  79

  over 50

  2,440

  1—

  1Numbers too small to preserve client anonymity.

  1Numbers too small to preserve client anonymity.

  Note:

  Information at borough level is not available.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much revenue expenditure was available for schools in(a) Staffordshire and (b) Burton constituency for each year from 1990–91 to 2000–01. [146983]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on education expenditure according to parliamentary constituency is not collected centrally. The following table shows the spending in Staffordshire for the years 1990–91 to 1998–99, the latest year for which this information is currently available. These figures are based on net institutional expenditure, and for 1997–98 and 1998–99 do not include expenditure in Stoke-on-Trent due to local government reorganisation in 1997.

  £million

  1990–91

  257.4

  1991–92

  281.5

  1992–93

  295.3

  1993–94

  297.2

  1994–95

  302.8

  1995–96

  300.3

  1996–97

  312.8

  1997–98

  240.9

  1998–99

  255.2

  29W
  The following table sets out the resources made available to Staffordshire local education authority for education of four to 19–year-olds since 1997–98, at 2000–01 prices. These figures are not directly comparable with net institutional expenditure set out above, but they do reflect real terms increases in funding per pupil over the last three years of £300.

  £ per pupil

  Standard spending assessment

  Special and specific grants

  SSA and special/ specific grants

  1997–98

  2,350

  110

  2,460

  1998–99

  2,470

  40

  2,510

  1999–2000

  2,530

  80

  2,610

  2000–01

  2,580

  170

  2,750

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 nationally in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02. 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.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the SSA per pupil was in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England for each year from 1990–91 to 2000–01. [146984]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is in the following tables. They show that in the period 1993–94 to 1996–97 SSA per pupil in Staffordshire fell by £80 in real terms. Since 1997–98, total funding per pupil has increased by £330 per pupil in real terms.

  Standard spending assessment per pupil

  £

  Staffordshire (before local government reorganisation) SSA

  England SSA

  Cash

  1990–91

  1,680

  1,820

  1991–92

  1,920

  2,100

  1992–93

  2,040

  2,240

  1993–94

  2,080

  2,290

  1994–95

  2,100

  2,300

  1995–96

  2,070

  2,270

  1996–97

  2,170

  2,350

  Real Terms 2000–01 prices

  1990–91

  2,240

  2,440

  1991–92

  2,430

  2,650

  1992–93

  2,490

  2,730

  1993–94

  2,480

  2,720

  1994–95

  2,460

  2,700

  1995–96

  2,360

  2,580

  1996–97

  2,400

  2,590

  30W

  Standard spending assessent and special and specific grants per pupil

  £

  Staffordshire (after local government reorganisation)

  England

  SSA

  Grant

  Total

  SSA

  Grant

  Total

  Cash

  1997–98

  2,200

  30

  2,230

  2,410

  30

  2,440

  1998–99

  2,310

  30

  2,340

  2,540

  40

  2,580

  1999–2000

  2.420

  80

  2.510

  2.660

  110

  2,770

  2000–01

  2,530

  190

  2,720

  2,780

  240

  3,020

  Real terms 2000–01 prices

  1997–98

  2,360

  30

  2,390

  2,590

  30

  2,620

  1998–99

  2,410

  40

  2,450

  2,650

  40

  2,690

  1999–2000

  2,470

  90

  2,560

  2,710

  120

  2,830

  2000–01

  2,530

  190

  2,720

  2,780

  240

  3,020

  Teachers (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent survey he has undertaken on the problems of the retention of teachers working in schools in the Greater London area. [146942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teacher Training Agency contributed to the costs of a study by the University of North London on teacher supply and retention in London. This included surveying those leaving teaching posts in six London boroughs in 1998–99, including those moving into other teaching jobs.

  The most commonly cited reasons for leaving were school management, hours worked, pupil behaviour, lack of opportunities for promotion and school resources. The Government are addressing each of these concerns. A new leadership college for headteachers and improved pay for heads have been introduced. We are tackling needless bureaucracy by reducing duplication of data requests and cutting by half the materials sent automatically to schools by the DfEE. The expansion of ICT is assisting in this regard too.

  The Government are spending 10 times more than in 1996–97 on tackling poor behaviour and truancy. £174 million in 2001–02 will be used to continue a big expansion in places and standards in pupil referral units and further to improve provision of in-school learning support units. The introduction of performance-related pay will improve opportunities of promotion for tens of thousands of teachers.

  Resources that were cut between 1994–97 have been significantly increased since. Schools have more resources for teachers, classroom assistants, computers, books and other priorities than in 1997. Funding per pupil will have increased by over £450 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02. Capital resources this year at £2 billion are three times the level of 1996–97. The Government have made clear that there will be further increases as a result of the 2000 Spending Review in both revenue and capital.
  31W

  Community Action Pilots
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the ILAs to be accessed through community action pilots as part of the regeneration strategy announced on 15 January will(a) be subject to the same criteria as other ILAs and (b) be of the same individual value; if the figure announced for take-up of 10,000 is in addition to existing credits; if this figure represents (i) an estimate and (ii) a target; and what arrangements he will put in place for evaluating pilot studies. [146057]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: Individual Learning Accounts accessed through community action pilots will be subject to the same criteria, and of the same value as, other Individual Learning Accounts. The 10,000 accounts announced will be part of the first one million Individual Learning Account holders to benefit from the £150 incentive. Already 560,000 people have opened Individual Learning Accounts.

  We are making support costs available to the Community Groups to test out new ideas on reaching those who have not been engaged in learning rather than asking these groups to achieve set targets. The figure of 10,000 is therefore the estimate from the five participating community groups. Information from this pilot work will inform the full Individual Learning Accounts evaluation to be carried out from May 2001.

  Table A: Central Government capital investment in schools in Birmingham local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  5,384

  2,811

  3,611

  2,229

  2,730

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  1,381

  1,330

  262

  510

  620

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  193

  514

  530

  687

  1,172

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  446

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  1,193

  2,766

  6,860

  13,816

  School Security Grant

  —

  263

  327

  357

  355

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  310

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  298

  733

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  4,000

  4,000

  4,000

  PFI Credits

  —

  —

  51,000

  —

  —

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  135

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  593

  Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,501

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  555

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  122

  Total

  7,404

  6,111

  62,886

  15,076

  32,197

  Table B:Forecast investent in schools in Birmingham local education authority

  £000

  Funding stream

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–4

  Basic Credit Approvals

  1,245

  1—

  1—

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  2,337

  1—

  1—

  New Deal for Schools Devolved Formula

  4,064

  5,467

  10,562

  New Deal for Schools Condition Funding

  2,901

  8,073

  10,257

  Seed Challenge Funding

  690

  1,271

  1,271

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  555

  1—

  1—

  Schools Access Initiative

  1,046

  1—

  1—

  Total

  12,838

  14,811

  22,090

  1 Future years' allocations shown are only those already announced as being attributable to Birmingham Local Education Authority.

  32W

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997. [147063]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no such directions.

  Schools Funding (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital investment in Birmingham's schools in each year since 1992; and what is his forecast for spending in the next three years. [147059]

  Jacqui Smith
  Birmingham local education authority has received some £123.674 million of funding from central Government for capital investment in school buildings since 1996–97, as shown in the following Table A. Information prior to 1996–97 is not readily available. Table B shows the forecast investment over the next three years.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  In addition to the amounts shown, schools in Birmingham will also benefit from a share of other programmes where allocations have not yet been made. These include over £1 billion of credit approvals, mainly to provide new pupil places; £440 million of grant to governors of Voluntary Aided schools; £555 million grant through the NDS Modernisation fund and £170 million worth of funding under the Schools Access Initiative.

  This funding will be augmented by capital receipts and other contributions from Local Education Authority sources, and the contribution which governors of Voluntary Aided schools make to their building work. In addition, more than £1 billion more is available nationally through Private Finance Initiative Credits for projects which will sign in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Funding specifically ring fenced for the renewal of school laboratories is ending in 2001–02. Local Authorities will be able to prioritise their other increased funding for this purpose, if they wish.
  33W

  Asset Management Plan
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list(a) by authority and (b) as a total, the results of the asset management plan condition data surveys, breaking the data down according to each level of priority; [147254]

  (2) if he will list by local authority the total value of the estimates that schools have made of the sums needed for the repairs of school buildings at the latest date for which figures are available. [147253]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are discussing with local education authorities the outcome of our validation of their asset management plans condition data and will publish data analysis later in the year.

  Ministerial Hospitality
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost of hospitality given by Ministers was in his Department in each of the last three years. [147233]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The cost of hospitality given by Ministers in pursuance of Departmental business for the last three full financial years is £8,587, £12,524 and £9,055 respectively.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has on pay for new teachers designed to fill vacancies. [147396]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The new teachers' pay arrangements will be based on recommendations contained in a report of the independent School Teachers' Review Body to be published shortly. It is not therefore possible at this stage to say what changes will occur. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will conduct a statutory consultation before implementing any changes.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average salary for(a) primary teachers, (b) secondary teachers, (c) graduates in all other sectors and (d) all employees in each year since 1974. [147301]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Average salaries for full-time teachers, for those in employment with an NVQ level 4 or above (or equivalent) and for all full-time employees are contained in the following table:

  Full-time teachers1

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Employees with NVQ level 42

  All employees3

  1974

  2,120

  2,390

  4—

  4—

  2,170

  1975

  3,220

  3,550

  4—

  2,820

  1976

  3,790

  4,110

  4—

  —

  3,350

  1977

  4,180

  4,460

  4—

  3,660

  1978

  4,410

  4,680

  4—

  4,120

  1979

  4,900

  5,180

  4—

  4,670

  1980

  5,920

  6,220

  4—

  5,750

  1981

  7,430

  7,790

  4—

  6,510

  1982

  8,090

  8,460

  4—

  7,120

  19833

  8,670

  9,050

  4—

  7,730

  19833

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34W

  Full-time teachers1

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Employees with NVQ level 42

  All employees3

  1984

  9,160

  9,580

  4—

  8,310

  1985

  9,660

  10,160

  4—

  8,920

  1986

  10,490

  11,120

  4—

  9,630

  1987

  11,970

  12,740

  4—

  10,370

  1988

  12,920

  13,780

  4—

  11,390

  1989

  13,850

  14,830

  4—

  12,500

  1990

  14,500

  16,020

  4—

  13,720

  1991

  16,490

  17,720

  4—

  14,850

  1992

  18,450

  19,950

  4—

  15,880

  1993

  19,970

  21,470

  4—

  16,520

  1994

  20,280

  21,630

  19,000

  16,980

  1995

  20,860

  22,200

  4—

  17,540

  1996

  21,370

  22,730

  4—

  18,340

  1997

  22,080

  23,480

  4—

  19,170

  1998

  22,700

  24,130

  4—

  20,050

  1999

  523,570

  525,060

  4—

  20,860

  2000

  524,390

  525,930

  4—

  21,530

  1Average salary of full-time teachers in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector of England and Wales at 31 March of each year 1974 to 2000. Figures up to 1993 include sixth form colleges. Teacher salary figures for 1999 are provisional, those for March 2000 are estimated by applying the April 1999 pay award of 3.5 per cent. to 1999 data, consequently the March 2000 data does not include the effects of the post-threshold pay scale that will be paid from 1 September 2000.

  Source:

  DfEE Database of Teacher Records

  2Average salary of those in full-time employment in GB with a qualification of NVQ level 4 or equivalent or above, in the spring of years shown. Includes teachers with such qualifications.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (as the New Earnings Survey does not include qualifications data)

  3Average salary of those in full-time employment in GB whose pay for the survey period was not affected by absence, at April of each year. Figures from 1974 to first row for 1983 are compiled on the basis of men aged 21+ and women aged 18+. Figures for second 1983 row and onwards are compiled on the basis of employees on adult rates. Figures for 1997 and 1998 include late receipts.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey

  4Not available

  5Provisional

  6Estimated

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools in England increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  An estimated 250,000 classroom teachers in England are eligible for the post-threshold pay scale, of whom 81 per cent. have applied. Teachers moving to the new scale will receive a £2,000 pay increase from 1 September 2000 and can progress on the basis of their performance up to the scale maximum of over £30,000 excluding allowances.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to authorise a further round of local sure start programmes. [148039]
  35W
  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have today invited applications to set up a sure start programme in each of the following 66 districts in England:

  Barking and Dagenham

  Basildon

  Bedford

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Brighton and Hove

  Bristol

  Calderdale

  Carlisle

  Carrick

  Chester

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Ealing

  Easington

  Exeter

  Gateshead

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Islington

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  Lewisham

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Newcastle under Lyme

  Newham

  North East Derbyshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Somerset

  North Tyneside

  Nottingham

  Oldham

  Plymouth

  Preston

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Redditch

  Rochdale

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  South Tyneside

  Southampton

  Southwark

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Sunderland

  Swale

  Tameside

  Tamworth

  Tower Hamlets

  36W

  Trafford

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  West Lindsey

  West Somerset

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wigan

  Wirral

  Wyre

  Wyre Forest.

  We will be placing a copy of the guidance for this fourth wave of sure start applications in the Library.

  These 66 applications are in addition to the 66 third wave programmes, currently submitting their plans, which should be up and running by the summer; and the 128 first and second wave programmes which are already delivering services to young children and their families in disadvantaged areas.

  Education Funding
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on education funding in 2001–02. [148040]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am today making an extra £52 million available to provide support to help some English local education authorities manage funding changes in 2001–02.1 am making this extra funding available to deal with known pressures in advance of the longer term revision of the distribution of local authority finance. This funding is in addition to the resources provided through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, and in addition to other Government funding to relieve other specific pressures on authorities.

  This funding is on top of the significant increases that have already been announced for 2001–02—increases which mean £150 extra spending per pupil on average in real terms. The increase in funding per pupil is part of a real terms increase of £370 over three years bringing the total to almost £700 per pupil between 1997 and 2004. Total funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms since 1997. Between 1994–95 and 1997–98 funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms.

  The recent funding increases include: over £1 billion extra in Education Standard Spending Assessments—a 4.8 per cent. increase on 2000–01; a further £250 million in direct grants to schools—a typical primary school will get £20,000, and a typical secondary school £60,000 (up from £9,000 and £40,000 this year for heads to use as they see fit); and an increase of £600 million in the Standards Fund from £1.7 billion to £2.3 billion to support literacy and numeracy in primary and secondary schools, class sizes and tackling truancy.

  The distribution of the extra £52 million will take account of authorities' Education Standard Spending Assessment increase, the extra pressure they face from the transfer of Adult Education funding, their allocation from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, and their need to spend on teacher recruitment and retention—particularly in London and the South East.
  37W
  Each authority's share of the £52 million the following table.

  Number

  LEA

  Special grant(£ million)

  202

  Camden

  0.76

  203

  Greenwich

  0.91

  206

  Islington

  1.40

  209

  Lewisham

  0.29

  212

  Wandsworth

  0.83

  302

  Barnet

  0.87

  303

  Bexley

  0.10

  304

  Brent

  1.03

  305

  Bromley

  0.10

  307

  Ealing

  0.96

  308

  Enfield

  0.85

  310

  Harrow

  0.10

  311

  Havering

  0.10

  312

  Hillingdon

  0.10

  313

  Hounslow

  0.10

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  0.10

  315

  Merton

  1.06

  317

  Redbridge

  0.10

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.10

  319

  Sutton

  0.10

  330

  Birmingham

  3.67

  333

  Sandwell

  0.85

  334

  Solihull

  0.29

  340

  Knowsley

  1.21

  341

  Liverpool

  0.57

  342

  St. Helens

  0.65

  343

  Sefton

  0.85

  344

  Wirral

  1.00

  351

  Bury

  0.10

  352

  Manchester

  0.65

  355

  Salford

  0.55

  356

  Stockport

  0.95

  357

  Tameside

  0.46

  358

  Trafford

  0.97

  359

  Wigan

  0.74

  370

  Barnsley

  0.18

  371

  Doncaster

  0.88

  372

  Rotherham

  0.61

  373

  Sheffield

  1.03

  380

  Bradford

  2.14

  381

  Calderdale

  0.10

  382

  Kirklees

  0.66

  383

  Leeds

  0.69

  390

  Gateshead

  0.75

  391

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0.76

  393

  South Tyneside

  0.47

  394

  Sunderland

  0.69

  800

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0.10

  801

  City of Bristol

  0.70

  802

  North Somerset

  0.10

  803

  South Gloucestershire

  0.10

  806

  Middlesbrough

  0.61

  807

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0.50

  808

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0.42

  810

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  0.59

  811

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0.10

  812

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.36

  813

  North Lincolnshire

  0.10

  815

  North Yorkshire

  0.10

  816

  York

  0.10

  820

  Bedfordshire

  0.10

  825

  Buckinghamshire

  0.10

  826

  Milton Keynes

  0.10

  830

  Derbyshire

  0.10

  835

  Dorset

  0.10

  836

  Poole

  0.10

  837

  Bournemouth

  0.10

  840

  Durham

  2.76

  841

  Darlington

  0.36

  38W

  Number

  LEA

  Special grant (£million)

  845

  East Sussex

  0.10

  850

  Hampshire

  0.10

  851

  Portsmouth

  0.52

  852

  Southampton

  0.57

  855

  Leicestershire

  0.10

  857

  Rutland

  0.10

  860

  Staffordshire

  0.41

  861

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0.14

  865

  Wiltshire

  0.10

  866

  Swindon

  0.46

  867

  Bracknell Forest

  0.10

  868

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0.10

  869

  West Berkshire

  0.10

  870

  Reading

  0.10

  871

  Slough

  0.10

  872

  Wokingham

  0.10

  873

  Cambridgeshire

  0.10

  874

  Peterborough

  0.10

  875

  Cheshire

  0.54

  876

  Halton

  0.59

  877

  Warrington

  0.25

  878

  Devon

  0.10

  880

  Torbay

  0.10

  881

  Essex

  0.10

  882

  Southend-on-Sea

  0.10

  883

  Thurrock

  0.10

  884

  Herefordshire

  0.10

  885

  Worcestershire

  1.35

  886

  Kent

  0.10

  887

  Medway Towns

  0.10

  888

  Lancashire

  0.10

  889

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0.45

  891

  Nottinghamshire

  0.10

  892

  Nottingham City

  1.13

  893

  Shropshire

  0.10

  894

  Telford and Wrekin

  0.31

  908

  Cornwall

  0.10

  909

  Cumbria

  0.10

  916

  Gloucestershire

  0.10

  919

  Hertfordshire

  0.10

  921

  Isle of Wight

  0.10

  925

  Lincolnshire

  0.10

  926

  Norfolk

  0.10

  928

  Northamptonshire

  0.10

  929

  Northumberland

  1.35

  931

  Oxfordshire

  0.10

  933

  Somerset

  0.10

  935

  Suffolk

  0.10

  936

  Surrey

  0.10

  937

  Warwickshire

  0.10

  938

  West Sussex

  0.10

  Total

  52.00

  Term-time Contracts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people employed in schools on term-time only contracts; what proportion of the total workforce this represents; and how many of these workers are women. [147150]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested on people employed in schools on term-time only contracts is not collected centrally.

  Information on full-time equivalent of hours worked during Annual Schools' Census week in January is published in a Statistical Volume "Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000" a copy of which is

  39W
  available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Podiatry
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students are(a) studying for degrees in podiatry and (b) training in chiropody; how many have qualified in each of the last five years; and what the cost of training is. [147269]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Funding for chiropody/podiatry was transferred from the Department for Education and Employment in 1998–99. In 2000–01 we commissioned 364 training places for chiropody/podiatry degrees.

  Data are not collected centrally on the numbers of students who qualify.

  In 1999–2000, £4.4 million was spent on chiropody/ podiatry pre-registration training. The forecast spend for 2000–01 is £5.9 million.

TREASURY

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Office for National Statistics has reached a preliminary view on the treatment of trust ports as part of the PSBR rules; and if he will make a statement. [147146]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Robert Syms, dated 29 January 2001:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the treatment of trust ports as part of the PSBR rules (147146).

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS), in conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury, has been reviewing the classification of bodies that might be classified in the public sector. The classification of trust ports is still under discussion between the ONS, Her Majesty's Treasury and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  VAT (Home Care Concession)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to implement the extra-statutory concession on VAT for home care, announced in February 2000; and for what reason the concession is linked to proposed changes in Department of Trade and Industry regulations which have yet to be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [147186]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Customs will implement the Extra Statutory Concession to coincide with the changes in the Department of Trade and Industry regulations on the private recruitment industry. A side effect of these changes could have been an increase in the VAT paid for necessary home care provided by employment bureaux. The concession will
  40W
  mean that the VAT burden on those least able to look after themselves is not increased as a result of the DTI changes, and in many cases will actually go down.

  Government Shares (Privatised Companies)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) number, (b) percentage of the total and (c) current value is of shares held by Her Majesty's Government in companies privatised since 1985. [146837]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on the number and nominal value of the Government's shareholdings held at 31 March 2000, as reported to the Treasury, is contained in Table B13 of the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund accounts 1999–2000. Since then the Government have disposed of shares in British Telecom, and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 93W. Information on what proportion of the total these represent is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The market value of these shares can be derived from prices quoted on the London Stock Exchange.

  Ahava (UK) Ltd.
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information HM Customs and Excise have received on the origin of cosmetics imported into the UK by Ahava (UK) Ltd. under preference as made in the State of Israel. [147581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise receives a range of information and representations.

  Ahava (UK) Ltd. was one of those companies identified to member states by the European Commission in its communication of April 2000 as warranting investigation.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps HM Customs and Excise have already taken or are planning to take to verify that cosmetics imported to the UK by Ahava (UK) Ltd. under the EC-Israel Association Agreement and labelled 'State of Israel' are produced within the internationally recognised borders of Israel. [147580]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The trade agreement between the EC and Israel allows the subsequent verification of proofs of origin.

  Products imported into the UK by Ahava (UK) Ltd. from Israel have been included in a verification exercise currently being conducted with the Israeli authorities to ascertain the origin of products imported under preference. As yet no results have been received.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were claiming the Disabled Persons Tax Credit on 1 January. [147277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A provisional estimate for the end of August 2000 was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 196W.
  41W
  A figure for the end of October 2000 will be included in the DPTC Quarterly Enquiry for October 2000, which is due to be published on 13 March.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the payment method for the Disabled Persons Tax Credit. [145978]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government receive a wide range of representations, including on Disabled Persons Tax Credit, which at the end of August 2000 was received by 25,400 families and individuals. This compares with 18,469 recipients under Disability Working Allowance in August 1999.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received on the difficulties faced by term-time only workers in claiming WFTC; and if he will make a statement; [147152]

  (2) how many claims for WFTC have been made by those working on term-time only contracts; and what proportion of such claims has been disallowed because they were made during a holiday period. [147154]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A small number of representations have been received from and on behalf of term-time workers. Information on the number of claims disallowed because the claim falls within a period where the applicant is not under a contract of employment is not available.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the abolition of advance corporation tax dividend credit; [145958]

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the abolition of advance corporation tax dividend credit. [145992]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Advance corporation tax and payable tax credits on dividends were abolished as part of a package of reforms to encourage companies to invest for the long term.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions about take-up of(a) the Children's Tax Credit and (b) the Working Families Tax Credit under Chart 5.2 in his pre-Budget report. [147810]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Chart 5.2 of the November 2000 pre-Budget report shows the impact of children's tax and benefit measures introduced over this Parliament on families. The figures are calculated by comparing the situation after the implementation of the Working Families Tax Credit, Children's Tax Credit, and increases to Child Benefit and income-related benefits with what would have happened if these policy interventions had not taken place.

  These figures are consistent with published PBR estimates that 5 million families will benefit from the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit and that up to 1.4 million families will benefit from the Working Families Tax Credit.
  42W

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what applications(a) the Hinduja brothers and (b) their companies have made for a UK banking licence since May 1997; and which Ministers were involved in the applications. [147796]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Applications for authorisation of banks have been decided by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) since 1 June 1998, and were previously the responsibility of the Bank of England. The Government have had no role in this process before or after that date. The FSA publishes the list of authorised institutions.

  Insurance Actuaries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he has offered on the proper role of the appointed actuary in insurance enterprises, with special reference to the issue of internal conflicts of interest. [147250]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The statutory duties of the Appointed Actuary are set out in the Insurance Companies Act 1982.

  Euro
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his five economic tests for joining the euro have been met; when he expects the others to be met; and if he will make a statement. [147376]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have said that they will make another assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department's total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146593]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 19 January; and if he will make a statement. [147159]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  In open debate, the Presidency set out its work programme. The Presidency stressed the priority it attached to achieving the Lisbon goals on employment and said it wanted ECOFIN to play a key role in preparing for enlargement. There was broad support for its priorities, particularly on continued labour market reform.
  43W
  The Chancellor made a strong appeal for completion of the single market, investment in research and development and trade liberalisation.

  The Presidency circulated a new compromise proposal on excise duties and mineral oils. The Council invited Coreper to discuss the specific detail further. The intention is to reach agreement at ECOFIN on 12 February.

  The contribution of public finances to growth and employment was discussed on the basis of the Commission's Communication. A joint Council-Commission report will be submitted to the Stockholm European Council in March. A draft will be submitted to ECOFIN for agreement on 12 March.

  The Council examined and agreed conclusions on Sweden's Convergence Report.

  The Economic and Finance Committee (EFC) presented a paper reviewing progress on the action plan on EMU statistical requirements. The aim is to improve the quality of statistics and speed up their provision. The Presidency welcomed progress made so far but noted that further work was planned.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the Treasury has used its econometric model of the UK economy within the last year to estimate the likely size of tax increase needed to reduce interest rates by one percentage point relative to base and the likely cut in public spending needed to achieve this end; [147623]

  (2) what simulations the Treasury has undertaken using the Treasury economic model over the previous 12 months which were specifically to model the interaction between monetary and fiscal policy; and if he will make a statement; [147622]

  (3) on how many occasions in the previous year the Treasury has performed simulations using its economic model; and what estimate he has made of the cost of doing so on each occasion. [147621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury economic model plays a role in economic forecasting and informing policy advice. Simulations of fiscal and monetary policy changes are used, but the recording of detailed information on model use in the form requested is not practical.

HEALTH

  Hepatitis C
  Dr.Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether there are sufficient practising hepatologists to cope with the increasing numbers of patients with hepatitis C. [142247]

  Mr.Denham
  At national level, we do not plan centrally the numbers of consultants who specialise in hepatology. We plan the numbers of consultants in 44W
  gastroenterology, taking into account information gathered from a range of sources, including the medical Royal Colleges, regional postgraduate medical deans and National Health Service management, which includes information about consultants specialising in hepatology.

  At local level, it is for National Health Service trusts and health authorities, who are accountable for the quality of the services they provide, to determine how their services are configured and delivered, in the light of local circumstances, in order to provide quality services to patients. This includes deciding on the number and grades of posts in their locality.

  We are satisfied that there are enough training opportunities in gastroenterology for there to be sufficient candidates qualifying for consultant posts over the next few years. With the current numbers in higher specialist training, it will be possible for the numbers of consultants to increase from around 390 in 1999, to around 610 by 2004.

  We will continue to engage in discussions with the Royal College of Physicians and the regional postgraduate medical deans and others responsible for training and career prospects, with the aim of ensuring that all services relating to hepatology are fully supported.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Chief Medical Officer of Health has provided regarding the time traces of(a) cannabis, (b) marijuana, (c) Ecstasy, (d) cocaine, (e) heroin, (f) tobacco and (g) alcohol remain in the body and cause impairment; and what the estimate of the degree of impairment in each case is of a comparable input after 24 hours. [146463]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: The Department's publication "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" contains information on the approximate duration of detectability of a range of substances in urine, which gives an indication of how rapidly substances are metabolised. Information on the risks and effects of substances, including alcohol and tobacco, is included in several publications produced on behalf of the Department, such as "The Score: Facts About Drugs."

  It is not possible to determine with any degree of accuracy a comparable dose of the substances named in order to estimate degree of impairment. But, in general, nervous system depressant-type substances (such as heroin) will tend to impair motor functions and the ability to carry out tasks. Hallucinogenic and stimulant-type substances have problematic effects of their own, which may or may not cause impairment in the short-term.

  Impairment in an individual will vary according to a range of factors including metabolism, dose, route of administration, regularity of use, and whether taken in combination with other substances.

  Copies of "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" are available in the Library. "The Score: Facts About Drugs" is available from the National Drugs Helpline 0800 776600.
  45W

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE to give advice on new drugs and therapies for the management of schizophrenia. [147031]

  Mr. Denham
  On 4 November 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) would produce guidance on schizophrenia. More recently, on 16 November 2000, NICE were asked to conduct an appraisal of anti-psychotic drugs. NICE sets its own timetable and the expected dates of completion for the guideline and appraisal have yet to be announced. Further announcements and NICE'S current timetable are available on their website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the National Health Service is of a mastectomy to treat breast cancer. [145598]

  HRG Code

  HRG narrative

  National average (£)

  Elective inpatient costs (from waiting lists)

  JO2

  Major breast surgery including plastic procedures less than 49 or with complications or comorbidities

  2,126

  JO3

  Major breast surgery including plastic procedures greater than 50 without complications or comorbidities

  1,559

  Non-elective inpatient costs (urgent/emergencies)

  JO2

  Major breast surgery including plastic procedures less than 49 or with complications or comorbidities

  2,126

  JO3

  Major breast surgery including plastic procedures greater than 50 without comorbidities

  1,724

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if (1) NICE consulted Ministers before the announcement on 22 December 2000 of further research into the cost effectiveness of drugs for multiple sclerosis; [147038]

  (2) what discussions took place between health Ministers and the Chief Executive of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence following the institute's appraisal review meeting for multiple sclerosis on 13 December. [147037]

  Mr. Denham
  There were no discussions between Ministers and the Chief Executive of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and there was no prior discussion between the Department and NICE about the latter's decision to commission further research into the cost effectiveness of beta interferon and glatiramer following their appraisal committee meeting on 13 December. NICE informed departmental officials of their intentions on 20 December. NICE were advised to make an early announcement in view of the interest and concern surrounding the appraisal.

  Flu Treatments
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue further guidance on facilitating patient access to influenza treatments. [147204]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no such plans at present.
  46W
  Yvette Cooper
  In 1999–2000 the average cost of a mastectomy can be classified in a number of ways dependent on whether the mastectomy performed is partial, full, etc. Not all mastectomies are performed due to breast cancer, and no differentiation is made for the reason behind the surgery.

  In activity terms, this can be classified using a number of Office of Population, Censuses, and Survey codes, such as

  B272: Total mastectomy and excision of both pectoral muscles

  B273: Total mastectomy and excision of both pectoralis minor muscle

  B274: Total mastectomy

  B275: Subcutaneous mastectomy.

  In cost terms, these OPCS codes map to Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs), which put these procedures into clinically similar bands. For the 1999–2000 financial year, the national average cost of the groups, including mastectomy, are:

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons he issued recommendations to implement a patient group direction and a telephone triage system which resulted in the supply of only Relenza treatment. [147074]

  Mr. Denham
  The intention of the supplementary guidance issued to the National Health Service by the Department was to provide practical advice on implementing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations on zanamivir. This included advice on arrangements for general practitioners to draw up arrangements to enable pharmacists and nurses to supply zanamivir, provided they are satisfied the patient is in the at-risk group, needs it and meets specified criteria.

  This guidance was issued to the NHS in the light of the potential implications for the delivery of GP services over the winter period.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire of 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 143W, on Relenza and Lysovir, what estimates have been made of the annual cost of prescribing (a) Relenza and (b) Lysovir to at-risk adults when influenza is circulating in the community. [147075]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has made no estimate of the annual cost prescribing of(a) Relenza and (b) Lysovir to at-risk adults when influenza is circulating in the community

  However, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence estimates that its guidance on Relenza (zanamivir) will result in between 97,000 and 487,000 at-risk individuals

  47W
  being prescribed zanamivir in the influenza season, at a cost to the National Health Service in England and Wales of between £2.3 million and £11.7 million.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department endorsed NICE guidance on the use of Relenza for at-risk patients. [147162]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE's) task is to appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments, based on the available evidence.

  In response to NICE's guidance on the use of Relenza, the Department issued supplementary implementation guidance to the National Health Service in the light of the potential implications for the delivery of GP services over the winter period. This guidance was not an endorsement of Relenza.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons Lysovir was not used as a comparator by NICE in its technology appraisal of the clinical and cost effectiveness of Zanamivir in the prevention and treatment of influenza. [147073]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to decide the appropriate comparisons to be used for the appraisals which they are asked to carry out.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ask for the NICE guidance on Relenza to be enforced when clinicians have in place clinically acceptable alternative arrangements for the treatment of patients. [147076]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect general practitioners to exercise their clinical discretion in deciding whether and what to prescribe, taking due account of guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The exercise of clinical discretion is not overridden by NICE guidance.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the comparative cost and clinical effectiveness of Lysovir and Relenza. [147071]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has made no such assessment.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) final version and (b) other full business cases for NHS hospital trust computer systems that have a lifetime contract value in excess of £1 million were first submitted in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [147141]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Four Full Business Cases (FBCs) for National Health Service hospital trust computer systems with a lifetime contract value in excess of £1 million were first submitted in 1999 and seven in 2000.

  These were all final versions of FBCs in that they were all submitted for formal approval. The appropriate regional office of the NHS Executive normally helps a trust to develop its FBC but will only allow the FBC to
  48W
  be submitted for formal approval when it substantially meets the detailed approval criteria laid down by the NHS Executive.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each regional office, how many(a) final version and (b) other full business cases for NHS hospital trust computer systems that have a lifetime contract value in excess of £1 million and that were first submitted since January 1999 have been approved. [147142]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The National Health Service Executive has approved eight Full Business Cases submitted since January 1999 for NHS hospital trust computer systems that have a lifetime contract value in excess of £1 million. These were broken down by regional office as follows:

  North Western Regional Office—4

  Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office—3

  Computer Systems Eastern Regional Office—1.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target turn-around time is for the assessment of full business cases for computer systems of a value in excess of £1 million submitted by NHS hospital trusts from presentation of initial full business case to the approval of final business case. [147140]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The target time for approval of a full business case, once formally submitted, is two months. The time actually taken will be decided in part by the quality of the FBC and the speed with which the trust responds to any questions about the content of the FBC that the National Health Service Executive may need to ask.

  The FBC for a scheme for computer systems is developed by the NHS trust over a period of time, assisted as necessary by their NHS Executive regional office. The FBC may go through a series of drafts over several months, but these drafts are not submitted for formal approval. When the final version of the FBC is prepared, it is submitted to the NHS Executive for formal approval.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of NHS trusts that will incur lifetime expenditure in excess of £1 million in order to achieve Level 3 EPR. [147143]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: We expect that almost all hospital National Health Service trusts will incur lifetime expenditure in excess of £1 million in order to achieve EPR level 3.

  Doctors' Retirement
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 48W, on doctors' retirement, how many general practitioners practising in England retired in the last five years for which figures are available before the age of (a) 60, (b) 65, (c) 70 and (d) 75 years. [147771]

  Mr. Denham
  The figures in the table show the number of doctors working in GP practices who have received a pensions award in each of the years 1994 to 1999 under the age of 60, 65, 70 years and aged 70 and over in England and Wales. However, a number of GPs who
  49W
  retire and claim their pension and gratuity may return to practise in general medical services 28 days later and continue working until they fully retire.

  Though there is no fixed retirement age for GPs they are removed from the HA medical list on reaching 70 years of age if providing general medical services as a principal. No GP over the age of 70 received a pension award.

  Medical staff in GP practices—numbers receiving a pension award, by age

  Number receiving a pension award

  Year

  Under age 60

  Under age 65

  Under age 70

  70 or over

  1995

  246

  632

  730

  24

  1996

  239

  559

  633

  20

  1997

  229

  517

  598

  13

  1998

  199

  457

  518

  20

  1999

  127

  284

  339

  12

  Source:

  NHS pensions agency

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of named day questions tabled during the current Session have received a substantive reply on the named day; and what the mean and medians were for the number of days elapsed between(a) tabling, (b) holding answers and (c) final answers. [147298]

  Ms Stuart
  145 questions tabled for answer on a named day received a reply on the day named. This represents 52 per cent. of the total number tabled. The mean and median number of days elapsed between the day named for answer and a substantive reply were three days and two days respectively. Because hon. Members may name days with differing periods of notice, the calculation of the figures between tabling and answer involve the examination of each parliamentary question and therefore could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for information were made to the Medicines Control Agency where information was not provided within 20 working days from the request for information; and if he will indicate the length of time taken for each such request. [147773]

  Ms Stuart
  Of the 204 queries the agency handled where this target is applicable, 13 are currently being dealt with and 41 were not answered within the 20 day deadline. Of these cases, 14 were answered within a week of the deadline, 13 within a month, four within three months, seven within six months, three over six months.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Committee on Safety of Medicines is subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [147726]

  Ms Stuart
  No. However, the Committee on Safety of Medicines will be subject to the Freedom of Information legislation when implemented.
  50W

  St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the NHS appealed against non-determination of the planning application in respect of land and buildings at St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset; for what reason the appeal has been deferred; and if he will make a statement; [147817]

  (2) for how long the surplus land and buildings at St. Leonard's Hospital have been identified for disposal; and when he expects a scheme to be completed; [147816]

  (3) when he will give instructions for the immediate demolition of the surplus unoccupied buildings at St. Leonard's Hospital, Dorset; and if he will make a statement. [147821]

  Ms Stuart
  There has been a phased re-provision of patient services from the St. Leonard's Hospital site since the late 1980s. The last patient services were relocated off the site in January 2000.

  A number of unsuccessful planning applications for the site have been made over the last 10 years. The latest planning application for a special care housing development on the site was made in September 1999. East Dorset District Council failed to make a decision on this application and National Health Service Estates appealed against the non-determination of the application in April 2000.

  In July 2000 the Planning Inspectorate requested that NHS Estates undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the site. Work for the EIA was commenced immediately and is expected to be completed in spring this year when a date for the public inquiry will be set by the Planning Inspectorate.

  It would be inappropriate to demolish the buildings until the conclusion of the planning appeal.

  Christchurch Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how long the former Health Centre in Christchurch has remained empty; and what action his Department is taking to realise the value of this asset. [147820]

  Ms Stuart
  The Christchurch Health Centre was last used as a health centre in 1994. The property is held on a long lease but with restricted use. The leasehold interest of the property has been marketed on several occasions and last year was placed in two national auctions but failed to sell due to the restricted use.

  Negotiations have been pursued with the landlord for a variation of the user clause which with his agreement would enable a more marketable interest to be offered to the market for sale.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of screening all women aged over 50 years for osteoporosis; and what estimate he has made of the(a) cost of such a programme and (b) potential savings to the NHS by such early detection and treatment; [147308]
  51W
  (2) how many bone scans for the detection of osteoporosis were undertaken in each of the last five years; what the estimated cost of this service was in each year; and in how many cases osteoporosis was diagnosed. [147309]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) advises Ministers, the devolved national Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament on all aspects of screening policy.

  The NSC considered the subject of osteoporosis screening in June 1999. The committee's recommendation is that population-based screening should not be offered. There is not a simple, reliable test for osteoporosis that would meet the NSC's published criteria to ensure that a screening programme is both clinically and cost effective. The NSC's criteria are available on its website at http://www.nsc.nhs.uk/

  The information requested on the number of bone scans is not available centrally.

  Training Places
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra nurse, midwife and health visiting training places will be created in each year from 2001 to 2004 expressed in the same terms as the figures in NHS Plan; and if he will make a statement. [147557]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of the NHS Plan there will be 5,500 more nurses, midwives and health visitors being trained each year than today. Our latest forecast is for 20,325 places in 2000–01, an increase of 1,618 on the 1999–2000 baseline figure of 18,707. We plan to commission a further 1,000 places in 2001–02 and apportion the remaining increase over 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra training places for therapists and professional staff will be created in each year from 2001 to 2004 expressed in the same terms as the figures in NHS Plan; and if he will make a statement. [147556]

  Mr. Denham
  As a result of the NHS Plan there will be 4,450 more therapists and other key professional staff being trained each year by 2004. Our latest forecast is for 6,553 training places in 2000–01, an increase of 576 on the 1999 baseline figure of 5,977. We plan to commission a further 700 places in 2001–02 and to commission the balance in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Female Genital Mutilation
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if female genital mutilation will be included in the forthcoming sexual health strategy; and if he will make a statement. [147597]

  Yvette Cooper
  The sexual health and HIV strategy will look at the range of issues within sexual health. In developing the work on the strategy, cultural issues including female genital mutilation have been considered. The strategy will set out actions for the future to improve awareness of these issues, develop programmes of education and provide information on support services.

  We hope to publish the strategy for consultation shortly.
  52W

  Ambulance Volunteers' Scheme
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been trained as part of the ambulance volunteers' first responders scheme. [147753]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally. First responders are invaluable in providing immediate care until an emergency ambulance arrives. What matters is that patients with life-threatening conditions or injuries get an emergency response as quickly as possible. Clinical evidence proves conclusively that early defibrillation and resuscitation saves more lives. Achievement of the eight minute target could save 1,800 lives each year in people under 75 years suffering acute heart attacks.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has had the opportunity to apply to the European Commission for monetary compensatory amounts; on how many occasions applications were made; and how much was paid out in each successful application. [145839]

  Ms Quin
  Under the agrimonetary system in existence until 1992, monetary compensatory amounts automatically provided equalisation of currency differences when agricultural products crossed intra-Community borders. No application for the amounts was required.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he expects will be received by the United Kingdom fishing industry from the EU for the(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 funding years. [146274]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF and the devolved Administrations are making available £18 million in 2001–02 and £22 million in 2002–03 for the UK fishing industry under the new EU fisheries structural funds programmes. These sums include both the amounts available from the EU under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance and the national back-up funding from MAFF and the devolved Administrations. Since grant rates and funding packages will vary across the UK and across grant-aided measures, it is not possible to say at this stage how much of the amounts will be EU money and how much national back-up.

  A limited number of payments will also be made under the 1994–99 structural funds programmes. Actual amounts paid will depend on the eligibility of the claims received.

  In addition the fishing industry has access to intervention funds from the Community's European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund when required.
  53W

  Farmers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the percentage of farmers in England who are part time and have incomes from other occupations. [146751]

  Ms Quin
  51 per cent. of farmers, partners, directors and their spouses in England recorded themselves in the June 2000 agricultural census as part time. There is no information available on what percentage of these have income from other occupations.

  For individuals whose main or secondary source of self-employment income comes from agriculture or horticulture, 5 per cent. have other self-employment income and 24 per cent. have other earned incomes. The proportion that have both is not readily available.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997. [147061]

  Ms Quin
  There have been no such directions.

  Sugar Regime
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on reform of the sugar regime. [147184]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: I refer the right hon. Lady to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 549–51.

  Flooding
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on how the assistance allocated to areas affected by flooding will be distributed. [147448]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards have submitted bids for funds to accelerate river flood defences over the next three years, as part of the package of an additional £51 million announced following the flooding. The bids are being considered and decisions on allocations will be announced shortly.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many recipients of agricultural support received in the most recent financial year for which figures are available(a) less than £5,000, (b) £5,001 to £10,000, (c) £10,001 to £50,000, (d) £50,001 to £500,000, (e) £500,001 to £2 million and (f) more than £2 million [147542]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The information requested is set out in the table and relates to expenditure on claims for support under the Common
  54W
  Agricultural Policy (CAP) funded from the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund (EAGGF) in the Financial Year ended 31 March 2000.

  Amount

  Number of payments1

  Less than £5,000

  381,011

  £5,001–£10,000

  33,740

  £10,001–£50,000

  28,476

  £50,001–£500,000

  3,479

  £500,001–£2million

  13

  More than £2 million

  0

  1 Many of the recipients will have received payments under more than one CAP support scheme. Information on the total amount of support received by individual recipients is not available.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on what discussions he has had with EU counterparts on the financing of the disposal of fallen stock. [147480]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend and I have had no such discussions with EU counterparts. However, in negotiations on the draft EU animal by-products regulations, the European Commission has undertaken to produce a report on how member states finance the disposal of animal by-products, including fallen stock.

  Farm Waste Plastic
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is regarding the disposal of farm waste plastic; and if he will make a statement. [147279]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The Government acknowledge the difficulties farmers can face in disposing of waste plastics. This issue will be addressed in a consultation paper on the extension of waste management controls to agricultural waste which is expected to be published soon by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). The consultation paper will take into account issues raised in a meeting held at DETR on 3 November 2000, attended by officials from my Department, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and a wide range of organisations representing the plastics industry and agricultural suppliers.

  A voluntary national waste collection scheme, the Farm Film Producers Group, was set up in 1994 and ran until 1997; however, some suppliers were unwilling to pay a levy which undermined its operation. One of the aims of the dialogue with industry is to develop proposals for tackling the issue and to ensure that any future provision is not affected by similar problems.

  Start Bay, Slapton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision he intends to make for the erecting of flood defences at Start Bay, Slapton following the recent storm damage. [147288]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I understand that emergency works have been undertaken by Devon county council, acting as Highway Authority, and Ministry funding is therefore not an issue. If the

  55W
  relevant coast protection authority, South Hams district council, makes any applications for MAFF funding for studies or works, they will be considered against our normal criteria.

  Avon Heath Country Park
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by the Forestry Commission to ensure that trees felled at Avon Heath Country Park in breach of a felling licence are replanted. [147824]

  Mr. Morley
  The Forestry Commission could have used its statutory powers to impose a restocking notice, but decided that this would not be in the public interest as the area is part of a heathland restoration project. Avon Heath Country Park is in a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Protection Area, and this heathland restoration work is an important part of the Government's Biodiversity Action Plan. Nevertheless, I understand that RSPB has decided, after consultation with local people, to plant some replacement trees in other parts of the park.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the prosecution by the Forestry Commission of those responsible for breaches of felling licences at Avon Forest Country Park, and the implications of the case for policy on the protection of trees for amenity reasons. [147823]

  Mr. Morley
  On 16 November 2000 in Poole magistrates court, an RSPB employee pleaded guilty to felling growing trees on land at Avon Heath Country Park between 1 July 1999 and 31 January 2000 without the authority of a felling licence. He was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £500 towards prosecution costs.

  The case has no implications for our policy on controlling the felling of trees. The Forestry Commission will continue to investigate all suspected breaches of the tree felling regulations and will prosecute when it is clear that an offence has been committed.

SCOTLAND

  New Deal
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people(a) entered and (b) completed the New Deal scheme in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999 and (iv) 2000. [145655]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Latest figures from the start of New Deal for Young People in 1998 to the end of October 2000 are summarised in the following table:

  Number of young people starting New Deal

  Number of young people who left New Deal

  1998

  214,500

  81,100

  1999

  191,300

  193,900

  2000

  151,600

  183,100

  56W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brenda Searle
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with the British Ambassador to Mexico with regard to the disappearance of Miss Brenda Searle. [147085]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Our Embassy in Mexico City has liaised with the Dutch Embassy to co-ordinate UK/Dutch efforts in this case.

  Our Embassy has held meetings with the Mexican police and local authorities. Ms Searle's parents were included in these meetings during their visit to Mexico in autumn last year. During his visit to Mexico in November 2000, Lord Levy raised Ms Searle's case with the then Mexican President Zedillo, who promised to ensure that everything possible would be done to help.

  We have maintained regular contact with Mr. and Mrs. Searle. Officials are arranging a further meeting with them in February.

  Drugs (Iran)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the anti-drugs assistance the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is planning to provide to Iran. [148038]

  Mr. Battle
  Most of the heroin sold on Britain's streets originates in Afghanistan, the world's largest producer of opium. Iran is a key country on the heroin route from Afghanistan to Europe. We share an interest in co-operation against the drugs trade.

  The Iranians make the world's largest seizures of opiates–253 tonnes in 1999. But it has been at a cost. Around 3,000 law enforcement officers have been killed in clashes with drug traffickers in the past 20 years. They deserve our help.

  The FCO has recently agreed to provide £400,000 towards the UNDCP/Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran Combined Interdiction Unified Strategy (CIRUS) programme in Iran to assist with anti drugs work on their eastern border with Afghanistan and Iran.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office assistance is ring fenced specifically for the established and successful CIRUS project.

  Professor Lowry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Portuguese Government have informed his Department about their intention to proceed with further charges against Professor Lowry; and what are the new charges likely to be. [146845]

  Mr. Hain
  The Portuguese Secretary of State for European Affairs told the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 18 October 2000 of the Swiss authorities' request for extradition in order for them to press charges. The Portuguese Attorney-General has authorised extradition to proceed at the end of Professor Lowry's Portuguese sentence.
  57W
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports the British Embassy has sent about the daily routine of Professor Lowry while serving his sentence in a Portuguese prison; and how many hours per day he is locked in his cell. [146848]

  Mr. Hain
  Professor Lowry has freedom of movement between 08.00 and 21.00 hours. He and three others share a cell in the new wing of the prison which has two sets of bunkbeds, toilet, washbasin and shower. Professor Lowry is sports delegate for his wing and supervises the use of the gym. He has access to a television and the library. When he is not working he reads and exercises.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact staff from the British Embassy in Portugal have had with Professor Lowry; and what the state of his health is reported to be. [146846]

  Mr. Hain
  Professor Lowry is visited twice a year; his last visit was on 8 August 2000; his next is scheduled for February 2001. Professor Lowry's welfare officer has confirmed that he appears to be well, both physically and mentally. There has been no reported deterioration in his health and he has not asked for any further treatment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports the British Embassy in Portugal have sent on access to medical treatment for Professor Lowry; and what treatment he has recently received. [146847]

  Mr. Hain
  Professor Lowry collapsed in August 2000 and was transferred to the prison infirmary for treatment. He has not reported any recurring symptoms. He has seen his dentist and consultant and undergone appropriate tests. He continues to receive medical treatment from his private doctor. He remains adamant that he will not have surgery while in prison.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has received from the Government of Portugal about Professor Lowry. [146844]

  Mr. Hain
  Our officials have had regular discussions with the Portuguese authority on this case, in line with normal consular practice.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Embassy in Portugal has been informed why Professor Lowry remains in prison in that country despite having served more than half of his original sentence; and what indication there is of when he will be released. [146849]

  Mr. Hain
  The prison social welfare authorities will automatically begin to prepare a further application for Professor Lowry's release in February 2001 when he has served two thirds of his sentence. Conditional release in Portugal is granted at the discretion of the parole judge and becomes automatic only when five sixths of the sentence has been served.

  Asil Nadir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has recently had, and with whom, regarding Asil Nadir; and if he will make a statement. [146940]
  58W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State has had no recent discussions about Asil Nadir.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet Mr. Bernard Kouchner to discuss the protection of the non-Albanian population of Kosovo and Metohija. [146431]

  Mr. Vaz
  Mr. Haekkerup, the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Representative in Kosovo, called on me and senior officials on 9 January prior to taking up his appointment on 15 January. During his call Mr. Haekkerup emphasised that one of his top priorities was to improve law and order in Kosovo, including tackling ethnic violence. We welcome the priority Mr. Haekkerup has given to this and will give him our full support.

  Kindertransport People
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the German Government over the issue of pensions for the Kindertransport people; and if he will make a statement. [146853]

  Mr. Vaz
  Foreign Office Ministers have not made representations on this issue to the German Government.

  The German pensions in question take account of the EU regulations for co-ordinating social security. German officials have advised the Department of Social Security and the British Embassy on a number of occasions that they have no plans to make additional arrangements for this group of claimants.

  Sir David Hannay
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the amount of per diem remuneration is of Sir David Hannay. [146605]

  Mr. Vaz
  Sir David Hannay receives appropriate remuneration commensurate with his expertise, which amounts to £450 per day worked. This is consistent with Treasury guidelines. He works about 20–25 days per quarter.

  Nazi Victims
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of payments out of the International Fund for Needy Victims of Nazi Persecution. [146815]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK's £1 million contribution to the fund was fully allocated by 1999. Over $41 million of the total $60 million has been contributed to the fund, and over $30 million has been allocated.

  All contributing Governments agree that speedy allocation and effective use of resources are top priorities. The UK has continued to urge rapid disbursement by other contributors.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the compensation scheme promoted by Germany for slave labour victims of the Nazis. [146816]
  59W
  Mr. Vaz
  Final agreement on the fund was reached in July 2000. The German Government have pledged DM5 billion and German industry is expected to contribute the same amount, though there is still a shortfall in the latter category. The German authorities hope disbursement will begin in the first half of this year.

  Claims can already be lodged: UK claimants should make their application through the International Organisation for Migration; Jewish claimants should contact the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts have been established between UNAMSIL and RUF in Sierra Leone. [146484]

  Mr. Hain
  Following the ceasefire agreement singed in Abuja on 10 November 2000 between the Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF, UNAMSIL has held a number of face-to-face meetings with the RUF leadership. These confidence building contacts, which continue, have allowed both sides to explore the detail of the terms of the ceasefire.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what planned overseas ministerial visits(a) he proposes and (b) his Ministers propose to make this year; when the visits are scheduled; and if he will make a statement. [146872]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: Visits already announced and agreed with host Governments are as follows.

  I plan to visit the United States in February to meet Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, and other members of the new Administration, as well as members of both Houses of Congress. I plan to go to France shortly afterwards for the Franco-British Summit. Other confirmed visits for this year are to Brussels and Sweden to fulfil regular EU commitments, Italy in July for the G8 Summit, and Brisbane in October to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), plans to visit Brussels and Sweden on EU business. He plans to visit India and Bangladesh in February in connection with his specific responsibility for entry clearance issues.

  Baroness Scotland is currently visiting the Falklands and Antarctica, and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), is visiting Mexico.

  Further visits will be announced in the usual way, as plans are finalised and agreed with host countries.

  Entry Clearance Office (Islamabad)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what times of the day the Entry Clearance Office in Islamabad is open for telephone inquiries from the UK; and what the telephone numbers for such inquiries are. [147078]
  60W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Visa Section in Islamabad is open between 02.30 GMT and 09.30 GMT (0730–1430 local time) Monday to Friday. Telephone inquiries can be accepted during those hours. The telephone numbers are those of the British High Commission: 00 92 51 2822131 to 2822135 and 2206071 to 2206075. The telephone numbers and office hours of British diplomatic missions overseas can be found in "HM Diplomatic Service Overseas Reference List", which is available in the House Libraries, and available on the internet at www.fco.gov.uk/directory/posts.asp.

  Bertelsmann Foundation Conference
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whom Her Majesty's Government were represented at the Bertelsmann Foundation conference on the future development of the EU held in Berlin in January. [147163]

  Mr. Vaz
  Her Majesty's Government were represented at the conference by the British Ambassador to Berlin, Sir Paul Lever.

  Mrs. Nazia Bashir
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's High Commission, Islamabad, received an application for entry clearance for settlement from Mrs. Nazia Bashir (ISB/H3690); when she can expect to be invited for interview; and if he will make a statement. [147132]

  Mr. Vaz
  Mrs. Nazia Bashir applied for a settlement visa at our High Commission in Islamabad on 14 June 2000. An Entry Clearance Officer (ECO) interviewed her the same day. Further consideration of the application was delayed to allow Mrs. Bashir to produce further documents to support her application. An Entry Clearance Manager has reviewed the case in the light of the extra documents supplied and has authorised the issue of a settlement visa to Mrs. Bashir.

DEFENCE

  Tornado GR4 (Upgrade)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF Tornado GR4 upgrade programme will be complete; and how many GR4s will then be available for operations. [143334]

  Dr. Moonie
  On current plans, the RAF Tornado GR4 upgrade programme will be completed by February 2003 when all 142 upgraded aircraft will be available for operational deployment.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to request the Defence Radiological Protection Service to update its 1993 report on the exposure by British military personnel to depleted uranium during the Gulf war. [145300]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's position on the exposure of British military personnel to depleted uranium during the Gulf conflict was set out on 19 March 1999 in a paper entitled, "Testing for the presence of Depleted
  61W
  Uranium in UK Veterans of the Gulf conflict: the Current Position". Since then the US Department of Defence has published its own assessment of possible levels of depleted uranium to which troops may have been exposed in the Gulf. These levels are lower than those contained in the Defence Radiological Protection Service reports of 1993, and our 1999 paper. We will analyse the differences.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) shells and (b) bullets containing (i) uranium and (ii) depleted uranium were fired by the Army on ranges in Surrey in the last 10 years. [147070]

  Mr. Spellar
  No munitions containing uranium or depleted uranium have been fired on the ranges in Surrey.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what uranium pharmacological tests he proposes should be undertaken on civilians living in areas of depleted uranium debris; [147194]

  (2) if he will conduct uranium pharmacological tests on civilians in Kosovo. [147195]

  Mr. Spellar
  The health of civilians is the responsibility of their Government or, as in the case of Kosovo, the United Nations. Although the UK will provide help and advice if requested, it is up to these relevant authorities to decide what tests, if any, should be carried out.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has received on measurements of uranium 235 among Kosovans. [147196]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any such measurements being taken.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received concerning a ban on the use of depleted uranium ammunition by the armed forces. [145937]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January 2001, c. 537W]: We have received a petition from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations have been received from the campaign against depleted uranium. [145295]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 January 2001, c. 420W]: We have received a petition from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium.

  Commercial Exploitation Levy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage commercial exploitation levy is applied to defence related exports to recover MOD Research and Development costs; and what the percentage was in each of the last 10 years. [146068]

  Dr. Moonie
  The rates vary according to the type of equipment involved and the extent to which its development was funded by the Ministry of Defence. Higher value sales would normally employ profit-sharing schemes rather than applying levy rates. The circumstances of individual sales may also permit some variation to the levy arrangements which would be negotiated on a case by case basis. I am withholding 62W
  details of the individual rates used and the circumstances in which they might apply under the exemptions 7 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The rates currently in use have remained unchanged over the period in question.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the research and development levy income was for each of the past 10 years; and in respect of what categories of contracts it was levied. [146070]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no calculated contribution in respect of the Ministry of Defence's investment in research and development. The commercial exploitation levy (CEL) is a form of royalty for any commercial sales of a design, use of special tooling or the granting of licences where MOD has contributed wholly, or in part, to research and development costs. There are no restrictions on the categories of contracts to which CEL applies, but the vast majority relate to equipment (including software), since MOD research and development funding is largely in support of the development of equipment. Details of the income derived from CEL over the last nine years are set out in the table. Data for 1990–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Commercial exploitation levy receipts: 1991–2000

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  34.5

  1992–93

  15.0

  1993–94

  39.8

  1994–95

  33.0

  1995–96

  21.9

  1996–97

  90.5

  1997–98

  54.0

  1998–99

  57.0

  1999–2000

  17.5

  Notes:

  1.Figures include all Commercial Exploitation receipts collected by the Defence Bills Agency.

  2.Figures exclude: VAT, DTI, France Jaguar/Lynx, MOD IPR licences and receipts from other international programmes not collected through the Defence Bills Agency.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997. [147065]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no such directions.

  Nurses (Defence Medical Services)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishment requirement for nurses in the Defence Medical Services in the specialties of(a) accident and emergency, (b) diabetes, (c) intensive/ coronary care, (d) orthopaedic surgeons, (e) burns and plastics, (f) general nursing duties, (g) infection control, (h) ophthalmic surgeons, (i) midwifery, (j) neurology, (k) dental, (l) operating theatre, (m) paediatrics, (n) psychiatry, (o) otorhinolaryngology, (p) renal/urology, (q) special baby care, (r) stoma care, (s) tutors/instructors, (t) health care assistants and (u) other, indicating in each case the (i) current manning levels and (ii) percentage shortfall; and if he will make a statement. [146155]
  63W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]: The operational and retained task requirement for nurses in the Defence Medical Services and the trained strength as at 1 October 2000 is as shown by speciality. Recruitment into training is highly satisfactory. However, recruitment of trained nurses remains difficult. We are currently working on measures to improve the recruitment and retention of serving nurses.

  Speciality

  Operational and retained task requirement

  Trained manning

  Shortfall (Percentage)

  Accident and Emergency

  114

  44

  61

  Diabetes

  0

  1

  —

  Intensive/Coronary Care

  204

  75

  63

  Orthopaedic

  46

  22

  52

  Burns and Plastics

  40

  13

  68

  General Nursing Duties

  1,122

  573

  49

  Infection control

  7

  5

  29

  Ophthalmic

  15

  1

  93

  Midwifery

  18

  45

  —

  Neurology

  10

  4

  60

  Operating Theatre

  77

  64

  17

  Paediatrics

  11

  16

  —

  Registered Mental Nurse

  125

  78

  38

  Otorhinolaryngology

  0

  0

  —

  Renal/Urology

  30

  4

  87

  Special Baby Care

  0

  3

  —

  Stoma Care

  0

  2

  —

  Tutors/Instructors

  34

  32

  6

  Health Care Assistants

  136

  143

  —

  Dental Surgery Assistants

  412

  408

  1

  Other (Staff and Cmd Posts, Gynaecology, Oncology)

  41

  25

  39

  Research and Development
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on research and development in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland; and if he will break down the Scottish total into (i) DERA's own research and (ii) research funded in academic and non-DERA sites; and what the names of these non-DERA sites are. [147015]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally. However, for 1998–99, some £2,096 million defence expenditure was categorised for statistical purposes as "research and development". This would cover work undertaken in MOD (including DERA), industry and universities. I regret that it is not possible to state how much of the total figure represents expenditure in Scotland, as our data do not include a regional breakdown. Nor do available data provide the breakdown of research (or research and development) expenditure between DERA and non-DERA sites in Scotland.

  Daedalus Site
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent. [147084]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: The Strategy for the defence estate launched in June last year set out our intention to identify the core sites on which we would seek to focus different activities in the longer term. A study is now in progress to this effect.
  64W
  Along with other major Defence sites not yet sold, the former HMS Daedalus is being considered within this study. While it is still at an early stage and not likely to report for some time, we are looking to form an early view of the implications for the Daedalus site, if any, to avoid further uncertainty or delay. We hope to do this by the end of March and will keep the local authorities concerned informed of the position.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to place an order for the first batch of the Astute class submarines; and if he will make a statement. [147571]

  Dr. Moonie
  The first batch of Astute class submarines was ordered from GEC-Marconi (now BAE Systems) in March 1997.

  HMS Tireless
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to ensure the safety of HMS Tireless during its voyage to the United Kingdom for the completion of repairs; and if he will make a statement. [147403]

  Mr. Spellar
  We plan to complete the repairs to Tireless in Gibraltar. However, stringent safety measures apply to all sailings of nuclear submarines. All crews are trained to meet those exacting standards.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has given to the Spanish Government about the extent of damage to HMS Tireless; and what undertakings he has given the Spanish Government about(a) the programme and location of the repairs and (b) the date of departure from Gibraltar of HMS Tireless; and if he will make a statement. [147402]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have maintained a substantial flow of information to both the Spanish Government and the Spanish Council of Nuclear Safety (CSN) throughout the repair, and will continue to do so.

  The Spanish Government have been advised of our plans for the repair to HMS Tireless, and that it is our intention to complete the repair in Gibraltar by the end of March and for the submarine to leave Gibraltar as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay his decision to select 19 May 2001 as the deadline for the removal of HMS Tireless from Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [147401]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our intention is to complete the repair by the end of March and for the submarine to leave Gibraltar as soon as possible thereafter. Precise timing will depend on progress with the repair.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice the United Kingdom Government have tendered to the Government of Gibraltar about the
  65W
  implications for the territory of sustained opposition to the presence of HMS Tireless at Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [147400]

  Mr. Spellar
  The United Kingdom Government have had continuing and extensive discussions with the Government of Gibraltar over HMS Tireless, but has not given specific advice on the issue raised by my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of work on repairs to HMS Tireless, and the expected date and location of completion of the repairs. [147404]

  Mr. Spellar
  Preparatory work on HMS Tireless has been completed and the repair is under way. HMS Tireless is alongside in Gibraltar and it is our intention to complete the repairs in Gibraltar by the end of March.

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dates and circumstances were of the deaths of each serviceman and woman for each of the last five years. [146774]

  Dr. Moonie
  Between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2000, there have been 770 deaths among serving members of the UK armed forces. A copy of a list of circumstances and year of death will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Scots Dragoon Guards

  One Scots Guards

  One Royal Scots

  One Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishment

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishment

  Actual staffing levels

  Royal Armoured Corps

  451

  375

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Infantry

  —

  —

  558

  593

  558

  1458

  558

  492

  Royal Logistic Corps

  19

  20

  23

  19

  23

  31

  23

  21

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  6

  5

  4

  3

  4

  3

  4

  4

  Queen Alexandra Royal Auxiliary Nursing Corps

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  91

  66

  11

  10

  11

  12

  11

  11

  Adjutant General Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  22

  20

  22

  23

  22

  22

  22

  18

  Army Physical Training Corps

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total UK Trained Army Personnel

  590

  487

  620

  649

  620

  527

  620

  548

  Gurkha

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Full time Reserve Service

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total whole Army

  590

  490

  620

  649

  620

  527

  620

  549

  One Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  One Black Watch

  One Highlanders

  One Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Establishments

  Actual staffing levels

  Royal Armoured Corps

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Infantry

  558

  2532

  618

  3522

  587

  4450

  558

  541

  Royal Logistic Corps

  23

  20

  23

  19

  23

  20

  23

  22

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  4

  3

  4

  2

  4

  3

  4

  3

  Queen Alexandra Royal Auxiliary Nursing Corps

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  11

  11

  71

  56

  29

  25

  11

  10

  Adjutant General Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  22

  23

  23

  20

  22

  20

  22

  22

  Army Physical Training Corps

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total UK Trained Army Personnel

  620

  590

  741

  621

  667

  519

  620

  599

  Gurkha

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5105

  —

  —

  Full time Reserve Service

  —

  36

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Total whole Army

  620

  626

  741

  630

  667

  624

  620

  603

  1 Includes one soldier capbadged Royal Signals.

  2 Includes one soldier capbadged Royal Artillery.

  3 Includes one soldier capbadged Small Arms School Corps.

  4 Includes one UKTAP officer capbadged Royal Gurkha Rifles who is part of the Gurkha Reinforcement Company (GRC).

  5 Total number of GRC officers is four.

  66W

  Sunken Military Vessels
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of his consultation document on the protection of sunken military vessels. [147709]

  Dr. Moonie
  The aim of the formal consultation paper, being produced as part of a review of policy towards the protection of Military Maritime Graves, is to seek the views of those with an interest in this issue.

  The views of other Government Departments have been sought. I hope to issue the public consultation paper shortly. The consultation paper will run for three months and a copy of the paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses at that stage.

  Regimental Manpower Establishments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) manpower establishments and (b) actual manning levels of (i) the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, (ii) Black Watch, (iii) the Highlanders, (iv)the King's Own Scottish Borderers, (v) the Royal Highland Fusiliers, (vi) the Royal Scots, (vii) the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and (viii) the Scots Guards. [147761]

  Mr. Spellar
  The establishments and actual staffing levels as at 1 December 2000 for each of the Scottish Regiments listed are shown in the table. The figures exclude locally employed personnel and Royal Irish (Home Service).
  67W

  Heavy Sea Lift Capability
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vessels will be used to provide a heavy sea lift capability for the armed forces after the ending of the chartering arrangements for RFAs Sea Crusader and Sea Centurion. [147762]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 254W.

  RFA Sea Crusader is being re-chartered from 1 February 2001 to 1 March 2003.

  Motor Vessel Dart 10 is being chartered from 8 March 2001 to 1 November 2002.

  A third vessel has yet to be chartered to replace RFA Sea Centurion on 18 April 2001. This vessel cannot be named until contractual negotiations have been concluded.

  Harpoon Missiles
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he plans for the Astute class submarine to be capable of launching submarine-launched Harpoon missiles; [147764]

  (2) for what reasons submarine-launched Harpoon missiles are being withdrawn in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [147763]

  Dr. Moonie
  It has been assessed that, beyond 2003, our anti-surface ship capability needs can be met through the use of other platforms and weapons systems. These include air and surface launched Harpoon missiles. Under current plans we intend to withdraw the Royal Navy Sub-Harpoon from service 2003.

  We are considering whether RN submarines should retain a capability to fire the new Harpoon Block 2 missile which has increased capability. On current plans the submarines of the Astute class will be capable of launching Harpoon missiles.

  The precise mix of weapons and the chosen variants of each which the Astute class will carry is still under review. It will, however, carry the Spearfish torpedo which does have an anti-surface ship capability.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the(a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Armoured Patrol Vehicle, (ii) third line weapons transportation vehicles, (iii) Mine Detection, Neutralisation and Route Marking System, (iv) M3 amphibious bridging, (v) Future Fuel Vehicle, (vi) Future Cargo Vehicle, (vii) Future Wheeled Recovery Vehicle, (viii) Armoured Heavy Wheeled Tractor System and (xi) Engineer Tanks (Trojan and Titan); [147776]

  (2) if he will list (a) the original in-service date, (b) the latest in-service date, (c) the estimated or actual cost, (d) the years of peak expenditure and (e) the prime contractor for (i) bridging for the 1990s, (ii) the major foam vehicle, (iii) the all terrain mobile platform and self loading light-weight pallet trailer, (iv) the all terrain
  68W
  vehicle protected, (v) the future beach recovery vehicle, (vi) the medium battlefield ambulance, (vii) the general purpose motorcycle, (viii) the rapid intervention vehicle, (ix) the modular transportable surgical facility, (x) the heavy equipment transporter and (xi) the multi-role air cargo loader; [147711]

  (3) if he will list the (a) original in-service date, (b) current in-service date, (c) estimated or actual cost, (d) years of peak expenditure and (e) prime contractor for the (i) Tactical Reconnaissance Armoured Combat Equipment Requirement, (ii) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle, (iii) Terrier, (iv) Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicle and (v) CVR (T) Life Extension Programme. [147775]

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

  South Jason Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received relating to activities by HM armed forces and their effect on wildlife in South Jason Island. [147198]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although there has been some discussion locally on this subject, my right hon. Friend has received no representations relating to activities by HM armed forces on South Jason Island, and their effect on the wildlife there.

  On Friday 12 January, an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team from the British armed forces successfully disposed of a number of items of unexploded ordnance on South Jason Island, located on the north west coast of West Falkland, as part of a programme of clearing an aircraft crash site left over from the Falklands conflict. We have a legal obligation under the Ottawa Convention to remove such unexploded ordnance from the Falkland Islands, and these operations are carried out with every caution to personnel and the environment.

  Despite precautions that were taken during the operation, a fire broke out on the island. A joint effort by the British armed forces and the Falkland Islands Fire Service extinguished the fire by the evening of Thursday 18 January, despite a strong, northerly, 40 knot wind which hampered fire-fighting efforts and caused the fire to spread quickly.

  HQ British Forces Falkland Islands is currently conducting an investigation to establish how the fire started.

  Advice from a conservation expert who has since visited the island is that the damage to the wildlife was significantly less than first reported. Only a small number of dead birds were found whose death can be directly linked to the fire. Therefore, although there has been some regrettable loss of wildlife, the conservationist assessed that this could in no way be classified as an environmental disaster.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans NATO has for clearing up battlefields in Kosovo [147197]
  69W
  Mr. Spellar
  The primary responsibility for the clearing up in Kosovo is the civilian authority, which is currently the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). The United Nations Mine Action Service (MAS) is responsible for the longer term task of fully clearing Kosovo of unexploded ordnance, and has established a UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre (MACC) in Pristina to this end.

  However, when KFOR deployed to Kosovo in June 1999, there was an immediate requirement to clear ordnance (both from Allies and Milosevic's security forces) that would have posed a hazard to peacekeeping forces. British service personnel were engaged in this activity. KFOR also took on the immediate task of making schools safe for the returning population of Kosovo prior to the UN establishing its own clearance programme. The NATO Secretary General's report "Kosovo One Year On—Achievement and Challenge" published on 21 March 2000, explained that KFOR soldiers and the international community have cleared unexploded ordnance and mines from some 16,000 homes, 1,165 schools and almost 2,000 kilometres of roads.

  KFOR troops continue to provide mine disposal assistance to UN when requested, to make areas safe for the return of displaced persons.

  Departmental Underspends
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason there were underspends in(a) subsections G2 and G3 of the 2 Sea Lord Account,(b)subsection H2 of the Adjutant General Account, (c)subsections 12 and 13 of the RAF Officer Commanding-in-Chief RAF Personnel and Training Command, (d) subsections J2 and J4 of the Second Permanent Under Secretary of State Account, (e) subsection K2 of the Defence Permanent Agency Account, (f) subsection L2 of the Defence Systems Procurement Accounts and (g) subsections R2 and R4 of the 2 Permanent Under-Secretary of State Account; [147766]

  (2) for what reasons there were underspends in (a) subsections A2 and A3 of the Commander-in-Chief Fleet Account, (b) subsection B3 of the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) Account, (c) subsections C3 and C4 of the Commander-in-Chief Land Command Account, (d) subsections D2 and D3 of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief RAF Strike Command Account, (e) subsections E2 and E3 of the Chief Joint Operations Account and (f) subsections F2, F3 and F4 of the Chief of Defence Logistics Account; [147765]

  (3) for what reason there were underspends in (a) subsection B2 of the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) Account, (b) subsection C2 of the Commander-in-Chief Land Command Account,(c)subsection H3 of the Adjutant General Account,(d) subsection J3 of the 2 Permanent Under-Secretary of State Account, (e) subsection K3 of the Defence Procurement Agency Account, (f) subsection M2 of the Major Customer's Research Budget Account and (g) subsection R5 of the 2 Permanent Under Secretary of State Account. [147767]
  70W
  Mr.Hoon
  The information requested is not held centrally and so the Budget Holders concerned will need to be consulted. I will write to the hon. member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date(a) discussions first took place between a Minister and the Hinduja brothers, (b) correspondence was sent by a Minister and (c) correspondence was received by a Minister concerning the possible sponsoring of the Faith Zone in the Millennium Dome by the Hinduja brothers; and if he will make a statement. [147176]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister by what date he has asked Sir Anthony Hammond to(a) commence his inquiry, (b) complete his inquiry and (c) submit his report to the Government. [147718]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: Sir Anthony Hammond QC began his review on 25 January. His aim is to complete the work and to submit his report as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to conduct a thorough investigation. I understand that on the information currently available to Sir Anthony, he would hope to complete the review by the end of February.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the powers and terms of reference are of the inquiry by Sir Anthony Hammond which he announced on 24 January; [147716]

  (2) what access Sir Anthony Hammond will have to Government papers and electronic records for the purpose of carrying out the inquiry announced on 24 January. [147717]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of reference of Sir Anthony Hammond QC's review, which I announced on Wednesday 24 January, were:To establish what approaches were made to the Home Office in 1998 in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja, and the full circumstances surrounding such approaches and the later grant of that application; and to report to the Prime Minister.

  Sir Anthony has no special powers. It is for him to decide how he carries out the review, what papers and files he needs to see to carry out his review and to whom he needs to speak. The Government will provide all the access that he needs.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the notes of the meeting of 6 October 1998 between the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Mr. S. P. Hinduja and Mr. G. P. Hinduja are placed in the Library and made available to the inquiry he announced on 24 January. [147818]

  The Prime Minister
  All relevant papers will be made available to the inquiry being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond QC including, if he wishes, the note of the meeting on 6 October 1998. The extent to which he discloses the content of papers will be a matter for him to
  71W
  decide. Subject to that, it is not the normal practice of Government to release details of meetings with private individuals or companies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Entertainment Expenses
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what arrangements were made for paying for the party at Haymarket House in the summer of 1999 to mark the move of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) from his Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; [147723]

  (2) which Ministers were invited to the party which the Lord Chancellor hosted at Haymarket House in summer 1999 to mark the move of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) from his Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; [147725]

  (3) which Ministers she informed about the arrangements for paying for the party she hosted at Haymarket House in summer 1999 to mark the move of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) from his Department to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [147724]

  Jane Kennedy
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) became a Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department on 17 May 1999. The Hinduja Foundation hosted a reception on 22 September 1999 to mark his becoming the first Asian Minister in recent times. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor his Department had any involvement in organising, hosting or paying for the event.

  The Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East attended the reception. The invitation list, which was cross-Party, was the responsibility of the Hinduja Foundation.

  On 11 October 1999, my hon. Friend became a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will introduce proposals for those who work as housewives to receive an allowance when on jury service. [147439]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have no plans at present to seek a change in the law relating to allowances paid to those who are eligible to perform jury service.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received about housewives attempting to evade jury service. [147440]

  Jane Kennedy
  This Department has no record of representations on this point.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if there is a daily allowance for those on jury service who are not in paid employment. [147438]
  72W
  Jane Kennedy
  There is no daily allowance for those on jury service who are not in paid employment. However, they are entitled to claim for loss of benefits and fees paid to carers or child-minders, which have been used solely because of jury service. Jurors' are also entitled to claim travelling and subsistence expenses.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Electronic Signatures
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the President of the Council if she will propose to the Modernisation Committee that it examine the feasibility of using electronic signatures by hon. Members for authorising EDMs, parliamentary questions and deferred divisions. [147719]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As a general rule, hon. Members must be present in person to vote in deferred divisions, as for any other division. I am sure the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons would be interested in any proposals my hon. Friend cared to make about the authentication of EDMs and Questions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Grant
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to allocate the police grant in 2001–02; and what the final funding allocations for police authorities will be for that year. [147945]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2001–02 (HC 156). The report sets out my determination for 2001–02 of the aggregate amount of grants that I propose to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to each police authority and to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.

  Funding allocations for each police authority for 2001–02 are set out in the table. The table also shows allocations approved by Parliament for 2000–01.

  Police authority

  2000–01 allocation1 £ million

  >2001–02 allocation1 £ million

  >Percentage change

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  173.7

  181.4

  4.4

  Bedfordshire

  64

  68.0

  6.1

  Cambridgeshire

  77.2

  81.3

  5.4

  Cheshire

  111.9

  118.6

  6.0

  Cleveland

  84.7

  88.8

  4.8

  Cumbria

  62.2

  64.8

  4.2

  Derbyshire

  105.4

  111.1

  5.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  178.9

  187.9

  5.0

  Dorset

  72.4

  75.0

  3.7

  Durham

  83.9

  87.5

  4.3

  Essex

  174.8

  185.3

  6.0

  Gloucestershire

  63.5

  67.0

  5.5

  Hampshire

  202.7

  213.9

  5.5

  Hertfordshire

  117.2

  122.9

  4.8

  Humberside

  116.9

  121.1

  3.6

  Kent

  191.2

  204.3

  6.9

  Lancashire

  185.3

  193.0

  4.1

  Leicestershire

  105.6

  110.7

  4.9

  73W

  Police authority

  2000–01 allocation1 £ million

  2001–02 allocation1 £ million

  Percentage change

  Lincolnshire

  65.4

  68.6

  4.9

  Norfolk

  86.5

  91.5

  5.8

  North Yorkshire

  79.7

  84.0

  5.4

  Northamptonshire

  67.7

  70.9

  4.8

  Nottinghamshire

  130.0

  136.1

  4.7

  Staffordshire

  116.8

  121.6

  4.2

  Suffolk

  70.9

  75.0

  5.8

  Surrey

  112.8

  111.0

  -1.6

  Sussex

  172.4

  181.8

  5.4

  Thames Valley

  231.7

  245.1

  5.8

  Warwickshire

  54.3

  57.0

  4.9

  West Mercia

  117.2

  124.3

  6.1

  Wiltshire

  66.7

  69.4

  4.1

  English

  Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  386.1

  404.5

  4.8

  Merseyside

  242.3

  252.6

  4.3

  Northumbria

  218.4

  227.6

  4.2

  South Yorkshire

  177.2

  184.8

  4.2

  West Midlands

  392.7

  409.7

  4.3

  West Yorkshire

  297.1

  310.6

  4.6

  London forces

  Metropolitan Police2

  1,731.2

  1,822.8

  5.3

  City of London3

  56.4

  57.4

  1.8

  English total

  7,045.1

  7,389.0

  4.9

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  53.2

  56.3

  5.9

  Gwent

  71.9

  75.1

  4.4

  North Wales

  77.5

  82.3

  6.2

  South Wales

  167.6

  176.1

  5.0

  Welsh total

  370.2

  389.8

  5.3

  Total

  7,415.3

  7,778.8

  4.9

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant.

  2Figure for the Metropolitan police includes its Special Payment.

  3Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (e.g. Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Terrorism Regulations
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to lay a draft order under paragraph 16 of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000; when he intends to make and lay an order to amend the Channel Tunnel Order 1993 to apply the Terrorism Act 2000 to the Channel Tunnel system; and when he intends to make and lay regulations under section 119 of the Terrorism Act. [147968]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament a draft order under paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 enabling an examining officer to require certain persons to complete and produce to the officer, if required to do so, a landing or disembarkation card. The persons in question are those who disembark or embark at a sea or airport in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or, as the case may be, on a ship or aircraft travelling between Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, or the Republic of 74W
  Ireland. As required under paragraph 16(1), the order sets out the information to be contained in the card and the form of the card.

  I have also made and today laid an order to amend the 1993 Channel Tunnel Order to ensure that the Terrorism Act 2000 extends to examining officers performing their functions in relation to the Channel Tunnel system; and Regulations under section 119 of the Act applying provisions of the Act relating to terrorist property offences to persons in the public service of the Crown. The Regulations also disapply section 19 of the Act, which imposes a duty to disclose information about suspected offences, in the case of persons performing, or connected with the performance of, regulatory, supervisory, investigative or registration functions of a public nature.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of funding was for police authorities in(a) England and (b) Wales for each of the last 10 years. [146007]

  Mr, Charles Clarke
  The level of funding (police grant and Standard Spending Assessment (SSA)) is given in the table.

  Funding in England and Wales

  £ million

  Year

  England

  Wales

  1991–92

  4,792

  1123

  1992–93

  5,333

  1133

  1993–94

  5,605

  1139

  1994–95

  5,862

  1142

  1995–96

  5,957

  316

  1996–97

  6,184

  332

  1997–98

  6,391

  341

  1998–99

  6,607

  352

  1999–2000

  6,784

  361

  2000–01

  6,987

  370

  1Prior to 1995–96 Welsh SSAs were unhypothecated at county level. Details of payments were agreed by constituent counties to police authorities in Wales. Figures for 1991–92 to 1994–95 are Home Office police grant only.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department since May 1997. [147066]

  Mr. Straw
  There have been no such directions.

  Passports (Over 75s)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to renew passports for those aged over 75 free of charge; and if he will estimate the cost of this. [147300]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no plans for a policy to renew passports for those aged over 75 years free of charge. Fees for passports are set to recover the full cost of providing the service and if such a policy were to be implemented, the estimated annual cost would be £5.2 million, equivalent to a £1 increase in the passport fee.
  75W

  Police
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many policemen were on duty on a typical Saturday evening in London in the last 12 months; [147393]

  (2) how many policemen were on foot on the beat on a typical Saturday evening in London in the last 12 months; [147394]

  (3) how many policemen were on patrol in cars on a typical Saturday evening in London in the last 12 months; [147397]

  (4) how many policemen were carrying out administrative duties on a typical Saturday evening in London in the last 12 months. [147398]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the information is not immediately available. I shall write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 2 May 1997 each Minister in his Department personally received an inquiry from an hon. Member about an actual or prospective application for naturalisation; in how many such cases the inquiry was made by an hon. Member who was at that time a Minister of the Crown; in how many cases the inquiry was made on behalf of someone who was not a constituent of the hon. Member concerned; and if he will make a statement. [147768]

  Mr. Straw
  This information is not readily available and could be provided, if at all, only at disproportionate cost.

  I and the Ministers in my Department receive a large number of representations, oral and written, from Members of both Houses of Parliament about a wide range of immigration matters: most of those, in respect of Members of the House of Commons, relate to constituents; some do not.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of undetermined applications for British citizenship is. [147630]

  Mr. Straw
  As at 31 December 2000, the number of applications for British citizenship (whether by registration or naturalisation) yet to be decided was 73,000; compared with 84,000 on the same date in 1999.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates(a) his Department received an application for naturalisation from (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. Srichand Hinduja, (b) each application was determined and (c) the outcome was notified to the applicant. [147598]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. S. P. Hinduja and Mr. G. P. Hinduja first applied for British citizenship on 21 February 1990. Their applications were decided on 3 April 1991 and they were notified of the outcome on 18 April 1991.
  76W
  Mr. G. P. Hinduja next applied on 5 March 1997. His application was granted on 4 November 1997 and he received final notification of this when his certificate of naturalisation was sent to him on 5 November 1997.

  Mr. S. P. Hinduja's second application was made on 20 October 1998; it was granted on 23 March 1999 and his certificate was issued on 24 March 1999.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been made in the area of the North Wales police authority. [147479]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Up to the end of September 2000, the latest date for which such figures are available, one anti-social behaviour order had been made in the North Wales police area.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers serving in the Metropolitan police force have(a) up to five years, (b) up to 10 years, (c) up to 15 years and (d) up to 20 years service. [146112]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information in the table has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The data are for the position as at 31 December 2000.

  Length of service

  Number of officers

  Up to 5 years

  4,810

  From 5 up to 10 years

  4,064

  From 10 up to 15 years

  5,171

  From 15 up to 20 years

  4,557

  Source:

  The figures exclude officers currently seconded to Surrey, Essex and

  Hertfordshire under the transitional boundary arrangements.

  Drugs
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the per capita level of expenditure on drug-related law enforcement in the (i) UK, (ii) Netherlands and (iii) USA in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [147752]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Precise data on expenditure on drug-related law enforcement are not available. The launch of the Government's drugs strategy, "Tackling Drags to Build a Better Britain" (Cm 3945) in April 1998 included the estimate that total Government expenditure for 1997–98 was in the region of £1.4 billion. Of this, 62 per cent. was estimated to be spent on drug-related law enforcement.

  Comparable information relating to the Netherlands and the USA cannot be provided.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and (b) imprisoned on charges related to cannabis in the (i) UK, (ii) Netherlands and (iii) USA in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [147751]
  77W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Information is not collected centrally on arrests either for drug-related offences or for drug offences such as unlawful possession. Similarly, the number of people actually received into prison on such charges is not collected centrally. The closest information collected on this topic is the number of offenders given sentences of immediate custody by the courts. The latest figure available is for 1998–5,398. Further details are given in Table S2.28 of the Supplementary Tables volume of the Home Office bulletin "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom, 1998" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Comparable information relating to the Netherlands and the USA cannot be provided.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which public and private local bodies are always notified by the NASS of the individual addresses of accommodation into which asylum seekers have been placed. [147304]

  Mrs. Roche
  The regional consortia and police authorities in the appropriate dispersal areas are notified by National Asylum Support Service (NASS) on a weekly basis of allocated accommodation addresses. A consolidated list is despatched at the end of each month. In addition, allocated accommodation addresses are routinely notified to the appropriate local health and education authorities when NASS allocates asylum seekers to accommodation in their areas.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation procured by the NASS since 1 April 2000 have been procured by the NASS-contracted accommodation providers entering into sub-contracting arrangements with other organisations or individuals. [147302]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has entered into contracts for accommodation services with private sector providers, registered social landlords and local authority consortia. It is a feature of all these contracts that accommodation is provided either from providers own housing stock or through sub-contracts. NASS does not maintain records of the number of units provided through sub-contracts. All accommodation is required to comply with NASS contract specification and is inspected to ensure compliance.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if NASS allows contracted accommodation providers to place persons who do not form a single household into houses with less than six bed spaces in which all facilities are shared. [147306]

  Mrs. Roche
  National Asylum Support Service (NASS) may allocate persons who do not form a single household to properties with less than six bed spaces in which all facilities are shared. All property used by NASS that is shared by persons who do not form a single househould must comply with houses in multiple occupation registration and licensing schemes wherever they exist.
  78W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are allocated to the NASS Performance Monitoring Inspection Team; how many of these staff are engaged in personally inspecting accommodation and support arrangements; and where they are based. [147305]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current staffing level of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Performance Monitoring Inspection Team is one Head of Inspections, four Team Leaders, 15 Inspectors and six support staff.

  All staff other than the six support staff are engaged in personally inspecting the accommodation and the support services that contractors are required to provide to NASS service users. At the present time, the Performance Monitoring Inspections Team is based at Quest House in Croydon.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation have been procured by NASS since 1 April 2000; and how many asylum seekers have been placed into this accommodation since then. [147303]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of December 2000, 26,7001 units of accommodation were contracted by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), of which 16,6001 units were allocated to asylum seekers and their dependants.
  1Figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set for the proportion of asylum seeker accommodation to be inspected by the NASS Performance Monitoring Inspection Team; and if these targets relate to accommodation of a particular bedspace size. [147307]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service Performance Monitoring Inspection team has no formal targets for the proportion of asylum seeker accommodation to be inspected; however, regular reviews of the management practices in place at accommodation providers are undertaken together with independent property inspections to ensure that accommodation services are provided to the required standard.

  In addition, all complaints are resolved within a maximum of 28 days. Serious complaints are acted upon immediately.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent in recapturing prisoners who absconded from open prisons in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [147635]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Graffiti
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made in each of the last 10 years of people for criminal damage by graffiti spraying. [147592]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally.
  79W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official graffiti sites there are in England and Wales. [147591]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The allocation of sites which can be used for graffiti with permission is a matter for local authorities. Information on the number of such sites is not collected.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to limit the activities of British citizens who receive training in sabotage in the United Kingdom and engage in terrorist activities abroad. [147792]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are determined that this country should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism in any way, including terrorism in other countries. Under the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, it is already an offence to conspire in this country to commit terrorist acts anywhere overseas. In addition, the Terrorism Act 2000, which is due to come into force shortly, includes provisions, applicable throughout the United Kingdom, which make it an offence to provide weapons training for terrorist purposes, and to recruit for such training. This Act also provides powers to proscribe terrorist organisations, under the conditions specified. The investigation of any alleged criminal activity is, of course, a matter for the police.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with research into the age limit for children remaining with mothers serving terms of imprisonment; what the membership of the working group conducting the research is; what the size of the sample used in the research is; what methods are being employed; and when he expects to publish the results. [147468]

  Mr. Boateng
  A pilot study is to be set up which will assess the benefits and drawbacks of children remaining in prison with their mothers beyond the current age limit of 18 months. The anticipated start date of the pilot is 1 June 2001. The Steering Group is chaired jointly by the Head of Prison Service Women's Policy Group and the Operational Manager for Women's Prisons. It includes members from the four prison Mother and Baby Units, Social Services, Social Services Inspectorate, Association of Chief Officers of Probation, Prison Service Health Policy Unit and a number of experts on child health care, including a child psychologist and a child psychiatrist. The Steering Group will decide on the size of the sample, the method of evaluation and the length of the pilot. The results of the pilot will be published on completion.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of women sentenced to immediate imprisonment have no previous convictions; and if he will give a breakdown of the type of offences(a) such women and (b) all women sentenced to imprisonment have committed in the latest year for which figures are available. [147467]
  80W
  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information shows that in December 2000 there were 628 women in the prison population of England and Wales that had been sentenced to immediate imprisonment.

  Information on the number of women in prison in England and Wales, and which types of crimes they have committed is given in the table. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (chapter one of the 1999 edition, Cm 4805), copies of which are in the Library.

  Number of women received into prisons throughout England and Wales in 2000 broken down by offence type and custody

  Offence group

  Sentenced women received under immediate custody

  All sentenced imprisoned women

  Violence against the person

  94

  345

  Frauds and forgery

  60

  92

  Theft and handling

  119

  316

  Drug offences

  208

  956

  Sex offences

  9

  23

  Robbery

  26

  155

  Burglary

  23

  112

  Offence not recorded

  36

  Other offences

  53

  158

  Total

  628

  2,205

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Slough constituency, the effects on Slough of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [146927]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, "Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000", is available in the Library.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested, although set out are examples relating to Slough constituency.

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme the following amounts have been awarded to Slough:

  Reducing Burglary: £119,270

  Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme: £179,983

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV): £140,454

  Schemes
  Reducing Burglary Project—Stoke and Farnham Wards: £119,270.

  The project is part of the Crime Reduction Programme Round 2 burglary initiatives. It is based in the Stoke and Farnham wards in Slough. The area is one of the most deprived in Slough with high unemployment, poor facilities and relatively high crime rates. The wards have a young population and high proportions of minority ethnic groups (Farnham 34 per cent. and Stoke 42 per cent)
  81W
  The project has a lot of partnership working between the police and other agencies and is based around the following interventions.

  Alarms
  200 National Approval Council for Security Systems (NACOSS) approved alarms are to be installed over the lifetime of the project, the intended recipients are those who have experienced burglary. The original project had 100 alarms, but with extra Home Office funding (£39,270) and a sponsorship deal with British Gas, this has improved the quality and quantity of the alarms.
  Improved fencing in the area.
  Improved lighting in agreement with the local authority and Southern Electric. Contracting to improve the lighting in the area has been negotiated.

  Informant Fund
  Work is progressing on developing a good quality informant.
  Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme: £179,983. To improve the quality of life for residents in two deprived estates. Targeted activity will reduce incidents of anti-social behaviour, racial harassment and the fear of crime. This scheme is also looking at ways to link into the Reducing Burglary project.
  CCTV—The Farnham Road Slough: £140,454. This covers the second largest shopping area in Slough and associated car parks.

  Slough is part of the Thames Valley Police bid for arrest referral. Thames Valley police were awarded £624,278 from March 2000 to March 2002 of which £188,750 is being allocated to a scheme in Slough. This award is to fund an arrest referral worker and contributing to the treatment of those referred by the scheme. Slough has one custody suite with one arrest referral worker. Thames Valley police are matching the Home Office funding. There is also a contribution from Slough Council.

  Slough already had a successful arrest referral scheme in existence from November 1999. This was a partnership arrangement between SMART (Substance Misuse Arrest Referral Team), Thames Valley police and Slough Council—an arrangement that continues with Joint Funding Initiative. SMART Criminal Justice services is a registered charity specialising in working with drug related offenders at various points of the criminal justice process. It was set up in 1996 in direct response to the Government's drugs strategy—"Tackling Drugs to Build a better Britain".

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Slough to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established including one covering the Slough Unitary Authority which has undertaken an audit of the levels of crime in Slough and developed a strategy to reduce them;
  155 Youth Offending Teams have been set up across the country including one in Slough. They are a key part of the Government's radical reform of the youth justice system which also includes a range of new penalties which make young offenders face up to the consequences of their offending behaviour and make reparation to the victims of their crimes;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 in January 2000 to 69,870 by the end of November 2000; and good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire related deaths in the home. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.
  82W

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the timetable for payment of the winter fuel allowance. [145974]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our aim is to make sure that this winter elderly people do not worry about turning up their heating in cold weather. As promised, the vast majority of payments were made to elderly households before Christmas.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of eligible pensioners whose Winter Fuel Payments in the current financial year(a) were delayed and (b) have not been paid. [145991]

  Mr. Rooker
  As promised, for this winter the vast majority of Winter Fuel Payments were automatically made before Christmas to those found to be entitled.

  For those who need to claim the payment, this will be paid once entitlement has been established.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he will take to ensure that people aged 60 years and over will be given prior notification of the £50 reduction in this year's Winter Fuel Payment. [146354]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Winter Fuel Payment which the hon. Member opposes has proved to be extremely popular. We shall announce our proposals for this winter in due course.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to extend the annual Winter Fuel Payments to those aged under 60 years who receive the middle or higher rates of Disability Living Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [146738]

  Mr. Rooker
  The estimated cost of my hon. Friend's suggestion is £150 million, each year.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) male and (ii) female pensioners that would be at a financial disadvantage if the winter fuel allowance and the free television licence for over-75-year-olds was consolidated in the State Pension. [145524]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: We estimate that at least 5.8 million (or 55 per cent. of) pensioners would be at a financial disadvantage. The figure breaks down to 2.2 million (or 56 per cent. of) men, and 3.6 million (or 54 per cent. of) women.

  The 5.8 million includes 3.6 million poorer pensioners claiming one or more income-related benefits (Income Support, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit).

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total cost of the Winter Fuel Payments scheme in 2000–01 will be; what would be the total additional costs of making these payments to all households eligible for Social Fund cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [147814]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total cost of the Winter Fuel Payment scheme in 2000–01 is expected to be around £1.7 billion.
  83W
  The estimated additional costs of making this winter's payment to all households eligible for Social Fund Cold Weather Payments would be around £300 million.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Poverty
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current level of poverty in Great Britain. [145977]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our assessment of current levels of poverty is set out in our second annual "Opportunity for All" report, alongside the progress we are making. For example, there are now a million more people in jobs than in 1997.

  Unemployment in Wiltshire has fallen by over 50 per cent. since May 1997 and long-term youth unemployment (six months plus) has fallen by over 80 per cent.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of poverty, low pay and other indices of deprivation in the eastern region; and if he will make a statement. [145982]

  Mr. Bayley
  The national strategy to tackle poverty and social exclusion is outlined in the first and second "Opportunity for All" reports. A central part of that strategy is to focus in on communities and areas that require particular help.

  Fraud
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to reduce fraud in the social security system. [145984]

  Mr. Rooker
  After years of neglect, we are getting to grips with Social Security fraud. We have set ourselves firm targets to reduce the losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 25 per cent. by March 2004, and 50 per cent. by March 2006.

  We are implementing a strategy to tighten up the system and make sure that, from the very first claim, the right benefits are going to the right people at the right time. For example, we have implemented tighter checks on new Income Support claimants, and given local authorities an additional £100 million to help them make tougher identity checks on claimants before payments are made. We are also cross-checking DSS records with information from other Government Departments and have allowed all local councils to have access to electronic data from the Benefits Agency.

  These are just some of the measures that have already started to make a significant reduction in fraud and error. These will be further strengthened by the new measures proposed in the Fraud Bill currently before Parliament.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if local authority employees in charge of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit fraud investigations may investigate cases where there is suspicion of related Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance fraud. [146342]
  84W
  Mr. Rooker
  We are working in partnership with local authorities in the prevention, detection and deterrence of benefit fraud. Suspected fraud cases in which Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit and Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance are in payment are investigated by whichever investigator, from the Department or the Local Authority, first discovers the fraud.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to remind employers of their obligations to inform their employees about the new stakeholder pensions. [145985]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have sent a guide to all employers with five or more employees and articles have been included in Inland Revenue newsletters which have been sent to all employers.

  We will continue to publicise the requirements using further editions of the Inland Revenue newsletter and articles in various trade magazines.

  In addition to our own activities, pension providers will be marketing stakeholder pensions to employers.

  Miss Mclntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the impact of the recent developments at Equitable Life on the take-up of stakeholder pensions; and if he will make a statement. [145980]

  Mr. Rooker
  People are naturally concerned about the Equitable Life affair and have made representations about the effect that it might have on their pension savings.

  We do not expect that there will be a significant effect on the take up of stakeholder pensions.

  Disabled People
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to return to work. [145986]

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about his Department's involvement in the new deal for disabled people. [145983]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are committed to helping disabled people who want to work, to do so. The New Deal for Disabled People is a joint initiative of the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment.

  We are setting up a national network of Job Brokers to explore ways of giving those on incapacity benefits the support, guidance and preparation they need to find paid work and move off benefit dependence.

  We are also starting job retention and rehabilitation pilots to help people who become ill in work. These pilots will test the effectiveness of early work-focused help, involving health, social security, employment and other services.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the opportunities available to disabled people who are in
  85W
  receipt of (a) Severe Disability Allowance, (b) Income Support and (c) both, to make appropriate provision for their retirement. [146737]

  Mr. Bayley
  Up to now, disabled people whose working lives have been interrupted lose the opportunity to contribute to a pension scheme as well as the opportunity to work and are often therefore unable to build up a decent pension for retirement. That is one of the main reasons we are reforming the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) with the State Second Pension.

  People getting Severe Disablement Allowance, and those on Income Support with an underlying entitlement to long-term Incapacity Benefit, will be able to build up entitlement to State Second Pension provided at state pension age they have worked and paid (or have been treated as having paid) Class 1 employee National Insurance contributions for at least one tenth of their working life since 1978 (when SERPS was introduced).

  Every qualifying year will be worth £1 a week additional pension at today's rates.

  In addition, the majority of these people are likely to qualify for top-up payments through the Pension Credit, on which the Government are now consulting.

  Those disabled people unable to qualify for State Second Pension may benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee from age 60.

  Child Support
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it a requirement for both parents in disputed cases before the Child Support Agency to take a second independent test if either party requests it. [145987]

  Angela Eagle
  The CSA can offer a DNA test to help resolve the issue of disputed parentage but it cannot force any parent to take a test. If either parent does not accept a test result, they may apply to the courts for a declaration of parentage.

  From 31 January this year, the CSA will be allowed to make and enforce a maintenance assessment against the person named by the parent with care as the child's parent if that person refuses to take a DNA test. If the non-resident parent continues to dispute parentage, it is up to him to take the test, or to apply to the courts for a declaration of parentage which will be binding on the Agency.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will complete his investigation into the complaint lodged by Ms Nancy Bath of Paignton, Devon against the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement concerning the reason for the delays in the Independent Case Examiner beginning an investigation into the complaint and the Plymouth CSA collating the papers required. [147299]

  Angela Eagle
  The current clearance times for cases in the office of the Independent Case Examiner's office is 29 weeks in total. There are currently 227 cases awaiting investigation. Cases referred currently wait around 11 weeks on average for an investigation to begin.
  86W
  The information requested about Nancy Bath is confidential. My noble Friend the Baroness Hollis of Heigham will write to the hon. Member separately about the issues raised relating to Ms Bath's case.

  New Deal for 50 Plus
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what projections he has made of benefits savings as a consequence of the New Deal for 50 plus. [145988]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to the principal of extending opportunity for all to everyone regardless of age, and tackling age discrimination in the workplace. New Deal 50 plus has already helped nearly 25,000 people aged over 50 back into work.

  It is known that the economic cost of the drop in work rates among the over 50s since 1979 is high. It has been estimated that about £16 billion a year in GDP is lost and it costs £3–5 billion in extra benefits and lost taxes. Savings in benefit payments from the New Deal 50 plus have not yet been established.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to evaluate the performance of the New Deal for 50 plus programme. [145996]

  Angela Eagle
  In the first nine months of the programme nearly 25,000 people got back into work through the New Deal 50 plus.

  Evaluation of New Deal 50 plus is currently under way to test the design and delivery of the programme. This will be published later this year. The evaluation includes a mix of quantitative and qualitative work with participants as well as some qualitative research with New Deal personal advisers and Benefits Agency staff.

  Evaluation of the pathfinder areas has already been carried out and a report published. Participants' initial impressions of the programme were very positive. Views about the Employment Credit, a key element of the New Deal 50 plus package, were generally very positive, and it was unanimously seen as an incentive to take up work.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with voluntary organisations about the New Deal for 50 plus. [145968]

  Angela Eagle
  Our New Deal for those aged over 50 has helped nearly 25,000 people move into jobs in the first nine months of national operation. The Department for Education and Employment has developed links with a number of voluntary organisations in order to promote this New Deal and to harness their experience and expertise.

  Earnings Disregard
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if it is his policy to increase the present levels of earnings disregards in income-related benefits. [145989]

  Angela Eagle
  From April 2001 we are increasing the higher rate disregard in the income-related benefits, for lone parents, disabled people and other special groups, from £15 to £20 a week (other than for those lone parents
  87W
  receiving Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit who are already eligible for a disregard of £25 a week). This will benefit over 55,000 people.

  We are focusing help on people for whom full-time work may not be an immediate option, to help them keep in touch with the labour market through part-time work.

  We also want all children, including those in families on Income Support, to benefit directly from child maintenance paid. As part of the child support reforms we will therefore introduce further changes to enable parents with care on Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based) to keep up to £10 a week of any child maintenance paid.

  Children
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in benefits for children in(a) single parent and (b) two-parent families since 1997. [145990]

  Angela Eagle
  A lone parent family on Income Support, with two children aged under 11, are nearly £25 a week better off as a result of measures announced this Parliament. A two-parent family with the same aged children are nearly £30 a week better off.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy on Benefits Agency staff giving advice to applicants and claimants relating to benefits to which they may be entitled. [145994]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to improving access to benefit information for customers and to ensuring that they get the right information through a choice of communication methods. We are currently running the Minimum Income Guarantee take up campaign—the first time any Government has actively encouraged those who are eligible to claim their entitlements.

  As published in the Benefits Agency Customer Charter, Benefits Agency staff are required to provide advice and information that is accurate, clear, full and helpful.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to increase the income of the parents of children living in poverty. [145995]

  Mr. Bayley
  Measures announced this Parliament mean that all families with children will be on average over £15 a week better off, and the poorest will gain by nearly twice as much.

  Pensioners
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the total spending of his Department on pensioners. [145961]

  Mr. Rooker
  This year we will be spending around £4 ½ billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of policies under this Government, rising to over £5 billion in 2002–03.
  88W

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with employers' organisations about his Department's involvement with the New Deal for disabled people. [145967]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, (Liz Blackman) today,Official Report, column 15.

  Pensioners (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Chorley will receive the increase in the basic State Pension outlined in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report. [145975]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 31 March 2000 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were around 15,000 pensioners receiving the State Pension in the parliamentary constituency of Chorley. They will benefit from an increase in the pension this April and next, as announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to help local authorities with the increased costs of housing homeless people. [148037]

  Angela Eagle
  The non-HRA rent rebate thresholds and subsidy caps have not kept pace with increases in the costs of temporary accommodation in the private rented sector over recent years. Increasing these thresholds will help local authorities in housing those granted asylum and other homeless persons. This will cost around £25 million.

  The effect of this increase will be that the non-HRA rent rebate threshold in London will be increased, from April 2001, by £50 to £200, and the subsidy cap increased by £120 to £300, with corresponding percentage increases elsewhere.

  Social Security Budget
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of national income the social security budget represents in the 2000–01 financial year. [145965]

  Mr. Darling
  Social Security benefit expenditure is expected to amount to just over 11 per cent. in 2000–01 compared with 12 per cent. in 1996–97. Social Security spending this Parliament is now running at its lowest rate since the second world war.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the largest margin of uncertainty which applies to estimates within his most recent Households Below Average Income publication which do not appear within brackets. [146314]

  Mr. Bayley
  Estimates of the margin of uncertainty due to the choice of equivalence scales and sampling error can be found in appendices 4 and 5 of "Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1998–99". Copies of the publication are held in the Library. It should be noted that
  89W
  estimates are also subject to other non-sampling errors, such as non-response, whose magnitude it is not possible to quantify.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of individuals living in households below half average income in the first quarter of the most recent financial year for which he has constructed a data set, according to the Households Below Average Income methodology. [146315]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is not possible to produce robust Households Below Average Income (HBAI) statistics on a quarterly basis.

  Motability
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were(a) on Motability's waiting list and (b) waiting to terminate a vehicle in favour of a suitable wheelchair accessible solution in each year since the charity was founded. [146347]

  Mr. Bayley
  There has never been a waiting list for the Motability scheme.

  Income Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the estimate of entitled non-recipients of Income Support for the over-60s for the year 1997–98 published in the revised edition of "Income Related Benefits Estimates of take-up in 1996–97" was different to the estimate for 1997–98 published in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of take-up in 1998–99". [146344]

  Mr. Rooker
  The relevant information is available in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of take-up in 1998–99" (pages 5, 13, 45 and 46), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Retirement (Women)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure that women born after 1955 are informed of the forthcoming increase in retirement age. [146348]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pensions Act 1995 affects all women born after 5 April 1950. Between 2010–20 women's state pension age will rise gradually from 60 to 65. Publicity for this change started under the previous administration.

  We have taken action to inform women of the changes through leaflets and in the letters from the Department forecasting State Pension entitlement and displays in local BA offices. We have publicised the changes through advertising features in women's and general interest magazines. A national newspaper and magazine advert on the issue is due to feature in March as part of the wider pensions education marketing campaign. Also there is an interactive table on the Internet at www.pensionguide.gov.uk where a woman can type in her date of birth and learn the date she reaches State Pension age.

  The Department will periodically review the effectiveness of the approach.
  90W

  Pensioner Mailshot Project
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost will be of the Pensioner Mailshot Project; what its purpose is; and for what reasons it is not intended to prompt pensioners to contact their local Social Security office. [146623]

  Mr. Darling
  The Department will shortly be writing to all pensioner households to inform them of the plans we announced to the House on 29 November 2000 for the amount of State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) that widows or widowers can inherit from their spouse.

  In the course of consultation last year, a number of organisations including the select committees of the House asked us to explore the possibility of writing directly to the public about this subject.

  The plans we announced in November mean that no current pensioner will now be affected by the changes to the inherited SERPS rules originally legislated for in 1986.

  The letter is designed to ensure that all pensioners are aware of these new arrangements and that the change will be effected automatically; so there is no need for them to make any special claim or to contact their local Social Security office for this purpose. Of course they are always able to contact the Benefits Agency over any query about their pension entitlement.

  For workload reasons the mailing will take place on a phased basis over the next two months.

  The cost of the exercise is estimated at £2.5 million. The text of the letter is as follows.

  Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss or Mr and Mrs
  I am writing to let you know about a recent Government announcement on inheriting SERPS.
  As well as your basic state pension, you may also get a State Earnings Related Pension (SERPS) if you, or your husband or wife, paid into the scheme when working. You may also know this as "additional pension". In 1986 the law was changed to reduce the amount of SERPS that people widowed after 5 April 2000 could inherit from their husbands or wives.
  However, it became clear that for many years after 1986 some people were given incorrect or misleading information about the change and so the Government recently announced new plans for how much SERPS can be passed on to a widow or widower, when the person who has contributed to the scheme dies.

  Under these new plans there will be no change to the current arrangements for the following people.

  Those who are already widowed now and are receiving a SERPS pension.

  Those who are not widows or widowers now, but whose husbands or wives die between now and 5 October 2002.

  Parliament is also being asked to approve plans, which would mean there would also be no change for people who are widowed on or after 6 October 2002 but whose late husband or wife reached state pension age on or before 5 October 2002.

  If you fall into one of the groups above, you do not need to do anything now or make any special claim in future.
  You can read more about other help and services available to pensioners and how to find them in a new guide for pensioners and from Benefits Agency offices. You will be able to find the local office address and telephone number in the telephone directory. The guide will be available soon, so look out for it in

  91W
  places like your local social security offices, citizens advice bureau or library. If you have access to the Internet, you can also visit our website on www.dss.gov.uk
  Keep us up to date
  In future, we want to be able to write to you from time to time to keep you up to date. So we need to have up-to-date details of your address. So, if this letter has had to be redirected to reach you, please fill in the attached change of address form and send it back to us in the enclosed envelope. There's no need for a stamp. Or if you move house, please let us know as soon as possible.
  Yours sincerely
  Paul Gray
  Director of Pensions

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring Jobseeker's Allowance to those employed on term-time only contracts. [147153]

  Angela Eagle
  Entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or Income Support (IS) is dependent on, among other things, a person's pattern of employment and their hours of work.

  The current legal position is that those term-time workers with an ongoing contract of employment, who are not entitled to JSA or IS during term-time because of the hours they work, are also not entitled to JSA or IS during the school holidays. This position, which reflects the original intention of the legislation when JSA was introduced in 1996, was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in October 1999 following a series of contradictory decisions by Commissioners. The retrospective effect of the Court of Appeal decision means that there was never any entitlement to JSA during the school holidays for this group of ancillary or term-time workers. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal decision was granted and we understand that the hearing has been listed for 21 March.

  We have no accurate data on which to base a reliable estimate of the cost of extending entitlement to JSA or IS to all those employed on term-time only contracts. Term-time workers with low incomes may claim in-work benefits such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Those with children may also be entitled to the Working Families Tax Credit.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason a decision on a constituent's claim for a War Disablement Pension, reference AB501819C with the War Pensions Agency, has been delayed; when the final decision will be notified; and if he will make a statement. [146635]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of War Pensions is a matter for the Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Gordon Hextall. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 29 January 2001:

  This Parliamentary Question asked why there has been a delay in making a decision on a claim for War Disablement Pension, reference AB 501819C, and when that decision will be notified.

  As individual cases are a confidential matter, I will write to the hon. Member privately.
  92W

  Council Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioner households paid more than 10 per cent. of their household income in council tax in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 1998–99. [147827]

  Mr. Rooker
  The requested information is not available for 1999–2000. The information for 1998–99 is as follows.

  It is estimated that 6 per cent. of pensioner households were liable to pay more than 10 per cent. of their gross income in council tax after Council Tax Benefit has been taken into account.

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner households are defined as any household containing a single person over state pension age (65 for men and 65 for women) or a couple (married or cohabiting) where the man is over state pension age.

  2. Estimates "after taking account of Council Tax Benefit" use gross (pre-tax) income excluding Council Tax Benefit/rebates, and use council tax liability net of discounts and net of Council Tax Benefit/rebate.

  3. Gross (pre-tax) income and council tax payments have been estimated at the household level. Therefore amounts will include income /payments from all (if any) non-pensioners living in the household.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99.

  Down's Syndrome
  Mr. Bos well
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response he has sent to recent representations from the Down's Syndrome Association in connection with the entitlement to disability allowance of young children with that condition. [147156]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have recently received a copy of a report published by the Downs Syndrome Association on 22 January 2001 along with a covering letter from the Chief Executive of the Downs Syndrome Association. Today I will place a copy of my response to the Chief Executive of the Downs Syndrome Association in the Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Slough are claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee. [147747]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 682W.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of Housing Benefit claimants, (b) the average amount paid, (c) the administrative cost of each claim and (d) the average number of cases not processed in Islington in each of the last five years. [144520]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 9 January 2001]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables. Information is not collected centrally on the number of cases not processed.
  93W

  Average Housing Benefit caseload and benefit paid by the London Borough of Islington

  Year

  Housing Benefit caseload

  Average Weekly amount of Housing Benefit (£)

  1995–96

  33,930

  55.40

  1996–97

  33,030

  56.80

  1997–98

  33,130

  57.80

  1998–99

  32,580

  58.90

  1999–2000

  28,350

  58.90

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken from May 1995 to August 2000.

  Housing Benefit administrative costs in by the London Borough of Islington

  Year

  Reported annual expenditure Housing Benefit adiministration (£)

  Housing Benefit caseload

  Average cost per case(£)

  1995–96

  2,733

  33,930

  81

  1996–97

  2,470

  33,030

  75

  1997–98

  3,814

  33,130

  115

  1998–99

  1,586

  32,580

  49

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a single person, a couple or a family.

  2. The caseload for each year has been calculated by averaging the four quarters in the financial year.

  3. Caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases and the average weekly amounts have been rounded to the nearest 10 pence.

  4. The figures for administrative costs are the cost per case using the authority's total expenditure on administration costs, as reported by the authority to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the total Housing Benefit caseload.

  5. The figure for annual expenditure in 1998–99 replaces the previously reported figure.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the number of cases being dealt with by his Department in regard to miners' compensation claims. [145993]

  Mr. Bayley
  To date, the DSS has been asked for— and has provided—information on around 30,000 cases.
  94W
  The DSS is working very closely with the Department of Trade and Industry on administrative changes to speed up the process. I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 26 January 2001, Official Report, column 729W.

  Energy Payments
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many arrangements(a) are and (b) were in each of the last five years in place to deduct gas and electricity payments from Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [147813]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Deductions from Income Support for gas and electricity, August 1996 to August 2000

  Thousand

  Year

  All cases

  Gas only

  Electricity and gas

  1996

  168.4

  27.0

  121.1

  20.2

  1997

  137.6

  23.7

  98.1

  15.8

  1998

  99.2

  20.2

  67.7

  11.4

  1999

  71.9

  18.9

  44.7

  8.3

  2000

  60.4

  17.0

  35.8

  7.6

  Deductions from income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for gas and electricity, August 1997 to August 2000

  Thousand

  Year

  All cases

  Electric Only

  Gas only

  Electricity and gas

  1997

  15.4

  3.0

  11.1

  1.4

  1998

  10.3

  2.7

  6.7

  1.0

  1999

  5.6

  1.8

  3.4

  0.5

  2000

  3.5

  1.2

  2.1

  0.2

  Notes:

  1.Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample records, taken at August each year, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

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

  3.Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed in October 1996.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 1996 to August 2000.

  Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 1997 to August 2000

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

Combined Heat and Power
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their latest estimates of the amount of combined heat and power to be installed by 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, we have set a target of at least 10,000 megawatts of installed CHP by 2010. Recent government projections indicate that around 7,600 megawatts will be installed by that date. That projection includes exemption of good quality CHP from the climate change levy, subject to EU clearance, but not the eligibility for enhanced capital allowances and exemption from business rating of plant and machinery which we have announced. A comprehensive CHP strategy will be launched in the coming months to ensure that, with the help of these and other new measures, our 2010 target is achieved.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that latest estimate. However, is he aware that other estimates, particularly one prepared by the European Commission, in which I believe the DETR participated, indicate that the figure will be no more than 6 gigawatts by the year 2010? Whether the figure is 7.5 or 6, it is of course less than the desirable objective of 10. As the Minister is no doubt aware, there are obstacles which stand in the way of further development of combined heat and power. Does he accept, for example, that under the climate change levy, although a certain amount of CHP is exempted, that which is exported into the network is not, which therefore acts as a disincentive. Furthermore, under the new electricity trading arrangements, the balancing arrangements militate against CHP. If the Government are really concerned to achieve their objective, should they not remove such anomalies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of other estimates, including that of the European Commission and that of the CHPA, which puts the figure at 6,600 rather than 7,600. There are differences of assumption behind that which relate to the future of gas and electricity prices and other movements. We believe that our estimates are reasonably robust on the basis of policies already announced, excluding those to which I referred in my Answer. Nevertheless, the noble Lord is right. Further measures and the enhancement of existing measures will be needed to reach the target of 10,000 megawatts.
446
Export of electricity direct to customers is covered by the climate change levy provisions, whereas export to the grid in that sense is not. That is in line with other licence providers. We are considering further the way in which the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA) will impact on CHP and small providers of CHP. Before reaching a final regime under NETA, we shall take into account the kind of considerations to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I declare an interest as director of two power companies. Is the Minister aware of the great reluctance to invest in the energy market at present; first, because of the additional restrictions placed on the industry by the regulator, and, secondly, because of the commercial price of gas?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that because of the relative movement of gas and electricity prices, there are uncertainties. Nevertheless, I believe that in general the new system of regulation will enable the energy industry to meet not only its energy supply objectives, but also the environmental and social objectives which the new regime should impose.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Embedded Generation Working Group recently reported and made a number of recommendations for stimulating the generation of small-scale electricity which covers CHP and renewables? Can he indicate whether the Government will take serious note of the recommendations made in that report?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. The working group recommended that Ofgem should review the whole structure of the regulatory incentives in relation to CHP and that an implementations group should be established under government leadership to take that forward. We shall consider the recommendations, including those for CHP, both in that context and as regards renewables. I hope, therefore, that we can come up with further measures to meet our target of 10,000 megawatts.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I refer to the Minister's comments on social targets. I understand that only 35,000 of the poorest older people have benefited from the new HEES arrangements, HEES Plus, by having free central heating and insulation, and that the target figure is 280,000 by summer 2002. What plans do the Government have to ensure that that target is met?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the new HEES programme is considerably more substantial than the old HEES programme in terms of the measures that can be introduced into the homes of the "fuel poor", with grants available of up to £2,000. There was a hiccup in introducing the new scheme as regards bringing onstream firms which were able to deliver the new provisions. We believe that that has now been resolved. Just before Christmas the number of

447
installations was up to the level of the original objective. We therefore think that, to within a few thousand, we should meet the target. Our overall fuel poverty strategy will be announced within a few weeks. That should bring together the HEES programme and other measures to benefit those who suffer from cold homes and low income.

Mercenary Activity
2.42 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they did not fulfil their commitment to publish by November 2000 a Green Paper on mercenary activity.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, unfortunately, it did not prove possible to meet the target for publishing the Green Paper which was suggested by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. But this is a complex and new issue. Whitehall consultations are continuing and it is important to have as good and effective a Green Paper as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the Minister agree that the target of November 2000 was given not only by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee but by the then Minister, Mr Hain, in answer to my right honourable friend Menzies Campbell on 15th June 2000? Does she also agree that legislative measures against mercenaries in any one country are likely to be ineffective because such people will go off-shore? Will the Government suggest to the United Nations Secretary-General that he should convene a meeting of experts and NGOs with a view to drafting a new convention to replace that of 1989 to which the Government have felt unable to adhere because its definition is unsatisfactory?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the deadline of November 2000 was the recommendation from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The Government accepted that recommendation and said that they would try to fulfil it. They have striven to produce the Green Paper by November 2000, as requested by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. However, for the reasons I have given, that has not proved possible. It is a new and complex issue and many noble Lords will be aware of the problems of definition as regards mercenaries, private military companies and so forth. It is important that the Green Paper is as good and effective as possible.
As regards whether one country can deal with the problem, a great deal of cross-border consultation and co-operation will be required. However, that does not get away from the fact that each country should deal with the problem as it arises within its borders. As part of our preparations for the Green Paper we have examined how other countries have tried to deal with the problem.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it appears that the position
448
relating to mercenaries is most complex. Can my noble friend tell us the legal position as regards mercenary activity?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the only existing UK legislation on mercenaries is limited to the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. That makes it an offence to enlist to serve or to recruit to serve in the army and navy of a foreign country at war with another country with which the UK is at peace. I am advised that a successful prosecution has never been brought under the Act. It is also widely considered to be inapplicable to modern means.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing that international co-operation is necessary to deal with the problem, in addition to any domestic legislation which may come into considerations. Will she therefore undertake to consider my proposal to ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to convene an expert conference, including representatives of NGOs which are concerned with such issues, to see whether the 1989 convention can be redrafted so as to enable the United Kingdom to sign it?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, the United Kingdom has not signed the 1989 UN convention. In the 11 years since 1989 only 20 countries have signed it and as 22 signatures are required in order for it to come into force it has not done so.
We have not signed it because we do not believe that it is enforceable in United Kingdom courts. The definition hinges on proving intent, specifically that a mercenary has been motivated essentially for private gain. Many believe that that would be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I must add that at present we see no possibility of obtaining international agreement to any meaningful amendment to the convention.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the statement which the Minister made on international agreement apply also to agreement with our NATO allies, particularly the United States and our European Union partners? The United States has employed private contractors to train the Croatian army and others, leaving some delicate issues for consultation.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, a study of other countries which have legislation on this issue includes the United States.

UK Passports: Eligibility
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
What qualifies a child born in the United Kingdom to hold a British passport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, a person born in the United Kingdom will become a British citizen automatically and be eligible for a British passport if, at the time of the birth, either parent (or the mother in the case of an illegitimate child) is a British citizen or settled in the United Kingdom. A child who does not become British at birth may qualify for citizenship later; for instance, if a parent acquires citizenship.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If under the 1981 Act only the nationality of the father is relevant when the parents are married, what is the case when the parents of a child born in the United Kingdom are living together but not married, and the father is of British nationality but the mother is not? In any case, what part, if any, does the nationality of the grandparents play in all this?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that the nationality of the grandparents plays a significant part. The determining factor is the citizenship of the parents and the need for a close and enduring connection with the United Kingdom through the parents.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what criteria must be met by applicants who are not born in this country? For example, must they be of high repute in their country of origin?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we expect all British citizens to be of high repute.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my grandchildren Virginia and Christopher were born in America of English parents and, therefore, hold US passports? In order to qualify for British passports must they surrender their American passports? Had they been born in an EU country, would they have had Italian, German or French passports?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that simple question, of which I should have liked advance notice. I shall reflect carefully on the matter and give the noble Baroness a fuller reply in writing.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether a child born in this country to an asylum seeker who has been given exceptional leave to remain is entitled to a British passport, bearing in mind that the asylum seeker may no longer possess the nationality of his country of origin? Without wishing to become embroiled in the present controversy, can the Minister say how long it takes to issue a British passport following an individual's application for naturalisation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have the answer to the noble Lord's second question. I shall
450
happily make some investigations and provide a response. One would not expect a child born to someone who had been granted exceptional leave to remain to be given British citizenship. If the individual had settled status and was entitled to indefinite leave to remain the position would be very different. It may well be that in such a case the child would qualify for British citizenship.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many noble Lords appreciate the difficulties to which this Question gives rise and will receive letters afterwards? I have received a letter from a medical student who has been granted asylum and has almost completed the process of naturalisation, having paid the fee and applied for a passport in November. That individual must spend two months abroad for the purposes of medical studies but it appears that the passport will not arrive in time to enable that to happen. Can any other documentation be used to travel abroad in such a case?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness rather suggests that this is not a matter with which I can deal easily at the Dispatch Box. I prefer to deal with the inquiry in writing and forward it to the appropriate part of the Home Office.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister further on his response to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. Is a child born here of a British father and a foreign mother automatically entitled to British citizenship in right of the father, even if the parents are unmarried?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should like to take a closer look at the details. I do not want to place on record information which may turn out to be false or misleading. I much prefer to discover the exact position in the circumstances. I shall place a copy of the correspondence with my noble friend in the Library and, according to the usual courtesies, provide a copy to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that these questions illustrate the difficulty that many noble Lords experience in trying to give advice to correspondents on these subjects? To put a simple question, does the Minister recall that when the law was changed so as to provide that a child born in the United Kingdom acquired British citizenship only if one or both parents were British citizens, or, in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother, it was predicted that a number of cases of statelessness would arise? Can the noble Lord tell the House how many children born in the United Kingdom since that change in the law have become stateless and what their ultimate fate will be?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the point that the noble Lord raises was made powerfully in the early 1980s when the 1981 Act came into force. It was thought by some critics that the legislation would lead

451
to a considerable number of stateless persons. That has not transpired. I shall furnish the noble Lord with some further correspondence on the precise statistics.

Central and Eastern Europe: Land Reform
2.55 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to promote land reform in the transition economies of central and eastern Europe, in the context of their White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are supporting land reform in several transition countries in collaboration with the World Bank and other donors. The purpose of this work is to help poor rural people to secure the land rights which underpin their livelihoods. We shall continue this work and support access of poor people to global markets through promoting efficient and sustainable land use.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive reply. I declare an unpaid interest as a patron of the Terre Initiative which is a non-profit-making organisation that seeks to encourage land reform and property ownership in the transition economies of eastern and central Europe. Is my noble friend aware that paragraphs 90 to 96 of the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor contain what many believe is the first public acceptance by the Government that the acquisition of land rights is part of the battle against world poverty? Does my noble friend accept that, unless the European Union stops regarding land reform purely as a country-specific issue and provides some funding for applicant countries with transition economies on a broad cross-sector basis, the task of extending property rights in those countries will be made immeasurably harder?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, sustainable rural development has been a key part of the programme of the Department for International Development for a number of years. We believe that ultimately responsibility for land tenure and administration lies with national states. However, we support efforts within states to improve access to, and security of, land rights. The European Union deals with applicant country accession on an individual basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this is a Question about the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is absolutely right to emphasise the immense importance of land registration and restitution to enable those countries to get back on the tracks. Does the noble Baroness agree that expenditure under the PHARE programme is running
452
at about 67 million euros but its effect has been evaluated as poor or at best acceptable? It has generated a good deal of criticism and is not really doing the job. I am sure that the attentions of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will improve matters. However, at the moment it does not appear to be a very successful EU aid programme. Does the Minister agree that this is yet one more example of an area where, although there must be EU co-ordination, the actual administration would be far better left in national hands to be dealt with by people who really know about land reform, land transition and land registration there? Does the noble Baroness agree that, as in many other areas of EU aid policy, it would be very much better if these matters were restored to national hands so as to be more effective and help democracy on its way?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have had an ongoing debate in this House on a number of these issues, and criticisms have been made of the EU aid programme. I believe that I have made it clear in answering questions about the EU aid programme that we have worked tirelessly with the EU to bring about reforms to make the EU aid programme more effective, because we believe that the leverage we can achieve by working through the EU in a co-ordinated way is much greater than could be achieved by individual member states working in isolation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of the European Union applicant countries find that one of the difficulties they face in the transition is dealing with too many competing national aid programmes and that many of us therefore think that the PHARE programme has been rather helpful? However, does she accept that, in general, there is a substantial difference between land reform and aid for transition in general in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe and in the former countries of the Soviet Union, where EU programmes have not only been less effective, but where the whole problem of land tenure and land reform is a great deal more complex and subject to political corruption?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that there are effective and efficient government systems which work to benefit poor people. We see the land reform process as part of that. It is important that the transfer of land ownership in the region is done fairly and transparently. For example, we are helping farmers to protect their constitutional rights to land and property by providing access to advice and resources. I agree with the noble Lord that some national governments find it difficult to negotiate with individual donor countries. The EU has put together a number of programmes to support accession countries. We believe it is important that those programmes are co-ordinated. We shall continue to do all we can to ensure that those programmes are efficient and effective.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, the Minister will recall that the White Paper referred to in the Question very cogently spells out the enormous benefits that globalisation confers on the world economy as a whole, and, indeed, on the poorer countries in particular if they take advantage of it. Particularly in a week when the Davos international economic forum has ridiculous security arrangements because of an ill-intentioned coalition of interests against globalisation, why has there been no senior ministerial speech proclaiming the benefits of globalisation and following up the excellent White Paper?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development made a major speech on globalisation when she visited India 10 days ago. She is due to make another speech in New York on globalisation later this week. In the run-up to the publication of the White Paper, there have been a number of ministerial speeches on globalisation. They will continue because we believe that we are taking a lead with our contribution in terms of thinking through some quite complex and complicated arguments about the nature of globalisation and about the ways in which we can use globalisation to benefit the poor of the world.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that land reform in central and eastern Europe has encouraged people to buy their flats and houses, and that, as many of those properties are in extremely poor condition, people are ill advised to buy them as they may be taking on huge liabilities for the future? Therefore, does she agree that in any move towards land reform there should be prudent advice about the advisability of people buying their own properties?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that part of our objective in central and eastern Europe is to support the process of transition in such a way that its benefits are sustainable and in a way which spreads those benefits to all levels of society. Therefore, it is important that in our advice we ensure that the needs of individuals are taken into account and that, in so doing, we work across a range of issues, including not only the broader aspects of land reform but also land registration. That is an area which is being considered through the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the Second Reading of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the British Government's response to the earthquake in Gujarat.

Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921:: Shipman Inquiry
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the matters arising from the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman, with the following terms of reference:

(a) after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, to consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities;

(b) to inquire into the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations which followed the death of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances:

(c) by reference to the case of Harold Shipman to inquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs; and

(d) following those inquiries, to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to protect patients in the future, and to report its findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Health.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The position of those who own long leasehold residential property in England and Wales leaves much to be desired. Not only do they own a wasting asset that declines in value with the years and may eventually become unsaleable, but many leasehold tenants have a wide range of grievances. These include high service charges, absentee landlords who allow the common parts of a block of flats to fall into serious disrepair and landlords who may exploit their position when it is alleged that a tenant has broken the terms of the lease. Yet, for many people, owning the freeholds of their homes is not an option. They have to be tenants. This is because of a technical rule of law.
Obligations in relation to land, whether made between landlord and tenant or between neighbours, are called covenants. A covenant is either a positive obligation to do something, such as to repair a property or to maintain support, or is restrictive, such as an undertaking not to cause a nuisance. When a freehold property is sold, the buyer is generally bound

455
by the restrictive obligations attaching to it but not the positive ones. This means that it is impossible to have freehold flats, because it is essential that any owner of a flat should be under positive obligations to other owners in the block, to provide support for other properties, to maintain the common parts and so on.
By contrast, the greatest strength of leasehold property is that, on the sale of a lease, the buyer normally takes the property subject to positive and restrictive obligations alike, making leasehold the only system which can work in a building where there are several owners and shared parts and restricting owners of flats to leasehold ownership, with all the drawbacks to which I have just referred.
The Government believe that the only way to overcome this unsatisfactory state of affairs is to bring forward a scheme which will combine the security of freehold ownership with the management potential of positive covenants which could be made to apply to successive owners of an interdependent property. The Government consider that to achieve this end they need specific and detailed provisions that lay down the essentials of the scheme proposed. It is our intention to leave open the wider question of whether and to what extent it should be possible to make the burden of positive covenants binding on buyers of freehold land more generally. That question was first considered in 1965 when the Committee on Positive Covenants Affecting Land, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, reported to Parliament. It is presently under review by the Law Commission.
The Government arrived in office with two related commitments: first, to introduce such a scheme, called commonhold, under which occupiers would own their individual units outright and, through an association, own and manage the common parts collectively; and, secondly, to make further radical reforms to the leasehold system, and in particular to make it easier for leaseholders to obtain the right to manage their developments, to make it easier to buy the freehold of their homes and to provide better redress against abuses by landlords or their managing agents. The Bill is intended to deliver these commitments.
The first part of the Bill would introduce commonhold. That will introduce to England and Wales a concept similar to the condominium or strata title legislation familiar in many other countries. The idea was first seriously mooted here in 1987 when a working group chaired by Mr Trevor Aldridge, then a law Commissioner, reported on a commonhold scheme for freehold flats. Our immediate predecessors in government twice consulted on draft commonhold Bills, in 1990 and again in 1996, but on neither occasion did they succeed in bringing proposals to Parliament. This Government have pushed forward with commonhold, versions of which operate successfully throughout much of the rest of the world. I do not expect this first part of the Bill at least to be the subject of controversy either in this House or in another place, as I believe that the commonhold concept is worthy of, and will receive, wide acceptance.
456
Although commonhold has been widely described as a new way to own flats, and of course that is the most likely use for it, it is also available for any development where the occupants owe duties to one another related to their proximity to one another and to the need to manage and maintain common parts of a development. So it would be as useful a scheme for a business park or a large out-of-town shopping centre as it would be for mansion flats in Kensington or suburban housing estates. It could be employed for something as mundane as a shared car park.
A commonhold will consist of two elements: units, which will be owned by individual unit-holders, and common parts, which will be owned by a commonhold association.
The commonhold association is to be a private company limited by guarantee, whose members will be the unit-holders. The Bill provides for its constitution and for the mechanics of voting for various purposes and places on it a duty to manage the development. The details of its memorandum and articles of association will be set out in regulations.
The Bill provides for the production of a commonhold community statement, or CCS, which is a combination of plans and of rules of management. Together with the memorandum and articles of the association, it forms the central governing document of the development. Rules governing use and maintenance of units should be set down in the CCS. We will develop a standard form of CCS allowing enough flexibility to take into account the wide range of possible developments, which might range between a small block of flats up to—though this may be some way off—a whole "new town".
The standardisation of documentation is one of the most important features of commonhold and one of its main justifications. No longer will every development and owner within it be at the mercy of a more or less competent draftsman putting a lease together. It will not matter whether one buys into a commonhold in Newcastle or Newhaven; the basic rules will be the same.
Certain fundamental matters are set out on the face of the Bill. There are, for instance, provisions for the enforcement of the rules of the development and for the raising of commonhold assessments, which will be the equivalent of service charges, the maintenance of reserve funds and other basic matters relating to the essence of the scheme. Much of the detail of the commonhold scheme in its day-to-day operation will be in regulations, particularly the registration process and the contents of both the CCS and the memorandum and articles of the commonhold association. This means that should any changes to matters of detail in the scheme be needed, they can be made quickly.
I summarise now the proposed measures in Part II of the Bill. The Bill introduces a new right for leaseholders of flats to manage their building without having to prove shortcomings by the landlord or pay compensation. Leaseholders generally have a much larger investment in a block of flats than the landlord.

457
It is therefore right that leaseholders should be able to take responsibility for managing this investment. This new right would give leaseholders the chance to make a better job of managing the property. Its very existence would encourage landlords to give their leaseholders better value for money. The rules are as simple as possible to minimise the scope for challenges. They are similar to the proposed new rules for collective enfranchisement.
To ensure clear allocation of responsibility, democratic management and effective dispute resolution, the right would be exercised by a company with a prescribed constitution suitable for residential property management. All leaseholders would have the right to join. As it is a "no fault" right, we need safeguards for the landlord's legitimate interests and have tried to strike a fair and workable balance. Other rights are available if leaseholders wish to remove all responsibility from the landlord.
The Bill makes a number of changes to the right of collective enfranchisement for flats. We propose to simplify the eligibility rules, which have proved unnecessarily restrictive. The Bill would abolish the residence test and remove the requirement for two thirds of the leaseholders in a block to participate. It would raise the proportion of the building that can be occupied for non-residential purposes from 10 per cent to 25 per cent and remove the low-rent test where it still applies. It would also restrict the existing exemption for resident landlords.
Leaseholders would have to use a company with a prescribed constitution similar to that proposed for the right to manage and commonhold. This would ensure democratic management and an effective mechanism for resolving disputes. It would also help leaseholders to progress from the right to manage to enfranchisement and then finally to commonhold. All long leaseholders would have a right to join. At present, leaseholders can be unfairly excluded once the required majority has been achieved.
We share leaseholders' concerns about the cost of enfranchisement but also recognise landlords' legitimate interests. We consider they are entitled to a fair market price, including a share of any marriage value. However, disputes over the price can result in leaseholders incurring costs which amount to as much as the price itself. We intend to reduce the scope for costly arguments.
The Bill will amend the right of individual leaseholders of flats to buy a new longer lease. Many of the changes reflect those proposed for collective enfranchisement. It would remove the existing three-year residence requirement to help leaseholders who occupy their flat as a second home or sub-let it. To prevent short-term windfall gains by speculators, leaseholders would need to hold a long lease for two years before being able to exercise the right.
The Bill will provide new rights for leaseholders of houses who have extended their leases under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. They would be able to buy the freehold after the extended lease has commenced and be entitled to remain under an
458
assured tenancy when the extended lease expires. The Bill would make a number of changes to leaseholders' existing rights to strengthen their protection against unreasonable charges. These changes are plainly needed. There is evidence of widespread abuse by bad landlords.
The Bill will amend the definition of "service charge" under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to cover improvements where these are payable under the terms of the lease. It will also give leaseholders new protection against unreasonable administration charges.
I stress that these provisions would not enable a landlord to make charges for improvements or administration unless the lease allows them to be made.
The Bill would extend existing requirements to consult leaseholders on proposed works or services.
The Bill provides that ground rent is payable only when demanded. If paid within 30 days, the landlord would be prevented from making additional charges or starting proceedings.
The Bill will introduce new restrictions on the use of forfeiture. Landlords are able to threaten forfeiture, often on spurious or non-existent grounds, to persuade leaseholders to pay unreasonable charges. Landlords would be prohibited from commencing forfeiture proceedings for any contested breach of covenant unless a leasehold valuation tribunal or court had determined that a breach had actually occurred. The Bill will make a number of changes to the leasehold valuation tribunals, to improve their effectiveness and speed up dispute resolution.
These changes will considerably enhance leaseholders' rights. They will redress the unfair balance between landlords and leaseholders but at the same time respect landlords' legitimate rights. With the proposals for commonhold, they will implement the Government's commitments and put us on course for a system of land tenure which is more appropriate for our new century.
Consultation has shown a broad consensus in support of these proposals. But there are inevitably differences of opinion on particular aspects. Some leaseholders have complained that they do not go far enough. I have to say that some of their expectations are unrealistic. What we have sought to do—no doubt we shall discuss it in our subsequent debates—is to strike a fair balance. Our proposals are aimed at resolving the main difficulties facing leaseholders in a way which I hope your Lordships will in due course agree is fair and balanced. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
3.22 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his clear exposition of the Bill, for the helpful Explanatory Notes and for the extensive consultation going back to

459
August of last year, although it was a pity that the document happened to be published at the peak of the holiday period.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord has universal support for what he has put before us today. However, the ownership of property, the partial ownership of property and the non-ownership of property are highly emotive subjects. They are in many ways related to security and money. Over periods of time we have tried to improve the lot of one or the other, believing that we are a property owning democracy. We had the 1954 Act, the 1967 Act, the 1985 Act, the 1987 Act, the 1989 Act, the 1993 Act, the 1996 Act—it is almost like lottery numbers—and now we have the 2001 Bill. In principle, what is in the Bill appears to be widely acceptable. However, it reminds me a little of a great ponderous ship, steaming down the Solent, full of good intentions and worrying about the wash that may come behind.
Today, it is not my job to go into the details, but to express some worry about whether the Bill will reach the statute book properly amended and with all matters considered and discussed at length. We are rather short of time, unless we are to hear from the noble and learned Lord that there is no intention of having an election for a number of months. But it is right to bring the Bill before the House and the three areas of activity—commonhold, the leasehold of flats and the leasehold of houses—are of vital importance.
We all accept the principles of commonhold but the implementation of it is difficult. For new buildings, it presents no problems provided that the developers and the financiers can be encouraged to see the wisdom of adopting it. For existing buildings, the requirement to have the approval of everyone becomes difficult when one takes into account the European Convention on Human Rights and matters of that kind. We must assume that the commonhold proposals are for the longer term but they need to be sold and presented. They are understandable, but when we come to the financing of these ingredients it may be another matter.
Banks are very happy to finance individuals with mortgages. But have noble Lords tried to get a bank to finance a property through a company when there are tenants? I want to give an example of my own situation. I am no longer a tenant. For 40 years I was a tenant of great estates in London. After the passing of the recent Act, with considerable support from all round, I became a head lessor. I managed to enfranchise. It was a most enlightening five-year experience. There were only seven of us, but each one needed a solicitor. We needed a solicitor for the company which we formed, which was not limited by guarantee—we were slightly ahead of the noble and learned Lord. We needed a solicitor for the vendor of the freehold and another solicitor as well and we eventually needed a whole range of valuations. Finally, in order to make it work, we had to serve a collective enfranchisement notice on the landlord, who was perfectly happy to have it served on him; but if it
460
had not been served on him, there would have been some doubt as to whether he would get roll-over relief on the sale.
My point is that, first, we have property law and, secondly, we have taxation. We are talking about money. The legislation introduced some time ago by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde caused me considerable pain. All kinds of people were saying how wonderful landlords were. I shall give the House one example of—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, declare his interest in this matter before he started his speech.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I did not believe that I had any interest. I have already enfranchised and I am no longer a tenant. But if I did not disclose that, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was explaining that my interest lies in the background and experience that I have gained.
The problems lie in money and valuations. All kinds of problems may arise from the Bill. There are about 2.1 million leases in the country—one million flat leases, which are mainly in the South East and the Greater London area, and one million or so house leases, most of which are outside that area. They have different land values, depending on where they are, different ground rents and different leases. Those two million or so leases affect mothers, fathers, grandparents and children. It is a wide group of people. I am worried that if we do not have sufficient time to devote to the Bill it may go through with many flaws.
I shall give your Lordships some examples of flaws. When is a house a house? When is a flat a flat? And when are they not? In efforts some time ago to stop enfranchisement, various landlords devised certain schemes. If they took a house and cut a little out of it, it ceased to be a house and became a flat. As a result, a freehold could not apply. It was then decreed by others that a house with a little cut out of it was neither a flat nor a house. It was a dwelling but it did not qualify for enfranchisement under the Act.
I have another example. People insisted that one could not buy a leasehold or hold a head lease unless it was through a corporate entity—meaning a company. The company would hold the head lease and the lesser interests of the sub-leases would have to be held through companies. That was fairly distressing for people who wanted to have a nice flat on a reasonable lease but did not like the idea of being a company. Those companies were then created with great advisers. Some of the companies found that their sole asset was the flat. This is where my taxation point comes in. The occupant of the flat was not the owner. The flat was owned by a company. Therefore, someone might have construed that the occupant of that flat had a benefit in kind, which might well be a taxable benefit.
Those are areas which cause me concern. If we now find that there is no residential test, a company which enfranchises may then have the right to assign that

461
lease to the beneficial owner. But does that beneficial owner then incur a capital gains tax liability? Those points need to be looked into.
In general, this is a Bill which all sides seem to welcome. There are some small issues of concern such as valuations but the problem is that in one area we are treating houses and flats differently. Why cannot we treat them in the same way? Why cannot the time of valuation be the time the notice is served or the time that the value is agreed? If a valuation has been made and the acquisition of the freehold interest is in principle in place, surely we should encourage people to move forward as quickly as possible. The owner of the freehold would like to have his funds so that he may reinvest in another area of activity. On the other hand, some tenants want the right to enfranchise and then hold on for as long as possible without coming up with the money. To me, that seems unfair.
Equally, when one looks to enfranchise, if the minimum number of people needed to qualify agree to enfranchise, the price is lowered. All kinds of side deals may be struck where 95 per cent of those involved wish to agree, hut, having worked out with clever lawyers that they need only a certain number, the price is lower. In the end, of course, this is all about money.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to give the House enough time to cover all the points in detail. I have wondered whether it is the Labour Party seeking to win the householder's vote in the next election that has led to this legislation suddenly being brought before us. The measure will take time to consider. I commend it to the House and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the Bill. However, we do not do so unreservedly because we have a number of doubts and queries, some technical and some more substantial. However, taking all in all, we welcome it warmly. I should declare an interest to the House because I am the owner of a flat that is currently leasehold.
In some ways, the introduction of commonhold marks the most important change in land law since the Birkenhead reforms of 1925. Speaking as a lawyer rather than as a human being, one can describe this as an exciting Bill. In this country, unlike anywhere else in the world, we have developed a curiously hybrid system of long leasehold, which is a hybrid of owner occupation and the renting of property. A premium or lump sum is paid when the lease is acquired and then only a relatively small ground rent is paid. One would need to be a social historian to understand why this system developed. I suspect that it is because the Westminster estate and other major landowners in urban areas wanted to keep control over their land rather than selling it outright to developers, or developing it themselves and then selling off the freeholds.
However, over the years, the leasehold system has been shown to have many disadvantages. First, when the lease comes to an end, lessees have to move out,
462
buy a new lease, or pay a much higher rent than they had been paying in the past. Secondly, as the lease approaches its end, its value diminishes sharply. It is then extremely difficult to secure a mortgage on leases with less than 30 or 40 years to run.
Particular problems arose in the early 1960s in Cardiff and elsewhere in south Wales where very large areas had been developed on long leaseholds which were all about to expire at the same time. This meant that a large number of ordinary working people potentially faced the loss of their homes unless they were able to pay substantial sums of capital for new leases on the freehold. The result of that was the introduction of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which enabled most long leaseholders to enfranchise— to acquire the freehold—on terms which were favourable to them. The Act was challenged by the Duke of Westminster under the European Convention on Human Rights, but that challenge was rejected in the European Court. As a result, for many years now, very few, if any, new houses have been built for sale as leaseholds. Indeed, many leaseholders of houses have enfranchised.
However, the situation is quite different as regards flats. For the reasons explained to the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, flats cannot be built for sale as freeholds. Under present law, insuperable difficulties must be overcome as regards liabilities for the maintenance of buildings, the ownership of common parts and so forth. Since the First World War and until the 1980s, it has been unattractive to build flats for rent because rent controls made it uneconomic for landlords to do so. Furthermore, tax advantages could be secured. when buying leaseholds because mortgages were tax deductible whereas rents were not.
I agree that the best answer to these problems is commonhold. It is a form of ownership which has worked well in other countries, in particular in the USA, but also in Australia, Canada and many other areas. Commonhold overcomes the technical difficulties of freehold flat ownership and it gives the unit-holder an interest which potentially will last for as long as the building itself. One criticism of the scheme which has been voiced in some quarters is that the conversion of an existing block of flats to commonhold requires the unanimous consent of the interested parties. As a result, most commonholds are likely to be established in new blocks developed as commonholds. It may be difficult to secure the consent to convert of all the lessees in existing blocks of flats, in particular if those blocks are of any size.
I have some sympathy with that view. It is arguable that, where a substantial majority are in favour of conversion, they should be able to convert. However, serious legal and managerial problems would arise in a block which was part commonhold and part leasehold. Complex legislation would be required to deal with such problems. Ultimately, I should like w see the possibility of effecting conversion without complete unanimity, but I should prefer to see commonhold

463
start on a straightforward basis before we encounter the more difficult issues. That should be a matter for future legislation rather than for the present Bill.
It has also been suggested that the creation of new leaseholds should be forbidden. However, commonhold is an untried system and I think that it would be premature, at this stage at least, to make it obligatory. If, as I expect, buyers prefer commonholds to leaseholds, commonhold developments will fetch higher prices. Leasehold flats will then follow leasehold houses into oblivion. I do not believe that it is likely to be necessary to ban the creation of new leasehold properties and, as I have said, it would be premature to do so.
I wish to raise some issues as regards commonhold in Committee, but those are technical points and I do not want to discuss them now. However, a number of important matters have been left to regulations which we have not yet seen. Under Clause 17, restrictions will be made on the terms on which commonhold units can be let. I agree that some restrictions will be needed. It is certainly undesirable to recreate long leaseholds by the letting of commonhold units. Equally, however, commonhold will not be attractive unless unit-holders have a reasonable ability to rent out their flats for a period of time if, for example, they are posted abroad or elsewhere in the United Kingdom and they envisage returning to their flats once the posting is over.
The nature of restrictions on letting is commercially important and the Explanatory Notes contain a number of proposals, such as the imposition of an upper limit of seven years for a letting. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has proposed that those rules should be put on to the face of the Bill, or that we should be able to see the draft regulations before the Bill goes to another place. I do not know the Government's response to that suggestion because I understand that it has not yet been received by the Clerk to the committee. However, I believe that that recommendation has a good deal of force.
Similar problems arise as regards the regulations which will prescribe the core contents of the commonhold community statement and the memorandum and articles of commonhold associations. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee stated that if the draft regulations covering these points cannot be produced during the passage of the Bill, the first set of regulations should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thus giving noble Lords an opportunity to discuss them. That is a recommendation with which I agree—not surprisingly, because I am a member of the committee.
Commonhold is an idea whose time has come. The Law Commission has been working on it for many years; indeed, for well over a decade. Very extensive consultation has been conducted and these proposals are ones which I am happy to endorse.
I turn now to the alterations to leasehold rules. I have a little less to say on that matter, although it takes up more than half the Bill. My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock will be mainly
464
involved with this part of the Bill, which contains developments of existing law rather than creating wholly new proposals. I agree on the whole with these proposals, but I have some problems with them, some of them of some seriousness.
We strongly support the idea of tenants being able to form right-to-manage companies, even if the landlord is not at fault. My own block is self-managed. The system works well and should certainly be encouraged. But I see no reason why the landlord should be a member of a right-to-manage (RTM) company, and I see a good many reasons why the landlord should not be a member. Of course, landlords are entitled to information about what is being done by the right-to-manage company, but there are considerable dangers if landlords are entitled to be members of the RTM companies. Certainly if they are members, they should not have a vote.
Possibly the rights of landlords to enforce obligations against RTM companies should be restricted to cases in which breaches by the RTM company cause damage to the landlord's reversionary interest. That is on the analogy of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938, which was useful and prevented abuse of the landlord's position.
Conversely, should not commercial tenants in a block—for example, the tenants of shops on the ground floor—be entitled to be members of the RTM company, instead of its being made up only of residential tenants?
I am also concerned about the proposal that if an RTM company enfranchises and becomes a right-to-enfranchise company, an RTE company, any member of the RTM company who does not want to participate in the enfranchisement will have to give up membership and the right to participate in the management. I can see that it is more complicated if we have to have separate RTE companies and RTM companies in the same block, but I believe that it is not impossibly so. I also believe that it is seriously wrong to exclude someone from management simply because he or she is unable or unwilling to contribute to the cost of enfranchisement and therefore to be a member of the RTE company.
I am also somewhat concerned about the proposal to abolish the residence test. Rights under enfranchisement legislation confer considerable financial benefits on lessees. That is wholly justified in the case of residents, because having to pay the full market cost might threaten them with the loss of their homes. But I see no justification for giving the same benefits to non-residents buying as investors or speculators. It could be argued that the residence test should be excluded from collective enfranchisement, because it is desirable to encourage collective enfranchisement and that would make it somewhat easier, but I see no case for excluding a residence test for a lease extension for an individual flat.
We then come to the question of marriage value, which is a contentious issue. We take the view that it should be eliminated from the valuation payable to the landlord. Marriage value is largely due to the fact that

465
the lessee, the tenant, is a special purchaser who is willing to pay more than market value. But the fact that the lessee is willing to pay more than market value is due to the weakness of the lessee's position, because if he or she does not buy it will be necessary to find somewhere else to live, resulting in considerable practical awkwardness.
There is somewhat less objection to payment for marriage value in cases of collective enfranchisement, in particular because there the marriage value is likely to be relatively small. But where an individual leaseholder receives an extended lease, there is no marriage; indeed, there is the opposite, because the length of the separation is likely to be prolonged. Under the 1993 Act the landlord is entitled to compensation for diminution of the value of his interest in the flat and in the rest of the block if that is affected by the grant of the new lease. That seems fair enough, but why should the landlord be entitled to marriage value when there is no marriage? It increases the amount of capital the lessee has to find and makes the claim for an extended lease more difficult to exercise.
I have a few further points on the Bill. A number of previous proposals which appeared in particular in the consultation paper published last August do not reappear. They include a requirement for landlords to keep service charges in client accounts; tenants' right of access to accounting information; and extended powers for the courts to vary unsatisfactory leases. All these seem to be points with a good deal to be said for them, and I should like an explanation of why they are not included in this Bill and whether it is intended that in due course they will be brought forward in a separate Bill.
Finally, an issue of considerable importance is the fact that the Bill will increase the workload and importance of the leasehold valuation tribunals. It is also desirable that the LVTs should be one-stop shops on leasehold issues. The existing division of jurisdiction between the LVTs and the county courts should be ended. I understand that the Government may not feel that it is appropriate for that to be included in this Bill, but will the Minister assure us that the LVTs will be given the funds and support needed to do the job properly?
Will the Minister also be prepared to consider that legal aid should be available in the LVTs, as it is now in the lands tribunals, to which appeals can be taken from the LVTs? There are very serious problems with the absence of a level playing field in the LVTs, particularly with regard to the owners of large blocks of flats, who may be able to afford to use the most expensive and experienced advocates to argue their cases against tenants. They can pick on one tenant, who will then set a precedent for the rest of the block. In the absence of legal aid, the tenant may have to appear in person, being unable to afford any kind of legal assistance, and he or she then faces a very unlevel playing field indeed.
466
Having made those various points, I should repeat what I said at the beginning, which is that we think that, subject to the criticisms which I have made and a number of other more technical ones which I have not raised, the Bill is a very good step forward, which we welcome, although we think it is some way short of being perfect.

Gujarat Earthquake
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the earthquake in Gujarat which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"At 03.16 GMT on Friday 26 January, a major earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale occurred in western India. The epicentre was located 50 kilometres north-east of the town of Bhuj in Gujarat state in India. It affected an area as large as Wales. It was also felt in Pakistan, Nepal and southern India.
"Latest estimates are that over 20,000 are presumed dead, thousands more are missing and some 50,000 people are reported injured. Initial reports suggest that 500,000 people have been left homeless. As serious after-shocks continue, hundreds of thousands of people are living outside their homes. After-shocks are also hampering the search and rescue and relief effort. Provision of water is a particular problem in Bhuj. Aerial assessments carried out by the Government of India, in which staff from my department participated, described the situation in many areas as "utter devastation". According to the Indian authorities, 95 per cent of the buildings in Bhuj are no longer habitable.
"Infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, communication systems and electricity lines have been severely affected, and an oil slick is affecting operations at the oil terminal at Kandla port. Communication with Bhuj is gradually being restored using satellite. Indian police are leading the search and rescue effort, aided by 5,000 Indian military personnel. Priorities are water, shelter, blankets and food. The Indian authorities are mobilising significant resources to address these needs. This is being supported by international relief assistance, which has started to arrive.
"I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy and concern to the people of Gujarat and their relatives and friends in Britain and elsewhere. The Queen and the Prime Minister have sent messages of sympathy to the Government of India.

467
"The Department for International Development's emergency response centre has been working round the clock since the earthquake struck. We dispatched a UK search and rescue team of 69 personnel, made up of 25 UK Fire Service volunteers from Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Chester and Leicestershire, and specialist NGOs. The Ministry of Defence provided a plane at a cost to my department of £98,000. Officials from my department led the team. They arrived in Bhuj at 8 a.m. UK time on 28th January and started work within 15 minutes. They are presently targeting some of the worst affected buildings. They are working in close co-operation with the Indian authorities and have so far managed to rescue four people alive.
"Also, in a joint operation with my department, 75 search and rescue personnel from the Russian Ministry of Emergency (EMERCOM) arrived in Bachau on 28th January and have rescued eight persons to date. They also have with them an airmobile hospital. A second Russian aircraft, part-funded by my department, is awaiting clearance from the Indian authorities to bring in 3,280 blankets and 45 family tents.
"A United Nations disaster assessment coordination team (including one UK member) has also been despatched and will commence operations as soon as possible. Two disaster assessment experts from my department have helped organise the NGO disaster relief co-ordination meeting and helped with aerial reconnaissance.
"The effort is now moving from a focus on search and rescue to organisation of relief. All existing systems have broken down. People lack housing, blankets, clothes, food and water. We must ensure that those who survived the earthquake are cared for until normal systems can be restored.
"My department has spent £2 million on the provision of immediate relief. Another £1 million will be allocated today. The Chief Secretary has agreed to make available £9 million from the reserve so that we can allocate a total of £10 million to support this emergency relief effort without reducing our spending in other parts of India. We shall also work in Brussels and elsewhere to ensure that other development agencies make available appropriate funding.
"The Indian Government are well organised and are providing food, army personnel, heavy lifting equipment, mobile operating theatres and medical supplies, but the scale of the emergency is such that some of the resources needed cannot be supplied in the region. We are therefore also arranging to fly out three aircraft carrying 1,200 tents and other shelter items from the Department for International Development's emergency stockpile in Staffordshire. A fourth aircraft will also be dispatched today from Ostend via Brindisi carrying 10 sets of trauma equipment and plastic sheeting.
468
"This is a very serious disaster. Organisation by the Indian Government is good. But international help is needed to ensure that all who survived the earthquake but have lost everything are provided with health care and other basic essentials until such time as they can rebuild their homes and livelihoods".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure everyone is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement on this tragedy. It is an unspeakably tragic event. It is difficult to find words appropriate to describe the size of the horror and the scale of death and destruction that has taken place. Whole villages have been wiped out; large towns have been 95 per cent destroyed. These are things which are almost impossible to imagine from this distance; yet they have occurred to this great nation and are imposing the most dreadful suffering upon it.
It goes without saying that we on this side of the House join totally with the message of sympathy expressed by the noble Baroness for the people of India as a whole, for those in the Gujarat region, in the towns and villages affected and for all their relatives and friends. It goes without saying, too, that we express our full support for everything that the Government have done already and are swiftly doing. From what the noble Baroness said, the agencies of government are moving fast and in a commendable way. This is good—although I fear it is only the beginning of a vast amount of work.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will bear in mind that India is a fellow Commonwealth country and that we have a special responsibility to do everything we can to help in this moment of misery. We have enormous technical expertise in search and rescue in this country; we have our British charities and our great non-governmental organisations, which have immense skills in providing medical care, water, food and so on. I hope that they, too, will be given full support and that their needs—about which we may hear from noble Lords who are expert in these matters—will be met very swiftly.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness three brief and broad questions because it seems to me that everything that can be done at this moment is being done. First, as the Minister rightly indicated, hunger and thirst are already very big killers. I heard one suggestion that hunger and thirst will kill almost as many as the falling concrete which crushed schools and homes; that it will be the new horror after the gigantic earthquake and the after-shocks. Tents are being flown in from various sources, as the noble Baroness described. However, what more can be done not only to provide shelter but also somehow to meet, short-term, the hunger and screaming thirst which will destroy many more lives even while we discuss the matter?
Does the Minister have any news—anecdotal or otherwise—at this early stage about UK nationals who were in the region, who have been involved and

469
who may have vanished in the holocaust? What are the first thoughts she can share with us about the longer-term organisation of what will be a huge relief operation, which will continue for many months— indeed, some sources have suggested years—so great was the earthquake?
This is a blow imposed on a nation which, in many ways, has been moving fast into the modern world and taking the lead, particularly in new technology. A new, dynamic India is arising. But it has now been caught by the hand of fate and by natural disaster in a dreadful way and it has been shaken to the core. We will provide whatever support we can from this side. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the position so far.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Only two weeks ago I was in Gujarat. I was in an area no more than 150 kilometres from the devastation. This area has had a number of tremors during the past few months—some of which I experienced—but no one imagined that an earthquake on such a scale would ever take place. The situation is more serious because the area of Gujarat has not had any rain for about three years. There is an acute shortage of water.
I should like to thank the Department for International Development for its commendable action, which was taken immediately the news of the earthquake was announced. The financial support mentioned by the Minister, amounting to almost £13 million, is very much welcomed. The Government of India expect that it will cost billions of pounds to restore normality to that part of the country. It is also commendable that the world community has responded to this particular disaster.
For the people of Gujarat, particularly those living in the desert area of Kutch, the devastation is frightening. The epicentre of the earthquake on 26th January was in the area of Bhuj and wiped out the entire city. It is a human tragedy on an unprecedented scale—an earthquake of the highest recorded magnitude in the past 50 years. The information supplied to me by His Excellency the High Commissioner for India, confirmed by a large number of e-mails that I have received, suggests that until yesterday at least 188 after-shocks had been recorded. No one can rely on official figures of death and destruction. Suffice it to say that the final figure may well exceed the five figures that are presently anticipated. It has been reported that over 14,000 people have been injured to date. There is a crucial need for facilities to care for the injured people.
It is a credit to the state government of Gujarat and to the Government of India that they are meeting the emergency more or less on a war footing. Reports reaching the community in England suggest that the entire country has been galvanised into action to help with relief and rehabilitation. The army, navy, air force, paramilitary forces, the civil administration, NGOs, as well as the communities in the UK and in
470
Gujarat, are engaged in assisting the relief work. A number of charities in the United Kingdom and the DfID have worked to provide immediate help. Great credit should be given to those already assisting in Gujarat and others doing similar work in this country.
I should like to make a number of suggestions that may help. First, perhaps the Minister can inform the community in this country how medicines and other emergency supplies could be sent to Gujarat. I understand that Air India has already announced plans to lift some aid free of charge. I understand that other airlines may take the same course. As it is still winter, any assistance that the Government can give to ensure that a supply of warm clothes and blankets reaches the area would be very much welcomed.
Secondly, a substantial number of Gujarati minorities are settled in this country. Communication is almost non-existent in the earthquake area. The transport infrastructure is in a very perilous state. Is there some way in which the DfID could co-operate with the High Commissioner for India in a joint effort to provide people in this country with information about what is happening in Gujarat? It is almost impossible to obtain first-hand information, although I understand from the High Commission that in certain key towns telephone numbers are available which could provide information to the community in this country.
Will the Minister also thank all the international agencies, including charities, for the way in which they have responded to this crisis? The world community can take comfort from the fact that as far humanity is concerned we shall all stand together to assist those who have suffered.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dholakia, for their expressions of support for the work so far done by the Government. The staff of the Department for International Development who have been involved in this relief effort have worked tirelessly round the clock. Our response has been immediate and effective. I am sure that the words of support from this House will be very well received.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked three questions. With regard to the first question about the issue of hunger and thirst, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia said, this is exacerbated by the fact that there has been a drought in the area for the past few years. One of the NGOs with whom we are working, OXFAM, has a great deal of expertise in this area and will be considering the question of water and sanitation. Support has also been given by other NGOs and other governments in relation to considering, as a matter of priority, the supply of food, water and sanitation.
The noble Lord asked, secondly, about UK nationals. I am aware from press reports that one person from the UK, a doctor, died in the earthquake. I am not aware of any others. However, I shall keep the noble Lord informed of any further news we receive about UK nationals.

471
There will be need for a huge, immediate relief operation, and the scale of longer-term reconstruction will be enormous. For example, 95 per cent of the housing in Bhuj is uninhabitable. That means that donors will have to work together. It will be an issue for the World Bank and for the Asian Development Bank. The noble Lord will be aware that India is our biggest bilateral partner. We currently have a programme there amounting to £100 million per year. When matters have settled down, we shall obviously consider how we can support that programme and the reconstruction effort.
Some general questions were raised by both noble Lords about British charities and NGOs. A number of British charities and NGOs, including OXFAM and Save the Children, are already active. The Association of Medical Doctors of Asia and International has despatched a multinational medical mission from Japan to provide humanitarian assistance. The IFRC, in partnership with the Indian Red Cross, is deploying blankets, tarpaulins and large tents. It has also donated units of blood plasma. Other UN organisations will have roles to play. For example, the World Health Organisation will be concerned with the health issues that emerge.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised three specific points. The first concerns informing the community in this country about how essential supplies can be sent to Gujarat; the second concerns communication. I shall deal with those two questions together. The department has had a great deal of experience, particularly following our experience in Kosovo, of building communication links and ensuring that families and communities are able to talk to each other. I shall certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion about working with the Indian High Commission in this matter. I shall also consider the question of medical supplies and ensure that assistance is given to the communities in this country who want to send urgent supplies to Gujarat. In addition, I shall certainly thank all the international agencies that have mobilised quickly and effectively in responding to this and other disasters.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I believe that mention was made in the Statement that the earthquake also affected Pakistan. Can the noble Baroness give the House some clarification as to the situation in Pakistan, which, of course, is another Commonwealth country? As I say, although there has been mention of Pakistan, all the detail has centred on India. I should be most grateful if the Minister could provide some clarification in that respect.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as we understand it, the earthquake was felt in Pakistan, Nepal and southern India, but the epicentre was just 50 kilometres north of Bhuj. The greatest elements of the disaster were experienced in Gujarat.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of LEASE, which, as some noble Lords may know, is an organisation funded by government grant to provide a much needed source of free legal advice in the leasehold sector, and to advise the Government. There is no doubt that there are major defects in residential leasehold tenure in England and Wales, most of them experienced by the leaseholder. LEASE is extremely busy. It deals with around 17,000 enquiries a year, 90 per cent of which are from leaseholders with a problem. It is on the basis of talking to some 15,000 leaseholders each year that LEASE feels confident that it understands leaseholders' problems sufficiently to talk to the Government about possible solutions.
Perhaps I may also declare a past interest. I was, for a time, a tenant under a long lease in a mansion flat in London, the landlord of which was one of the more notorious gentlemen, or companies, in that particular profession. I emerged from that experience scarred. To that extent, I have to say that my sympathy automatically tends to be on the side of the leaseholder, rather than on the side of the landlord. However, I shall do my best to keep that tendency under control, as I hope that your Lordships will appreciate during the course of the proceedings on the Bill.
I welcome the Bill. I must say at the outset that the Government have listened to advice. I believe that the present Bill represents a series of solutions that have been developed through a long period of consultation and with a consensus of the majority of players in the sector. There is no question but that this Bill will do much to improve the rights of the individual leaseholder and to revitalise common ownership. Of course, it is not perfect. Various other organisations will no doubt express themselves as being irritated with the imperfections. I am thinking particularly about CARL (the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leaseholds), which is an organisation that represents a substantial number of leaseholders and which actively participated in these consultations. It is not for me to speak for that organisation, but it takes the view that the Bill does not go far enough. Even if the Bill does not go far enough, is not perfect and omits a number of matters previously proposed by government and others, it provides a firm basis for discussion during the Committee and further stages of our deliberations.
Perhaps I may turn now to commonhold. The introduction of commonhold is greatly to be welcomed. For some reason, England and Wales remain the only countries where ownership of flats is confined to a leasehold interest. When they are fully integrated into the property market, these proposals will place the United Kingdom on a similar basis of common ownership, ownership of the building by the residents, as is presently operating in the rest of the world.

473
It would, perhaps, have been simpler for the Government to have reproduced, in its entirety, an existing and tested legislation; for example, the strata title legislation of New South Wales, or the American community-title law. However, we must accept that the present proposals have been devised specifically for the UK property market. We might also have wished that the Government had chosen to create an entirely new animal in the commonhold association, but I can fully appreciate the prudence of the chosen route of basing the proposals firmly upon existing company and property legislation and procedures.
The Bill, quite rightly, seeks to prevent the creation of new leases out of commonhold. But the present proposals restricting the terms of letting may perhaps be over-restrictive for a free market. However, we can look further at these in Committee. Similarly, the arrangements for conversion from an existing leaseholder-owned freehold to a commonhold, which require the consent of 100 per cent of the flat owners, have been criticised by many individuals and organisations and may also merit further examination during the further stages of the Bill.
The proposals for commonhold are, of course, primarily enabling and will be dependent upon a considerable raft of regulations and guidance. It is important for us to be given some fairly clear indications during the passage of the Bill of the sort of regulations that the Government propose. However, those are minor matters and should not detract from my really quite warm welcome for the introduction of commonhold into United Kingdom legislation.
I turn for a few moments to the right to manage. At present, it must be accepted that the leasehold tenant feels powerless: he owns most of the equity in the building, but has little or no say in how it is run or repaired. The Bill has acknowledged that very basic problem in setting out to provide a statutory right to manage—a right simply to take over the everyday management of the building, without having to prove any deficiency on the part of the landlord and, equally importantly, without having to part with any money for the freehold.
It is this question of actual administrative power that the right to manage provides. The procedures are not simple and can be criticised as intimidating for the average leaseholder. At a later stage, I shall certainly wish to raise the issue of qualification for the right being confined to a single building and not available to whole estates or houses. But this is a bold initiative and, once entered into, it will place the powers of management of the building into the leaseholders' hands without cost to them.
In this context, following the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, one might also query the need for the presence of the landlord on the leaseholders' right to manage company. I cannot imagine anything that is more liable to create a certain amount of dissension as regards the way in which the leaseholders would wish to try to manage their particular block of flats. While listening to the examination of this point by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it occurred to me that, although
474
it is now thought necessary for the landlord to play a part in the tenants' managing company, it has never really been thought quite so necessary to have a legal basis for tenants' representation in the landlord's managing company. I believe that this provision needs to be reconsidered.
The other major concern that I have about the proposals for the right to manage is the difficulty that I see in leaseholders attempting to manage in the face of defective leases with no simple route to their remedy. Many leases require the payment of service charges in advance, but others do not. It is not difficult to envisage the problems that are likely to be faced by the right-to-manage company in the situation of leases reserving payment in arrears. How will the company be able to fund major works without advance funding? That situation was addressed in the consultation paper in proposals for additional grounds for seeking from the court the variation of leases, effectively widening the very limited powers presently contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. These provisions are immensely important to effective management by the right-to-manage company, or a responsible landlord. I hope that the Government will be able to consider adding those clauses to the Bill.
I should like to say a few words on service charges. The Bill also recognises the need better to control the recharging of service and works costs to leaseholders in the widening of the 15-year-old definition of service charges, which will now include the costs of improvements and administrative charges. As a result, such charges must now be subject to the requirement for them to be reasonable and to be open to challenge by leaseholders at leasehold valuation tribunals. The proposed ability to dispute administration and legal costs, together with the proposal that ground rent shall not be recoverable unless demanded in a prescribed format, should effectively put a stop to the abuses suffered by leaseholders of houses in the North East and the Midlands, for example, facing spurious actions for forfeiture on the basis of a few days' delay in paying a £5 ground rent. Again, this is evidence that the Government have listened to complaints and are trying to devise specific remedies.
One of the areas of concern for leaseholders is in relation to simply knowing where their money is; that is, moneys they have paid in advance and service charges, which should he held in trust for them by the landlords.
The consultation paper contained proposed requirements for specific accounting procedures by landlords demanding separate, identifiable bank accounts for each property in management. While some landlords claim that those requirements are onerous, this is in fact the current practice of many of the better managing agents. It is a pity that the proposals have been omitted from the Bill. Such arrangements would achieve much in maintaining proper control and accessibility of landlords' handling of their leaseholders' funds and have the backing of ARMA, the professional body that represents managing agents. Again, this is an issue to which we can return at a later stage of the Bill.

475
In regard to enfranchisement, the Bill also, rightly, seeks to widen the availability of the statutory right for leaseholders of flats to buy their freeholds and to simplify drastically the Byzantine procedures of the 1993 Act. These measures have my full support. The removal of the residence test and the raising of the nonresidential threshold will bring a great many more buildings into eligibility. The lowering of the required proportion of participating leaseholders from two-thirds to a half will make enfranchisement easier, and that, combined with the proposed 80-year statutory limit on marriage value, will have the effect of making the purchase cheaper. Leaseholders of houses who have already extended their leases under the rules of the 1967 Act will welcome the new right both of freehold purchase and security of tenure. However, I would have preferred the eligibility tests and procedures for houses to be brought into line with those for flats. There seems little logic, for example, in the three separate residence criteria: no residence required for collective enfranchisement; no residence but two years' prior ownership for lease extension for flats, but three years' residence required for houses. It would be a pity to leave this anomaly in place in a Bill that is dedicated to simplifying and easing red tape in the leasehold sector.
These matters point to areas where there can be further refinement. No Bill is ever perfect at this stage of its passage, but the proposals collectively represent a sound and measured approach towards a radical reshaping of the leasehold sector and the greater empowerment of leaseholders. It comes from several years of intensive work, and a quite unprecedented level of input from the sector itself. It has been the subject of two consultation papers and the most exhaustive discussions. There is no doubt that the proposals represent consensus solutions. They should have the full support of all sides. The Government deserve our congratulations on bringing forward the proposals.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome this long awaited Bill. I begin by declaring an interest. as I own a leasehold property which I bought for the day when I can no longer manage the stairs. I also register an interest as an Australian commonholder with a first-hand knowledge of the New South Wales system.
I believe that commonhold is a much better system than leasehold. I have always found the restrictions on leasehold extremely irritating.
In New South Wales, where I come from and about which I speak, there are two different commonhold titles: company title and strata title. In each case, the unit-holders are the freeholders of the whole property, including the land, and each unit is a shareholder in the body corporate, which is called "the commonhold association" in the Bill.
The difference between company title and strata title is that with a company title, in order to sell on your unit, you have to obtain the agreement of everyone else
476
in the block of flats before you can accept the person who wants to buy your property. I was interested to read in this morning's newspaper that Bill Clinton has been facing this problem in New York. Under strata title, the property is absolutely yours, and you can do with it what you wish provided you are contributing, as are all others in the block, to the amount paid for upkeep and maintenance. For this reason, strata title is very much more popular, and company title is dying out. The number of people wishing to buy company title is very limited. If you do buy company title and then wish to let the property, the other residents in the block may say that they do not want a sub-tenant.
I strongly oppose the proposed restriction on lettings. It is extraordinary that there should be discussion about the danger of creating a new leasehold system when the failure of the Bill to state that all new constructions should now be commonhold is tantamount to continuing the leasehold system. The Government should be aiming for a position whereby all new constructions of residential unit accommodation are commonhold from now on. I realise that big property interests will be opposed to that proposal. They wish to hold on to the land and to have the right to harvest further profit from it. That is the real strength behind leasehold, if you happen to be the owner. There is no strength behind leasehold if you are the owner of a unit or a flat in a leasehold property.
It is absolutely plain that owners want a completely unrestricted strata title. If someone is going abroad, why should they not be allowed to let their property long term? The restriction that one can only let for seven years is complicated and nonsensical. I asked for a legal person's view as to what that meant, and that person said, "It looks as though you could then let it again for a further seven years to the same person". There does not seem to be any merit in that restriction.
As I said, I am the owner of a leasehold property, but, had it been available, I would definitely have bought commonhold—although my legs are lasting better than I expected, and I still hope to hang out a few more years before I need to move into a one-level flat. I might well have been caught in the seven-year plan.
Everyone supports the principle of a body corporate, or the commonhold association, but very few are willing to come forward and do the work. They rely on volunteers from the unit-holders to form the committee that will do the work. Most of the committees in fact appoint a managing agent, but there is still work to be done in checking the work that the managing agent does. Even the meetings of the unit-holders are not well attended unless an item of significant interest to everyone is to be discussed. I recall an application from the occupiers of west-facing units for the cost of sun blinds on their balconies to be met from the general fund. As the building had four corners and four units per floor, only one was west-facing, and 75 per cent of the building faced in other directions. It was a very well attended meeting. All of those who attended made it clear that they had no objection to the 25 per cent west-facing flats having blinds—but at their own expense. Americans say that

477
a sure way of getting attendance at such a meeting is to have as the first item on the agenda plans to concrete over the swimming pool.
Commonhold also applies to commercial premises; for example, professional offices, something that is common in Australia. I am pleased to see that the wider options are included in the Bill.
I do not completely understand the abolition of the residence test in regard to leasehold because I do not know whether it means that the company could have the lease for two years and qualify to buy. I have reservations about the abolition of the residence test, even though it would go against my personal interests because I would have to wait until I had occupied my flat for some time before I could extend the lease. It is a good thing to restrict the right to a longer lease to residents. I have always approved of the fact that in Australia a foreign owner does not automatically have the right to buy anything, anywhere. Anyone has the right to buy a new building, but special permission is required to be able to buy units occupied by Australians. This has helped to keep some property values down and has enabled people to continue to live in them.
I want to respond to some of the points raised in today's debate. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that current leasehold arrangements are unsatisfactory and he discussed the many great merits of commonhold arrangements. If he genuinely believes that they have such merits—I believe that he does—why did he not argue that new constructions should have only commonhold arrangements? I cannot put together his comments on the unsatisfactory nature of leasehold arrangements with those about the aim of continuing them. His statement that the Bill will put on course reform for this century suggests that we should aim at making commonhold the norm. I am aware that professional business interests will resist that; the Government may be concerned about that. When people have the option of buying commonhold, they will not want to return to leasehold again, especially if unrestricted commonhold is available without the lease restriction, which is the biggest drawback in this context. If the Bill will put on course reform for this century, we should support commonhold much more strongly.
My noble friend Lord Selsdon described the situation clearly. He said that the proposal presented no problems for new buildings, although he went on to explain how the whole system of leasehold property is a matter of money. That is exactly right.
I agree with some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but not with others. For example, he was not opposed to letting restrictions. I am. He said that there should be no marriage value when a lease was extended. I agree. He also said that very few new houses involved leasehold arrangements. Is not that in itself a sign that developers know that it pays more to build freehold, because that is what people want? The moment that people see blocks for sale with commonhold arrangements they are prepared to pay more because it is their property, their home and their future.
478
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made some interesting comments on widening the powers under the Landlord and Tenant Acts. I want those powers to be widened in relation to leasehold blocks that do not have a reserve fund or a sinking fund—whichever phrase one cares to use. There should be a provision that allows the courts to alter leases by writing; in the right to provide for a sinking fund or reserve fund. People often find that they are faced with an enormous levy because no one has thought far enough ahead about the major repairs that will arise in a block. Leaseholders who do not promptly pay their service charges should certainly be immediately liable for interest. It is very unfair to other leaseholders if people simply do not pay up. Some people get away with making late or delayed payments year after year. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rightly said that we do not want to make forfeiture easy, but neither do we want to allow people to get away with not meeting their obligations. The point about the sinking fund is highly important.
When new commonhold blocks are built in Australia, the nature of the sinking fund is clearly set out. People make contributions to it as they go along. When major expenses come up unexpectedly, funds are available to meet them. When one sells one's unit, people will always ask, "What is the basis of the sinking fund?". If it is in good credit, that helps one to sell one's property. One cannot reclaim the money, but the state of the sinking fund is taken into account during the sale of a property. People who make contributions have not lost their money because there is an assurance that funds are available for necessary work.
The greatest problem with commonhold arrangements, which I hope will be increasingly available, is about what happens when a building goes past the point of being any use. It may have been repaired time and again, but modern buildings have a limited life of perhaps 50 or 100 years—who knows? What are we doing in that context? Are we creating the slums of the future? No country has come up with an answer to the problem of gradually setting aside enough funds to rebuild. The problem with everyone owning a small piece of a property, which may be beautiful to behold, is that the day will come when it ends up a derelict slum unless someone buys out all the other owners and gradually acquires the property to rebuild it.
I welcome the Bill and shall take part in its passage through the House.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I do not have specific expertise in relation to the Bill but I have some relevant experience. Some years ago, I was a leaseholder in a small block of flats, and we tried to enfranchise but failed to do so.
When I hear lawyers talking about Acts of Parliament and detailed sections, I become cautious because I am no lawyer. I talk from the point of view of someone who has been at the sharp end of

479
enfranchisement. I am astonished by the amount of correspondence I have received on the Bill. Why might that be? Perhaps because the Bill contains the kernel of a very good idea. However, during the process of consideration and consultation, it has expanded like an octopus to cover increasing numbers of areas, and it has piled complexity on complexity. I inform the Minister who will wind up that it reminds me of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which contained the kernel of a splendid idea but which became extremely complex.
I shall give a brief example. I have made clear my interest in enfranchisement. I therefore sought to chase that issue through the legislation. There was much criticism of the questionnaire and in particular of question QENF10, which sought to elaborate the amount of information to be prepared before an application for enfranchisement could take place. I chased the matter through the consultation paper and draft Bill, where it appeared in Clause 94 on page 42. However, in the Bill that is before your Lordships, it appears in Clause 119 on pages 56 and 57. Between the draft Bill and that which appears before your Lordships, the legislation has expanded dramatically. That has made numerous people, who are not experts but who are leaseholders, nervous about what has been added and about how effective the consultation process was. They are wondering whether the sledge is already half way down the mountain.
My experience of being a leaseholder and of trying to enfranchise was dismal. We were, within the block of flats, the bunch of usual suspects: one elderly lady of a nervous disposition, one gentleman who lived in Hong Kong and who sub-let his flat, a barrister who lived in Dorset and who used his flat as a pied-à-terre and two girls who lived on the top floor. Their father owned the flat and the girls used it when they first came to London to work. Against those serried ranks in the blue corner was, in the red corner, an obdurate landlord who was determined to protect his nest egg, which I believe he had passed to his children. He sought to play out the process and to knock every ball into the long grass. When I read the Bill's provisions, I have my real-life experience in mind.
I an anxious to hear the Minister's responses to a couple of broad issues, the first of which involves enfranchisement. As I understand it, people who do not initially agree to participate in enfranchisement can subsequently join in. There is no penalty for sitting out the first round. That is very unfair on those who seek to do the not inconsiderable work of getting an enfranchisement process in progress. In my case, my fellow tenant in Hong Kong was happy to benefit from the work that we did in enfranchising, but he was not prepared to participate in any way or to pay any costs.
As a subsequent point, the information required before one begins the enfranchisement process is lengthy, as per Clause 119. However, subsection (3) refers to such other information as the Minister may require in the future, or words to that effect. I believe that many parts of the Bill provide something of a blank cheque. Several regulations require detail to be
480
filled in. Although many of the principles are fine, as the legislation progresses through the House over the next few weeks, if the details are wrong we shall end up with a Bill which is far from the one which we thought we were approving.
Secondly, I agree that right-to-manage schemes are a good idea. However, I am not clear what they offer over and above enfranchisement schemes—other than to tenants who do not wish to own—except in one important respect. Surely, right-to-manage schemes will gradually allow a shift of power and value to the landlord. Therefore, we must expect that landlords will push those schemes and discourage enfranchisement, which in my view offers better value for the tenant in the long run.
I also share the view put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Richard, with regard to landlords being members of the right-to-manage company. There will be an inherent conflict of interest and inevitable tensions will arise in the relationship. I accept that a landlord has the right to know of decisions by the RTM company. However, if he is to participate in those discussions and, above all, if he is to vote on them, I believe that that will be a recipe for deadlock.
Finally, I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that commonhold is probably not controversial as a concept. However, I wonder how far it will be used. I believe that a situation will arise in which developers will find it more advantageous to retain the leasehold concept. After all, that is part of the background to the reasons for bringing forward this Bill. Although market forces may bring commonhold rights, I am not so sure about that and I do not have the confidence that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has.
Clearly, we are leaving behind a group of people who will continue to hold their property by means of a long leasehold. They will have to live with an outdated and discredited type of tenure and, far from helping those people, as we plan to do in the Bill, we may make their position worse. I believe that we need to look again at whether better and easier ways exist to enable people to transfer from current long leasehold tenure to commonhold arrangements.
The weakness of leaseholders lies in the fact that they lack information, and I see nothing in the Bill which attempts to balance the availability of information. Leaseholders will not be aware of the ticking clock and that at 90 years enfranchisement carries no marriage value. Often leaseholders are not aware that mortgage companies make it more difficult to obtain finance on an 80-year leasehold property. I believe that we need to spend more time in endeavouring to balance expertise.
Again, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart said, page 118 of the consultation paper refers to the sensible discussion which has taken place with regard to the form of accounts which should be provided to leaseholders. However, that idea seems to have been dropped, or perhaps it is hidden in the schedule to the Bill and I have been unable to pick it up.

481
I understand the desire and the need to deal with the problems of long leaseholders and I understand the need to strike a balance between the parties involved. However, the Bill appears to be highly complex and, indeed, as we follow it through its consultation phase, appears to increase in complexity. Moreover, judging from the correspondence which I have received, the Bill appears to be unacceptable to a large number of the people whom it purports to help. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I very much welcome the main thrust of this long-awaited Bill, the rationale of which has been set out comprehensively by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. At the start, I declare an interest in a London flat which has a 99-year lease with approximately 75 years to run. I shall illustrate some of the issues in the Bill by reference to my direct knowledge arising from that property, and I trust that that is in order. My experience is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
Great hopes are being placed in the Bill by residents' associations such as mine—that is (this is an important point) in blocks of flats which have shops and restaurants below. I am anxious that their hopes will not prove to be unfounded.
Having talked to my fellow residents and, indeed, to national representative bodies, it has become apparent to me that a serious gap has been revealed in what the Bill intends to achieve for a significant sector of leaseholders. So far, that issue has not been addressed in this afternoon's debate. Therefore, I am sorry to have to bowl some fairly fast balls at my noble friend Lord Bach, whom I warmly welcome to his first innings at the Dispatch Box. But I am sure that he will find a way to respond in a constructive manner. Those points can be pursued in Committee, but it may be of assistance to the House, as well as to Ministers, if I spell them out specifically today.
My first major question arises from the fact that the Bill is drafted in such a way that the provisions refer to a whole block of flats and to any shops or other commercial premises below. That point appears in Clause 69. Perhaps my noble friend would check whether I am right about that and correct me if I am wrong. Yet, in many thousands of cases the obligation to create a body to cover both residential and commercial premises is not a viable way of dealing with the issue, not least as we run into the 25 per cent rule, which I shall address in a few moments. Of course, there will be common parts and questions relating to the drains, and so on. However, a vast area of interest concerning the residents is quite separate from that relating to the shops and, even more so, the restaurants.
Why do we need to insist that Boots the Chemists in the shop below must have the same managing agent as the residents? In my own block of 22 flats with shops underneath, over the past 25 or 30 years the managing
482
agent for the residential parts has never been the managing agent for the shops or restaurants. which, as I said, bring their own separate array of problems.
I am of course aware that Ministers must balance a number of interests in dealing with legislation on this subject. However, although I believe that chartered surveyors have issued a statement arguing the opposite point of view, I understand that the Association of Residential Managing Agents and, in large degree, the British Property Federation believe that the philosophy of what I shall dub "the whole block and nothing but the block" is rather rigid. Therefore. in such cases cannot there be an umbrella concept and, under that, separation between the right of management of the residential and commercial parts, as I believe has been supported by the Leasehold Advisory Service?
Of course, the Minister will refer to the new 25 per cent rule. That concerns the proportion of the floor area which is not residential and above which the key provisions of the Bill effectively will not apply. According to my discussions, two problems arise in that respect. First, although it may sound most reasonable—I assume that it will be represented as such—the 25 per cent figure is still too low if the interpretation which I now understand is being placed on it is correct.
Let us take as an example a typical five-storey block—that is, four storeys above shops on the ground floor. There is often a basement which is used for a variety of purposes; for example, storage associated with a commercial premises. If the basement is counted with the commercial premises, that area then adds up to two floors out of six—in other words. one-third or 33 per cent—thus disqualifying the residents. So the initial arithmetic in the example I cited we had assumed gave a commercial share of 20 per cent—one out of five—but the interpretation of the Bill, on the contrary, could make it 33 per cent. Am I correct in that assumption? Then there is the question of why the stairs, which are purely for residents, do not by the same token count as residential.
The very disappointing net result of all this—I stand to be corrected but I am referring here to Schedule 6 (1)(4), taken in conjunction with paragraph 1(2) of the schedule (page 78)—is that in my calculation up to half the leasehold flats in the country will not only be on the wrong side of the cut-off point but, given that the 25 per cent rule in effect governs the Bill as a whole, they get no easement of their problems at all, not just on enfranchisement but in relation also to many other aspects of management.
If that is so, these tens of thousands of residents—or it may even be more—will on these key aspects be in the same position as they are now, with no progress towards what they thought was coming their way after all these years. I assume that improvements in the eligibility rules, for example, will be subsumed in the 25 per cent test.
This Bill contains a number of very important reforms, and hundreds of thousands of people will benefit. I congratulate the Government on the

483
carefully worked out arrangements for those affected, but do Ministers agree with my arithmetic covering the large part of the field which is not affected?
In the case I have described, the options appear to be as follows. First, we could further increase the percentage hurdle on commercial premises which preclude RTM and RTE. Secondly, we could revisit the schedule as regards the definition of "common parts" so that the stairs and the basement are counted in a similar way. Thirdly, we could allow residents to manage the residential parts of the property separately, albeit under an umbrella arrangement.
I turn now to my other main point concerning managing agents. Given the circumstances I have described, I attach great importance to the improvement of the lot of leaseholders who, in effect, will continue with the present system but who need much more protection, whether they have decided not to go down the route of enfranchisement or direct responsibility for management or, as I have explained, are actually ruled out of managing their residential area. Unless the Bill is amended, a considerable number of people will be in this category.
May I therefore offer one modest amelioration for those many blocks which will otherwise receive very limited benefit from this legislation as drafted? My proposal concerns the rights and the credibility of the residents' association and its management company. The present law on consultation on the appointment of the managing agent seems to me to mean virtually nothing. We must provide for the proper recognition, with the agreement of the residents' association, of some basic issues, beginning with the appointment of the managing agent, who is of course the point of contact with the residents.
What in practical terms do I mean by that? I mean that the Act should provide for the appointment or dismissal of the managing agent in agreement with the residents' association, no doubt applying the 50 per cent membership rule as in other sections of the Bill. This would in effect amend the 1987 Landlord and Tenant Act.
This is a key aspect in building the confidence of leaseholders. That confidence is necessary, given the complexities of accountancy and other aspects of the present system. This reform would also help the underlying weakness of many such bodies. It is an issue which this debate neglects at our peril. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Richard refer to this. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, also spelt out certain practical difficulties.
Most such bodies are actually run on a wing and a prayer. They need independent advice, legal as well as practical, from the managing agent just as much as the freeholder—who is normally, by definition, a much bigger organisation—with all the resources that this implies. I am not talking about occasional advice from advisory bodies, excellent though they are, but about an ongoing relationship based on trust. Perhaps we should accept the concept of the freeholder being entitled to attend statutory meetings. I have been
484
thinking about what has been said on this. Perhaps we could invent a new concept, such as separating an agenda into Part A and Part B.
I am not coming from a position of being a general critic of leaseholding. It is totally unrealistic to talk of abolishing it overnight without damaging somebody's equity. In any event, the underlying reality in blocks of flats is that at the end of the day the relationship between an individual flat and the concept of collective legal responsibility is always there. The commonhold concept will prove its worth over the medium term. Moreover, I am very impressed by the complex, yet essential, tests over the two key instruments of reformed leasehold: the right-to-manage company (RTM) and the right-to-enfranchise company (RTE).
I therefore hope that the Government will agree to look at the small print on this question for the Committee stage. I shall give a note to the Minister summarising where specific amendments would probably meet these points, perhaps as a halfway house. I ask my noble friend not to close the door prematurely on the points I have raised. They could help to prevent many people being disappointed, and the vast majority of those affected will recognise the tremendous job the Government have done in getting as far as this. I very much look forward to commending the final result.
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I must first apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon. I regret to say that normal service on our railways has yet to be resumed. Perhaps I may also declare an interest in that I am a vice-president of the National Housing Federation, and later I shall raise some of that association's concerns.
This is, as others have said, a long-awaited piece of legislation which has received mixed reviews but which is regarded as quite good on the whole. To some extent of course it depends on where you are coming from, and we have heard that already this afternoon. If you are a resident you have a different view from those involved in the property industry in its wider sense and also perhaps from those in the legal profession—those who now have to deal with the complexity of the law surrounding leasehold tenure.
Many who live in leasehold properties are disappointed that the legislation does not totally replace leasehold with commonhold, as we have heard already this afternoon. In his opening comments the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that people were expecting rather too much. I suspect that that is probably due to some of the extravagant language used in respect of leasehold, not only during the passage of the last Housing Bill in 1996, in which I took part, but also in the Labour Party election manifesto. More recently, the Minister of State concerned with the environment, Hilary Armstrong, stated in 1998 in the foreword to the Green Paper that the leasehold system was fundamentally flawed and not fit for the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first.

485
In addition, those who live in leasehold properties are concerned that the proposals coming forward will be subjected to the very commplicated and onerous burdens of company law, which they believe was designed for something rather different. Procedures are cumbersome, and penalties are rather heavy if you do not stick to the letter of the law. There is also the view held by those living in leasehold properties that the Government have not really taken the opportunity to implement radical, root-and-branch reform and are merely adding to the already bureaucratic system of laws and regulation. We have heard today that there will be much more regulation with the Bill. That view is shared by the Law Society, which believes that further legislation which does not consolidate that which has gone before will merely add to the complex and confusing nature of the issue. That will be a great disadvantage to consumers, which is one of my main interests in the matter.
Those in property in its wider sense have different viewpoints from those who perhaps live in leasehold properties. On the whole, they welcome the thrust of the Bill. However, they have concerns, which I share, and which have been alluded to today. The Government are keen that new build will take on commonh old tenure. However, it would appear that volume housebuilders have not given much thought to that form of tenure. At a British Property Federation seminar in October last year, Dr Stuart Hill, who was at that time Chief Executive of the Housebuilders' Federation, described commonhold as the dark secret of the housebuilding industry, commenting that few knew about it and those that did were not saying anything about it.
That carries over to institutional investors. There is anecdotal evidence that they are reluctant to consider investing in commonhold developments. That may be because that is not a tried and tested system. I look forward to hearing from the Minister when he winds up how the Government propose to address those important issues.
I turn to leasehold property. Both the British Property Federation and the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leaseholds (CARL) are concerned about the quality of management. Having been involved in all areas of housing for a number of years, I, too, am concerned about that issue, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. There appears to be no requirement that whoever takes over the management should be competent to do so, nor any requirement for any form of quality control. As the Bill progresses I hope that at the very least it will contain explicit reference to the fact that those who will exercise the right to manage will have to show that they acknowledge formally the types of responsibilities, obligations and standards one would expect in that role.
It has been argued that there has never been a requirement on a landlord to demonstrate competence to manage. However, I believe that there is a desire in all forms of tenure these days to improve the quality of management and to have a decent standard to protect tenants in whatever tenure. I hope that during the
486
passage of the Bill the Government will take that on board. Reference has been made today to the fact that in management not all landlords are of the very best. It is quite easy for incompetent and corrupt landlords to become managing agents of companies and to defraud leaseholders.
I turn to another issue, on which my noble friend Lord Goodhart dwelt at some length; that is, leasehold valuation tribunals. I was responsible for leading on the last Housing Bill in another place for my own party, the Liberal Democrats. I know how strongly people felt at the time about the issue. I was able to persuade the Government of the day of its importance and to amend the Bill. Despite that, recent research by Sheffield Hallam University for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions shows that cases take between 10 and 12 months to resolve. Many people who took part in the survey and who were interviewed felt that tribunals were a much better forum than the county court for insurance and service charge disputes, a point raised earlier by my noble friend. I strongly support him in his view about the importance of legal aid. We hope that the Government will consider that important point, which has been raised by other agencies.
Finally, I turn to the position of registered social landlords, which has not yet been raised today. The National Housing Federation, which speaks for registered social landlords, has one or two concerns which I hope to be able to raise during the passage of the Bill. Perhaps I may touch briefly on one or two. The federation is particularly concerned about membership of right to manage companies in Clauses 71 and 72.
As the Bill is now drafted, assured tenants are not permitted to be members of right to manage companies. It is suggested that landlords should be enabled to vote on behalf of assured tenants. Otherwise, assured tenants will effectively be disenfranchised and their needs within a block will neither be recognised nor given sufficient weight when decisions about the future management and the maintenance of the block are made. I hope that the Government will consider simplifying the voting arrangements for right to manage companies in the legislation. I shall bring forward suggestions at a later date.
I turn to enfranchisement of houses, the low rent test, which appears in Clause 135. Perhaps I may give a little background. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 empowered leaseholders to acquire their freeholds, which was called enfranchisement, provided they fulfilled a number of qualifications, one of which was the low rent test under which the annual rent, excluding the service charge, should not exceed two-thirds of the rateable value.
The low rent rest was devised because it was necessary to find a way to distinguish the type of tenancy, normally known as the lease—which typically had a low ground rent—from other types of tenancy which had a substantial weekly or monthly rent. Although leases granted by housing associations

487
were excluded from that legislation, it became clear that many had slipped through the net. I refer, for example, to those which were originally granted by another body, such as a local authority. The Housing Act 1996 sought to rectify the situation but failed to do so totally effectively. As a result, a particular group of people, those in shared ownership of houses, may currently acquire their freeholds by enfranchisement. However, that effectively means that registered social landlords can be legally obliged to sell publicly-funded housing for potentially very small sums in a way which we believe was never contemplated by Parliament.
I hope that the Government will consider amending the clause or perhaps inserting a new clause to ensure that shared ownership houses can only be acquired by shared owners through the process of "staircasing"; that is, gradually increasing one's interest in a property to 100 per cent as one's situation improves.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I look forward to the progress of the Bill. I hope that we will be able to amend it in the ways mentioned today. Having said that, I know how difficult it must have been to tackle the issue. I am pleased that the Government have consulted as widely as they have. I hope that that consultation will continue through the passage of the Bill so that some of the matters which concern all noble Lords here today can be resolved.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before turning to the provisions of the Bill, perhaps your Lordships will indulge me in what I was about to describe as a small "trot" but perhaps I should say "canter" down memory lane to put the Bill into context.
It is some 20 years since I was chairman of the housing committee in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, a council of which I am still a member. At that time I endeavoured to find a legal process whereby the council could compulsorily purchase the freehold of a block of flats to sell on to the lessees.
It was at the time when many owners of blocks of flats—usually the respected insurance companies which had benevolently held and managed the freehold of these premises for years—saw the opportunity of a rising market to divest themselves of these investments.
As I am sure your Lordships will recall, the property market in the late 1970s was buoyant and increasingly valuable. The freeholds were often bought by companies of overseas investors who, in many cases, as soon as they had made the purchase became invisible to the residents as well as to the authorities in this country. Often the holding companies were registered abroad and no managing agents were appointed. Repairs went undone or were carried out at exorbitant costs; service charges rose dramatically and were unchallenged; and access to familiar and helpful management vanished. In many places, a kind of property anarchy ensued.
488
I recall that two of Kensington's previous MPs, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and Dudley Fishburn, who will be known to many of your Lordships, were energetic in their promotion of and support for legislation to resolve the problem relating to those who were not the owners of the land on which their homes stood. Like me, they recognised that within this context there were freeholders and landlords who strove to maintain their property and that the legislative efforts to resolve the problems described above threatened their investments and land as well as that of others less motivated.
That is the history of the matter. Now we have a further attempt to redress some of the inherent problems associated with the dichotomy between freehold and leasehold and/or those who rent their homes.
The introduction of commonhold was predicated in the 1996 draft Bill of the previous government. The provisions in this Government's version—which followed a manifesto commitment—nearly five years later have been given only a very half-hearted cheer from those who have been urging change on successive governments: those who represent long leaseholders, in particular the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association and the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leaseholds, both of whose briefings I have read and considered.
As constructed, it is fair to say that the Government's proposals are unlikely to result in many successful commonhold associations being formed from among those who currently hold long leaseholds. However, as has already been said, there may be more success where new developments are introduced with commonhold from the outset.
The main stumbling block to success lies in the requirement for there to be a 100 per cent sign-up by leaseholders to convert to commonhold. The possibility of any putative association being able to identify the owners of the entirety of the premises involved, particularly in a large block of flats, is improbable. Many such flats are owned by those who work abroad and let the premises to others on a short-term basis. Some are owned by the freeholders of the block. Some are registered to investment companies with no identified responsible person. Therefore, any group trying to form a commonhold association would struggle to identify the salient parties and in all probability would be frustrated in their efforts to do so. Under those provisions, just one objection would render the whole process inoperable.
Should any association be formed, it would be unlikely to be able to operate as, under Clause 35(3), the same requirement for 100 per cent agreement presents itself. The question here of course is: 100 per cent of what? Is it 100 per cent of owners or 100 per cent of those voting? That situation must be clarified. If the Government are serious in their intention to introduce commonhold, they must reduce the qualifying percentage to a lower figure, otherwise the concept will be just that; an idea only.

489
Concern is also being expressed about the requirement for all commonhold associations to be run under the complicated regime of a company limited by guarantee rather than under specially constructed provisions such as the American or Australian models, which my noble friend Lady Gardner clearly outlined today.
I turn briefly to other aspects of the Bill. The first is the whole question of further enfranchisement of leasehold properties with diminishing leases. There are concerns that, once again, the Government's proposals will be unworkable, particularly because in many parts of the country the estimates of the marriage value of the combined leasehold and freehold values will be so high as to render the passing of the property to the existing leaseholders, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, unobtainable.
Leaseholders whom I know in such situations feel very let down by the current proposals and it may be necessary to consider how to make those arrangements somewhat less loaded against those who want to enfranchise. I hope that the Government will do that. The system is now well established in most areas of the leasehold structure. However, it is still unobtainable to those who did not qualify under previous enfranchisement legislation and who have been looking to this Bill to provide an answer for them.
Finally, I turn to the right to manage. Here again, we have the necessity for those who want to avail themselves of this opportunity being able to do so only by the cumbersome requirement to form a company limited by guarantee. The added requirement that the owner or landlord of the property should be a member of that company seems to defeat the objective of enabling the tenants to manage their premises in a way which is satisfactory to them.
The requirement is particularly strange in that the most likely reason for tenants and leaseholders going to the trouble to take over the management is dissatisfaction with the current arrangements, which are almost inevitably provided by or on behalf of the owner. There should be much more flexibility in this provision so that the freeholder or owner may be a member of the company, but does not have to be. In addition, there needs to be much greater clarity on the variation of leases to prevent bad leases being handed to the new company and on the detailed management of information which is handed over from the landlords to the new management company before it formally takes over.
Curiously, as I understand it tenants of both local authorities and housing associations are excluded from the provisions of right to manage. In these days, when there is considerable interest by tenants in managing their own estates and experience in doing so, it seems strange to prevent those whose local authority may be less enlightened than others having the opportunity to do so.
This Bill has been a long time coming. It would be good if by the time it leaves this House some of the concerns that I and others have raised have been dealt with satisfactorily. I hope to play a part in persuading
490
the Government of the merits of considering changes along the lines I have outlined so that in the end we have a thoroughly good and satisfactory Bill.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first, I want to declare an interest. Together with my wife. I am the holder of two long leases in London and have been since 1970. I point out to noble Lords—I do not declare an interest—that I was involved in the debates that took place before the 1993 Act during which time many of the problems which have emerged this afternoon were also discussed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out, as a concept commonhold has been around for some time. I am glad that this Bill was a manifesto commitment by my party and that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has seen fit to introduce it this afternoon. Therefore, in general I support it and very much hope that it will become law. However, when these matters were considered at the time of the previous government, the whole question of human rights was not really taken on board. It is right to acknowledge at the outset that human rights play a large part in this legislation.
This Bill is only one step in the abolition of leasehold. I agree with those who say that leasehold as a form of tenure is out of date. However, one cannot simply abolish it outright. As I argued from the Benches on which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, now sits, leasehold is a contract between two parties. Either one buys out the contract in one form or another or one lives with it. When I sat on the Benches opposite I was prepared to accept that imperative because leasehold cannot simply be abolished. Having said that, the Government have taken a number of measures to move towards the phasing out of leasehold.
When I sat on the Bench now occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I emphasised that this was not simply a London problem; it goes much wider. Many people who live outside Belgravia have difficulty with leaseholds, so this is not a problem confined to London.
I turn to commonhold. Apart from new build, there is a question as to who can apply for commonhold. Under the Bill, the freeholder can apply. The reason I intervened during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for which I apologise, is that the freehold must be owned before an application can be made for commonhold; if not, one must buy the freehold. Unless my noble friend Lord Bach advises me to the contrary, I believe that enfranchisement is a prerequisite for an application for commonhold. Leaseholders who do not have ownership interest in the freehold cannot apply for commonhold. That may be of little consequence. Noble Lords are right to say that the 100 per cent qualification for commonhold is perhaps too much. I do not see how anyone can get 100 per cent of leasehold tenants to agree to something. In my 30 years' experience it is very difficult to get leaseholders to agree to anything at all.

491
I suggest to the Government that under the regulations the courts should be allowed to dispense with the requirement for total consent and accept qualified unanimity; in other words, where people are absent or cannot otherwise vote, the courts may grant a dispensation.
This is really an enabling piece of legislation which is not yet in final form. I understand why the Government do not want to present this legislation in its final form. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, will agree that when one begins on a process of this kind one must amend it from time to time. One does not want to have to return to this House and the other place for primary legislation to ensure that it is right. I have no objection to proposals to make regulations, but when my noble friend responds I should like him to provide some kind of timetable as to when those measures will be placed before your Lordships' House in the form of a negative resolution or whatever. Therefore, commonhold is welcome but it is only a first shot.
The right to manage without having to prove incompetence on the part of the landlord or agent is very important. During the passage of the 1993 Act, I argued that case from the Benches opposite. I welcome that proposal. However, noble Lords have raised one or two problems. On what basis can an RTM company assume the management of a property unless it has full information before it begins? It will cost a great deal of money because lawyers, surveyors and all kinds of people will be involved. There must be full information before an RTM company begins the process of requesting the right to manage.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Bach will take a close interest in my next point because I may explore it in Committee. I argue strongly for the regulation of managing agents. There are too many cowboys around. If there is to be a right to manage the Government should provide some means to regulate those who act as agents for RTM companies to ensure that they are professionally qualified and are able to look after the properties. I hope that my noble friend will respond to that point when he winds up.
One turns to the variation of leases. Nobody knows the number of defective leases which do not allow proper management; for example, pre-payments on budgets. Therefore, an RTM company which takes over the management of premises will be required to fund the budget and then claim what it believes is appropriate. As I understand it, that provision was in the first draft of the Bill, and I believe that it is appropriate to insert it in this Bill.
As to enfranchisement, I believe it is right that the balance should be 50 per cent and not a higher figure. As to the residency test, I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I would have thought that some adjustment might be made. It is no good saying that anyone can buy a lease and suddenly enfranchise without any residence test. I would not be worried if the period was, say, three months. However, I am advised that investors might
492
buy leases and then enfranchise on the basis of 50 per cent, possibly against other investors. I should like my noble friend to respond to that particular point.
In our discussions regarding the 1993 Act, marriage values gave us enormous problems. They do still.
I welcome the provision that there should be a reduction to zero on an 80-year lease. On the other hand, someone who has a lease which has run for 79 years is caught up in the process. I hope that my noble friend can give us some indication that there may be a tapering-off arrangement between 80 years down to whenever, or some sort of formula which was suggested by others outside.
Having said all that, I welcome the Bill. It is a constructive attempt to meet the Labour Party's manifesto commitment and to introduce a new and, I hope, successful form of community management in commonhold. My noble friend knows that there are matters that I should like to discuss in Committee. That does not derogate from my enthusiasm for the Bill.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of this detailed and complex Bill. Perhaps with deference to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I should declare a past interest in having practised as a chartered surveyor and being involved in the management of different types of property.
I shall try not to go over ground so eloquently discussed by other noble Lords. In general, like most noble Lords, I support the Bill. But there are a number of areas we need to look at. For example, the practical measures against rogue landlords who make excessive service charges and engage in poor management practice must be welcomed. In theory, the mechanism concerning untraceable landlords appears useful, but, in practice, how will it actually work? It appears somewhat cumbersome.
Concern is raised over converting existing long leases into commonhold. In larger blocks it will be very difficult to get 100 per cent agreement. I hope that the Minister can give some explanation of the Government's thinking. Another area of worry is that of nuisance neighbours who do not fulfil their obligations. This is a fast-growing area.
As my noble friend Lord Selsdon said, the Bill could discourage investors and developers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not convince me that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Williams of Elvel, and my noble friend Lady Hanham raised the point of terms of leases in relation to particular service charges that are paid in arrears. That area must be further examined in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, mentioned the confusion that may occur over mixed residential and commercial properties. The issue needs to be clarified, particularly in relation to the 25 per cent rule.

493
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, both mentioned factors relating to the regulation of management agents. Many managing agents are members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and are regulated by that organisation, but that is not to say that there are no rogue managing agents around. This has been a very useful debate. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his closing remarks.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, had I the misfortune to have trained as a Chancery barrister, I could relish the refinements of the Bill. However, as a mere common lawyer I have the advantage of addressing it from the viewpoint of practical experience because, like many of your Lordships. I was both tenant, now landlord, of a small investment flat, and also freeholder. But I am particularly experienced in this form of commonhold ownership, or at least the similarity which Spanish property ownership has to it, as I am married to a Spaniard.
I welcome the Bill because it honours a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party at the last election. It is a significant commitment because the Bill creates a new form of freehold tenure and accompanies it with a new form of corporate body to make such property-holding effective. That is an historic departure from the century-old freehold and leasehold land law in this country. So, commendable though this change is, the question arises: what are the practical considerations which will lead to this new form of freehold tenure becoming accepted and, one hopes, eventually replacing leasehold ownership?
First, it has to become accepted as part of our property-owning culture. That is a considerable task. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, pointed out, unless developers, bankers and investors treat this as a vehicle for creating residential and business units, it will not work. The Government, therefore, bear the responsibility—an adventurous and pleasant one in my opinion—of proclaiming the virtue of this new form, not just of ownership but of profitable property development. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said, it could embrace property schemes as varied as simple industrial units or residential flats. According to one author, it is a perfect vehicle for residential retirement homes. The prospects are varied and exciting.
It is perhaps even more important to establish among our would-be property owning citizens the belief that commonhold is a worthwhile method of owning property. There are three reasons: first, it allows freehold ownership from the start; secondly, there is no wasting of the asset; and, thirdly, if it becomes accepted culturally, developers will make it a new way of cheaper, one hopes, housing in the private residential market.
I turn from dealing with commonhold in particular to the question which I consider to be central to the effectiveness of this reform—the management of the commonhold development, whether it be residential,
494
commercial or a mixture of both. The management is critically important for three reasons: first, it has to be efficient; secondly, it has to involve reliable accounts; and, thirdly, it has to be effective.
How is it to be efficient? As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out, the success of a community association depends upon the enthusiasm and energy of those living in the particular unit. As the College of Estate Management pointed out years ago about commonhold:
"Successful management depends on the enthusiasm and ability of the individuals concerned".
Human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that in commonhold developments a small number of people will run the development. That requires of the legislation that the framework for a community association should be straightforward and easy to manage and not a deterrent to the interests of the unit-holders.
The second matter is that of reliable accounts. Two aspects are important. First, we do not want to create for community associations the commitments which a small private company would have in submitting annual accounts. Accounts, yes, information, yes, but in a straightforward, stereotyped format that can be shuttled from year to year by the community association merely changing that which is different from the year before. Simplicity is the watchword.
I have a second concern about financial management. It echoes the concern of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The risk that community associations will put their management into the hands of agents is obvious. If the system is to retain credibility, those managing agents must be efficient, honest and reliable. Regulation is surely something seriously to be considered.
My final point about management is that it should be effective. Clause 34 of the Bill has the rubric "Duty to manage". I draw attention to two features in subsection (3). Subsection(3)(a) deals with particular failures on the part of the unit-holder. It says that the directors of a commonhold association,
"need not take action if they reasonably think that inaction is in the best interests of establishing or maintaining harmonious relationships between all the unit-holders".
The felicity with which paragraph (a) is expressed is disarming. It is almost a statement of political principle that where politicians think inaction will create a harmonious feeling among the electorate, they need not act. I do not intend to jest. This is serious.
In every unit of human co-operation there is a dissentient. If one had 10 unit-holders one would be lucky to survive with only one or two at the least. We shall need to examine witrh great care in Committee how this beautifully phrased subsection will work. Otherwise the dissentient will treat it as a free ride at the expense of the others who will pay.
The second consideration arising under the duty to manage is that the directors,
"shall have regard to the desirability of using arbitration, mediation or conciliation procedures instead of legal proceedings wherever possible".

495
I agree. Away with lawyers! They should not be involved in the management of community associations unless it is a position of last resort. Yes, perhaps, to their being involved in the creation or termination of community associations; but certainly not in ordinary management. I commend the objective in the subsection that means of settling disputes other than litigation should be sought.
I emphasise management because following Committee stage and all the refinements made to the Bill, the measure will work only if people think they can manage such associations in a way that will enable them to enjoy their property ownership without stress and inconvenience. I welcome the Bill because it honours a manifesto commitment. I trust that in years to come, when, in my belief, commonhold will be an accepted and major form of freehold ownership, the millions who benefit from it will remember that it was the product of that manifesto.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, perhaps I may take advantage of the gap to say that I entertained for some years the ambition to introduce a Bill of this kind. I should like to congratulate my noble and learned successor on the fact that he has been able to do so. I hope that the result is as perfect as he hopes after your Lordships' House has had the opportunity to improve it or at least to amend it in the later stages.
One other observation has occurred to me while listening to the debate. References have been made to the United Kingdom and to the insertion of commonhold into the law of the United Kingdom. It is true that it is being inserted into the law of a part of the United Kingdom; but as far as Scotland is concerned, there is no need for this particular innovation. We have had a system of ownership of flats for some generations.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, many of us in this part of the United Kingdom have long been envious of the systems in Scotland applying to property.
I should declare an interest as a leaseholder. My experience of holding a lease has been happy, but I am aware of the fragile relationships that can exist between leaseholders and landlords, a relationship that can so easily go sour. In view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who suggested that there may be more benefits in this legislation for lawyers than for leaseholders, and of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I should also declare that I am a partner in a solicitors' practice. I never go anywhere near a lease or a transfer.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart said that "as a lawyer, not as a human being" he finds this legislation "exciting". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and I are lacking in the proper level of enthusiasm. The happy thought did occur to me that I might be a little further on the way to achieving a work/life balance because, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord
496
the Lord Chancellor, the Bill is not the most exciting thing happening to me this week. I shall talk to other noble Lords later!
On these Benches we support the Bill. That is because we are instinctively on the side of the leaseholder, coming, as we do, from a belief in the freedom of the individual to control his own destiny, although we recognise the existing rights of landlords. In this context the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, may feel the same: that the balance of this debate has been very different from the balance of debates on the 1993 legislation. There is disappointment in the scope and the depth of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said that there was no opposition to it. I believe that that is manifestly not the case. Many of your Lordships will have received representations from, among others, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association and the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leaseholds. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, the Bill is not acceptable to many of those that it purports to help.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that expectations are not realistic. As my noble friend Lady Maddock said, this must, in part, be because expectations were raised by the Government and by the Labour Party before it became the Government. I am sad that the noble and learned Lord did not take the opportunity to explain in what respect those expectations were not realistic. We may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on that point at the end of the debate.
The question has been raised as to whether there is any serious chance of the enactment of this legislation. If it is enacted, I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to consolidate residential leasehold legislation. The Law Society will have made representations to noble Lords, as it has to me, saying that there is a particular and urgent need to consolidate existing legislation. It refers in particular to service charges.
Reference has also been made to the regulations that will flesh out the Bill. I should have preferred to see the regulations in draft form alongside the Bill itself—not only for my own benefit in terms of understanding the implications of the Bill, but because I believe that time will be needed for thorough consulation on the regulations outside the House as well as discussion on them within it.
The criticisms of commonhold have largely been of the "too little, too late" variety. It is said that this is not a scheme for existing developments and that it will not be one for the future unless the developer and his financier wish it to be so.
I shall be a little more demanding than my noble friend Lord Goodhart in looking at the unanamity issue. I know how difficult it is to bring forward legislation and so I prefer to tackle the question of definition now rather than leave it for a later date. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I have difficulty in understanding what is meant in this context by "unanimity". Given that expectations of commonhold are high, it would have been helpful to have an

497
explanation of why the legislation has been so confined. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be able to help us.
The British Property Federation has commented that the market needs to be convinced about commonhold and has said that there is anecdotal evidence that institutional investors are reluctant to invest in commonhold developments. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he did not expect opposition to the proposals for commonhold. That seems to be the case, but we should not be too complacent about what it will achieve and how long it will take.
The point has been made that company law is too complex for flat management. While I appreciate that, as a lawyer, I may have gone a little native on this issue, it is not a point with which I agree. However, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, about the need for volunteers. Too often in blocks of flats the management becomes difficult because of the personalities of the few people who are prepared to do the work.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to the accounting provisions for companies. I believe that the accounting obligations on small companies in general should be simplified. They could perhaps be less rigorous while still retaining propriety. We shall need to look at the detail of the legislation.
Reference was made during the debate to the restrictions on leasing. I should be concerned if there were tight restrictions on leasing. I say that for the perhaps philosophical reason that I should like to see the rental market reinvigorated. It should not in any way suffer from more restrictions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raised the fundamental question which cannot be ducked for ever—what will happen when a building is past its sell-by date? As has been said—in this respect I read the legislation in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Williams—one has to start with a freehold which will then be transferred to a commonhold. I should be grateful to know whether any questions of stamp duty arise as a result of the Bill. I make that point now because of the difficulty faced by this House in making amendments with tax consequences.
I turn to the right to manage and the right to enfranchise, both of which points do not lend themselves well to Second Reading comments. I suspect that they will attract a weight of amendments at future stages of the Bill. The right to manage has been said to be the second best option. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about exclusions. I refer in particular, as did the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart, to the landlord's involvement. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lea.
I was struck by the many comments made on the difficulties which stem from bad management by management agents, whose role is central. I suspect that, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, not many of them are members of the RICS. The Bill will not solve that problem. The Government must have
498
received responses to their consultation calling for regulation of such matters as transparency in accounting, audit requirements, and so on. Did the Government consider and discard the inclusion of provisions in the Bill to regulate the activities of management agents? Was that seriously considered? If it was too difficult to include in the Bill, may we expect it to be dealt with in the future?
On the right to enfranchise, how serious are the Government about phasing out leasehold, given that the qualifications for enfranchisement still present a significant hurdle. Questions have been asked about the value of enfranchisement and whether it is right for the leaseholder to pay anything. Although I take seriously the point that a 50:50 split is ECHR-proof, in London it is not evident for more than very short leases that the leaseholder is not paying the same as he would for a freehold property of a similar size. That is a matter of principle, although we shall no doubt see amendments on the point.
We on these Benches will also raise through amendments the issue to which my noble friend Lady Maddock referred and which may at first sight seem inconsistent with the stance I outlined at the beginning of my speech. I refer to enfranchisement where the housing in question is publicly funded, where there is shared ownership and where the intention has been to increase the ownership by what is known as "staircasing".
The need for support for the leasehold valuation tribunals in various ways, including financial, has also been referred to. It is not perhaps a matter we can advance through amendment, but it is certainly a serious point.
Many of the points that were raised by noble Lords are technical and are more suitable for later stages of the Bill. I am conscious, too, that important business is to follow this debate. We wish the Bill a fair wind. We wish it a safe arrival in harbour, in a good state, before the tempests of the general election are upon us.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a tenant of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple—on a very short lease! Like the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I am not a chancery lawyer; but, unlike him, I am obliged to give as convincing an impression as I can that I am one.
As with so many other imaginative initiatives for law reform since the war, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, did much of the initial creative thinking in the United Kingdom, although he would be the first to admit that an idea something like commonhold had been around in the United States for many decades. Furthermore, in Australia, stratum estates or strata title started in 1960 in Victoria and soon became widespread.
In effect, the Bill aims to introduce the idea of stratum estates into English law. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has pointed out, my own party sought to do so in the early and mid 1990s. It was to his great disappointment that

499
ultimately he was unable to take the legislation forward. It is of course the policy of the Opposition, therefore, to support the concept of commonhold.
As regards the part dealing with commonhold, my principal difficulty with the Bill is its lack of detail. If your Lordships consider the great property reforms of the early 1920s initiated by a great predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, the Earl of Birkenhead, it would be noted that extremely detailed consideration, over a long period of time, was given to the five Bills involved. Most of the detail in the legislation, moreover, was finally included either in the main clauses or in the schedules to the Acts.
I should express a real concern here. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that the difficulties with the Bill are not so much difficulties as regards land tenure, but difficulties as regards estate management. The noble Lord set out, in what I thought was convincing detail, the nature of the problems that will need to be confronted if commonhold is to prove a success. But it is clear from Part I of the Bill that none of those issues is grappled with in the clauses. They will be dealt with in regulations.
I submit that those issues should form schedules to the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he comes to wind up for the Government, will be prepared to address this matter. Are the regulations available in draft form? If they are, then surely the noble Lord would have no objection to tabling those regulations before we consider the Bill in Committee. However, if the regulations are not yet in draft form, then I put it to the noble Lord that the Bill is premature. Ultimately it will be impossible to reach firm conclusions on the desirability or otherwise of the concept of commonhold unless we know the detail, in particular with respect to those issues already set out so authoritatively and convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan.
It is not for me to speculate how the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will respond to noble Lords, but I, for one, would be most reluctant to move on to the Committee stage without a clear idea of what the noble Lord's answers will be to the questions posed by his noble friend Lord Brennan.
I shall turn now to one or two of the more detailed considerations in relation to leasehold reform. It is a matter of great regret that we have not been offered, in addition to the proposals covering commonhold, a Bill to consolidate the rights of tenants under the vast array of leasehold legislation. Those noble Lords who have a passing familiarity with the law as regards landlord and tenant will know that the rights acquired by tenants over the past 15 to 20 years are contained in a large amount of statutory material, most of which is extremely difficult to analyse unless one is an expert in the field.
For that reason, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will say something about the intentions of the Government on consolidation. Given the reported imminence of a general election, his statement could
500
well be only of academic interest. Nevertheless, I should like to know what are the thoughts of the Government in relation to this matter.
That is important because I believe that it will be difficult for existing tenants to convert to commonhold. The Government have imposed a requirement that a shift from a leasehold tenure to commonhold is possible only if 100 per cent of the tenants agree to make that move. I wonder why such an onerous requirement has been placed on tenants in those circumstances. There may be a reason for it which is not apparent to me. Moreover, as a number of noble Lords have already pointed out—I recall in particular the striking speech of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—it is a pity that no requirement has been set down for all new building involving blocks of flats to be held by commonhold tenure.
The right to manage leasehold property is covered in Part II of the Bill. Here again my principal criticism is similar to the criticisms I made on the commonhold proposals. It is difficult to make an objective assessment as to whether the right to manage companies will work until one knows what is to be their structure, what will be their relationship with individual tenants and, perhaps above all, how they are to take over their obligations from those nominated companies which have been fulfilling that task so far.
For example, will an obligation be imposed to take over long-term contractual arrangements which have previously been entered into en bloc? Alternatively, will this be treated as a matter of "take it or leave it"?. As far as I can tell, the only consideration of that matter set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill has been a requirement to negotiate. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain that notion if he feels that he can do so at this stage.
The issue of collective enfranchisement by tenants deserves a little more detailed consideration. Noble Lords will be aware that the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives certain tenants of residential flats the right to compel the owner of the freehold in the property to sell it to them. That right does not apply to premises where more than 10 per cent of the internal floor area is neither occupied for residential purposes nor forms a part of the common parts.
As a number of noble Lords have already pointed out, the Bill proposes that the relevant percentage of floor area for this exclusion be increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. As far as I can discern, no reason appears to have been given for this proposal. In my judgment, its effect is likely to be to dissuade the freeholders of premises from granting long leases for flats above shops or offices; to give the occupiers of flats above such shops or offices a potentially unjustified windfall, to the detriment of the freeholder; and, in other respects, to achieve no purpose that is obvious to me.
Another existing limitation on the right to collective enfranchisement is that only qualifying tenants of flats can exercise the right. A qualifying tenant is a tenant

501
of a flat under a long lease which is either at a low rent or for a long term. The Bill proposes to delete those requirements. The effect would be to extend the right of collective enfranchisement to tenants with leases of between 21 and 35 years whatever the rent; it is presently exercisable by tenants with leases between 21 and 35 years only if they are paying a low rent.
The purpose of the low-rent test, in addition to the requirement that the lease be for more than 21 years, is to differentiate between a true long lease of a flat, in relation to which the lessee might be said, colloquially speaking, to be the owner of his flat, and a rent-paying lease, where the lessee is really a tenant and not an owner. However, the length of the lease alone is not always a sufficient indicator of this. Some leases of more than 21 years have annual rents equivalent to or approaching the rack-rent, and the holders of such leases should not be entitled to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement. In short, there appears to be no good reason for extending the right to collective enfranchisement in this way.
I should like also to say something about Clauses 115 and 116, which concern a matter which has also been addressed by a number of your Lordships. The apparent aim of the clauses is to facilitate collective enfranchisement by removing the requirement that at least two thirds of the qualifying tenants in a block must participate; and that at least half of the participating group must satisfy a residence condition. The removal of the first requirement may be welcomed, but the removal of the second is rather more controversial.
The removal of the requirement for two thirds of the qualifying tenants to participate is beneficial. It could prove an obstacle to an otherwise valid claim, particularly where there is a small number of flats in a block. The Bill, of course, will not allow a minority of tenants to enfranchise, since the participating tenants must be tenants of not less than one half of the total flats.
The arguments surrounding the merits of leasehold enfranchisement were settled by the 1993 Act. The long leasehold system can work unfairly towards occupying tenants, and this in itself provides the best justification for the principle of enfranchisement. The requirement for a two-thirds majority cannot be justified as necessary to protect any tenants who do not wish to participate; and there would seem to be no compelling reason to retain the requirement as beneficial to landlords.
The removal of the residence condition is more controversial. The intention of the enfranchisement provisions in the 1993 Act was to give rights to residential occupiers. It was not their aim to benefit investors. Although under the 1993 Act investors can participate, they can do so only if at least half the participators satisfy the residence condition. That is a reasonable requirement, since it prevents enfranchisement by investors acting alone. It allows residents who wish to enfranchise to rely on the participation of non-residents in order to achieve the necessary level of participation.
502
Given the proposed removal of the requirement that two thirds of the qualifying tenants must participate, it is surely not unreasonable that half of the 50 per cent of the tenants who must participate should satisfy the residence condition. The removal of this condition will allow investors to acquire the freehold. If, for example, all the leases of flats in a block are owned by foreign companies for investment purposes, those companies will nevertheless be able to enfranchise. There would seem to be no justification for this. While it is legitimate social policy to protect home-owners, there is no reason to enlarge the rights of investors in order to give them an uncovenanted benefit at the expense of the freeholder.
Moreover, it is arguable that in giving such rights to investors the Bill would be held to infringe the landlord's human rights. Although the confiscatory nature of leasehold enfranchisement was held in connection with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 not to breach the landlord's right not to be deprived of his possessions, that was on the basis that Parliament was entitled, under the margin of appreciation, to conclude that the long-leasehold system generated injustice and that the tenants under long leases had a moral entitlement to the freehold. Such reasoning would seem not to apply to an investor.
Presumably, the purpose of removing the residence condition is to assist the resident leaseholder in achieving a 50 per cent level of participation by enlisting the support of absent tenants, should it be required. However, a rather less desirable consequence could be that a majority of investors was enfranchised against the wishes of the residents and proved to be undesirable landlords. Thus, even if the rights of the landlord are thought insufficient to justify a residence condition, it may be that a requirement for at least some participation by residents should exist in order to protect resident leaseholders.
Chris Brown, a member of the urban task force working party and a director of urban renewal at AMEC Development, has said that if the proposals in the Bill are put into effect in their current form developers will be scared off from investing in mixed use buildings. He described the proposals as
"a nail in the coffin of urban renaissance"
and said that
"urban renaissance is all about achieving mixed-use buildings, and in order to achieve that you need to find investors prepared to invest in the commercial part of those buildings—usually the ground floor and maybe the floor above. Those investors like to have an element of control over their investment and redevelop it when necessary."
He said that, despite its being relatively easy in the past for investors to keep control of buildings, it was still hard to find backers for this type of venture. He added:
"now the Government is going to find that much more difficult with two measures in this legislation. Firstly, increasing the threshold of commercial space in the buildings from 10% to 25% under which leaseholders can buy the freehold".
The proposal remains in the published Bill.

503
Secondly, he was concerned that the Government
"are also proposing to do away with the low rent test—very often with these city centre buildings, the rents were too high for the buildings to be caught by the legislation. These two provisions will result in virtually all mixed-use buildings being caught by the legislation".
The proposal to remove the low rent also remains in the Bill. Mr. Brown suggested that
"an investor in the commercial element of a mixed-use building used to be reasonably confident that he could continue to own that investment and management for the foreseeable future. Now there is a major risk that this will be taken away from him. Why should anybody invest in the commercial element of a mixed-use building when they can invest in free-standing commercial buildings which are not mixed use? It will be much harder to find that already hard-to-find animal which is the investor in the commercial element of mixed-use buildings."
The second part of Part II concerns the replacement of nominee purchasers by RTE companies. Once again, in my submission, it would have been much more desirable to have the details of these companies and the relationship between them as corporate entities and the leaseholders on the face of the Bill, in the form of a schedule, rather than being left to regulations.
I apologise to your Lordships for taking rather more time than I would normally have wished, but we did not open in this debate, and therefore I have subsumed the opening in the "wind". So I should like to speak for just a little longer if your Lordships will allow me.
I turn now to Clauses 122 and 124. These clauses amend Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act, which regulates the purchase price payable by a nominee purchaser, now the RTE, on an exercise of the collective right of certain tenants of flats to enfranchise under Chapter I of the 1993 Act. Paragraph 210 of the Government's Explanatory Notes states that this clause
"amends Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act to provide that the various values included in the price payable by the RTE company shall be determined as at the 'relevant date'—that is, the date of service of the initial notice—instead of as at the 'valuation date'—that is. the date at which it has been agreed or determined what freehold interests will be acquired by the company."
That appears to be an accurate statement of its effect.
The relevant date is defined by Sections 38(1) and 1(8) of the 1993 Act and the definition of the valuation date in paragraph (1)(1) of Schedule 6 to that Act. The change will clearly favour the enfranchisers to the extent that it will remove any incentive to the freeholder to delay enfranchisement in a rising property market.
Paragraph 211 of the Explanatory Notes states that Clause 123 (Clause 98 of the draft Bill),
"amends paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act to provide that the freeholder's share of marriage value should be 50% in all cases, rather than the greater of (a) such proportion as is agreed by the parties or determined by a leasehold valuation tribunal and (b) 50%".
The change will clearly favour the franchisers at the expense of the freeholder and the owners of intermediate leasehold and other interests by providing that the freeholder's share of the marriage value will be 50 per cent and no more in every case,
504
whereas at present it cannot be less than 50 per cent in every case. To the extent that the freeholder's share of marriage value on a fair valuation might be held to exceed 50 per cent, that effectively means that he will lose the excess over 50 per cent. It will not fall within the compensation provisions of paragraphs 5, 8 and 13, which apply only to loss resulting to the freeholder and the owners of the intermediate leasehold. The loss to the persons whose interests are being acquired will depend upon what would otherwise have been the marriage value in any given case.
It seems, nevertheless, to constitute a form of expropriation which serves no obvious social purpose. It will not even result in the avoidance of a valuation exercise of determining the marriage value, or the computation of the respective shares of those entitled to share in the freeholder's share.
Paragraph 212 in the Explanatory Notes states that Clause 124 of the Bill,
"amends paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the 1993 Act to provide that where the unexpired term of each of the leases held by participating members of the company exceeds 80 years, at the relevant date, the marriage value shall be taken to be nil".
Clause 99 of the draft Bill contained a similar provision in relation to unexpired terms of 90 years, and no explanation has been given for the reduction of the relevant period in the Bill. The change will favour the enfranchisers, again at the expense of the freeholder and the owners of intermediate leasehold properties. I find this a particularly curious change to have made. What is the logic of dropping from 90 to 80 years? If it makes no difference, why make the change? If it does make a difference, this is surely potentially an act of expropriation by a public authority of a property holder. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will comment on that as well.
Lastly, I turn to leasehold evaluation tribunals. The Minister will be aware that the jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunals has increased incrementally over the years. It now covers not only the valuation of freeholds, extended leases and modern ground rents under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, but also questions relating to the right of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the appointment of managers under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the reasonableness of service charges under residential leases and the landlord's choice of insurer under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. In some cases the jurisdiction is exclusive, while in others it is concurrent with that of the county court.
As the noble Lord is aware, the Bill will extend the leasehold valuation tribunal's jurisdiction further. Some of the proposed new areas of jurisdiction are likely to involve more questions of pure law and non-expert fact, thus taking the tribunal further away from its traditional areas of valuation and surveying expertise, where questions of law tended to be purely ancillary. It may be questioned whether the tribunal is an appropriate forum to determine such matters.

505
As to costs, the tribunal presently has no power to make any order as to costs. On matters of valuation, the landlord's valuation costs, which a tenant must pay, do not include his costs before the tribunal. As many of your Lordships are aware, applications to the tribunal can often involve very large sums of money.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Lord has spent 26 minutes giving the House the benefit of his undoubtedly sensible views. Perhaps he might feel it appropriate—and I make only a suggestion—that he draws his remarks to a conclusion to allow my noble friend to respond to the debate. I think that there are other matters which need to be taken on the Floor of the House.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his observations. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that in normal circumstances I am, on the whole, a speaker who takes up very little of your Lordships' time. On this occasion we had no opening speaker; this is a highly technical Bill that involves matters which, in my view, ought to be on the face of the Bill, but are not; I think I am entitled to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to these issues. They affect the fundamental rights of property owners, whether on the side of the landlord or of the tenant, and therefore are matters of great personal interest to them. I am entitled to point out the flaws in the Bill where I see them. The Bill involves complex issues of law and, therefore, my explanation of where those flaws lie is sometimes likely to take slightly longer than normal.
In one sense, the noble Lord has had great success, however, because I cannot remember where I was.
Paragraph 10 of Schedule 11 to the Bill would provide for the first time that a tribunal may award costs against a party in proceedings before it, but only if an application is dismissed on the ground that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, or where the party in question had acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. The amount payable cannot exceed £500.
In my submission, the tribunal should be given a broader discretion as to both the circumstances in which costs may be awarded and the amount of such costs. At the very least there should be an express power to award costs occasioned by an adjournment. In high value matters, at any rate, there is no reason why the tribunal should not be able to award costs related to the outcome, particularly given that much of its jurisdiction is now devolved from the county court. In exercising its power the tribunal could have regard to the financial resources of the party.
More generally, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that it provides a power to make regulations enabling the tribunal to exclude the whole or parts of cases of parties who fail to comply with directions. No such power appears in Chapter 6 or Schedules 11 to 12. Tribunals ought to have such a sanction, either instead of or in addition to the costs sanction to which I have referred.
506
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 11 provides for procedure regulations to include provision for the determination of applications or transferred proceedings without an oral hearing and by a single panel member. It is not known what sort of application is envisaged to be appropriate for determination in this way. At the very least, in order to satisfy the human rights convention's right to a fair and public trial, it should be stipulated that any such regulations should include provision entitling an aggrieved party to a hearing before a full tribunal. In the circumstances, it is to be doubted whether the regulations envisaged by paragraph 8 will have any real use.
I had intended to go on to consider the provisions on forfeiture, but in the circumstances I think I will sit down.
6.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): My Lords, I first declare an interest as a leaseholder of a London flat. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In their different ways, individually and collectively, they have all shown enormous expertise in this difficult but important matter. The debate has highlighted large and small issues, which, of course, will have to be teased out in the normal way as the Bill progresses. I hope that the House shares the Government's view that the policy aims of the Bill are good and that the Bill itself is a suitable vehicle by which to achieve those aims.
If I were to attempt to deal with even one-third of the good points made during the debate, I would succeed only in making myself even more unpopular than I already am on all sides of the House. I do not intend to do that. I intend to limit myself to 20 minutes. I have no doubt that I shall be reminded by those behind and in front of me if I exceed that estimate. I shall try in due course to deal with some of the major points that have been raised. That is not to say that those which I omit are not major, but it seems to me that there are some essential Second Reading points that need to be dealt with. The others can wait until another day, perhaps not very far off, when we meet again in Committee.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in opening, the concept of commonhold goes back many years. Noble Lords will recall that the previous government twice consulted on draft commonhold Bills during the 1990s. In that regard, I should like to say what a pleasure it was to hear, albeit shortly, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who played such an important part in drafting that proposed legislation. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that our Bill achieves its end with greater simplicity than did previous draft attempts. Having heard the debate today, I may have to revise that assumption. However, we are speaking only about matters of detail and angles of approach. At base—and this is very important—all the schemes that have been developed are very similar, and I believe that there is widespread support for the principle of commonhold.

507
We are also grateful for the support for our objectives in relation to leasehold reform in Part II of the Bill. Our reforms are intended to address the current imbalance that exists between landlords and their leaseholders, and to provide leaseholders with greater security and control over their own homes. We are confident that those objectives will be achieved by this Bill. A number of very interesting suggestions have been made. We do not have a closed mind on these matters. We shall give them proper consideration. It is a complex subject. We want to make sure that it is correct. However, our view is that some of the aspirations of some leaseholders are unrealistic. We have to recognise the legitimate interests of landlords. We shall not be able to accept some of the more radical changes that leaseholders have demanded. On the other hand, I am sure that some less reputable landlords would prefer that we did not legislate at all on this issue. In drawing up our proposals, we have tried to strike a fair balance.
Before dealing with the specific points that have been raised, I should like to make a general point. The Bill has been described by some as a missed opportunity. They believe that we should now act to prevent the building of any new, residential leasehold developments. I shall return to that point. Others take a harder view, namely, that we should act now to, in effect, abolish leasehold tenure and hand existing properties to their leaseholders in a gigantic windfall. We have tried to strike a balance. We therefore do not have much sympathy for that view. We believe that even to follow the less extreme view would be irresponsible.
We have been described, as have all governments in their time, as arrogant. It would be unforgivably arrogant to do away with a historic tenure, however open it is to criticism, without being certain that the replacement scheme will work at least as well. We believe that the Bill does the trick. First, it introduces commonhold, which, under a variety of names, is a well tried and trusted means of managing co-operative living all over the word. The speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is living proof of that. Her experiences in New South Wales were of particular interest to the House. Secondly, it greatly improves the lot of those living in leasehold properties, by giving them a much easier route to enfranchisement and a no-fault right to manage their developments. We believe that those two innovative sets of provisions will work well. However, we must allow for fine tuning. To act precipitately would be to take risks with a fundamental part of the lives of millions of people.
First, I deal shortly with why we believe that the requirement for conversion from leasehold to commonhold should be 100 per cent. We may, of course, return to that point. The Government take a firm view on this. We recognise that it is a high hurdle to jump. However, the alternative would be to allow conversion with anomalous leaseholders remaining. One of the fundamental tests of commonhold governing its establishment, operation and management is that all unit holders have an equal
508
interest in the commonhold. If conversion with less than 100 per cent agreement were permitted, the resulting residents' group would not be a commonhold.
I turn to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for which I thank him. We shall need to consider many of his points. However, I deal at this stage with only a couple of them. First, with regard to finance for leaseholder management companies, we cannot dictate to lenders. That is because leasehold management companies may have little to offer as security, but we shall be very willing further to explore the issue with representatives of those lenders.
A further, general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was that the Bill should go further to harmonise the rules for houses and flats—for example, that the valuation date for the enfranchisement of flats should be the date of the initial notice. We agree that it would be desirable to bring the rules governing the enfranchisement of houses and flats more in line. We are glad to say that Clause 122 of the Bill already meets the noble Lord's specific point in relation to flats. As for houses, the valuation date will now be the date of the initial notice.
I turn to the general point raised by a number of noble Lords—latterly, and perhaps with most feeling, by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—about why there is a need for so many regulations. The noble Lord will recall, not because he was there but because of his knowledge of history, the monolithic nature of the 1925 legislation. The Land Registration Act, sections of which have been much criticised, relies to an enormous extent on the regulations associated with it. We believe that a completely new Bill is required to bring about the changes necessary for the new century. We are incorporating into the regulations the changes that we believe may need to be made over time. I can tell the House that we hope to have a model CCS, a memorandum and articles, available for Committee stage. The most significant matters relating to the formation, operation and winding up of commonholds will be detailed in those model documents.
Commonhold will provide a new way of holding property in England and Wales. For most people, the Bill will be an introduction to commonhold terms and concepts. Therefore, it is appropriate to strive as best we can for simplicity and brevity on the face of the Bill. It must be stressed that the Bill is a fully comprehensive framework for the establishment and management of commonhold. We have made significant progress in drafting the main regulations, taking into account the welcome comments made during the consultation process. We are on track for having drafts available by the time the Bill reaches Committee stage. That was one of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his helpful speech.
I turn now to the rights of landlords to be members of the right to manage company; in other words, an RTM. We recognise that leaseholders will often be prompted to exercise the right to manage by some degree of dissatisfaction with the landlord's

509
management. However, to exercise that right—this is an important change in the Bill—they will not have to prove that the landlord is at fault in any way. Therefore, the presumption must be that, as someone with an interest in the property, the landlord is entitled to a continued say in the management of the block, alongside leaseholders. That is why we believe it is only right that he or she should be entitled to be a member of the right to manage company.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not the case that the landlord's interest can be exercised ultimately through a right to compel the RTM to comply with its obligations as to the management of the property? He does not need to be a member of the company to do so.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord said in his speech; and that may be so. We shall, of course, reconsider the issue as a consequence of today's debate. However, because we are convinced at present that the landlord's interests will, in nearly every case, be a minority one, we shall need some persuading that landlords should have no right to be a member of the company. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, leaseholders can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a replacement manager to be appointed if they are unhappy with the landlord's manager, or to the courts for an order entitling them to acquire the freehold compulsorily. Under those procedures the LVT or the court will need to be persuaded that the landlord's management is seriously defective and that the appointment of a new manager is an appropriate solution. We shall no doubt return to that issue at a later stage.
I move on to the removal of the residence test and the argument that that will open the door to purchases—predatory purchases—by speculators. We agree that the purpose of the right to enfranchise is to benefit bona fide residential occupiers, not speculators. But it has long been apparent that the residence test, which was introduced in the 1993 Act during its passage through this House ostensibly as a safeguard against speculation, was intended by its designers as a means of complicating and frustrating legitimate attempts at enfranchisement. It has certainly been routinely exploited in that way.
The 1993 Act contains another anti-speculation measure, which, in our view, is perfectly adequate. Section 5(5) of the Act prevents a leaseholder from qualifying for the right at all if he is the long leaseholder of more than two flats in the block. Therefore, a speculator cannot acquire the right to enfranchise by a process of piecemeal acquisition of the individual flats in the block. In addition, Section 5(6) prevents anyone getting round that obstacle by acquiring the flats under arranged different names. The residence test itself requires 50 per cent of the enfranchising group to have occupied their flats as their only or principal homes for the past 12 months, or for periods amounting to three years in the past 10 years. Occupation by a company does not count for this purpose. Clearly a recent purchaser cannot pass
510
the test; nor can someone who bought the flat for his or her own occupation but then proved unable to sell a previous home and had to rent it out; or, someone whose main home is in the country and who has a. pied-à-terre in town; or, indeed, someone who is working abroad but intends to live in the flat upon his return. None of those class of people can be fairly described as "speculators".
Some landlords have gone to enormous lengths and have subjected leaseholders to intrusive questionnaires. They have even resorted on occasions to hiring private detectives to check out leaseholders' compliance with these rules if an attempt to enfranchise is begun, or even mooted. Moreover, since the 1993 Act, some landlords have resorted to a policy of letting to companies only—a genuine residential purchaser will be required to take out his lease through a company. The purpose of that manoeuvre is to deny purchasers' their right to enfranchise. Meanwhile, in a large block with a rapid turnover of leaseholders, the residence test has proved something of a nightmare for many who have attempted to initiate and sustain an attempt to enfranchise. We believe that it is high time that the residence test was removed.
I shall now talk briefly about a reserve fund, a "sinking fund", usually to facilitate saving for large items of expenditure, or a reserve fund to finance the repair and maintenance of common parts or units (to be used should any major works be required) that the annual commonhold assessment or budget would not cover. We still have an open mind on the issue as to whether the maintenance of a reserve fund for specified purposes should be a legal requirement of the commonhold association. I hope that we shall return to that point in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall made some very interesting points. However, I do not have sufficient time to deal with all of them. He raised the difficult matter of how the right to manage should apply to properties that are a mix of commercial and residential units. The Bill provides that the rights, and now also the right to enfranchise, will apply to such properties provided that no more than 25 per cent of the property is in non-residential use. My noble friend suggested that that limit will prevent leaseholders from exercising their right.
We believe that the limit of 25 per cent has been chosen for good reason. If the non-residential area is any greater than that, its value will tend to exceed that of the residential part of the building. The Government did not consider that it would be right to empower residential leaseholders to take over the management of a block in which their interest represented less than half the value. My noble friend also made a number of interesting points about precisely how we should calculate the residential and non-residential proportions. He was concerned over how any common parts should be taken into account. We shall also consider those points most carefully.
Several speakers, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Maddock, raised the question of whether using a company is. perhaps, too

511
bureaucratic and expensive. This right to manage is a collective right. Creation of such a right raises questions about the relationship between the individuals concerned and the body through which it is exercised. On the one hand, the choice is leaving that relationship for the individuals and, on the other hand, prescribing the form that it should take. The 1993 way of doing so was to be exercised by a nominee purchaser appointed by the leaseholders. That Act said nothing about the nature and constitution of the nominee purchaser and the relative rights and responsibilities of the purchaser and the participating leaseholders. Although that had attractions, we also believe that it had drawbacks. Our view is that it is now time to take a more prescriptive and uniform approach, based on a company limited by guarantee as regards collective enfranchisement, the right to manage and the commonhold association. We shall no doubt explore that issue at greater length elsewhere.
I have one further detailed point to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned stamp duty. We consider that the registration process should not involve transfers of value and that they should not attract stamp duty. But we shall have to consider the matter further to ascertain whether or not we are right in that respect.
I thank again all those noble Lords who participated in this Second Reading debate. We believe that the proposals in Part I of the Bill will deliver commonhold—a long overdue alternative to leasehold—which has been used all over the world with great success. As I said earlier in relation to our commonhold proposals, we expect to have model forms of the commonhold association's memorandum and articles and the commonhold community statement ready for the Committee stage. We also aim to have available the necessary government amendments, which we hope to table seven days in advance of the first Committee day.
Part II of the Bill will, we believe, considerably strengthen leaseholders' rights and provide an effective remedy for those abuses that have, in spite of earlier legislation, continued to flourish.
My noble friend Lord Whitty and I hope to conduct the Committee stage on behalf of the Government. We intend to hold a meeting with all interested noble Lords of all parties before Committee stage begins in order to discuss the Bill further in a more informal setting. I commend the proposals to noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order 2000
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 12th December, be annulled (S.I. 2000/3231).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that there has been some misunderstanding about the order and my purpose in tabling a Prayer against it. Therefore, let me start by saying what I am not against.
The Prayer is not against the principle of prescribing the morning-after pill. The pill has been in existence since 1985, although in its present strength for only a short time. It is currently available on prescription from GPs, 1,300 family planning clinics and a great many hospitals. Indeed, last year some 800,000 morning-after pills were supplied.
If my Prayer is carried this evening, the law will remain as it was before 1st January this year. My concern in tabling the Prayer is that pharmaceutical chemists will be able to sell the morning-after pill over the counter to women aged 16 and over, and that it will inevitably be bought by girls under the age of 16.
I am not in any way against the principle that pharmaceutical chemists ought to be able to prescribe a wider range of medicines and so help the community at large and take some weight off GPs and the NHS. As proof of this, perhaps I might add a personal note and say that my father-in-law was a pharmaceutical chemist, as were his two brothers. They must have been good at this work as, between them, they won two gold medals and one silver medal from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I therefore see pharmaceutical chemists as a very important part of the health provision of our country, and I have on more than one occasion been very grateful for the help given to me by the local chemist.
My concern about the order is twofold; the first constitutional, and the second in principle.
The order is introduced under the negative resolution procedure, the weakest of all parliamentary procedures. The order was laid before Parliament on 12th December 2000. It must lie on the Table for 40 days after publication, before it becomes law, in order to give an opportunity for debate. In this case, the Government brought the order into force on 1st January, although the 40 days do not expire until 4th February. This order has been brought in, therefore, without any proper parliamentary scrutiny or debate. The debate in the committee in another place was on 24th January and it is in your Lordships' House today.
There was a time when the Government talked about the importance of openness and transparency, but this, if I may say so, is an example of trying to bypass Parliament on an issue of great importance to a great many people, without discussion.
On a separate but related issue, an important order was laid on 17th July last year. I refer to the Prescriptions Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment Order 2000. Under that order, the Government made it possible for the morning-after pill to be distributed free by school nurses and some other health professionals. Under this order it is also possible for chemists to dispense the pill free to girls under the age of 16 where the local health authority has made an appropriate patient group directive.
I suspect that few have heard of this order, or whether or not a patient group directive applies in the area where they live.
Clearly, this is an issue of great concern to parents. This order, however, was not debated in Parliament because it was a general enabling power for health authorities. However, it had wide implications: it makes the pill available to girls aged 16 and under. My point in raising the issue is that it makes much more important the debate on the order before noble Lords this evening.
The second constitutional point is that the order applies throughout the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the age of consent is 17, and the order would appear to conflict in law with that part of the United Kingdom by stating that it will be available to girls at the age of 16. I appreciate that the order was signed by the Northern Ireland Minister, Bairbre De Brún. It would, however, be helpful to know whether the order has the full support of the Northern Ireland Assembly and what the position is in that part of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the principle. I have often been accused in the past of being concerned only about boys. That has never been true, but today I am concerned about girls. My concern, as always, is the protection of young people, and 16 year-olds are children in law. I have also said on more than one occasion that all law sends a signal. So what signal does this order send? First, it says that unprotected sex is all right. This is exactly the opposite of what the whole sex education industry has been saying for at least 20 years. It is of course a very dangerous signal because it will increase the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Department of Health's document, National Sexual Health and HIV Strategy, states:
"Virtually all the sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are increasing. The number of attendances at departments of genito urinary medicine/sexually transmitted diseases now totals 1 million per year, a doubling over the last decade … Chlamydial infection seen in clinics has risen by 21 per cent between 1996 and 1997, and a further 13 per cent from 1997 to 1998 (latest figures). Population surveys have reported rates of chlamydia as high as 20 per cent, particularly in young women. There has been no reduction in the annual number of new diagnoses of HIV made, and the latest annual figures (1999) saw the highest number of new HIV diagnoses ever recorded".
I, for one, think that we should take those figures very seriously.
The Government's Teenage Pregnancy White Paper quotes a boy as saying:
"I have used a condom, but I don't like it. It puts you off. What's the use of having sex if you don't enjoy it?"
The pressure will be on for the morning-after pill. In other words, it will be an encouragement to unprotected sex.
Secondly, promiscuity will be encouraged. Everyone, including GPs, health authorities and now chemists, and, as I have already mentioned, nurses and youth workers, will be making the morning-after pill available to young girls. One can picture the scene. The boy will say to the girl, "why not; you can take the
514
morning-after pill?" The girl will think: "Why not? I could take the morning-after pill and be all right." The consequences of sleeping around will be thought. to be dealt with by the pill. I am sure that this is not what the Government will say because this is not intended.
As I have discovered, there is no difficulty in getting an ID card. Teenage magazines are full of advertisements showing how to obtain one. Not only will the chemist not know the true age of the girl, but he or she cannot consult the girl's GP and find out anything about her medical history. I heard only this morning of the case of a 14 year-old girl getting the pill from a chemist in Newcastle. I think that we should take this situation very seriously. We are saying that young, under-age girls, can buy for £20 a very strong pill, and the chemist can supply it without knowing anything at all about her medical history.
It is, I believe, disingenuous to say the least, as Yvette Cooper did in another place on 24th January at col. 6 of the committee's proceedings:
"It is an offence under the Medicines Act 1968 for pharmacists knowingly to supply the product to women under 16. The chance of the measure having the effect of increasing the amount that young women use emergency contraception is highly unlikely".
On what evidence did she base that statement? It certainly flies in the face of all experience. I hope that the Minister will tell us more.
That further development means that girls can obtain the morning-after pill without the knowledge of their parents. That undermines family life. How many of us would like such medicines to be given to members of our family without our knowledge? In many cases, the current approach ignores the wishes of parents and of many religious people, especially Muslims, who have made very strong representations to me on this matter. They are greatly concerned about the effect of such provisions on their family lives and on their girls.
I was interested to hear that Superdrug was selling the morning-after pill on the Internet as recently as last Friday. I also heard that the Department of Health had asked Superdrug to withdraw it. I understand that the company will resume the scheme after a clarification of the guidelines by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. However, what Superdrug was doing is perfectly legal under the order. If it is agreed to, the home delivery service of the morning-after pill will start again, and the drug will be even more readily available to young girls.
The Government want to halve the number of teenage pregnancies by 2010. Currently, 90,000 teenage girls become pregnant each year, of whom 8,500 are under 16. That is a tragedy for the girls and the babies. The figure has remained at the same level for the past 10 years, despite the fact that millions of pounds have been spent on sex education and on the provision of advice from clinics and doctors. The same is true of the overall abortion rate, which is higher now than it was in 1990. Those developments occurred despite an increase that is almost in four figures in the use of the morning-after pill. If the order's purpose is to bring down the number of teenage pregnancies, the figures do not suggest that it is likely to be successful.
I want to make a final point. Many people, in your Lordships' House and outside it, have put to me the argument that it would be better for a girl to have the morning-after pill than an abortion. As I have already said, the evidence shows that the more morning-after pills there are, the higher the number of abortions.
What, someone might ask, if a girl has had unprotected sex and is at risk? What would your Lordships do? Give her the morning-after pill, or what? Under those circumstances, I would say that she should go, preferably with her parents—or one of them—to her doctor or a clinic or hospital, because that is a far better and safer route. If she went to her GP, she would go to someone who knew her medical records and her family and who could give good advice. That is far better than going to an anonymous chemist, who would know nothing at all about her. If I were in that position and one of my daughters was concerned, that is what I would choose.
Is the morning-after pill safe? Each treatment, I understand, is 50 times more powerful than the previous contraceptive pill. What adults choose to do is a matter for them but, as I have said before, we have a responsibility to the young. The order is one more example in a series of provisions that give unsound and wrong advice. There are very few parliamentary opportunities to take a stand as a matter of principle and to help the young. This is one, and I believe that we should take it.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order, laid before the House on 12th December, be annulled (S.I. 2000/ 3231). (Baroness Young.)
7 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we are undoubtedly faced with a difficult decision. Good men and women can be found on both sides of the argument.
Like others, I have received many unsolicited briefings from people on both sides of the argument. Those who support the Government's policy strongly suggest that the number of teenagers with unwanted pregnancies will diminish. On the other hand, it is argued with equal strength that adultery and fornication will increase. No one can predict exactly what will happen or how far the evils in question will be apparent. If we had to choose between reducing the number of teenage pregnancies and reducing the occurrences of fornication and adultery, I know which I should choose. I know that some Christians will disagree with me, but I cannot imagine how a Christian could think that adultery and fornication were the lesser evil. However, that is a matter of opinion—this is a free country and we sit in a free House.
We have a Government who contain five Christian socialists. To that extent, they are, potentially, the most Christian government in my time. I should add, although the Government may not welcome such comments from me, that this is the best government we
516
have had in my time, except for the government over whom Lord Attlee presided between 1945 and 1950, who were equally good. The present Government are very successful and get things right 90 per cent of the time. Just occasionally, they get things wrong, and it is the duty of candid friends to say so. I could not possibly vote for a policy that would make fornication and adultery more likely—there is quite enough of it already.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to oppose the Prayer and to support the order which will allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter to women who are over 16. I must, however, declare an interest as the president of the Family Planning Association.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, concentrated some of her remarks on the need to protect young girls and to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, which of course are important. I fully support the need to protect young girls and to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. I shall return to that later.
The order was introduced to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies, but it is more about providing access to emergency contraception for mature and older women, and I shall concentrate my remarks on that.
There is a presumption that it is wild, immature young women who will need emergency contraception. In truth, it is mature women in stable relationships—women in their mid or late 20s—who are most likely to wish to prevent an unplanned pregnancy and who need access to the morning-after pill. All the professional bodies support the order as part of a national strategy to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That view is supported by organisations that are involved with public health and family planing, by community and hospital pharmacists and by the majority of the adult public.
One might argue, as the noble Baroness did, that the fact that we can obtain emergency contraception from GPs, family planning clinics, NHS walk-in centres and some hospital and A&E departments makes its sale in chemist shops unnecessary. However, easy access is absolutely essential.
For emergency hormonal contraception to be effective, it is essential for it to be taken with some speed. It is 95 per cent effective if taken within 24 hours, 85 per cent effective if taken within 25 to 48 hours and only 58 per cent effective if taking the drug is delayed to between 49 and 72 hours.
Time and again, women call the Family Planning Association helpline saying that they have rung their doctor but cannot get an appointment within the 72-hour period, that they have not been able to get time off work to see their doctor or that they were embarrassed to discuss the reason that they needed an urgent appointment with the doctor's receptionist. Women often ring the helpline in tears of frustration and despair. A woman who has had unprotected sex, or whose regular contraception has failed, knows that

517
speedy access to emergency contraception is key to preventing an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Those calls for help account for about one-fifth of the calls to the helpline. That is particularly true on a Monday or after a bank holiday. But these women or men—men also ring for advice—are not irresponsible, reckless or promiscuous. They are acting responsibly in trying to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in a world where there is no 100 per cent safe method of contraception and where human beings are fallible.
Allowing EHC to become available directly from Britain's 12,000 pharmacies has many advantages which should not be lost. Women will he able to buy it conveniently, at weekends and when GPs' surgeries are closed, and without embarrassment in an area out of earshot of other customers. Most importantly, it will increase the chance of access to advice from professional pharmacists and will limit the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
I want to comment briefly on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in relation to teenagers. No one would deny that it would be preferable for teenagers to delay having sex. But surely it is also preferable to prevent pregnancy rather than to refuse help. We must accept the reality that one-quarter of teenagers will be sexually active before their 16th birthday. A recent survey in Scotland showed that that is true for 35 per cent of girls and 30 per cent of boys.
My view is that the social and psychological impact of an unwanted pregnancy far outweighs concerns about the morality of prescribing emergency contraception. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised that point and related it to the question of abortion. I want to refer to the remarks of Dr Trevor Stammers, spokesperson for Family and Youth Concern. He made it clear that, although a school's sex education policy should have as its basis providing assistance to young people to resist the pressure to have sex, the morning-after pill is the lesser of two evils—rather the pill than the trauma of a possible abortion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is wrong to believe that providing emergency contraception will tempt young people to try sex for the first time. By the time it is prescribed, sex has already taken place. Voting against the Prayer will in no way prevent teenage pregnancy; a vote in favour will.
After going through all the proper procedures, the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission have advised that taking the morning-after pill is safe and effective and does not constitute an abortion. Medical care is about providing the right support and the right medication at the right time. That is exactly what emergency contraception provides. It provides a useful avenue of accessibility for women and teenagers, and its use is highly responsible in the face of a potential, unwanted pregnancy. Voting for this Prayer tonight will deny many women the right to take that responsible action. I urge noble Lords to vote against it.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the eloquent case made against the Prayer by the noble
518
Baroness who has just spoken. However, I am afraid that I am not convinced. The government official in Nigeria—the father of Damilola Taylor, the boy who was murdered not long ago in Peckham—spoke three days ago of a breakdown in moral values in Britain. I am afraid that he may be right.
Week after week, we in this House are faced with government proposals for sexual licence: Section 28, the reduction in the age of consent, and now this. Clearly, the Government are helping to create the climate of permissiveness which is bringing about the breakdown of which Mr Taylor spoke.
The selling of the morning-after pill over the counter by chemists seems to me to be a mistake. Although it may, if used soon enough, protect against pregnancy, it does not protect against sexually-transmitted diseases—genital warts, chlamydia and gonorrhoea, among others—which may lead to HIV or cervical cancer. Inevitably, it will lead to an increase in unsafe sex and will give the green light to "sleeping around", resulting in a substantial increase in the already very high level of promiscuity.
The drive to provide explicit sex education at ever-decreasing ages and the availability of the morning-after pill on prescription for the past 10 years have not succeeded in improving matters. Abortion rates have not been reduced, and teenage pregnancy rates in this country—already the highest in western Europe— continue to rise.
It is surely very unwise to allow pharmacists to sell this pill to women. They are not allowed to consult the doctor concerned; they have no access to medical records; nor can they check the age of girls who seek to buy the pill. I gather that the pill should not be taken by women who are or may be pregnant, have high blood pressure or heart disease, or have had a stroke or breast cancer. Pharmacists often cannot know whether those who come to them fall into any of those categories. Therefore, risks to health will multiply. Meanwhile, doctors cannot know how often their women patients have used the pill. That can seriously affect decisions about medical treatment and be dangerous to the women concerned.
The selling of the morning-after pill over the counter gives the green light to "sleeping around" and will result in a substantial increase in the current level of promiscuity. For those reasons, I support the Prayer introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am sure that she is right.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I must confess that the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, leaves me somewhat puzzled. I believe that I live in the real world. In the world where I live, people of all ages have sexual relationships. In the world where I live, these days most couples take responsibility for their own fertility. They take advantage of the fabulous advances which have occurred in medical science over the past 50 years and use the hormonal and barrier products which ensure that, when they have a child, it is a

519
wanted child. Surely that is what we all want: that every child is a wanted child, born into a home where it will be loved and looked after properly.
However, in the real world where I live, things sometimes go wrong with the normal methods of contraception used by responsible people. Condoms split or come off; women forget to take their pills; or they may be sick and lose the pill. Human beings are not perfect. In those situations, surely a responsible, mature woman must not be condemned to bear a child which she does not want simply because she cannot obtain the help that she wants easily and readily. Of course not.
In the real world where I live, young people are very street-wise. Although there are shortcomings in our provision of sex education, most young people know that if they have unprotected sex they are in danger of pregnancy and infection—dangerous infections which can kill. Fortunately, every woman who is in a sexual relationship today can readily obtain contraceptive advice and treatment without undue cost.
But—and this is a big "but"—people sometimes behave under the influence of powerful chemicals which can interfere with their normal good judgment. No, I do not mean alcohol, Ecstasy or any similar drug; I refer to testosterone and oestrogen. Those chemicals are incredibly powerful and are particularly plentiful when young people may not yet be used to their effect. Therefore, should we be trying to punish women of all ages who suspend their normal good judgment or have an accident by forcing them to bear children they do not want by taking away the help that they need? That would be the effect of the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, if it were carried today.
We have heard that we in this country have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe. How can that be when we have sex education and free family planning facilities? We seem to have done everything to inform, advise and supply treatment, yet still these tragedies happen. Well, we have not done quite everything. One thing we have not done is to make provision for the accidents, the unplanned errors of judgment and the coercion and abuse situation—until now. Now we have a weapon which should help so long as it is made easily available at no undue cost.
In doing so, we may also be able to reduce the number of abortions. Recently, evidence has been published showing that 90 per cent of pregnancies that were terminated could have been prevented by emergency contraception, and 70 per cent of women seeking abortion would have used emergency contraception if they had known about it and known where to obtain it quickly.
Some people who oppose the availability of this medicine over the counter believe that it may lead to irresponsible attitudes to sex. This is nonsense. Those who say so have not done their homework. Recent studies have shown that only four per cent of users wanted the product more than twice a year.
520
It is obvious to any woman why that is. Frequent use will disrupt the normal pattern of periods and there is nothing women hate more than periods that have gone haywire. It drives them mad; it cramps their style. If we do not know that, the advertisers of sanitary protection certainly do because they base their advertisements on the fact. Women who acknowledge they are at risk of an unwanted pregnancy and take action are to be commended, not stigmatised. They deserve the safeguards which have been put in place by the Government.
There is one more thing we could do, and I wish we would. We could stop talking about sex as if it were some terrible immoral activity that causes untold harm to society and start accepting it as normal human behaviour, We should learn to discuss it with our children openly, frankly and without embarrassment. As long as it is something hidden and "naughty", children will want to do it. And they may want to do it before they are ready for it, understand it or are prepared to deal with its consequences. What we should be doing today is saying to the Government, "Well done, keep going, extend the arrangements that make the product free to those for whom cost might be a barrier to getting help."
I welcome the checks on pharmacies carried out recently by some members of the press to ensure that pharmacists are following the guidelines. But I have to say that it is much more of a tragedy for a 15 year-old girl to have a baby than to have a pill that she should not have had. These tests, one hopes, will put pharmacists on their mettle and ensure that they follow the guidelines conscientiously. None of them wants to be exposed by the Daily Mail. I also welcome the fact that Superdrug has shelved the idea of selling the product over the Internet. The safeguards and advice available through this method are just not good enough.
One of the most important aspects of advice given by pharmacists and nurses is that unprotected sex can lead to dangerous infections as well as pregnancy. Most young people know this very well and take appropriate precautions. However, there is no evidence that the availability of this product will make women so careless of their own health that they will take dangerous risks.
What is important now is that the properties and availability of this product are made part of an integrated sex education programme for both adults and schoolchildren which informs but does not judge, which protects but does not control, which understands but does not patronise.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I can well understand the desire of the noble Baroness to prevent pharmacists selling the morning after pill over the counter. She has marshalled powerful arguments for her viewpoint. These stem from her deep humanitarian and religious sense of values and her concern for the welfare of young people.
The Church shares these values. There is no doubt that the gift of sex is a precious gift of God, to be used within a loving marriage relationship. That is what we

521
teach, have always taught and will continue to teach. However, that teaching is not always heard and, if heard, is not always accepted. Sexual intercourse is not confined to the marriage partnership and while, in these enlightened times, many might say that what adults do in their private lives is a matter for themselves alone, some of the figures concerning teenage sex must surely concern us all. Your Lordships are well aware of them, and they have been rehearsed this evening: the worst teenage pregnancy figures in Europe, appalling rates of teenage abortions and young teenage mothers, no older than children themselves sometimes, struggling to bring up a baby while losing education and training opportunities, being trapped into a spiral of poverty which gives the worst possible start in life for the new infant.
How are we to respond? With this debate in mind, I consulted one or two teachers of teenage children in our inner city secondary schools. In their view, some teenagers will engage in sex and some will not. Those who will not have taken that decision because they respect what they have been taught by home, church or school. Or they will not because they believe that in the future they will have a happier and more loving relationship because sex is special and it will have a special place in their lives.
In my view, these young people are right. I wish that all teenagers believed and acted like them. Of course we should all do what we can through our teaching, our preaching and our parenting to strengthen their resolve and spread it to others. However, popular culture is against us. Judging by much of the media, sex is compulsory for all, at any age. So it is not surprising that another group of teenagers do indulge in sex from time to time. We may preach against it, and we do; we may teach against it, and we do; but it goes on happening.
The question then is: do we make the best the enemy of the good? The best is sex within marriage. The good is surely to enable all teenagers, even foolish weak-willed teenagers, to survive their teenage years without the burden of an unwanted baby, pregnancy or abortion. The availability of contraception has surely saved many teenage girls from this fate. I know there are those who believe that the availability of contraceptives has encouraged teenage sex, but that is not a universal view. The teachers I talked to believe that without contraceptives we would see an increase in unprotected teenage sex, with a consequential increase in pregnancy.
Many people view the morning-after pill as an emergency form of contraception—emergency because regular use might well bring health problems; emergency because the pill is expensive, certainly to the teenage pocket. But the one-off use of the pill might save a one-off abortion or a one-off birth of an unwanted child. Thirty-three community pharmacists in the health action zone where I live in south London have been involved in a pilot project testing out the procedures in the new order. The project has been part of a strategy for reducing unintended young pregnancies and it is reported that the response has been almost universally positive. It has proved to be
522
the case that the pharmacist's is a less threatening place for some vulnerable young women to approach than the doctor's surgery or clinic.
There is no question that we must strengthen longterm methods of teaching morality, developing good sex education for boys and girls, and increasing hope and choices for girls in areas of deprivation. All these things we must continue to do, but in the meantime the morning-after pill provides an emergency last resort for those who have fallen through the sexual net. I believe it is right for us to be very uneasy about the right way forward in this debate. I, for one, am uneasy for I certainly do not believe that all the moral arguments are on one side. But speaking for myself, I believe that unwanted teenage pregnancies are such a great evil which blights lives that we must not let the best be the enemy of the good. So, with regret, I shall not be following the noble Baroness into the Lobby tonight.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, it is well known in the House that I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she opposed the promotion of homosexuality in schools and we had a debate on Section 28. I spoke and voted in this House not to allow a reduction in the age of consent of homosexuality. But in all honesty I cannot support the proposition that has been put forward this evening. Of course I will support measures that I believe will reduce promiscuity. I will certainly support, as indeed we all will, any measure that reduces the transmission of sexual diseases. But I cannot accept the proposition that the taking away of a measure after the event somehow controls what happens when the event takes place.
The measure proposed by the Government is twofold: to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to prevent more abortions taking place; that is, to prevent the kind of things none of us wants to happen. We want to see family relationships established and built considerably. However, I cannot see how such relationships, those between teenagers and those between parents and teenagers, can in any way be conditioned by not having the measure of the morning-after pill. The reasons for the measure are sound and good. I believe that the House should vote against the proposition of the noble Baroness.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I speak in support of deregulation of progesterone-only Levonorgestrel emergency hormonal contraception. I speak on the efficacy of this pill as an effective contraceptive and not on any procedural or constitutional issue. I had rather a long speech. However, it was considerably shortened after I listened to the notable speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I cannot but agree with just about everything she had to say. She spoke as a teacher. I speak as a gynaecologist who has seen many unwanted pregnancies.
There are many reasons why this deregulation measure is necessary, not the least of which is as one of the many measures needed to reduce the rate of

523
teenage pregnancies in this country. We heard about the high rate of unwanted pregnancies which end in termination in the United Kingdom compared to the rest of the western world, except the United States. There were 173,000 in England and Wales alone in 1999.
Evidence from smaller studies carried out in Scotland suggests that in women between the ages of 16 and 29 who take emergency contraception, the rate of unwanted pregnancy has been reduced. Larger studies are currently being conducted. The progesterone-only pill, Levonorgestrel, works by delaying ovulation and preventing fertilisation. It is not an abortifacient. The pill is safe and effective. I do not know what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, meant when she said that the pill is 50 per cent more powerful. It is certainly 50 per cent more effective.
In trials which have been reported, including those by the WHO, few complications have been reported, nausea and vomiting being the main ones. That, too, has been in far fewer women compared to those using the combined emergency contraceptive pill. No serious complications have been reported. There are practically no contraindications. In trials reported by the WHO, the rate of pregnancy was 1.1 per cent among the progesterone-only pill group. The effectiveness of the pill relates to the time of taking it following unprotected intercourse. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, stated the correct figures, as reported by WHO. There has been a 95 per cent success rate in terms of avoiding unwanted pregnancy if the pill is taken within 24 hours of unprotected intercourse. That is the crux. The sooner the pill is taken after intercourse, the more effective it is. If taken inappropriately, or if pregnancy occurs, the trials reported no adverse foetal outcomes.
Therefore, the pill has to be easily available. Making it available only through general practitioners, family planning clinics, A&E departments of hospitals or even patient group directives—not all of which are funded for this—will delay women receiving the pill. Despite the low levels of complications reported, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has issued guidance to pharmacists.
Concern has been expressed that women will use the emergency contraceptive pill as regular contraception or that there will be an increase in sexual activity in young people. As we have heard, and I concur, neither of those concerns is borne out by the evidence. The age group with the highest incidence of the use of emergency contraceptive pills is that between 20 and 29. The lowest incidence is in the group aged 16 to 19 and below 16. Evidence from trials in other countries and in the Lothian area of Scotland does not suggest repeated use of the pill. A small number of women used emergency contraception on more than two occasions in a year. Couples who normally rely on other forms of contraception, such as the pill, the inter-uterine contraceptive device or condoms, may, for a variety of reasons, need to use the emergency contraceptive pill where there is a risk of failure of the usual form of contraception.
524
In such situations, emergency contraception offers women peace of mind from unwanted pregnancy. Levonorgestrel is the safe choice. However, I agree that the cost of obtaining the pill from pharmacists, nearly £20, half of which I understand is the cost of the pill and half the dispensing cost, may reduce its use. It is interesting to note that the cost of a similar product in France is equivalent to £5. But that is no reason for us to stop Levonorgestrel being available through pharmacists. The progesterone-only emergency contraception pill, taken in 0.75mg tablets, 12 hours apart within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, is safe, effective and free from complications. I hope that it will help to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Anything that we can do to make it more easily available has to be good.
It is interesting to read the editorial comment in the New, England Journal of Medicine, a prestigious medical journal. The conclusion states:
"Making emergency contraception more easily obtainable does no harm and may reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies".
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise first to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that my noble friend Lady Young lives in the real world. I have often met her there and she speaks from it, from a wealth of experience gathered in many ways, particularly as a parent and grandparent.
I find this a difficult and sad debate. There are genuinely important considerations in both directions. One cannot simply rely on habit or friendship when making up one's mind. However, considering the context in which we hold it, I am saddened by the change in the attitude to love which has taken place in the past half-century and the relationship between sex and love. That relationship is central to a healthy society. If we divorce the two, we revert to the animal. If we ally the two, we move towards the human and the spiritual. I am sorry if that leaves some of your Lordships completely baffled. To me, it is real and important.
I am troubled by the fact that the Government have shown so little willingness to offer what I would regard as common-sense moral advice. They are happy to tell people that it is wrong to smoke, and the consequences of so doing. They are happy to tell people that it is wrong to drive and drink, and the consequences of so doing. But nobody has said that it is wrong to take the risk of siring or begetting illegitimate children. The purpose of the sexual mechanism in the human race is to produce children. That is completely forgotten in most of our contemporary literature and contemporary films. It is seen as an end in itself. My noble friend referred to a child who asked, "What's the point of having sex if it isn't fun?" The answer is that it is tremendous fun but that is not the end purpose. The end purpose of it is to have children within marriage; and if we stop doing that, we stop having a viable society. Therefore, there is a political as well as a spiritual priority and I deeply regret the Government's reluctance to see that, to take it on board and to give moral as well as medical advice.

525
I hope that the noble Lord will not disappoint me by failing to offer such advice in the context of his reply. If the issue is treated purely as mechanical and medical, I shall find myself unable to go other than with my noble friend into the Lobby. If he can tell us that it is about something else, I shall find it much more difficult to accompany her.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I wish that like some noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Prayer I was confident in the belief that I had a special insight into the conscience of the nation. I do not claim that credential for speaking in this debate. However, I claim two other credentials. The first is the special misfortune during the past 30 years of having appeared all too frequently in cases involving the deaths of babies who were virtually condemned to death when they were conceived in haste. The second is the much happier credential of being the parent of three adult women.
Some parents, unlike me and many of my friends, may have been extremely lucky. Their daughters may have passed seamlessly from the age of reason to the age of responsibility. But I do not believe that that is the general experience of many of us. We must protect our daughters and the girls of this country by the best means available, combining good moral sense and good medical science.
There is a moral issue which concerns me greatly. I start from the viewpoint that in this country there are far too many abortions of viable foetuses well embarked upon gestation. My observation and understanding is that abortion is physically and emotionally a potentially disturbing experience for almost all who undergo the process and that for many it is a completely ruinous experience which affects and damages for them for the rest of their lives.
Wherever it is realistically appropriate to avoid abortion, abortion should be avoided. I do not accept for one moment the proposition put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the use of the morning-after pill prescribed by pharmacists will increase the number of abortions. That seems a completely perverse misuse of logic.
Another moral issue seems to me to be held in the answer to the following question—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and thank him for giving way. The point I made was that although more than 800,000 morning-after pills were supplied last year, the number of abortions has risen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that the sexual habits of young people are complex issues. I know of no research material which suggests that the availability of such a pill over the counter from a properly regulated pharmacist will do anything other than reduce the number of abortions.
However, another important moral issue seems to me to be held in the answer to the following question. Are we prepared to respect women of 16 and upwards
526
as the custodians of their own bodies, in the absence of a paramount public interest to the country? After all, girls of 16 may lawfully have sexual intercourse, so why should they not control the consequences of that sexual intercourse? They can purchase contraceptive devices before they have intercourse, so why should they not purchase a contraceptive device, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, described it, after they have had intercourse—because that is the scientific way in which it works? They may even marry lawfully at the age of 16.
It seems to me that to allow young women the option offered by the order is both consistent and logical in giving women greater custodianship of their own bodies. That is particularly so, as the scientific advice is clear, because the new morning-after pill is far safer than its oestrogen-strong predecessor. Furthermore, let us not forget that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which is an extremely responsible professional body and regulator of its profession, has introduced and will enforce stringent professional standards concerning the supply of these pills.
It has also been suggested by some noble Lords that this order—this change in the law—will lead to more casual sex by the over-16s. I am afraid that that view beggars reality. That particular horse bolted years ago! Appalled as I am—and I genuinely am— by the sexual content of many teenage magazines aimed at girls—I recall an occasion when my wife went around the house throwing out every one she could find because of its content—I believe that one must recognise the truth of their content. They are no more than a reflection of their readership's life and times. However uncomfortable are the facts of life for older teenagers, the life of facts is that most teenage girls are sexually active before they reach the age of legal consent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the desirability of dealing with these issues by girls going with their mums, or possibly their dads, to see their nice GPs who knows the family history. I have to ask the noble Baroness whether she has looked at the demography of this country and at the lack of interest of some parents in what happens to their children. I ask with great respect to the doctors in the House whether the noble Baroness really believes that one can rely on the wisdom of every general practitioner in this country to aid that process. The truth of the matter is that, as regards young women over the age of 16, now that the science is safe these matters are surely best left in their hands.
The order recognises changes in science and in society. I hope that this House will not thwart that recognition.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall speak but briefly today. However, I am extremely concerned about the issue. I believe that anyone who is concerned about abortion rates and about unintended pregnancies producing unwanted children, cannot support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, tonight.

527
I shall not concentrate particularly on young women but on women in general, for it affects them. "Emergency contraception", to give it its correct title, is not an encouragement to promiscuity; it extends a woman's choice of whether or not to risk pregnancy in emergency. I emphasise the word "emergency". Emergencies happen; condoms split and people have unprotected sex whether or not that is wise or responsible. Pharmacies are convenient and accessible, as was stated by my noble friend Lady Gould. People go to their pharmacy for advice and service for many items. It is not always easy to get to a doctor or a clinic. Your Lordships have heard the medical evidence described so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
There is no evidence that women are using emergency contraception repeatedly, either in the UK or in France where it has been available since 1999. I stress what other noble Lords have said; that one survey showed that only 4 per cent of women used emergency contraception more than twice a year. That is a small number.
This pill is not an abortion pill, as is sometimes stated. It cannot terminate a pregnancy which has begun. I am not pro-abortion as such. I am pro women having choices about whether or not to have children. Women who make that choice are behaving responsibly, not irresponsibly—and it is mainly women who make the choice. Methods of male contraception are limited; certainly, there are no emergency contraceptives for men.
Who is most likely to use this pill? Not teenagers. The notion that under–16s will line up to pay £20 for this contraceptive in a pharmacy, or that it will be doled out in schools, is ludicrous and untrue. In a pilot scheme in Manchester the average age of women who used emergency contraception was 24, not the under-16s. That is not surprising, given that most unintended pregnancies occur in women aged between 20 and 25, not the under-16s. The average age of first sex in England is 17. Of course some have sex earlier and, unfortunately, become pregnant. Those who avoid having an unwanted child are behaving responsibly, not irresponsibly. Unwanted pregnancy can still result in young women in particular attempting to use dangerous methods to self-abort. None of us wishes to return to that, certainly not parents. Emergency contraception is legally available to the over-16s. Some girls under 16 will obtain it—even when not sent in by newspapers. I doubt that there will be many genuine cases.
I respect principles, idealism and certainly love. There is a good deal of moral advice in the new personal and social health education guidelines for schools. People should behave responsibly. I do not advocate that anything goes as long as pregnancy does not occur. However, to be charitable, I believe that idealism must be tempered with pragmatism and reality. People will continue to have sex and some will take risks or make mistakes. We should do all that we can to ensure that those risks and mistakes do not result in unwanted children. Emergency contraception is safe and extends a woman's choice over her fertility.
528
A women is unlikely to make much use of this method of contraception, and in the vast majority of cases it will be used by women over 16.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken in this House about fighting to the death for principles. I and others will fight to the death to preserve and extend a woman's right to control her fertility. If we remove one possible method—the ability to purchase emergency contraception from pharmacies—we shall not be thanked.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the subject of the Motion last Wednesday was boys growing up without the care of a father. My noble friend Lord Northbourne then stated that,
"in the age of effective contraception, to conceive an unwanted child is a form of child abuse on the part of both parties".— [Official Report, 24/1/01: col. 305.]
My noble friend Lord Laming, with all his experience of social services and the care system as a former director of the Social Service Inspectorate, said at col. 313 that,
"every child should be a wanted child … Adults are free to choose their lifestyles but we must emphasise that this should not be at the expense of defenceless children".
I respect the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I also read with interest the briefing of the Christian Institute. However, their concerns are outweighed by the often appalling consequences of unwanted pregnancies. Children have a strong interest in not being born by default but, so far as possible, only after a deliberate choice. I urge your Lordships to reject the Prayer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with respect I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has fallen into one of the most elementary statistical mistakes. She has related two variables moving in the same direction as if one is the cause of the other. Both can be due to a common cause or each due to a cause that is unrelated to the other. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has made it clear that it is very unlikely that the use of emergency contraception has resulted in an increase in the number of abortions.
Although emergency contraception has been available free on prescription on the National Health Service for 17 years, as my noble friend Lady Massey points out it is not used so much by teenagers as by older women. One reason for it is that teenagers do not want the embarrassment of revealing to a doctor who may well have known them from birth that they are now sexually active. As a general practitioner, I know that that is so in a number of cases. The order will allow a teenager to go to a pharmacist perhaps slightly out of her locality who does not know her. Based on the protocols which have been given to pharmacists, they will be able to provide good advice to teenagers. The evidence is that the fright caused by having to use emergency contraception will result in the subsequent regular use of adequate contraception by those who continue to be sexually active.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but he said that the order

529
would allow teenagers to go to pharmacies. It will not. The order allows only teenagers aged 16 and over to go to pharmacies. At least four noble Lords who have spoken against the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have deplored teenage pregnancies, so the logic of it is that one must make the pill available to 12, 13, 14 and 15 year-olds as well as 16 year-olds.
Lord Rea: My Lords, one cannot let that point go unanswered. There is a case for allowing pharmacists to make their own judgment in this matter, but they are expected to discover the age of their clients and not provide the drug to girls under 16.
At the moment, 74 per cent of emergency contraception is used by women aged 20 or over, but even there is the deterrent effect the embarrassment of admitting a contraceptive slip-up to their GPs.
Sadly, the high cost of the currently available over-the-counter emergency contraceptive Levonelle-2 (which is a well known synthetic progestogen that has been available for a long time and is well out of patent) will deter its use. My local pharmacist tells me that, of the £19.99 that the drug costs the patient, £11.06 goes to the manufacturer Schering, £5.95 to the pharmacist and £2.98 in VAT to the Government. The same product is available on prescription on the NHS but in that case only £5 goes to the manufacturer. The cost to the manufacturer of producing the material is less than £1. My pharmacist suggests, and I agree, that the same sum—£5—should go to the manufacturer whether the product is supplied on prescription or over the counter. The price to the patient will then be reduced to £11.99, which is a more acceptable figure.
The BMA suggests that this contraception should be free in order completely to remove the price deterrent. I doubt that my noble friend will agree to that. However, at least the product is so non-toxic that there is no danger from an overdose, however much people buy it, other than causing irregular periods.
I very much hope that your Lordships will pass this order and oppose the noble Baroness's Prayer. If we are successful in passing the order unamended, I hope that my noble friend will agree to look closely at the question of how the price of the product may be reduced.
8 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, this debate is ostensibly about making available to women a contraceptive in a new way, but I believe that behind it lies not one but a series of moral issues that I should like to try to highlight. If the figures for 1998 provided by the Department of Health can be extrapolated to 2001, by the end of today in this country just under 500 children will be aborted. The weekly figure is 3,290. Every week the equivalent of a large village or small market town filled with children is wiped out.
I find those figures chilling; but I need to add, lest I be misunderstood, that in relation to abortion I am not an absolutist. I can, and do, acknowledge that there are, and will be, situations where abortion may be justified. I certainly would not wish to return to the
530
situation surrounding abortion which obtained before the 1967 Act. Furthermore, I cannot believe that the rate of abortion in this country is in any way morally acceptable. We are rightly appalled by the abuse we see of individual children, but nationally we remain largely silent about the wiping out of villages filled with children week in and week out.
Secondly, I found the debate last week on human embryology fascinating. While the position 1 took on the subject was rejected by the majority, it was, nevertheless, a huge privilege, and one I shall never forget, to be in this Chamber to listen to and take part in that debate. I want to add some figures from that debate to this one. Between 1991 and 1998 almost one quarter of a million embryos up to the age of 14 days were disposed of as a result of decisions taken in IVF treatment. In that debate I argued that there was a step change going on in the way we human beings now perceive ourselves. I argued, and would continue to argue, that for the moment the utilitarian philosophy in our nation that perceives human life as either a useful or useless commodity has won the day. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
Thirdly, a fortnight ago in this Chamber we had a ministerial Statement about the treatment of corpses in a mortuary chapel in a hospital in Bedford. We were told that an inquiry would be held and that the incident was shocking. I welcome the inquiry; I agree it was shocking.
In this Prayer I have linked three apparently unrelated topics. I have done so deliberately because in each of them it seems to me that we see evidence of a downgrading of the concept that life has sanctity. The powerful Judaeo-Christian concept that we are made in the image of God, which has shaped our society for thousands of years, has now been pushed to the very margins of our consciousness. The sanctity of human life, a concept which philosophically links us as humans to some eternal absolutes, is under such serious pressure that, as a concept, it is being placed in a museum cupboard for inspection in a curiously detached way—forgive the phrase—by generations yet to come. I believe that loss has consequences which we are so far unwilling to face, but which are frightening.
I now confess that I face a dilemma. I have a serious ethical problem with tonight's debate. I am genuinely alarmed by the shifts going on in our society which will lead us to a future where life of any age is seen as mechanistic and where the worth of human life is judged in utilitarian ways. I raise the question: is not involuntary euthanasia found along that very same spectrum? However, in this debate, I am prepared to acknowledge that the morning-after pill may be the lesser of two evils. Better this form of contraception than a steady rise in abortion.
Yet it would be disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that the morning-after pill will have only positive benefits. I suspect that the rise in sexually transmitted diseases will be considerable. I should not like to be the CEO of a pharmaceutical company or a chemist chain when the first litigation arises over what a pharmacist may or may not have said to a young woman who may or may not have been 16 years of age.

531
Therefore, I find myself absolutely caught. I want to convey very serious concern that the result of well-intentioned legislation is that the sanctity of life is being eroded at a dangerous pace and with potentially dangerous consequences. At the same time, I cannot but agree that the morning-after pill is the lesser of two evils.
In those circumstances the clear message is that far more effective sexual education is needed. I have been a teacher and heard that cry for the past 30 or 40 years. But we must not be naive either. Many of the young people I once taught who became pregnant were desperate to have a baby. They wanted something to love and someone who would love them unconditionally because their own lives were so full of despair, self-neglect and they lacked self-worth. Here is the difficulty. In order to help those young people we will offer a pharmaceutical solution which will play a part in creating conditions in which the sacredness, nobility and purpose of human life is inevitably downgraded.
I am looking for a concerted national campaign to increase the sense of the sacredness of human life; which will increase the sense of self-worth among many young men and women; which will support and encourage all those young people who genuinely do not want to give in to peer or media pressure and who find adults copping-out of their moral responsibility to guide them; and I want something which will recognise that our moral sensibilities about human life are being trampled over with extraordinary lack of concern for the potential consequences for individuals and our nation.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate tonight. I intend to be extremely brief in replying from these Benches. My colleagues on these Benches will be deciding, as individuals, whether to support the noble Baroness in her Prayer against these regulations. I suspect, however, that few of them will be convinced by the arguments of the noble Baroness, sincerely though her arguments were made.
I want to emphasise that, whatever the temptations, tonight's debate is not about the availability of emergency contraception to young girls without their parents' consent or about the limited number of pilot schemes in certain health action zones under what is known as a patient group direction from local GPs. It is not about the quality or quantity of sex education. Indeed, it is not even about the Government's strategy for teenage pregnancy, important though all these issues are. It is simply about the availability in pharmacies of Levonelle-2, the emergency contraception product.
First, what is the product? The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made the action of the product very clear, together with the fact that it does not induce abortion. That is not the action of the product. Levonelle-2, however, is clearly more effective and has fewer side effects than the previous emergency contraception
532
products, in particular PC4. Research sponsored by the World Health Organisation has clearly shown that. Clinical trials show that the earlier it is used, the more effective it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, so cogently pointed out, that emphasises how important early access to it is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, pointed out, it is not always easy to have that early access. The retail price of the product will be £19.99. It will hardly be an impulse buy. In my terms, it is rather expensive.
I refer now to the process for the approval of Levonelle-2. The Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission have advised that the medicine is safe for pharmacy sale. This advice and the results of a public consultation were put to the Department of Health which approved the change.
What is the role of the pharmacist? Pharmacy status for emergency contraception means that any pharmacist who wishes to do so can supply according to the relevant guidelines after having obtained appropriate information from customers. Comprehensive guidance on best practice for the supply of emergency contraception has been sent to all pharmacists by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland. That guidance includes the question of supply to under-16s. This guidance is supported by training provided by the Centre for Postgraduate Pharmacy Education. Those are all responsible steps to have put in place. I am sure that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society will make sure that the supply is carried out in the appropriate fashion.
I welcome the decision by Superdrug to discontinue sales over the Internet since I do not believe that is the way in which this product should be sold. I believe that it should be sold through pharmacies.
I refer next to some of the questions raised in the debate. It has been said that the wider availability of emergency contraception will encourage promiscuity. I have not heard any evidence tonight to suggest that wider availability of Levonelle-2 will encourage promiscuity. What evidence is there that this will adversely affect the level of sexually transmitted diseases, a major problem? We have seen from recent figures, whether for chlamydia or AIDS/HIV, that these diseases, should be taken extremely seriously. The answer lies in better sex education, not in banning emergency contraception.
What evidence do we have that pressure will be put on young girls to have unprotected sex? That is purely anecdotal, drawn from individual experience. I know of no paper which has demonstrated that to be the case. The information from pilot schemes where emergency contraception is available from pharmacies under patient group directions indicates that this emergency contraception is being sought mainly after failure of contraception. The data show that women aged 20 to 29 years are by far the greatest users. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, they account for 53 per cent of users. Women aged 16 to 19 years old comprise 22 per cent. and women aged 30 to 40 years old comprise 17 per cent of users. Very few under-16 year-olds asked for emergency contraception via this route.

533
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark had it absolutely right, in my view, in his analysis of the benefits of the current pilot scheme in Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. I live in the same health authority as the right reverend Prelate. Certainly, the benefits vastly outweigh the disadvantages or the reservations.
The remainder of requests are made by women over 40 years of age. This profile is confirmed by the Department of Health's statistics that show that most abortions are performed on women in their 20s rather than on teenagers. This suggests that the take-up of the pharmacy product will be among the more mature age group. Effectively, we are giving older women the freedom to control their own lives so that they are able to avoid abortion. My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew made this point: it is a matter of choice for women.
What evidence is there that emergency contraception leads to multiple use? All those concerned in the development and marketing of Levonelle emphasise that it should not be seen to be an alternative to long-term reliable forms of contraception. Moreover, a recent British Journal of Family Planning paper which studied over 15,000 women taking emergency contraception showed no significant trend to multiple use. My noble friend Lady Walmsley made it quite clear why, physically, that is so.
In conclusion, there are legitimate concerns about unlawful supply to under-age girls. I hope that the Minister can give assurances about the strength of the guidance to pharmacists and how this will be enforced. The product is a safe and effective method of preventing pregnancy where a woman has had unprotected sex or something has gone wrong with her usual method. The benefits for the older age group vastly outweigh the problems of access by the under-16s. This is not a measure principally directed at teenage pregnancy rates. Pharmacy supply will be a very welcome additional route for women to access emergency contraception with minimum disruption to their work or family lives.
I do not believe that by simply being available at pharmacies it will encourage a casual attitude to sex. There is absolutely no evidence of this. On the contrary, it is another step to ensuring that only children who are wanted are born in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, added, absolutely rightly in this respect, that if passed this Prayer would not help older women or the young, as the noble Baroness claims; it would penalise them. As my noble Lady Walmsley said, it is vital that women should have access to this emergency contraception. Certainly I shall not be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her Prayer. I prefer to support the views of the Family Planning Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association, let alone those of the vast majority of adults in this country. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against the Motion
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is a pleasure and at the same time a difficult job to follow my noble friend Lady Young in speaking to the Motion. I find myself, as ever, deeply impressed by what she said. We should not doubt for an instant that she speaks for very many ordinary, moderate people who are deeply worried by the order before us and its implications. I cannot hope to better her in arguing the case she has put.
I shall concentrate on a few particular aspects of this issue which cause me profound disquiet. They are aspects that relate to patient care. To many it might seem odd that a measure of this sort which has met with the approval of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing could possibly be considered detrimental to patient care. Clearly, to take issue with such reputable bodies is not something to be undertaken lightly or wantonly.
We all agree that pharmacists represent an under-utilised resource in primary care. Pharmacists are highly skilled, professional people. It is absolutely right that we should look for ways of broadening and developing the service they provide for patients. However, this does have to be done in a manner that is safe. The point at issue here is whether the direct supply of the morning-after pill by pharmacists is something that can be done both safely and ethically in all cases.
Reading the pharmaceutical press, as I do each week, it is apparent that pharmacists are alarmed at what is being asked of them and so are some members of the medical profession. Part of their concern can be summed up as follows. The more that young women at risk of an unwanted pregnancy are enabled to bypass their doctor or avoid even a cursory clinical examination, whether by a doctor or a nurse the more risk they run of damage to their health. My noble friend Lady Young mentioned sexually transmitted diseases. The statistics published last week saw large increases in gonorrhoea and chlamydia during the year 2000 as well as the highest ever number of new cases of HIV. The highest rates of chlamydia are in 16 to 19 year old females and 20 to 24 year old males. The diagnostic rates for gonorrhoea were also the highest in those age groups.
The rise in diagnoses in young females suggests that there has been a significant increase in heterosexually transmitted gonorrhoea. If one goes into a chemist shop to buy emergency contraception after having unprotected sex there is no one to pick up the warning signs of sexually transmitted disease. If chlamydia is allowed to develop—and it does so insidiously—it can render a woman sterile. It is important for the country as a whole, and vital for patients, that there should be effective monitoring and reporting of all sexually transmitted disease. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that this order will hinder that process.
Pharmacists cannot hand out the pill without questions being asked. There is an extensive list of questions that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has devised which chemists are recommended to follow. But the sheer length of the list is enough to make one

535
question the wisdom of what is supposed to happen. The pharmacist must first ascertain from the woman what circumstances have led her to believe that she needs the pill. He must then try to determine whether or not she is already pregnant. From the answers he gets he must be able to distinguish chlamydial infections, which can cause bleeding between periods, from pregnancy or miscarriage. He must find out whether the woman has used the morning-after pill since her last period. He must find out whether she is taking any of 11 drugs which react adversely with the pill. He must ascertain whether the woman has a severe liver dysfunction or whether she has any condition associated with the malabsorption of drugs such as Crohn's disease. He must ask whether she has previously experienced any allergic reaction to oral contraceptives. And, crucially, he must be satisfied that the patient in front of him is over the age of 16.
Now, chemists have been told that in cases of doubt on any of these questions, they should refer the patient urgently to a GP or family planning service and not dispense the morning-after pill. I do not see, and nor do many responsible pharmacists, how it is possible for a pharmacist, during a brief interview, to be satisfied that by dispensing the pill to a particular woman he would not be running a risk with that patient's health. Pharmacists, however conscientious, are not permitted to perform a physical examination of the patient. They cannot contact the patient's GP. They must rely on the accuracy of the answers they get to a checklist of questions. It is quite interesting that one of the main risks of taking the morning-after pill— which is the risk of having an ectopic pregnancy—is not even mentioned in the guidance prepared by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Nor does it mention some of the other warnings contained in the patient information leaflet from the manufacturers; for example, that the pill should not be taken in cases of high blood pressure or diabetes or where there is a history of breast cancer.
Responsible pharmacists will find all this out. But this is the point. Patients are entirely dependent on the ethical and professional standards of individual pharmacists. There is no requirement for a pharmacist to undergo training in order to be able to supply and dispense this medication. Specific training is entirely voluntary. Even those pharmacists who wish to receive training have in many cases not yet received it. Perhaps that should not surprise us. Pharmacists were not consulted on whether the morning-after pill should be available nation-wide over the counter. The first they heard of it was when the Government announced it to the press. It does not take a genius to work out that, with pharmacists demonstrating different degrees of assiduousness and different degrees of training in regard to the protocols to which they are meant to adhere, patients will simply gravitate to the chemist's shop where they know there will be the least hassle.
And that is where the trouble is likely to begin. I had a brief conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, last week in which he indicated that I would be unlikely to persuade him that opposing the
536
order made any sense at all. Well, I invite him to consider the point that I am now making. It is not what happens when everything goes right with an over-the-counter supply that I am worried about. It is the unintended consequences when things do not go as they should.
Many noble Lords will have seen the article in the Daily Mail a few days ago, which described how a girl of 15 was able to obtain the morning-after pill from two chemists in London with the minimum of questioning. She was not asked her age. One of the chemists took only two minutes to hand over the pill to the girl. On the other hand, another chemist did ask her age and took considerable trouble over the interview before referring the girl both to her GP and to her parents. The point here is that while the Royal Pharmaceutical Society without doubt approached this whole issue in a completely responsible and professional way the same cannot necessarily be said of all its members.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl and I do so reluctantly. I must declare an interest as an honorary member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. My listening to the noble Earl suggests that his view is that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is, first, irresponsible in strongly advocating this intervention and, secondly, does not speak for the overwhelming majority of its members. Does he accept that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is completely responsible in what it says and does speak for the overwhelming majority of its members? Will he say that in terms, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has adopted an entirely responsible approach. I could pick holes in the detail of the guidance it has given. I certainly accept that it is acting with the approval of the majority of its members but I am also saying that a significant minority of its members—the noble Lord will know this from reading the pharmaceutical press—are worried and concerned for the reasons that I am now giving.
It was not altogether surprising that the chairman of the BMA prescribing committee, Dr George Rae, said in response to the Daily Mail story:
"The whole thing is turning into a bit of a hotchpotch and it needs looking at again. I do not think it is properly thought through. We must avoid the fragmentation of health care which could be dangerous".
The dangers arise from any failure to ascertain vital information from the patient and from the absence of the kind of care which, with the greatest respect to the pharmaceutical profession, only a doctor or a nurse can provide.
I have already run through the list of medical contra-indications, any one of which renders the supply of the pill unsafe. I have not read out the long list of other items that a chemist is supposed to cover with each patient—warnings about side effects, about the need to repeat the dose if you vomit within three hours of the first one, about what to do if you are

537
taking an ordinary oral contraceptive as well, or if you are breast-feeding. The list goes on. Responsible chemists will follow it, and it is to be hoped that patients will understand it all. But it is no substitute for seeing a doctor or a nurse. There are just too many pitfalls.
Before I finish, let me make one thing clear. The issue of unwanted pregnancy and of abortion are ones I understand completely. I understand about busy doctors' surgeries and the embarrassment that girls feel in going to their doctor. But in the light of the risks I have identified, we believe that a better alternative to making the morning-after pill available over the counter would be to allow practice nurses to prescribe it. That measure of deregulation would allow greater flexibility for patients yet keep emergency hormonal contraception within the context of a general practice setting.
In our judgment, the order compromises patient care, I urge all noble Lords to reject it and in so doing allow the Government to think again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of responding to the debate on the order. We have certainly had a wide-ranging debate. I listened with great interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans as he touched on a number of moral, religious and ethical questions. But I want to start with some fairly straightforward points about the background to the order.
I believe that women and their partners have the right to make responsible choices about the size of family they have. As noble Lords have pointed out, the effectiveness of hormonal emergency contraception is greatest the sooner it is taken after unprotected intercourse. The option of rapid availability from a pharmacist without the need for attendance at clinic or GP surgery is therefore to be seen as a welcome addition to responsible family planning measures.
There has been positive support for pharmacy availability from a wide range of professional bodies. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that pharmacists are professional and responsible and will receive full guidance in the safe supply of this medicine from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Pharmacy supply will improve and build on existing links between pharmacists and family planning services. This network will help to ensure that the under-16s and other women who need to see a doctor for contraceptive advice can be referred on quickly.
The background to the order is an application by Medimpex UK to change the legal classification of Levonorgestrel. The application was to change its legal classification from that of a prescription-only status to that of a pharmacy status, which means that it can be sold over the counter by a pharmacist. Under UK law, a medicine is legally classified as "prescription only" if it needs to be supplied under the supervision of a doctor to ensure that it is used safely. It can be sold in pharmacies only if the legal criteria for listing medicines as prescription only no longer apply.
538
The Government are committed to making medicines more widely available where it is safe to do so. The most effective way of doing that is through the reclassification procedure for licensed medicines as I have described. The UK has considerable experience in this regular and routine procedure. I pay tribute to the last government, who, in 1992, established the well-ordered procedures to enable this to happen. As a result of that action, more medicines have gone down this route and the public have benefited enormously.
It is down this route that Medimpex UK has gone. When the company applied to the Medicines Control Agency, a standard procedure was followed. First, the Medicines Control Agency assessed the safety of the medicine in use in the light of the legal criteria for prescription only status. Then the application was referred to the advice of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. That committee recommended that the order should be amended to allow the nonprescription supply of this medical product. The matter was then put out to public and professional consultation. Virtually all the main medical and pharmaceutical bodies which responded were in favour of a move to pharmacy supply. Furthermore, they did not raise any concerns about the safety of supply in a pharmacy setting. Both the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Commission carefully considered all the available evidence. They advised that Levonelle can be supplied safely under the supervision of a pharmacist for emergency contraception.
Perhaps I may turn to the safety issues. Considerable experience of worldwide use has been gained. In the UK the active ingredient has been available in other contraceptives and HRT products for 30 years, although only more recently as an emergency contraceptive. It has been used for emergency contraception in other parts of the world since the 1980s. In France it has been available from pharmacists since 1999. I understand that Norway and Portugal have since agreed to do the same.
I am advised that the side-effects of this medicine are usually mild and short-lived. The most common side-effects reported from clinical trials are vomiting and nausea. The committees therefore considered that the medicine had an acceptable safety profile to supply under the professional supervision of a qualified pharmacist and that women would be able to use the product correctly.
Perhaps I may now turn to the safety issue in relation to women aged under 16. I have been asked for reassurance on this point and I am happy to give it. The most important point to make here is that, while under this order the product can be bought from a pharmacist only if the person is aged 16 years or older, the same product can be prescribed by a doctor with no age limits. There is no biological significance to the age limit of 16 years and over. Indeed, the original licensing of the prescription product used evidence from a large, randomised control study that included women under 16 in the trial.

539
Having considered the safety issues and on the basis of the advice received from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency, we have laid the order before the House tonight. In support of this change, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has set professional standards and developed comprehensive guidance for pharmacists on the retail supply of emergency contraception. I should say to the House that it is primarily the responsibility of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to enforce the Medicines Act in this area. It is the regulatory body.
While pharmacists are already familiar with the product through prescription supply, additional training is being provided, a distance learning programme is being sent to all pharmacists ahead of the product launch and workshops are also available. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the minimum standards set by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Those are in place to ensure that pharmacists have sufficient knowledge of emergency hormonal contraceptives to deal with requests personally and to decide whether to supply the product or to refer; to ensure that they provide all the necessary advice and information about the medicine to the patient; to handle requests sensitively, respecting a woman's right to privacy; only in exceptional circumstances to supply the product to a person other than the patient; and wherever possible to take reasonable measures to inform the patient about regular methods of contraception, disease prevention and sources of help.
I do not share the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The pharmacy profession has had considerable experience in the move of medicines from prescription only to pharmacy. I believe that pharmacists are ideally placed to provide advice on regular methods of contraception and local family planning services to help women avoid the use of emergency contraception in the future. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the overall rigorous approach to regulation within the pharmacy profession will ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, I wonder if the noble Lord could develop that point? Can he tell the House whether the supply over the Internet of this drug by Superdrug was lawful in terms of the standing regulations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand that it is lawful to supply over the Internet, but the issue is whether in so doing, the company would follow the minimum standards laid down by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. If it did not follow those minimum standards, a pharmacist involved in Internet supply would fall foul of the regulatory provisions set by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. On that basis, the intention to supply over the Internet has been withdrawn until discussions can take place between Superdrug and the society.
This order will he welcomed by many women. A number of noble Lords referred to the 800,000 women who were prescribed emergency contraception in 1999.
540
The medicine is far more effective the earlier it is taken. Waiting to see a doctor may cause delay and therefore reduce the chance of it working. Providing for direct sale through pharmacies will be an important additional route, in particular at times when traditional services may not be available. That is a very pertinent point. Huge numbers of women in this country will know the frustration of trying to track down emergency contraception over the weekend after contraception has let them down.
Much of the debate has focused on under 16 year-olds and the feeling that this will encourage teenage promiscuity. I should like to place on the record the fact that the company which holds the licence for the product applied for the age limit of 16 years for pharmacy availability and that the expert advisory committees accepted that that was reasonable. This is not the only pharmacy-supply medicine that has an age restriction and I am confident that pharmacists have the experience and judgment to determine which clients should be referred to a doctor. The guidance from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society reflects that position. It states that,
"Pharmacists should make every reasonable effort to satisfy themselves that clients are aged 16 or over. Pharmacists should ensure that where they believe a client to be under 16, the request is dealt with sympathetically and the client is offered appropriate help and support to enable her to obtain emergency hormonal contraceptives by another route".
The point I should like to make is that every day, pharmacists have to make judgments in their pharmaceutical outlets. The members of that profession are extremely well trained and I believe that they can be expected to operate the law effectively.
I do not believe the suggestion that this will all encourage promiscuity, for the following reasons. First, there is evidence from a study in Scotland, where women were given advance prescriptions for emergency contraception to be kept at home. It found that women did not change their sexual behaviour or their use of regular contraception. A further four-year study of 95,000 women aged 14 to 29 found that repeated use of emergency contraception was rare, and that many women used regular contraception for the first time after the use of emergency contraception. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested, we know that the regular use of emergency contraception disrupts a woman's menstrual cycle, which means that she will have irregular periods and breakthrough bleeding. This will be unacceptable to most women, and they will quickly seek medical advice.
On top of that, there is the matter of cost. I tell my noble friend Lord Rea that the cost of the product, at £19.99, is a matter for the company concerned, but, whatever one's view on the price, I think we can all agree that it will be a deterrent to regular use.
I share the view of my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton on the balance to be arrived at between access to emergency contraception and a potential abortion; as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark suggested, one-off use of emergency contraception may prevent an abortion. Noble Lords

541
have tonight referred to the very high figures of abortions being performed in this country. They are very high, and this Government remain concerned about that. If emergency contraception can help to reduce the level of abortions, surely it is to be welcomed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about parents. Recent research among parents, Commissioned by my department, found that over 80 per cent supported the provision of confidential contraceptive advice for the under-16s. Of course, I fully recognise the role that parents play in supporting their children in sex and relationship education. Indeed, it is pretty clear that the more open parents are about sexual issues with their children, the later those children become sexually active and the more likely they are to use contraception if they do become sexually active.
But we have to face the fact that not all parents manage to talk to their children. Indeed, one study showed that one third of girls had not been told about periods before they started. So there is much that we have to do in relation to health education generally. Good comprehensive sex and relationship education can help young people delay first sex and make them more likely to use contraception when they do become sexually active. Countries that report low or falling rates of teenage parenthood all include sex education as part of their overall programme. That is why the Government have issued new guidance to schools to improve the quality of sex and relationship education, to give young people the information and skills they need to resist peer pressure to have early sex and to negotiate safe and responsible relationships. As my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen said, there is plenty of moral value to the guidance, including that pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.
With regard to the issue of sexually transmitted infections, there is of course concern about their level in this country, and the Government are committed to doing all they can to reverse that trend. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggested, no method of contraception is 100 per cent effective, and if an accident happens emergency contraception is an effective method of preventing pregnancy. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the availability of emergency contraception would lead to a rise in sexual disease.
This has been an extremely interesting and wide-ranging debate. I share with the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St. Albans, a sense of the sacredness of human life and the need for us to encourage self-regard in young people. But I believe that what we are talking about tonight is a sensible and entirely justified course of action, reached after very careful consideration and after the proper processes have been gone through, the processes laid down by the party opposite in 1992. It is action endorsed by the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which advised that this product can be safely supplied under the supervision of a pharmacist for emergency
542
contraception; action supported by the BMA, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the RCN, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and many other responsible bodies; and action which will encourage improved links between pharmacists and family planning services and help to ensure that under-16s and other women who need to see a doctor for contraceptive advice can be referred on quickly.
Surely women have the right to take advantage of the option of rapid availability from a pharmacist without the need for attendance at the GP or family planning clinic. Surely women and their partners have the right to make responsible choices about the size of their family.
I hope that the House will reject the Prayer.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has said nothing about the Northern Ireland anomaly, although the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the point. The age of consent in Northern Ireland is 17, not 16. Is it not therefore the case that a chemist in the Province who supplies the pill to a 16year-old may be guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal offence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that clearly is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Health Department. But I can tell the noble Lord that the decision has the full support of the Northern Ireland Health Department, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested, was signed by the Northern Ireland Health Minister. That Minister raised no objections, and I do not believe that that point impacts on the decision made in the order.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should first like to thank very much those who have supported me this evening, and, as always, to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who speaks with great moral authority. I only wish that I were as good a Christian as he is. We should all take note of his courage and sincerity. I also thank my noble friend Lord Elton for what he said. He was the one speaker who drew attention to the importance in all this discussion of love, commitment, responsibility and marriage. It is extraordinary how those four words are left out of every debate.
The two right reverend Prelates who have spoken will not be surprised to hear that I am very disappointed by what they said. I am bound to say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that to argue that the best can be the enemy of the good, and that therefore we should not have the best, seems to me an extraordinary moral argument. But I am not here to discuss that.
I was even more surprised to hear that the theological position of supporting the lesser of two evils is a good one to take up. When the Pope went to Ireland he was told that the IRA was protecting the Roman Catholic population against Protestant oppression, and his reply was quite simply "Murder is murder". We need to keep a firm hold on moral principles when we are talking about these matters.

543
We have had a very full debate. I started my remarks by saying that I thought there had been a great deal of misunderstanding about the issue. As I listened to the debate, I realised that those words were rather truer than I thought when I wrote them.
We have heard a great deal, at great length, with great emphasis and great force, about the importance of contraceptives, about a woman's right to choose and that every baby should be a wanted baby. It was as though somehow I was arguing against any of these principles. As I made abundantly clear at the beginning of my remarks, I am well aware that the morning-after pill has been available since 1985; that emergency contraception has been available to women since 1985. It is not new. I made it perfectly clear that if my Prayer against the order carries this evening, that situation will be the same; nothing will change. Listening to many of the speeches today, one would think that I was saying that emergency contraception would never be available again. I have not said that; I do not think it; it is simply not the case.
We are talking about whether or not these emergency contraceptive pills should be available across the chemist's counter. At this point I remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord Howe said about the role of pharmacists. Of course I recognise that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has laid down good guidelines—I would expect it to. I would expect pharmacists to do their best. But, as my noble friend Lord Howe pointed out, the reality is that we have all seen the queues in the chemist's shop. I do not know where all this consultation will take place. I looked into my local chemist in preparation for this debate to see where it might take place. There did not seem to be anywhere but the most public place, in front of the counter. Perhaps other chemists are different.
The questions that the chemist should ask are very important. We are putting at risk the health of young girls. I do not want that responsibility. We need to take these matters very seriously. The guidelines are correct but, as we all know, guidelines are not always adhered to, especially in a busy chemist's shop late in the evening. I ask the House to recall, very clearly, what my noble friend Lord Howe said.
Perhaps I may conclude by answering two or three points, which I believe to be important. I was very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, kept referring to 16 year-olds and under as women. This illustrates the attitude of the Government. In law, they are not women, they are children—and we should recognise what we are talking about.
I am sorry that he thought there would be no increase necessarily in sexually transmitted diseases as a result of increased use of the morning-after pill. Of course the morning-after pill encourages unprotected sex—that is one of its purposes. That is one of the reasons why young people look to it.
Finally, I should like to make a point about parents. Some of the talk about parents has been rather casual. One of the reasons—not the only reason—that we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in
544
this country is, of course, the high rate of marriage breakdown and the undermining of family life. Taking steps which undermine family life is very serious. I shall be perfectly frank, I do not like the fact that school nurses can provide the pill without parents knowing.
What is being said to parents is a kind of general, blanket question: "Would you like your children to be helped to understand sex, contraception and all the difficulties of growing up"? Most parents think it is a good idea. What they do not know is that the result of all this is that somebody, without telling them, is giving their child the morning-after pill and contraceptive advice.
We are contriving and conniving at undermining parents. Whatever I may think about it—and I have been a parent—I know that I would never want for other people's children what I would not want for my own. One thing we should have learnt is the importance of keeping teachers, parents and doctors all speaking with one voice to their children. One of the troubles that we have today is that they do not do so.
There are a lot of people in the country—I mention, once again, representatives of the Muslim community, who have been to see me on more than one occasion— who are very concerned about this matter. I would not have taken up the time of your Lordships' House today, or, indeed, on any other occasion, if I did not believe that in this world today—which, the debate has shown, is immensely confusing and uncertain for young people, with terrible tragedies waiting to happen, with the teenage pregnancy rate and so on— this move to give the right to chemists to supply the pill over the counter is an opportunity for one more ratcheting up of society. I do not believe it will help people. Women need the help; they have got the help. We should pray against this order today in the interests of young people.
8.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 177.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crathorne, L.

Attlee, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bell, L.

Denham, L.

Bellwin, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boardman, L.

Elton, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Feldman, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fitt, L.

Byford, B.

Fookes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Greenway, L.

Chalfont, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

545

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Higgins, L.

Pym, L.

Holderness, L.

Quinton, L.

Home, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Howe, E.

Renton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

Hylton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Liverpool, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Longford, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Lyell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Stewartby, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strange, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swinfen, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tebbit, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Thatcher, B.

Monson, L.

Tombs, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Vivian, L.

Northesk, E.

Waddington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Palmer, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wilcox, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Young, B. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Alli, L.

Desai, L,

Amos, B.

Dholakia, L.

Andrews, B.

Dubs, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elder, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Avebury, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barker, B.

Falkender, B.

Barnett, L.

Falkland, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Biffen, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Flather, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Blackwell, L.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brookman, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goodhart, L.

Burlison, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Goudie, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Greengross, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grenfell, L.

Chandos, V.

Hamwee, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Cobbold, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Haskel, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hattersley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hayman, B.

Crawley, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hogg, B.

David B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

546

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hooson, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Razzall, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea, L.

Hoyle, L.

Reay, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hutton, L.

Rennard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Richard, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rodgers of Riverside, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Russell, E.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Judd, L.

St Albans, Bp.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Layard, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Serota, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lipsey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Simon, V.

Listowel, E.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Southwark, Bp.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller].

Stern, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taverne, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thornton, B.

McNally, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Maddock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Turnberg, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Marsh, L.

Varley, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Mitchell, L.

Walmsley, B.

Morgan, L.

Warner, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Warnock, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Newby, L.

Whitaker, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Whitty, L.

Northover, B.

Wigoder, L.

Patel, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Broadcasting (Limit on the Holding of Licences to Provide Television Multiplex Services) Order 2001
9.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order revises the limits set out in paragraph 5 sub-paragraphs (1), (3), (4)(a) and (4)(b) of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended. The Secretary of State is empowered to adjust the limits by paragraph 5(5)(a) of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Act.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships back to first principles. What are multiplexes? Of course, we are all aware that we have entered the age of digital

547
broadcasting. The multiplex is a central feature of digital terrestrial television. A multiplex is a block of frequencies that can carry several digital channels. A multiplex enables many more channels to be carried than was previously the case with analogue signals. There are different multiplexes for digital radio and digital television. There are currently six digital terrestrial television multiplexes. Each is capable of carrying at least six television programme services. One of these multiplexes is reserved for the BBC, and the remaining five are licensed by the Independent Television Commission.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 stipulates that no person, which includes a company or business, can hold more than three licences to operate one of these multiplexes. The order raises this limit on multiplex licences that a person can hold from three to six, which is more than the number available. Therefore, it effectively removes the current restrictions on the number of licences that can be held. The justification for doing this is that the limit as it currently stands prevents developments within the industry which the Competition Commission has cleared on competition grounds.
The Competition Commission last year investigated several proposed ITV mergers, involving United News and Media, Granada Media and Carlton. In reaching its decision on which were permissible and which were against the public interest, the Competition Commission decided that the limits on the holding of multiplex licences made no difference to its overall conclusions. However, as the limit may have been exceeded by the mergers then proposed which meant that the groups would have had to sell off—that is, divest—subsidiaries, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport decided to act to remove the restriction on merger activity, which, in the view of the Competition Commission, was irrelevant in competition terms.
That decision, although taken as a result of the Competition Commission's report, was a neutral one and should not be taken as favouring any one company. The Secretary of State's announcement was made in advance of any final ITV merger activity, when it was still unknown when, or indeed whether, any of the proposed mergers would take place.
As primary legislation would be required to remove the limits from the statute book altogether, the Secretary of State has chosen to make use of a statutory instrument that would have the effect, at least for the present, of removing current restrictions. This route was agreed by the opposition parties in the House of Commons.
The order preserves the scheme of the legislation by stipulating the maximum number of licences that a person can hold and then specifying the extent of the interest which that person may have in additional licences. The scheme of the Act means that to have the effect of removing all restrictions on multiplex ownership, the numbers specified in the order must be
548
higher than the number of licences currently available. Therefore, the order refers to a hypothetical seventh and eighth multiplex.
We now know more about the way that the industry has developed than we did when the legislation was drawn up in 1996. Competition is between, rather than within, digital platforms—that is to say, competition is between satellite, cable and terrestrial platforms, rather than between commercial operators on the digital terrestrial platform. Given the Competition Commission's satisfaction that the current restrictions on the holding of these licences made no difference to their deliberations last year, the limits can safely be adjusted; and, in effect, removed. The principle is supported by the Independent Television Commission.
The order will help digital terrestrial television to develop as a mature, quality platform. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December be approved [First Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his customary clear explanation of the order. We support measures that are intended to promote the success of digital terrestrial television and agree with the Government that the current limit on the holding of licences represents an unnecessary obstacle to growth within the industry.
As the Minister pointed out, the original intention behind the restriction on ownership of multiplex licences to a maximum of three was benign. It was to encourage competition in the early days of digital terrestrial television. It is a fact now, however, that the market has developed in such a way that the principal competition is, as the Minister said, between platforms delivering broadcast services, rather than between those platforms.
I note that the Competition Commission is satisfied that this restriction on multiplex ownership does not raise concerns about competition, and that the limit can be adjusted without harming digital terrestrial television's future as a platform. These Benches therefore support the order.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches support the order and thank the Minister for explaining it so well. We fully take the points that he has made, in particular that the industry is so much better understood now than it was in 1996. I congratulate the Government and the industry on working so well together. This is an industry that has gathered a momentum that is probably greater than any of us had expected. I look forward to further collaboration of this kind in what is now looking to be a very promising prospect for the industry. There is no change of policy with which we need concern ourselves, and it is a purely technical matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations (Naples II)) Order 2001
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, today's organised criminals are intelligent and sophisticated, whether they are dealing with tobacco, drugs or firearms. They are also as adept at working across national boundaries as they are in one country. To combat such crime, governments must be able to match and surpass the ability of criminals to work across national boundaries. At the special European Council summit in Tampere in October 1999, member states committed themselves to depriving criminals of any hiding place in the European Union. The Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations, known as Naples II, will give effect to the necessary practical co-operation in the area of customs. The UK played a leading role in the development of the convention, and so I am pleased to bring this draft Order in Council before noble Lords.
The proposal for a Naples II Convention originated in 1991. The idea was to update the existing 1967 Naples Convention in order to provide a framework for modern cross-border investigation techniques. This framework was seen as desirable, given the creation of the single market on 1st January 1993. While this development served as a boost to intra-EC trade, the removal of border controls presented opportunities for abuse, which have been exploited in an increasingly organised manner by illicit traders and criminal organisations.
The 1967 Naples Convention made provision for mutual assistance between member states' customs administrations through two principal means: the sharing of information on contraventions of customs laws; and the investigation of contraventions on request by another member state's customs administration.
In particular, it allows for Customs officials to appear as witnesses or experts before the courts of other member states, and for customs officers to be present during investigations of contraventions by customs authorities in other member states.
Naples II builds on this by developing the administration and co-ordination of the mutual assistance activities, and by adding several other forms of co-operation. These are: hot pursuit; cross-border surveillance; covert investigations; controlled deliveries; and joint special investigation teams.
Signatories to the convention can opt out of each of the first three of these forms of special co-operation by making a declaration to that effect. The Government intend to opt out of the provisions on hot pursuit only.
Likewise, a signatory can make a general declaration that weapons may never be carried into its territory. The Government intend to make such a declaration.
The draft text of the convention cleared the scrutiny procedure for European legislation on 17th December 1997.
As the preamble to the convention requires that any action taken under its provisions must comply with the principles of legality, it must be necessary and not achievable by less significant means and it must be proportionate. The Government can confirm that the convention is compatible with the Human Rights Act.
To give legal effect to the convention in the UK it is necessary either to make primary legislation or to specify the convention as a Community treaty under the European Communities Act 1972. The purpose of this draft order is to take the latter course and specify the convention as a Community treaty.
I hope that on this point we may follow the example of the House of Commons Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which discussed the draft order on 17th January. In the committee there was cross-party support for the aims of the convention and a ready acceptance of its Community status. The committee was in agreement that an Order in Council was the appropriate means to give effect to this convention and that there was no need for any primary legislation. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the order to us with his customary verve and precision. I begin by assuring him that we on these Benches support its objectives.
The rationale for improving co-operation and assistance between Customs administrations not just in Europe but perhaps also more widely is self-evident. The growing problem of cross-border smuggling bears witness to that, as do more serious matters such as organised crime, involvement in drug trafficking, illegal immigration and so on.
Nonetheless, I hope that the Minister and the House will forgive me if I take up a small amount of time. I note that in a Standing Committee in another place considering delegated legislation, the Paymaster General made passing reference to the Naples II convention and its,
"provisions for dealing with the protection and use of data'".
Will the noble Lord elaborate on that a little further? To what extent, if at all, does that envisage the use of techniques such as data matching, friendship trees and so on to derive information that will assist customs administrations in their fight against crime? To the extent that it does, will the use of data be fully consonant with the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998? Are the provisions on data properly proportionate, particularly in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998? I suspect that the Minister has already answered that point. Nonetheless, I hope that he can assist the House on the points I have raised.

551
I note that the convention deals with other forms of co-operation, such as cross-border surveillance and covert investigations. I therefore assume that by definition the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 must apply in those instances in which those practices are carried out in the UK. That is all well and good but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the legality of that Act under European law is currently under investigation by the European Commission. While I accept that this is a little hypothetical, what are the implications of that for the future effectiveness of mutual assistance between customs administrations in Europe?
On a mildly related topic, is it safe to assume that the cybercrime treaty currently being drafted by the Council of Europe is intended to meld Naples II to provide a cohesive and comprehensive armoury in this area?
I look forward to the Minister's reply. In the meantime, I repeat our support for the order's objectives.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches also support the order.
As the Minister said, the major development during the past 20 or 30 years in the problems facing customs authorities is the growing sophistication and international nature of much of the smuggling activity that is involved. That activity has changed from that which occurred during the immediate post-war period and in the 1950s and 1960s, which one thinks of as involving traditional contraband goods, to one essentially of organised crime associated with drugs. We are dealing with extremely well financed international gangs which can be sensibly combated only by well financed international customs co-operation.
Of all the new areas that the Minister discussed and which are contained in the convention, that involving joint special investigative teams is probably the most important. Unless drug traffickers are faced with a concerted customs effort involving teams of people who put in the same time and effort to combat the traffickers as the traffickers themselves adopt, the traffickers will be successful.
The Minister discussed exemptions from the convention and said that we were opting out of the hot-pursuit arrangements. I assume that the case for hot pursuit from this country is significantly less than that which would apply if one were in Luxembourg or the Low Countries, where hot pursuit would be a real
552
problem. In this country, hot pursuit involves the relatively slow business of crossing the Channel. I assume that Customs and Excise feels that having a right to pursue its activities in territorial waters will give it enough scope to do what it wants.
The explanatory note to the order explains that the convention will come into force 90 days after the last member state gives notification that it has completed its constitutional procedures for the adoption of the convention. I should like to ask the Minister how far the member states have progressed in the ratification procedure and when we may expect all member states to be fully signed up. In doing so, I do not in any way seek to question the validity or the sense of the order, and we look forward to supporting it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the points in reverse order. When I read the papers on this order, I was worried that we were being rather slow in that it had taken since 1997 to give effect to this provision. However, when I inquired further, I discovered that only Greece has adopted the convention. We are the second member state to do so. Therefore, we may be slow but almost everyone else is slower. I do not believe that the 90 days will lose us our second place in the queue.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is of course quite right about the matter of hot pursuit. It is true that the nature of our boundaries means that anyone who attempts hot pursuit may well end up with "wet pursuit". Clearly, it would not be appropriate for us to do that.
With regard to the questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, I was most interested in the point that he made about data matching and friendship trees. He asked me whether the provisions were in accordance with the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The answer to that is: no, the convention will merely provide for the exchange of existing information under Naples II. There are no provisions for intelligence techniques. That means positively that there is no risk of contravention of the Data Protection Act or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It may mean negatively that more is still to be done in the future.
Perhaps I may correct what I said in relation to Greece. I understand that France, Sweden and the Netherlands have announced in Brussels that they have now ratified Naples II. Therefore, we are among the top five and not the top two countries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
Monday, 29th January 2001.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham & Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham & Vaux): Before we start the proceedings, I remind the Committee of the special Division procedures which were announced on the first day and which are available in Hansard.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth Baroness Darcy de Knayth moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill

  ADVICE ON SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
  (" . At the end of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 26 to the 1996 Act insert "on the nature of a child's special educational needs and on the type and the amount of special educational provision required to meet them."").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 32, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 37. They are all aimed at improving parents' chances of securing the best possible educational provision for their child with a statement of special educational need.
  The amendments look large and perhaps complex but they are, basically, tweaking the existing mechanism, which is often very much more complicated than replacing the machine itself. I shall try to be brief but please bear with me because I need to take them one by one. They are a suggestion of IPSEA, which is the Independent Panel of Special Education Advice. I declare that I am a member of that organisation but on paper only; I am certainly not a panel member, as I appear to have said in Committee on 23rd January at col. CWH 4. Panel members are involved daily in advising, giving evidence and helping parents through the maze of special education law. They speak, therefore, from first-hand experience rather than from anecdotal evidence.
  I should record my gratitude to the Clerk of Public Bills for the huge amount of help I have had in getting these amendments right. Some involve regulations, which we cannot amend, but which point out where the problem is. If Members of the Committee agree, I shall not go into the detail of the amendments because, even if I did not confuse everyone else, I would almost certainly confuse myself. I prefer to concentrate on what they seek to achieve. All the issues have been discussed with Ministers and the department over a period of time so there are no surprises. However, I hope that the Minister will agree to take them away
  CWH64
  and consider them and perhaps cone back with amendments of her own. In addition, if there are problems, perhaps she would be willing to discuss them with me outwith the Committee.
  I turn to Amendment No. 32. Its purpose is to require LEAs to seek professional advice on both the type and the amount of provision required to meet a child's special educational needs. While professionals do not decide upon the amount of provision to be specified in a statement, which is the LEA's duty, it is important that the decisions are made on the basis of the professional advice which is available to parents. At present, some LEA officers and indeed health authority and trust managers, instruct professionals not to include their opinion on provision—and specifically the amount of provision required —in their assessment reports.
  Many professionals are unsure of their duties in that respect. Therefore, if Amendment No. 32 were accepted, it would ensure that LEAs have a legal duty to seek advice, not just on the child's needs, but also on the type and the amount of provision required to meet them. The benefit will be a more informed and more open decision-making process, ultimately reducing parental disagreement and the need for recourse to the tribunal. In the interests of clarity, it would be useful if they were backed up by changes in the SEN regulations 1994. Again, perhaps I can discuss that outwith the Chamber.
  I turn to Amendment No. 33, whose purpose is to require LEAs to issue a new statement following a fresh assessment of a child who already has a statement. The problem is that, as the law is written, parents are only entitled to express a preference on their child's school on the issuing of the first statement. This was probably a drafting; it can never have been the intention when the law was written. I shall explain the situation briefly and, I hope, simplify it.
  The Education Act 1980 gave all parents the right to express a preference for their child's school. Parents named the school they wanted the child to attend and LEAs had a duty to comply, unless there were specific reasons why the school was not suitable. The 1981 Act removed the right to express a preference for a school from the parents of all statemented children. It shifted the burden of proof. Parents had to prove why and how the school they wanted was appropriate for their child, rather than LEAs having to prove why it was not—a far more difficult task for a parent.
  The 1993 Act reinstated the right of parents of statemented children to express a preference for a school but only following the issuing of their child's first statement. In fact, the parents of children who were very young and assessed before they ever went to school have never had the legal right to express a preference. Parents of children with statements continue to be denied the right in law to express a preference when, following subsequent assessment of their child, the existing statement is amended. The amendment procedure under Schedule 27(10) denies the parent the right to express a preference for a school or to request a meeting with an officer to discuss the changes to be made to the existing statement.
  The aim of the amendment is to cause the LEAs to issue a new statement, which would supersede the first one as the legal statement, following every assessment of a child's special educational needs. That would give the parents of statemented children the right to express a preference for a school following every statutory assessment of their child.
  The aim of Amendment No. 37 is to end the confusion that the existing statute causes to many LEAs and parents. It would separate in law the right of appeal following reassessment and the right of appeal following amendment. It would not introduce any new appeal rights but it would clear the two separate procedures that we hope will operate in future. First and subsequent assessments would be dealt with under Section 326, while Schedule 27 would cover only amended statements.
  The aim of Amendment No. 34 is to introduce a new right to request a meeting with an officer and to express a preference for a school whenever a statement is amended under Section 27(10). Schedule 27(10) does not currently allow parents the right to express a preference for a school. There is some misunderstanding of the law at present and tribunals have been tightening up on this, but my interpretation—and that of IPSEA and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal—is that they are not allowed to express a preference. The opportunity presents itself to put that right now and it is important that we take it.
  The amendment would direct LEAs to comply with parental preference for a school whenever a child's statement was amended, for whatever reason. Amendments are most commonly made without assessment, or at the point of nursery-primary or primary-secondary transfer.
  I apologise for speaking at such length on amendments that are mainly small tweakings to put right things that were never intended. I hope that they will clarify the legal situation by separating the assessment and amending procedures. These are small tweakings, but very important for the children involved. I hope for an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Rix: I rise to support briefly the amendments proposed by my noble friend, Baroness Darcy de Knayth. The noble Baroness has explained their aim much better than I could have done. They would ensure that the parental rights to be heard, to deal with a well briefed local authority that had some sense of urgency and to appeal to a tribunal were not put at risk by technicalities.
  The principles of the noble Baroness's case are not open to serious challenge. I cannot imagine that the restrictions she has explained were ever intended. As she has pointed out, we are not seeking fresh statements where the amended statements will do perfectly well, but the simple and economical procedure of amending rather than re-doing must not
  CWH66
  remove basic rights. I trust the Minister will be able to set our minds at rest by offering her own answers to these very real problems.
  Baroness Blatch: I, too, support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. My amendment is complementary to hers and would ensure that all was done in good time. School medics or school nurses are often the first people, after parents—although sometimes instead of parents—who see signs of physical or special needs. As qualified people, they should be able to insist on a statement within a reasonable time scale. My aim is to provoke a response on the possibility of specifying that in the Bill.
  As many of us said at Second Reading, we are all aware of the importance of a child's special educational needs being addressed as early as possible. I have tabled the amendment to ensure early intervention. After a child's parents, a school medical officer or a school nurse is best placed to see signs of need for these children. Their particular qualifications and professional opinion should carry weight when a request for a child to be statemented is made. When a request to the local education authority for a statement is supported by a professional of the kind I have described, a statement should be forthcoming within a reasonably short timescale. All too often there are delays in obtaining a statement for a child.
  Special educational needs identified by professionals in primary schools are not always picked up before the child is ready to transfer to secondary school. As we all know, too often when the child come to secondary school he may have several terms when everybody goes back to first base to note what his special needs are. Having defined what the child's needs are, a third placement may be needed at a different school from the secondary school.
  I am especially concerned about pupils who make this transfer from primary to secondary. A number of studies have discovered this weak link in the system when children move from primary school. Sometimes there may be a reluctance on the part of the primary school to do this work; it is then left to the secondary school. I believe that it is in the interests of the child for a statement to be made, prior, if at all possible, to any transfer where a school medical officer or a school nurse thinks that a child has special educational needs. I am suggesting the new clause. Part of me believes that we could go as far as requiring local educational authorities to provide a statement for a child within a particular timescale. I believe that I can pre-empt the response of the noble Baroness. There needs to be some flexibility where the timescale cannot be met. I should like to think that there would be a presumption in favour of a six-month timescale. Six months is a long time when a child is waiting to have a definitive statement on his special needs. I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness David: I, too, rise to support this group of amendments. It seems to me they make very reasonable demands on the LEAs, make for clarification and would help both the parents and the

  CWH67
  children themselves. I think they are very reasonable and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response to them.
  Lord Northbourne: I support Amendment No. 91ZA. When we last met I spoke about the long delays occurring within certain local authorities in getting children statemented— sometimes on the excuse that there are not enough psychologists. I was director of school which has many children who are not statemented but—my goodness—they have a problem. The local authorities drag their feet on getting them statemented because they do not want to have to meet the bill for special education.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. From the arguments put forward by both the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it does not seem likely that in the 1993 Act the government sought deliberately to curtail parental rights in this way. It seems a plausible argument and the proposed amendment extremely sensible.
  I support Amendments Nos. 32 and 91ZA. One of the problems which arises time and again is that of local education authorities dragging their feet in terms of statements, perhaps seeking professional advice but not including in the statement a specification of the precise amount and duration. Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 pick up those issues. It is a real problem and one that we need to address.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: I, too, support those two particular amendments. Amendment No. 32 appeals to me particularly because one of the features of the years of local authorities trying to control their SEN budgets has been that they have said to educational psychologists, "If you produce a report that we can't use in whatever way we want, we won't employ you again." Many educational psychologists now produce reports that are so bland and meaningless that the local authority can do as it wants with the child. That is a perversion of professional ethics that we should not allow to continue. Educational psychologists should be independent and produce meaningful reports. If we cannot do that by giving them some status as a profession with a body of their own to protect their ethics, we should start to do it in the way proposed in Amendment No. 32, by making sure that what they produce is of use to parents and their advisers as well as suiting the requirements of local authorities to control costs. It is important that we use the Bill to make some progress on that matter in some way.
  Turning to Amendment No. 91ZA, I too see the need for speeding up the procedure. It is an unenviable position in which local authorities find themselves. They are told by Mr. Blunkett that they have to delegate 85 per cent of their expenditure. They have 5 per cent plus on SEN, 5 per cent plus on transport and a little scrap left over for their central costs. That is a very hard regime and they have no flexibility to
  CWH68
  find more money to spend on SEN, so much of their effort goes into controlling it. That is not the way in which we should write the legislation. The local authorities' duties should be clear and we should deal with the resulting cost pressures through the Treasury or in other ways.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I begin by saying that we have some sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment. I have some constructive words to offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, with a reservation about Amendment No. 32 that I shall talk about in a moment. I have greater difficulties with Amendment No. 91ZA that I shall need to present to the Committee and I apologise for the length of the arguments.
  We consider that Amendment No 32 is unnecessary. The Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 already require that the advice provided by professionals for statutory assessments should relate to the educational, medical, psychological or other features relevant to a child's educational needs; how those features could affect his educational needs; and, the provision that is appropriate in the light of those features. To go further and require those giving advice to specify the particular amount of provision would be inappropriate. That is a matter for the LEA which must consider the advice it receives from various sources in the round and determine the provision to be specified in a child's statement after taking that advice. It is, after all, always open to the LEA to hack to those giving advice if it needs more details. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, will consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 seek to secure a more consistent way for parents of children with statements to express a preference for a school of their choice and to have a meeting with the LEA where their child's statement will be changed following a statutory reassessment or an annual review. Currently, parents only have that right the first time the LEA carries out a statutory assessment and issues a proposed statement. It is true that where the LEA carries out a subsequent statutory assessment and in the light of that assessment wishes to change the existing statement, or where it wishes to change a statement following an annual review, it must by law amend it. As part of the process of amendment, parents do not have a formal legal right to express a preference for a particular school or to require the LEA to arrange a meeting with them to discuss the proposed amendments.
  But the LEA is obliged to give parents formal notice of the proposals for amending the child's statement and to allow them 15 days to make appropriate representations. It is quite usual for parents, as part of their representations, to express a preference for a particular school and, indeed, to seek a meeting. Many LEAs comply and many offer a meeting when they send the formal notice to the parents.

  CWH69
  Under paragraph 8 of Schedule 27 to the 1996 Act, parents may also once a year ask the LEA to specify a different school in their child's statement. Ultimately if, having taken account of parents' representations, the LEA amends the statement and the parents disagree with the amended statement, they have, of course, the right to appeal to the SEN tribunal in relation to the description of the child's needs and the provision as well as the named school.
  Amendment No. 37 appears to have no material effect if taken alone. It is designed to ensure that parents can appeal against the wider contents of an amended statement, rather than the amendments that have been made following a reassessment or review. As I have just explained, they can do that already. The amendment would therefore appear to be unnecessary. However, we propose to consider Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to see if there are ways of achieving greater consistency and therefore any possible effect such amendments may have in relation to Amendment No. 37. I shall ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
  Amendment No. 91ZA would require LEAs to make a statement for every child under five whom a health authority or NHS trust believed had, or probably had, special educational needs. This would not be appropriate. It is for the LEA to decide, in the light of appropriate advice, whether the child has special educational needs and, if so, what action should be taken.
  Under Section 332 of the Education Act 1996, where a health authority or NHS trust are of the opinion that a child under the age of five has, or probably has, special educational needs, they must inform the child's parent. After giving the parent the opportunity to discuss that opinion with an officer of the authority or trust, they must bring it to the attention of the local education authority. It is then for the local education authority to decide what action to take. It may decide that the child's educational needs can be met without an assessment or a statement.
  A child attending a nursery school or early education setting may have his or her needs met from within the resources of the school or setting without any need for further intervention by the LEA. This may be by way of an individualised programme tailored to their particular learning needs, access to some specialist equipment or perhaps some advice on a one-off or occasional basis from the LEA support services. In many such cases, the local health professionals will already be working with the special educational needs co-ordinators to assess any underlying physical or sensory difficulties that may be causing problems and providing advice on the programmes or strategies that could be used to help.
  In many cases where a child under five and over two is referred by a health authority to an LEA, he or she will have demonstrated a significant cause for concern. These children may have severe and complex needs that are likely to be resolved through a statutory assessment and a statement to ensure, for example,
  CWH70
  access to a particular service such as home-based teaching or a developmental play programme and to continuous monitoring and review. In those cases the LEA must complete the process within an overall period of around six months. Again, if the health services have been involved all along, the time taken to conduct such an assessment will be reduced since a lot of the information required will already be available.
  Where children under two are referred to the LEA, it is probable that their parents or the child health services will have found that they have a particular condition or major health problem very early on. In some areas the Sure Start programme will have not only identified the child but also co-ordinated access to relevant services. When they decide they need to carry out an assessment, they will have a great deal of information already. Children under two need not follow the normal statutory processes for assessment, shortening the time taken for a decision. If it is decided, following an assessment, that a statement is needed, it can usually be made very quickly, well inside six months.
  The current SEN code of practice advises that, where a health authority refers a child to an LEA, there should be agreed procedures for acting speedily to ascertain whether the child's needs require specific intervention from the LEA. The draft revised SEN code of practice also emphasises the importance of early intervention and joint working between local education authorities and health and social services to meet the needs of children with SEN as quickly as possible.
  We are developing guidance for health and social service professionals to complement the revised code of practice to promote closer co-ordination and good practice in this important area. We are also strengthening the arrangements for identifying children with SEN as early as possible.
  During Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked what in the Bill will improve early identification and intervention for children with a range of conditions such as autism, sensory impairment and dyslexia? Other noble Lords emphasised the importance of early intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of early intervention and I shall say a little about what we are doing to encourage it. However, in response to the noble Baroness's question, this Bill is not the vehicle by which to achieve better early identification and intervention.
  Legislative provisions under the 1996 Act already set out arrangements LEAs should follow for the assessment of SEN for children over two and empowers them to make their own arrangements for children under two. The Act also places a duty on health authorities and NHS trusts to inform LEAs where they believe a child under five may have SEN.
  But legislation on its own cannot ensure efficient early identification and intervention. We are encouraging that through a range of key initiatives. Programmes such as Sure Start, to which I have already made reference, Quality Protects and early

  CWH71
  excellence centres all promote multi-agency early intervention. Early years providers' ability to identify SEN and respond appropriately is being developed through conditions on government funding of early education, stipulation on early years development and childcare partnerships, and through the Foundation Stage Curriculum introduced in September 2000. Approaching 13.5 million for early years training and development, including training to identify SEN, is being provided this year. And QCA research has shown that almost three-quarters of the local baseline assessment schemes are being used effectively as warning indicators of possible impairments.
  In the short term, we aim to disseminate good practice in this area to bring all schemes up to the standards of the best. In the longer term, the introduction of a national baseline scheme in 2002–03 presents an opportunity to improve that figure since it will incorporate the features of the best local schemes.
  Screening for specific conditions can have a role to play. At the close of the Second Reading debate, mention was made of the Department of Health's neonatal hearing screening programme. Checklists for autism in toddlers for use by health visitors enhances the possibility of early detection of autistic spectrum disorders. However, early screening is not, of course, the complete answer. The difficulties of children with Asperger's syndrome, for instance, may only become fully apparent once they are in a school setting and preschool screening for dyslexia would not be reliable, producing a large number of false positives.
  We believe the improvements we are making to identification of the full range of children's special educational needs—where they present singly or in combination and whenever they occur in a child's educational career—will provide the surest way of identifying those needs.
  I return, therefore, to Amendment No. 91ZA, which would require a statement to be issued for every child referred to a local education authority by a health authority or NHS trust. That is not necessary since, in a number of cases, appropriate help can be provided without a statement. The current arrangements allow for action to be taken quickly where assessments are necessary and fast-track arrangements are possible for children under the age of two. We have taken steps to ensure that children with SEN are identified as early as possible and to promote closer co-operation between local education and health authorities so that children's needs are met at the earliest opportunity.
  In the light of what I have said—and I apologise for having spoken at such length—I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will consider not moving her amendment.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would like to speak before I withdraw my amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: If I speak now, it will save coming back to my amendment later. I am grateful to the noble
  CWH72
  Lord because he has gone into great detail and much of what he has describes good practice—something that we would like to see dispensed throughout the country. However, I need to read his response more carefully because I was quite concerned about some of what was said.
  The input behind my amendment is that there should be a presumption of a speedy response where professionals are concerned about the educational needs of a child being met. In addition, I made more than a passing reference to the need for that work to be done as early as possible and certainly before a child leaves primary school and goes to secondary school.
  It does beg a lot of questions when a child in the early stages of secondary school requires a statement. There have to be some serious questions asked about was happening during all the years prior to the transfer to secondary school. At one stage the Minister said— perhaps in a slightly different context—that this is not the Bill to improve the system. I was always proud that the 1993 and 1996 Bills went through the House with a great deal of all-party support and I regard this Bill as an opportunity to build on and to improve them where we possibly can. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at some of the weak links in the system—one of those is most certainly the transfer of children with special educational needs from primary into secondary school—as well as the speeding up of statements for children.
  I think I heard the Minister say that, where a health professional spots a problem with a child who may require special educational needs and goes to the local authority, it is for the local authority to make that decision. I want to pose a specific question to the Minister: where the health professional comes across a child before the age of five and over the age of two and considers the child to require special provision, for whatever reason, then if the LEA disagrees and decides not to carry out an assessment, where does that leave the parent? Indeed, where does it leave the needs of the child? There is something rather unnerving in that because the noble Lord said something else which seems to conflict; namely, that where a health professional picks up a problem, usually one really does exist.
  As the chairman of a playschool for some eight years, prior to coming into this House, I know that those problems can often be picked up accidentally. I recall a child who produced what was thought to be scribbling and doodling but which turned out to be most accurate mirror-writing, though in a rather shaky hand. It transpired that that child was seeing and writing in a way that required a great deal of correction. That was picked up purely by informal, unprofessional observation at a playschool. We were then able to call in the professionals, who made representations to the LEA. It is a question of where the rights of the parents lie in a situation where the problem is picked up by a third party professional and the LEA decides not to carry it through.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: Before my good and noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth rises to respond to the Minister, I, too, congratulate him on
  Lord Morris of Manchester: Before my good friend the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, responds to the Minister, I too thank him for his reply.
  My noble friend is well aware of my wide-ranging contacts with the organisations of and for disabled people and their families. From these contacts, I know that the strongest and most persistent criticism of the parents of children with special educational needs is that, the wider the discretion allowed, the longer the delays and the wider the diversity of local authority practices.
  One important objective of the amendment of the noble Baroness's amendments is to reduce that diversity by levelling up on the basis of the best existing practice. I hope very much that the Minister will reflect carefully on the arguments the noble Baroness put forward this afternoon and will respond positively to her on Report. If the problem is one of finding more felicitous drafting, that is not insoluble. I am sure my noble friend will want to do all he can on Report to ensure that we leave these sections of the Bill in a form that will give pleasure to the parents of children with special educational needs, many of whom are at present dismayed by unacceptable delays in today's wide diversity of local authority practices.
  Lord Northbourne: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify something. He has told us what the local authority is supposed to be doing and, with credulity, I believe that some local authorities are not doing so. Am I right to believe that Ofsted is now inspecting local education authorities? If so, will they inspect these issues?
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, replies, perhaps I may say that the Minister seems to be wearing rose-coloured spectacles. Those of us who have been involved as governors of schools feel that the situation on the ground very seldom operates in the way described, partly because there is such a shortage of specialist advisers.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that the strongest and most persistent criticism related to the diversity of LEA practice. I find that the strongest and most persistent criticism is about the time taken and the degree of foot dragging by local education authorities when it is clear to the professionals involved that it would be useful to have a statement. In introducing Amendment No. 32, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, argued that when the professionals are involved you do not get a statement which specifies with any precision the amount of help required.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned, one reason is that the local education authorities are currently very squeezed of resources. We have every
  CWH74
  sympathy for them. However, the fact is that the system does not operate on the ground in the way outlined.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, managed to sum up in 10 words what I took about 10 minutes to explain. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her support. As the "mother" of the 1993 and 1996 Acts, that means a great deal. I share her concern. I hoped that the government amendment about the responsible body might cover her amendment. I, too, have an amendment to increase the pressure on the timescale, but we shall consider that later.
  The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave great support for Amendment No 32. This amendment found the least favour with the Minister. Surely it is absolutely crucial. There are always arguments, and people go to tribunals, on the provision aspect of the statement and it is more an more important. In the Bill aids and services are excluded for school children—they are given to the post-16s—on the grounds that those aids and services need not be included under the DDA because the children with statements and special educational needs are safeguarded by the security of their statements. It is absolutely crucial therefore that statements contain very specific provisions. Surely, if there is a professional report, that report ought to be included. I am not asking the professional to write the statement; merely to make the report available and the LEAs to pay attention to it. As I said when I introduced the amendment, at the moment some of them instruct the professionals not to include the opinion on provision.
  I thank the Minister for his detailed and thoughtful reply. I was gloomy about Amendment No. 32 and ask if he is willing to discuss it further outwith the Chamber at some point. I see he is nodding, for which I thank him.
  I was also rather gloomy about Amendments Nos. 32, 34 and 37. I believe I understood him to say that he would take them away and look at them. Again, I am grateful for that nod because I had been rather gloomy when I heard him pray in aid Schedule 27(8). That gives some rights but is not nearly as strong nor as satisfactory a process.
  Amendment No. 37 appears to be almost pointless but was made necessary by Amendment No. 34. We knocked out something in Amendment No. 33 which Amendment No. 34 would need. So I was putting back the trigger. Anyway, I am sure that the department will have a much better way of drafting it and will not need anything like Amendment No. 37, and for that I am hugely grateful. If the Minister would be prepared to discuss Amendment No. 32 further, I would be doubly grateful. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 35:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause?

  SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS TRIBUNAL: ESTABLISHMENT OF CONCILIATION SERVICE
  (" . In the 1996 Act, insert the following section"
  "Conciliation service.
  333A. The Tribunal may establish and maintain a conciliation service."").
  The noble Lord said: I am not sure why these amendments have been grouped together; they are nothing to do with each other. In relation to the next group, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 96; it is on a different part of the Bill entirely, let alone a different subject.
  Taking Amendment No. 35 first; this is merely to sound out the Government on the possibility of the tribunal being allowed to encourage conciliation. It is a practice which is catching on quite satisfactorily elsewhere and it seems to me that the tribunal ought to be looking in that direction.
  Amendment No. 38 deals with a minor difficulty which causes considerable distress in some individual cases. Where a parent is appealing against an assessment, the local authority normally does not have the right to go ahead with that assessment until the appeal has been determined. However, where there is an amendment to an assessment, the local authority can go ahead with that amendment even though there is an appeal pending. Several local authorities are using that provision to chuck children out of one school into a school of the authority's choosing, which can result in a child's education being severely disrupted for a period of a year or more while the appeal is taking place, which eventually puts the child back into the school where he was originally. The principle in the Act that the local authority should not be able to go against the parents' wishes until the appeal is determined is one we should follow in all cases rather than just most.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I would like to support this amendment. As the noble Lord says, it avoids double disruption to a child's schooling.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me begin by saying how much I appreciate the intention that lies behind Amendment No. 35, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to which he has just spoken, which is to reduce the number of cases which have to be taken to the SEN tribunal. We would all wish to keep those to as low a level as possible.
  However, we do not believe that the SEN tribunal is the appropriate body to run conciliation arrangements for parents and LEAs who are in dispute over the special educational needs provision for a child.
  It has always been clear that the tribunal's role is to determine parents' appeals against the decisions of LEAs about children's special educational needs. If the tribunal were to act as a conciliator prior to an
  CWH76
  appeal, this might be seen as prejudicing a parent's absolute right to have his or her appeal heard. The tribunal might be seen as trying to encourage them to drop their appeal, which is, after all, one of the purposes of any conciliation exercise. Mixing the legal role of the tribunal with the less defined and more open-ended role of a conciliator might risk undermining the tribunal's reputation for rigour and impartiality.
  The amendment is also unnecessary as it duplicates to an extent provision elsewhere in this Bill. Clause 3 of this Bill provides that LEAs must make arrangements for the avoidance and resolution of disputes. The arrangements must provide for independent persons to facilitate the avoidance and resolution of disputes. The amendment would mean a substantial overlap between the services provided by the tribunal as a court of appeal and those provided by the LEA and the independent facilitators and conciliators.
  This issue of unnecessary duplication may also arise in respect of disability cases heard by the tribunal, when it becomes the SEN and disability tribunal and the provisions of the Bill dealing with disability discrimination come into effect. Under the provisions of Clause 36 of the Bill the Disability Rights Commission will be given the power to make arrangements for the provision of conciliation services. When those provisions come into force the amendment would mean that there might be three sets of conciliation services available in respect of a dispute arising from the same set of facts.
  It may be that the noble Lord is concerned about the independence and impartiality of the services to be provided under Clause 3 as these will be arranged by LEAs. I restate the requirement of the Bill at. Clause 3(3) that the arrangements
  "must provide for the appointment of independent persons".
  Turning to Amendment No. 38, LEAs have a statutory duty to make arrangements to meet a child's special educational needs as set out in his or her statement, unless they cease to maintain the statement because, for example, the child no longer has special educational needs that warrant additional or different provision from that provided by their school from within its own resources.
  We are providing in this Bill, in such cases. for the child's statement to be maintained until the tribunal has come to a decision. This will ensure that where parents disagree that their child no longer needs the protection of a statement, they can be assured that the statement and the additional support provided for their child under the statement will be maintained until their arguments are heard by the tribunal and a decision is reached.
  This amendment seeks to secure the same treatment where the LEA proposes to amend the child's statement. But a decision of an LEA to amend a child's statement because it has come to a professional judgment that it needs to be changed to reflect the current needs of the child is of a entirely different order. It would not be appropriate in those

  CWH77
  circumstances for the provision to be put on hold to allow an appeal from the parents to be heard by the tribunal and a decision reached. If an LEA amends a child's statement before the tribunal judgment, the child will still receive the provision that the LEA considers appropriate for his or her needs, although it may not necessarily be the provision the parents want. If the tribunal later finds in the parents favour, the child will then receive the provision the parents consider suitable for meeting their child's needs.
  The amendment would not take account of situations where a number of amendments to the statement are being suggested and the parents agree with some but not others. In such cases, the parents would have to wait for the amendments with which they agree to be implemented until after the tribunal had reached its final decision. Under the present arrangements the child would benefit straight away.
  Having heard those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lucas: I am grateful for the Minister's reply on Amendment No. 35. It is complete, accurate and satisfactory. I do not believe that he addressed Amendment No. 38 at all. I understand that the problem of amendments is a complicated one, and I have not sought in my drafting to do more at this stage than raise the issue. The use which is being made of this power and the disruption which is being caused to children's education are not issues we should let pass by as lightly as the noble Lord appears to wish to do. I hope that he and his officials have listened to the problems which I have brought to his notice; they will have come across them in other contexts.
  Perhaps there is some way of limiting what can be done under the heading of amendment. Perhaps we can consider other ways of approaching the matter to avoid minor amendments which recommend reducing 20 hours to 18 hours of support, or something of that nature, which do not cause a great deal of disruption to the child's education. However, where this procedure is being used in a way which does cause a great deal of disruption to the child's education, we should go back to the protection for the parents and child. In some cases statements are effectively being ended by amendment and that should be subject to the same controls as ending the statement.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, decides whether to withdraw his amendment, would it not be possible either for the Government or the noble Lord to meet the case which the Minister talked about where there were a number of amendments and only one or two parents objected? It would not be difficult to draft an amendment to meet these particular cases and to allow that to happen. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the Minister would consider that way forward.
  Lord Lucas: I would never dream of saying that it was not difficult to draft an amendment; I have rarely
  CWH78
  succeeded in doing so satisfactorily. I am sure the Minister has listened to what has been said. I am equally sure that this is a matter to which we shall return on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 36:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  ACCESS TO SUITABLE EDUCATION FOR CHILD WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTY
  (" . In section 312(1) of the 1996 Act (definitions), after "difficulty" insert ", or a difficulty in accessing education suitable for his abilities,".").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment reminds us that the children about whom we have been talking are not the only ones with special needs. There are a large number of children in this country whose special needs arise because they have particular abilities which schools are generally not in a position to encourage. They may be exceptionally intelligent; they may have exceptional talent as musicians or artists, in sports or other ways. Many schools are not in a position to give the child the attention and support which would be required for the child to develop fully those abilities.
  It is an old chestnut and I do not intend to waste the Committee's time on it. However, we should remember that differing needs arise and we should support those children with particular provision just as we wish to support children whose needs arise from other causes. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blatch: I welcome the opportunity to have the matter discussed. We—and I include the Government—aim for the learning difficulties of any child which are over and above the norm to be appropriately addressed. They should be given equal consideration. If over time, we want to reduce the number of people who require statements, then the more seriously the aims of the amendment are met, the better.
  A combination of early intervention and taking seriously all learning difficulties at an early age will reduce the later needs of children whose difficulties are such that they require a statement. I therefore welcome the amendment. It may not be easy to draft an amendment to meet those difficulties, but it is important to put on record reassurances about meeting the needs of all children, particularly those with learning difficulties, who fall short of needing a statement.
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): I am sorry that Amendment No. 96 is grouped with Amendment No. 36. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not consider them in any way related. We thought that they were. The fact that Amendment No. 96 applies to a different part of the Bill does not mean that it cannot be grouped with Amendment No. 36, although I accept entirely the noble Lord's right to de-group the amendments.

  CWH79
  Amendment No. 36 would add to the definitions of "special educational needs" in section 312 of the 1996 Act. Concerns have been expressed about how the definitions will work together between this and the second part of the Bill. I hope that I can provide the reassurance sought by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
  Section 312 of the 1996 Act provides that children are classed as having learning difficulties if they have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age or have a disability that prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind provided for children of the same age. The test for children under five years is whether this would be true of them once they reached five, if no special educational provision were made.
  The current statutory arrangements in the 1996 Act, supported by the guidance given to LEAs, schools and others in the SEN code of practice, already provide for children's needs to be addressed—whether solely through school-based provision or with additional resources and support from the LEA by way of a statement. The current definition already seems to achieve what the noble Lord seeks in Amendment No. 36. I do not dispute what he is seeking in any way, but the definition is clear in the Act.
  The amendment could also be read as extending the SEN definition to cover children who are not provided with work that specifically meets their abilities at any time. The problem is one of wording. That interpretation would extend the definition of SEN to all children when they are not provided with lessons or resources commensurate with their ability. This would mean that every child would be likely to fall within Part IV at some stage in their school career, as there may be times, especially in whole-class, mixed-ability teaching, when the lesson is not totally differentiated but is appropriate in that particular context. No doubt as parents we could all cite examples of when what was being taught did not seem to be 100 per cent appropriate to the needs of our children at that precise time. That seems almost inevitable.
  Amendment No. 36 refers to,
  "a difficulty in accessing education suitable for his abilities".
  Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has in mind an example of a very bright child who has some specific learning difficulties in, say, literacy that threaten his access to the rest of the curriculum. Such a child would have learning difficulties under the present definitions of special educational needs and would receive provision for those needs through the SEN framework, perhaps by way of a differentiated curriculum and some targeted multi-sensory work in reading and spelling through the national literacy strategy from the school's resources without the need for a statement.
  To give another example, a visually impaired child at a mainstream school might need advice from a qualified teacher of the visually impaired, low-vision aids and specific IT equipment, including a computer, in order to access education suitable to his abilities. In
  CWH80
  that case, he would receive help through the SEN framework via a statement of special educational needs. Both children would fall within the existing definition of SEN in the 1996 Act. I hope that illustrates why Amendment No. 36 is unnecessary. In the light of the reassurance I have given and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 41:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause"

  EXPENSE
  (" . In the 1966 Act, after section 316, insert—"
  "Expense.
  316AA. In the exercise of any functions under this Part, provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision."").
  The noble Lord said: I regret to say that Amendment No. 41 was decoupled in our proceedings on 23rd January from Amendment No. 21, with which it was erroneously grouped. If I may, I will speak to Amendment No. 41 now. I should start by apologising for a typographical error in its wording: the 1966 Act should of course refer to the 1996 Act
  I can be very brief. This amendment merely seeks to pick up on our amendments last year to the Learning and Skills Bill and to replicate what became Section 2(4) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 into this Bill. It may be that this provision is already in the Bill, in which case I apologise to the Committee for not having been able to find it. If it is not, I submit that it should be, especially given the words of the Minister at col. 778 on 18th July last, when we considered Commons amendments to the Learnings and Skills Bill, and when she said that the new Section 2(4) of that Bill would apply to provision for both sixth forms and for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. This amendment merely assumes that the same policy will apply to schools.
  The effect of this amendment would be to prevent an LEA from refusing to fund either a mainstream place or a place at a special school merely because that provision appeared more expensive than comparable provision, perhaps nearer to home, or perhaps not, but in any case, merely on the grounds that it appeared more expensive.
  I am as usual batting largely for special schools which at first sight can appear more expensive than mainstream schools. LEAs have in the past clearly refused to fund places in special schools because they have thought them to be more expensive than mainstream places. However, this has often been a false premise, especially if SEN children are to be provided with adequate support in mainstream schools. If the aims of this Bill are met, and all SEN

  CWH81
  children who go to mainstream schools are indeed properly supported, then any per capita cost differential which may have been thought to exist in the past ought to disappear in future. Let us not forget that special schools benefit from economies of scale and from a concentration of personnel and facilities for SEN children in a way which cannot be matched in the necessarily more dispersed environment of a mainstream school. I submit that this amendment is likely to cut both ways and I trust that the Government can accept it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blackstone: I am a little puzzled because the groupings list states that Amendment No. 41 has already been debated. That was the understanding of my advisers and I therefore have no speaking notes for this amendment. All I can say to the noble Lord is that this Bill does not in any way affect the current arrangements for the funding of places in the independent sector where the school is named in the statement. Therefore, it is my view that this amendment is not necessary and I hope that the noble Lord is able to withdraw it. I am sorry about the confusion but I was under the impression that this amendment had already been debated; the groupings list states that it has already been debated. However, if it was degrouped last time, I apologise.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It was actually degrouped in col. CWH 57, when I said that I would not be speaking to Amendment No. 41 because it involved a different subject and that perhaps it should wait its turn on the Marshalled List, which is what it has done. I am sorry about that but I did not see the grouping until I came in at the start of the proceedings, otherwise I would have objected in the Whips' Office this morning. I do not quite know how to take the matter forward, except that I understand the Minister to be saying that the amendment is not necessary because local education authorities will not do what I hoped this amendment would stop them doing. All I can say is that they have certainly been doing it quite a lot in the past. It may be that we will have to look again at this amendment and have a better prepared go at the next stage.
  Baroness Blackstone: I am happy to write at greater length to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, setting out exactly what happens at present and why we do not feel that the amendment is necessary. The Bill does not affect the way in which funding for a place in the independent sector is provided where an independent school is named in the statement, and the LEA is then obliged to fund it.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: This amendment does not deal only with the independent sector or anything of that kind. It merely says that provision cannot be considered to be unsuitable just because it is more expensive than comparable provision. That provision is often nearby and, for one reason or another, the local authority does not have a suitable place in it and does not want to send a child further away because it
  CWH82
  is more expensive. Therefore, they shove them into what is going nearest at hand. That is a common abuse that I seek to correct with this amendment.
  Baroness Blackstone: In response, I do not think it an abuse by the local education authority to take into account cost if there is good, available provision provided by that authority. We all believe that the taxpayer must be considered in these circumstances. That, of course, happens. Cost therefore may sometimes be given as one of the reasons why it would be wrong to send a child away, for example, to a residential independent school which would cost much more than the local provision which the LEA considers appropriate to meet the special needs of a particular child.
  Baroness Blatch: I simply want to rise on a procedural matter to support my noble friend who said quite clearly the last time we discussed the measures of the Bill,
  "I shall not speak to Amendment No. 41, because it is on a different subject. Perhaps it should wait its turn in the Marshalled List".—(Official Report. 23/01/01: col. CWH 57.)
  Therefore I am very surprised that the noble Baroness said that officials believed it had been debated. My noble friend quite specifically said that he would not debate it with Amendment No. 21. To make sure that we do not have a repeat of that interpretation of what is being done, my noble friend Lord Lucas said today that he does not intend to discuss Amendment No. 96, which was grouped with Amendment No. 36, because he will do that when it comes to its normal place in the list.
  My final point is on groupings. I am in the happy position of being given a draft copy of the groupings on each occasion. They come a little late and I should like to receive them much earlier. For example, I should like to have seen tomorrow's groupings before we went home tonight. However, it is important for other people who have tabled amendments that they too have an opportunity to say whether they believe that their own amendments are grouped in the right order. That would prevent us having this kind of debate now.
  Baroness Blackstone: I absolutely accept that the noble Lord degrouped his amendment last time and I have already apologised that that was missed. Perhaps I may say that groupings are available in the Whip's Office and when I was in the position of Members of the Committee opposite, as I was for many years, I used to go and have a look at them, not only the Front Bench spokesperson. It makes the procedure much more difficult if people do not let the department know that they want to degroup beforehand. It makes for a much more messy discussion and delays our procedures. Therefore, all I am saying is that I entirely accept that degrouping will take place; it is the absolute right of Members of the Committee to decide to do that. But it is extremely helpful if people can let us know what that they are going to do, rather than doing it when we arrive here. I am happy for tomorrow's groups to be available tonight, although

  CWH83
  that is not the normal procedure. It is usual for groupings to be provided in the morning, but on this occasion I have been through them all with officials and I am happy for the Committee to have them this evening.
  Baroness Blatch: This is an important point. There is an informal agreement, which I have always accepted as fair for those in opposition, that when Bills are discussed on two consecutive days, the groupings work is done by the Department. That is what happened when I was a Minister. Therefore the groupings for tomorrow could be available to all of us before we go home this evening.
  Baroness Blackstone: I have just made that offer and we are very happy with that.
  Baroness Blatch: We do not know what the procedure is for seeing them. In order for us to see them, somebody has to physically have the groupings.
  The Minister says that it is up to everybody. I have the groupings brought to me. When the Clerk first gets them, they are brought to me and, I believe, to the Liberal Democrats, for approval. We are invited to comment on them. When we know which amendments are down, the noble Lords concerned should be given the opportunity to check whether they want them grouped as they have been, or would like them decoupled.
  Baroness Blackstone: An opportunity is available for that and I am happy for de-grouping to take place. Lists are available in the Whips' office. It is not reasonable to ask that the Whips should deliver them personally to every member of the Committee, but members can come to change them. It is right that the groupings should go to the main Opposition spokesman, as already happens.
  I am sorry about what happened with amendment No. 41. I apologise for that, but it would be helpful if de-grouping could take place in advance, rather than in Committee.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Moving away from procedural matters, I have a question for the Minister. Why was the new clause thought to be such a good idea for more senior colleges and for higher education, including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, but not for schools?
  Baroness Blackstone: I do not quite follow what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is asking. This part of the Bill is only about schools. The second part of the Bill relates to further and higher education as well. I am puzzled by his question.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not making myself clear. This provision was inserted into the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It was accepted broadly by the Commons, then brought back and accepted here. The principle of the clause remains that provision should not be thought to be giving rise to disproportionate expenditure, whether it be for a more mature student or for a child in the school system. The clause would
  CWH84
  simply put in this Bill a provision that is in the Learning and Skills Act. I do not see why it should apply to more mature students covered by the Learning and Skills Act, but not to schoolchildren. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, may want to re-gather her forces and maybe we will come back to it again at the next stage without taking more of the Committee's time, but that is a very simple question. Why is this provision necessary for, say, 19 to 22 year-olds, but not for 15 year-olds?
  Baroness Blackstone: I think it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, as I have already offered, giving a fuller reply to the issues raised in the amendment and his more specific question about the Learning and Skills Act.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  INFORM ING SCHOOLS
  (" . In paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 27 of the 1996 Act, after second "school" insert ", providing them with a copy of the draft statement,".").
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 42. In speaking to this amendment I speak unashamedly for the schools and, indeed, for the National Association of Head Teachers, who at the end of the day will be responsible for serving the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, and for the effective delivery of the provisions of the Bill.
  It is a fact of life that some local education authorities pay no more than lip service to the duty to consult schools, in particular the potential recipient school of a pupil with special educational needs. The thrust of my amendment is to improve the quality of consultation by providing that the school, not necessarily the local education authority, can determine what steps can be taken in order to ensure compatibility, particularly when those steps are to be funded from within a school's own budget.
  Just as national government tell local educationn authorities that money for special educational needs is fed into the support grant, local education authorities tell schools that funds are part of their delegated budgets. The process of conforming with the measure may involve providing no additional resources for a school to admit a child with special educational needs or may involve considerable and costly provision. The school, therefore, should be involved in the consultation process before a decision is made.
  All political parties contesting the next election agree on the delegation of budgets and giving schools more control over their resources at the local level. Certainly the funding paper which is in circulation at the moment achieves that to a great extent.
  I cite a hypothetical but entirely possible, even probable, situation. A local education authority is minded to agree to a particular placement for a pupil with special educational needs. The only way in which the recipient school can accept the pupil and fully meet the needs of the pupil as set out in the statement is to reduce the staffing levels at the school and thereby increase class sizes. The local education authority nevertheless names the school in the statement. That leaves the school with a duty to admit the pupil under the terms of the legislation.
  I ask the Minister what would happen in that situation? Would the school be required to adjust its budget, and/or to reduce staffing which would result in larger class sizes in order to admit the pupil? The particular issue at stake here is the quality and effectiveness of the process and the degree to which the local education authority consults with the potential recipient school in good time before taking a final decision. I emphasise the words "in good time" because if the negotiations are held at a timely point in the proceedings, it gives the school and the local education authority an opportunity to thrash out some of the issues of proper support for young people with special educational needs when the statement is made.
  The National Association of Head Teachers, other teacher organisations and teachers in general—this needs to be emphasised—support the primary aims of the Bill. However, they are rightly concerned that the necessary funding and support will not be available in order to make the Bill work.
  Schools want more say in the process and a strengthening of the obligation on local education authorities to consult with and to take into account the views of schools, of their heads and of their governing bodies when the statement is in draft form. If schools abuse their position and simply use this process as an excuse not to admit a pupil, that can be tested. But where there is genuine tension as regards meeting the needs of a child with special educational needs and ensuring also that the needs of all other children are met, the more qualitative the discussions that take place before a statement is finally agreed, the better. I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the spirit of the amendment. It is extremely important that schools should participate in the discussion and in the development of these statements. However, I do not fully agree with the noble Baroness' assertion that all political parties supported further extension of local management of schools. The Liberal Democrats feel that it has gone as far as it should go at the moment, partly because of the need to keep sufficient resources at local authority level to meet special educational needs. Needs frequently arise in one school and then another and it is very difficult to predict where they will be. The more that money is dispersed, the more difficult it is to meet those needs. However, that is a different issue.
  CWH86
  We feel very strongly about the importance of keeping schools informed in the process. That is the spirit of the amendment.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I was grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, because we all recognise that the issue of resources is of import. Local authorities will have to have sufficient resources to meet some of the interesting challenges in the Bill.
  Let us be absolutely clear about the present situation. It is not conceivable that a local authority can make an intelligent judgment on how to solve the problem of particular placements without adequate and full consultation with any school that might be involved. The usual practice is for local authorities to provide schools with a copy of the draft statement, because without that information the school is in no position to consider whether it can meet the child's needs or whether the admission might affect the provision of efficient education for other children. The answer to the particular case that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, offered as a problem—of course we all face many problems in this area—is that the local authority would be required to make resources available to meet the need that she identified.
  The normal practice is for designated schools to be consulted, but we recognise that, under the 1996 Act, that can be strengthened. We therefore propose that the revised code of practice, which was published in July last year, incorporates guidance on consultation before a school is named in a statement. That will be further enhanced in the final revised code to indicate that LEAs should provide full information, including the draft statement, to the proposed school. Although we are resisting the inclusion of these words on the face of the Bill, we recognise the need to strengthen the obligation on the local authority to provide the necessary information. We propose to do that by strengthening the code.
  I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness might consider that the points in her amendment are met.
  Baroness Blatch: I thank the Minister for his reply, but can he tell us where in statute the school has the right—not as a matter of courtesy or normal practice, but the right—to see a draft statement and to be consulted about what should go into a final statement?
  Secondly, some of us are slightly worried about the code of practice. There has been some concern about the consultation, although it was extensive, and representations have been made. However, I understand that the next time we see the code of practice, it will be the definitive article. That does not give us an opportunity to test the quality of the changes that will be made as the result of what has been said here and in the consultation process.
  To give one example, the Secretary of State very quickly responded to the consultation and reverted to the need to specify in a statement the particular needs of a child, not simply to resort to broader wording. I do

  CWH87
  not know whether the noble Lord is aware that there is an undercurrent of rumour: that the code will state that the provision will be quantified as necessary.
  If a child requires a statement I should have thought it necessary in every instance to set out and specify in a statement what those educational needs will require by way of provision. We should like some assurance that we shall see a draft of this code. After all, much of the work must now have been done. Many of the policy decisions have been taken. We should like to see this code in draft form while the Bill is proceeding through this House or another place so that we can see whether some of the fears that we express through our amendment will be met.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: We are concerned about the proposal that we could begin again the process of consultation on a draft code. That would delay much further the development of the code in association with the Bill before the Committee. We do not want undue delay with regard to the development of the code. At the same time we seek to ensure that the code is developed alongside the representations made during the passage of the Bill and the points emphasised with regard to clarity on practice.
  It is the intention under the code to provide full information to the proposed school, including the draft statement, and to emphasise that under the legislation—the noble Baroness played a considerable part in developing the 1996 Act—it was expected that no process in the development of a statement would be able to take place without appropriate and full consultation. That is going on in the majority of cases at present. That will be reinforced in the code.
  Baroness Blatch: My impression about the draft statement was more specific. I believe that there should be a statutory obligation for the school to see a copy of a draft statement. The school may wish simply to take it as read or to discuss further the contents of the statement. However, if we wish to reduce the tensions when a school is obliged under the law to receive a child, there should be an opportunity to see the draft statement before it is finally determined. I cannot see the provision anywhere in the statute. The noble Lord has just referred to "good practice". I am not talking about that. I am simply saying that there should be an obligation for schools to see the draft statement.
  Lord Rix: May I ask a question? What has force in law as far as regards the code of practice? Schools and LEAs have to have regard to the code of practice—it is getting longer and longer—and one wonders how much regard they will have for it. Is there any possibility that it could be strengthened in statute to make sure that they have some legal obligation to follow the code of practice in all its elements?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The straightforward answer is that if we put everything in statute we would not need a code of practice. But we would also lose the flexibility which codes of practice can produce for the way in which legislation is interpreted and
  CWH88
  implemented. The answer to the noble Baroness' question is quite straightforward— there is no right for schools to be consulted directly in those terms.
  We shall consider what has been said this afternoon.
  Baroness Blatch: I am very grateful, that is an offer I cannot refuse. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 43:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
  "Statements of Special Educational Need

  FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
  In section 324 of the 1996 Act at the end of subsection (2) insert—
  "and shall have regard to—

  (a) as of paramount concern, the best interests of the child; and

  (b) the wishes of the child's parents and, where ascertainable, also the wishes of the child; but not

  (c) the financial resources of the authority or any policy of the authority to constrain the provision of services to support special education needs."").

  The noble Baroness saids: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44. These two amendments take us back to our discussion at the beginning of this afternoon on the first group of amendments. They also take us back to the discussion we had last week about what principles should underlie statements of special educational need. The amendments would incorporate two important points in Section 324 of the 1996 Act, which deals with statements of special educational needs.
  First, the amendments would insert a set of principles that should govern special educational needs statements. That has never been done before, but in many senses it is fundamental. Many parents have very little idea of the basis on which special educational needs statements are made.
  At Second Reading, I quoted the case of a local education authority official dealing with special educational needs and a vociferous middle class parent who knew precisely what his rights were and was fighting the local education authority for his child to be sent to a particular special school to meet his needs. The official admitted that the LEA had three sets of priorities: the first priority lay with those parents who were taking the authority to court; the second priority lay with those parents who were threatening to take the authority to the tribunal; and the third priority lay with the majority of parents, who had no idea of their rights. That is not satisfactory. Parents should know what their rights are.
  Later in the Bill we shall deal with the conciliation service and the importance of informing parents what their rights are under that service. We very much hope that the friendlier procedures will give parents a better idea of their rights. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to incorporate some broad statements of principle in Section 324.
  The amendment is straightforward—probably much too straightforward. I recognise that the drafting is brutish, but it says what I want it to say. First, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount concern in any statement. Secondly, the wishes of the parents and, where ascertainable, the wishes of the child shall be taken into account. Thirdly—this takes us back to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, talked about earlier—financial resources shall not be the paramount consideration, as, I regret, they frequently are. That is hardly surprising, because local education authorities have to find the money to meet some very expensive special educational needs. As the Audit Commission concluded in 1992, while there are enforceable rights to the provision of specified needs in the statement,
  "there is an incentive for LEAs not to specify what is to be provided because they thereby avoid a long-term financial commitment".
  That is why the amendment specifies that the best interests of the child, not the available financial resources, shall be the dominant factor in determining what provision is made.
  Amendment No. 44 says specifically that,
  "Any such specification of special educational provision under subsection (3) shall be invalid unless it shall sufficiently state the duration and frequency thereof".
  For example, the specification states that they shall have speech therapy, but it does not say how much speech therapy; how often they should receive it; nor that it should be monitored to decide when it should cease. There is, thus, a remedy here in terms of an amendment to the 1996 Act. I beg to move.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I apologise to the Committee for not having been here the first day when the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, very ably moved my amendments for me. I was struck low, I regret to say, by an infected duck's egg and was totally unable to attend the Committee. This is, however, a very important amendment and should go on the face of the Bill, particularly—and my party takes a strong view on this—the inclusion of the consideration with regard to the wishes of the child. Moreover, Amendment No. 44, with the specification to state officially the help that is to be given, is absolutely vital. These matters ought to be pursued to the very end and I hope that the Government accept them both.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I strongly support these amendments and Amendment No. 44 in particular. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the law requires a statement of special educational needs to specify the special educational provision. However, LEAs draft vague statements with the aim, as the Audit Commission research indicated, of avoiding long-term financial commitment. Certainly, in IPSEA's view, quantification is always necessary and without it there is no guarantee that children will receive the provision they need, which is the whole purpose of the statement. That view is strongly held by the overwhelming majority of organisations in the voluntary sector. That
  CWH90
  was apparent when they responded to the consultation on the proposed code of practice. Perhaps I might quote one or two briefly.
  The National Autistic Society said,
  "Statements which do not specify the level of provision and support necessary for the child to receive an appropriate education risk leaving provision open to interpretation, reduction. and unfortunately in some cases, misinterpretation".
  Mencap said,
  "There are already too many statements with insufficient specificity to provide a firm foundation for active partnerships between parents and schools. Statements that lack specificity are by their very nature open to differing interpretations by the school, parents and the LEA and are likely to lead to more rather than less conflict between these parties".
  I shall not continue but there were many more.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am unhappy about Amendment No. 44 and even more unhappy about Amendment No. 43 for reasons which I now hope to make clear to the Committee.
  I understand the objectives behind Amendment No. 43, which seeks to impose restrictions on the LEAs' decisions in relation to writing statements that go beyond the current provisions in Schedule 27 of the Education Act. Those require that LEAs shall specify the parents' choice of school in the child's statement, unless it is unsuitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude or to his special educational needs; or his attendance at that school would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for the children with whom he will be educated; or the efficient use of resources.
  The first part of Amendment No. 43—the interests of the child—is covered by the requirement under Schedule 27 to ensure that a school is suitable to the child's age, ability and aptitude or to his special educational needs. The second part of the amendment would require LEAs to have regard to parents' wishes and, where ascertainable, the wishes of the child. It is already established law that LEAs should have regard to parents' wishes. Advice in the draft revised SEN code of practice strongly encourages LEAs to take the views of the child into account, not only during statutory assessment but also throughout the child's school career.
  The third part of the amendment would effectively disallow LEAs from considering their resources at all when considering parents' choices of school. That cannot be right and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, recognises that her colleagues on local education authorities wrestle with such issues continually. It would run counter to LEAs' general duty to provide education as efficiently as possible and the specific provisions of Schedule 27. In view of this, I believe that she may consider, on reflection, that the amendment would not prove acceptable.
  Turning to Amendment No. 44, this would require LEAs to specify special educational provision in statements in such a way as to include its duration and frequency in all cases. The amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate.

  CWH91
  Section 324 already requires LEAs to specify provision to meet all of the child's special educational needs. Part B of the schedule to the Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 requires an LEA, in completing the statement, to specify the special educational provision that the authority considers appropriate and in particular to specify
  "any appropriate facilities and equipment, staffing arrangements and curriculum."
  Each child's special educational needs are different. LEAs must have the flexibility to specify provision that is necessary and appropriate to the special educational needs of each individual child. In specifying special educational provision in a statement. the LEA will need to take into account the outcomes of the statutory assessment of the child's needs and the setting within which the child may be taught. In many cases it will be necessary to quantify the provision to meet some or all of the child's special educational needs while in others it may not. It will depend on the circumstances of each individual case. It would not be right for provision to be specified in terms of its duration and frequency in every case.
  Requiring LEAs to quantify special educational provision in every case would be against the interests of those children whose special educational needs change frequently and require flexibility of provision to meet those changing needs. For example, a child with a speech and language impairment could be expected to progress rapidly in some areas. The content and precise detail of speech therapy provision—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp referred specifically to a child in that category—will therefore need to change, often on a weekly basis. Where a child's school is specially resourced to cater for particular special educational needs, it can offer provision which is tailored precisely and varied easily by the school to meet each individual child's needs in a flexible, responsive and appropriate way. In any event, if parents feel that the provision is not specified clearly enough in the statement, or that it should be further quantified in terms of duration and frequency of support, they have a right to appeal to the tribunal.
  We made clear prior to and during the debate on Second Reading—last week my noble friend Lady Blackstone gave further reassurances to the Committee—that we will retain the requirement in the SEN regulations and the revised SEN code of practice for LEAs to specify the provision to be made for each child. I am happy to state that reassurance again today and I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, might be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
  5.15 pm
  Baroness Blatch: I repeat my earlier point that there is concern about reverting to specifying. Does the department intend to be unequivocal about specifying, or will there be a qualification as necessary that then allows flexibility for the local authority to determine whether it is necessary to specify? There is some concern among groups which represent people with disabilities. It would be helpful to know what will go
  CWH92
  into the code of practice. Will it be unequivocal that the provisions required to meet the special educational needs of the child will be specified, not "as necessary", but in every case?
  Lord Lucas: I have a further question to add. As I have said several times, the current position to which the Government are, thankfully, reverting is not in itself satisfactory. There are many instances of statements coming through as we discussed on Amendment No. 32. Vague reports are coming from the education psychologists and, on the back of them, the statements are very vague. "Specify" seems to have become less and less of an exact term and one which can mean whatever the local authority wishes.
  It would be helpful if we set out in the legislation or the code of practice that statements should be clear not just to the local authority but to the schools which have to put them into practice and to the parents of the children who need to understand what is being offered to their child. Approaching this from a different angle, perhaps we could consider an obligation to ensure that the statements are written not just for the local authority but are clear to the school and the parents. That would address many of the difficulties which the noble Lord raises in relation to amendments I would otherwise wish to support.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, decides what to do, surely we do not want the parents to have recourse to tribunals all the time. That is not an answer. Am I right in thinking that the majority of appeals by parents to tribunals are about the provision in the child's statement of special need, not about the choice of school?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the further representations made in Committee. Perhaps it would help if I went into rather greater length about what we expect to be specified in the revised code of practice. to make clear what a child's statement should look like. We all recognise that we seek to ensure that the child's needs are met. Therefore we need the force and the clarity of the statement to ensure the child's needs are met while at the same time requiring the flexibility inherent in the child's development within the school. In some circumstances, that may make a statement very difficult to specify over a considerable period of time.
  In the revised code of practice, we shall insist that the child's statement should describe clearly all the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly, and quantify as necessary, the provision required to meet the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter-term objectives for the child; describe any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement; recognise the need for the school to monitor and evaluate the child's progress during the year; and recognise the need for the LEA to monitor the child's progress towards identified outcomes with the school.

  CWH93
  We shall make clear that LEAs should not have blanket policies not to quantify provision in statements but should seek to meet the clear objectives identified in the code. It will be recognised that in these difficult areas—I accept the force of the amendments and the importance of this debate—a balance needs to be struck between the necessary identification and requirement from the statement with the flexibility of the developing child.
  Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord will not welcome my intervention at this point. The noble Lord has read out the words "quantified provision as necessary". That leaves the local education authority free to determine whether or not it is necessary to quantify. I have been alerted to that suspicion by people who are concerned about special educational needs. They are concerned that the Secretary of State for Education has moved from the unequivocal term "specify" to the term "quantify as necessary" which is not an unequivocal statement.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I appreciate the anxieties that have been mentioned. However, we insist that the first phrase which governs the whole of the conditions will make clear that local education authorities should not have blanket policies not to quantify provision in statements. We will, therefore, not expect local education authorities to do anything other than quantify where quantification is both possible and desirable in terms of the individual child's needs.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In concluding this debate I shall discuss the two amendments in the group separately. I am not surprised at the Minister's response although I am disappointed, needless to say, at his response to Amendment No. 43. In particular, the third section of that amendment was bound to rile the Government and would not be seen to accord with their wishes.
  However, as subsequent debate has indicated, this is an area where people are extremely concerned. In some senses the Minister misunderstood what I was trying to do. There is a case for having on the face of the Bill some of the fundamental principles that the Government seek to apply here. The Minister's response, in relation to the code, was that at its core the child's needs are paramount. It would be good to have something of that sort on the face of the Bill, which is what I have been requesting.
  As regards Amendment No. 44, we have gone considerably further than I expected. Our exchange on precisely what the code will specify was extremely helpful. I, for one, am pleased at the greater clarification that has been provided on this matter. I share the apprehensions of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that if the word "quantified" is not included, authorities will try to scrimp and save on these things. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we shall return to some of these issues in later debate, whether under this or other amendments. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
  Clause 2 [Advice and information for parents]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 45:
  Clause 2, page 3, line 29, leave out ("with") and insert ("who has, or whose parents believe may have").
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 45. It is not very dissimilar to Amendment No. 46. My noble friend Lord Lucas and I both say that parents who believe that their child has special educational needs should be taken more seriously. Clause 2 of the Bill obliges a local education authority to make advice and information available to parents living within its area. I do not disagree with that. Parents need to know what provision can or cannot be made for their child and where to go for advice.
  However, there is a catch in the provision. Clause 2 states that,
  "A local education authority must arrange for the parent of any child in their area with special educational needs to be provided with advice and information".
  It is, therefore, open to the local education authority to say to a parent that his or her child has no special educational needs and that there is thus no need for it to provide advice and information. To give an example, the parents may say that they believe that their child has a learning difficulty—it may be because the child is hyperactive or for some other reason—and therefore wish to seek advice from the local education authority. The local authority, which at the time may be overburdened with many other things, would be entitled under the Act, as this particular clause is written, to say that the child has no learning difficulty and has no special educational needs. It may even advise the parent—sometimes patronisingly; sometimes with good intentions—that all the child needs is a little extra discipline and the problem will go away. It could therefore refuse to give advice and information to a concerned parent.
  We are talking here only about advice and information. My amendment, therefore, carefully rephrases the opening sentence of Clause 2. It would now read:
  "A local education authority must arrange for the parent of any child in their area who has, or whose parents believe may have special educational needs to be provided with advice and information about matters relating to those needs".
  Therefore, if the parents think that their child needs help under the special needs provision, the local authority must provide the advice and information, whether or not at that stage—and it may be a very preliminary stage—the local authority agrees with the parents. Of course, subsequent assessment would establish whether the child does, in fact, require special provision. I beg to move.
  Lord Lucas: Amendment No. 45 is better than Amendment No. 46 and would achieve exactly what Amendment No. 46 seeks to achieve. Therefore I support my noble friend's amendment.

  CWH95
  The time when parents are in particular need of advice is when they do not know what is happening to their kids; when they have worries about the way their child is developing. They see behaviour at home and aspects of the child's personality which may or may not reflect that the child has a special need, and that need is not yet being recognised in school. They need someone to whom they can turn for advice. There are one or two charities that offer that advice, but provision is very patchy—not least because the funding for it is limited.
  The local education authority must be in the business of providing advice about special needs— about what can be done about them, how they are assessed and how the process works—because it is the parents who do not yet know that they need that advice who need it most. I therefore support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blatch which will open up a local authority to that capability. It will make it accessible to the parents who need it and who would benefit greatly from it.
  Lord Addington: Let me briefly add a few words of support because I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has found a real flaw in the drafting as we read it. In the process of obtaining help, the identification of that help is the most important part. If we give advice, we will often end up dealing with the problem quickly. It is self-evident that the early recognition of problems is one of the most important factors here. Primarily that is because, in the education system—especially now—there is very little chance of going back and repeating things. For good or ill, having a national curriculum means that we are on something of a conveyor belt and it is therefore essential to deal with matters quickly. If we can get a parent to obtain advice; to know what they are looking for and dealing with, it will make the situation much better. It will also cause less stress for the parent and the child. The noble Baroness grasped a very important point here.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: I should like to begin by saying something about parent partnership services. I was glad that during the debate at Second Reading there was very broad support for our plans. That mirrored the support that our proposals received when we consulted on them last year. All English LEAs have established a parent partnership service and, as a result, parents are becoming better informed. Disputes or misunderstandings are being resolved much more quickly and parents feel more able to play an active role in their child's education; in deciding what is best for their child. The Bill will help to ensure that we build on good practice and deliver much greater consistency throughout the country. First and foremost, parent partnership services provide a flexible range of services to parents whose children have special educational needs. They aim to empower parents to play a valued and informed role in their child's education. Our decision to include a whole chapter in the revised SEN code of practice was warmly welcomed in last year's consultation.
  CWH96
  The aim of the two amendments is to ensure that parent partnership services support parents who believe that their children have special educational needs. While I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, we do not believe it is a good idea to put it on the face of the Bill. There is not a drafting problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington said.
  We recognise that in some cases parents are concerned that their child may have special educational needs, but the school or LEA take a different view. Such parents are likely to discuss their concerns with a variety of people, including other parents, their own family, their child's school and the local parent partnership service. These services have to be flexible in their approach. We are not asking them to draw any hard and fast lines. They will be required to consider parents' concerns carefully, not to be dismissive when inquiries for help or information are made.
  I stress that the service is designed specifically to help parents whose children really do have special educational needs. However, I am happy to assure the Committee that when we finalise the section in the revised SEN code of practice on working in partnership with parents, we will explain that parent partnerships will be expected to be flexible and sympathetic in their dealings with parents, even where there might be a difference of view between parents and the school or the LEA. We have underlined that cases where parents believe their child has SEN but the school or the LEA takes a different view must be handled very sensitively.
  Specifying such issues on the face of the Bill could divert resources away from those parents whose children have been identified as having SEN. In other words, the people who really need access to the great deal of support that these services provide might then lose out. I hope that noble Lords agree that that would not be in the best interests of those parents or their children.
  I am sympathetic to the amendment, but, given my reassurances that we will make sure that the guidance addresses this issue, I hope that it will be withdrawn.
  Baroness Blatch: I found it slightly baffling for the noble Baroness to say that the amendment would not be in the best interests of those parents and their children. I have been speaking on behalf of those parents who genuinely believe that there is a particular difficulty and that the educational needs of their children are not being met or need to be recognised more fully. Some celebrated cases have ended up in the courts—not just the tribunals—after parents have become highly frustrated trying to get someone to take notice of them.
  It would be relatively simple to do two things. First, a parent who believes their child has a problem should be treated sympathetically and taken more seriously. The teacher and the school or LEA should look into what the parent believes are the problems and come to an agreement on whether there is an educational need, which could then be challenged.

  CWH97
  Secondly, to underpin that the parents must have the right to advice and information. I am not asking for a full assessment. I am simply asking that a parent who believes that their child has a need for special educational provision should have a right to advice and information.
  This is an important amendment. The noble Baroness does not sound sympathetic and believes that, as long as people are sympathetic and the issue can be written into the code of practice, that will suffice. I genuinely believe that parents who want advice and information ought to have a right to receive it or to be pointed in a direction where they can receive it.
  Baroness Blackstone: There is a slight difference of emphasis between the Government's view and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I did not wish in any way to suggest that it is not in the interests of those parents to get as much advice and information as they can have. I was suggesting that if we were to put this matter on the face of the Bill and give them an absolute right, it might spread resources very thinly in relation to those parents whose children have been agreed by all parties to have special educational needs. It was that group to which I referred. I wish to correct that slight misunderstanding.
  I do not believe that the parent partnership services will turn away parents who are seeking advice and information. Wherever possible they will provide it but there is a matter of priority here. Where children definitely have special educational needs—that has been agreed by the school, the local education authority, educational psychologists and others—they need to have access to this advice and information. They must have priority.
  We shall make it absolutely clear in guidance that we expect the parent partnership services to try to help and support any parent who wants information. We think that that is the right place rather than placing an absolute right on the face of the Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: Under the procedure in the Moses Room, all that is left open to me is to withdraw the amendment. I may well return to it. I hang on to what I believe was a pledge on the part of the Minister: that there will be specific reference in the code of practice not only to children with special needs but to children whose parents believe that they have special needs. If that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
  Clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert ("all alternative options on").
  The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking is not present. I can be brief in speaking, with his permission, to his amendment.
  With or without prejudice to whether he would have supported my amendment, my noble friend simply says that in advising and providing information to parents all the alternative options on matters relating to the special needs would be incorporated. It is a straightforward issue. It is important that advice and information should not be limited only to what the LEA wishes but that advice and information are given in a much wider context; and that alternative options should be made available as a matter of information and of right to parents who seek advice and information. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: Amendment No. 48 standing in my name and that of my noble friend reflects the experience of many parents who seek the best for their child under the current law. They spend vast amounts of time usually through voluntary bodies trying to find out the law and what they can do.
  The situation is not as bad as it was but it can still lead to horrendous situations where people waste vast amounts of time. They do not find out what they are legally entitled to often because people do not know or do not regard it as their duty to tell them.
  If we put some provision like this into the Bill, or some form of legal framework, we shall at least know when the people in power are not doing their job. Whether we like it or not, people have commented time and again, "We didn't know"; "They didn't tell me"; "I didn't know you could do that"; or "Oh, really, can you do that?" I am sure that case studies can be provided very quickly.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that this experience is almost universal to the parents of those with special educational needs. The amendment is one way of addressing the issue. I hope that the Government will give it a fair wind.
  Baroness Blackstone: The Government are aware that it is essential that parents know about the wide range of options that will be available to help them make good decisions about the education of their children with SEN. It is fundamental to the role of the parent partnership services. The Bill provides for advice and information to be given about matters that relate to children's special educational needs, and those will include details of how the SEN system works, parents' and children's rights, and the various options that are open to parents. I am happy to give Members of the Committee an assurance that the revised code of practice will explain that advice, and information about those SEN matters should be given as part of the minimum standard that the partnerships will be expected to reach.
  Turning to Amendment No. 48, we know from consultation that parents want and need more information and guidance on the SEN system and on their legal rights. I accept some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, have just made. The SEN system is complex and it can be difficult to understand.
  One of the core functions of the parent partnership services will be to explain the system to parents and that includes informing them about their entitlements

  CWH99
  within it. Parents need the knowledge and skill required to play an informed role in thinking about what their children's needs are. We expect all those services to provide accurate information on both the role and rights of parents; without that information they cannot take informed decisions.
  I am happy to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that that will be underlined in the code of practice and the draft good practice guidance. I hope that, in the light of that reassurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In fairness to my noble friend to whom I was doing a favour, I shall leave him to read what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, which I believe is helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
  5.45 pm
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
  Clause 2, page 3, line 40, leave out ("proprietors") and insert ("governing bodies").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 49, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 53, 57 and 81. With my amendments the Bill would require head teachers and governing bodies of all schools in their area to be informed.
  While the head teachers of all schools (both maintained and independent) should be kept informed about facilities for special educational needs—that has been provided for in this clause of the Bill—so too should the governing bodies of all schools, both maintained and independent. Under the terms of this clause as written they are not included. Involving both head teachers and governing bodies would ensure that all schools are well informed, even if a particular head teacher or governing body was unsympathetic to special educational needs.
  There is an additional purpose for Amendment No. 49. All independent schools have a governing body, but very few independent schools have a proprietor. Where there is a proprietor, he is also the governing body. Therefore it would be better to substitute "the governing body" for "proprietor".
  Most independent schools are "not-for-profit" registered charities, and thus have trustees and a governing body. A few independent schools are "for profit" and are owned by a proprietor who is the governing body, or may already have appointed a governing body.
  As the Bill is currently written, whatever the legal advice may have intended, those in education will interpret "proprietor" as meaning the owner of a profit-making school, and will not include all the nonprofit-making schools that are registered as charity schools. The term "proprietor" needs to be amended throughout the Bill.
  Turning to Amendment No. 50, paragraph 6 of Schedule 27 of the 1996 Act provides that when an LEA makes a statement on a child, the LEA shall
  CWH100
  make certain information available in writing to the parent. Included in that is paragraph 6(b) which requires the LEA to give the name of the person to whom the parent may turn for information and advice.
  I expect that the Minister will say that the new provisions in Clause 2 for information and advice to be made generally available to all concerned remove the need for paragraph 6(b) in the 1996 Act, hence the Government's proposal to omit it. I do not agree with that. The new requirements make advice and information generally available to parents, teachers, governing bodies and so on. However, once a parent has a special educational needs statement made on their child, regardless of whether they agree with it, they may well need to turn to one or more experts for more information and advice. For example, they may need to know the names of consultants who can advise in detail on dyslexia, autism, violent behaviour, speech, sight or hearing difficulties. It would be arrogant of the local authority to deny such help to that parent.
  My amendment would not delete paragraph 6(b) of Schedule 27, but would amend it so that the names of several people who could help would be given, if appropriate. It is not uncommon for experts in the field of a child's perceived special need to include persons and voluntary bodies outside the LEA.
  Amendment No. 53 goes back to my argument about the proprietor and inserting the relevant authorities. I explained earlier that the term "proprietor" has a limited meaning in ordinary educational parlance. It would be far better to use the term "relevant authority", which covers all types of school.
  Amendment No. 57 again goes back to proprietor and relevant authorities. The governing bodies of all the independent and maintained schools should be informed, not just the proprietors and the head teachers.
  On Amendment No. 81, the definition in Clause 8 of "responsible body"—those who can make the request for reassessment—is rather strange. The Bill says that if a child is in a maintained nursery school or a pupil referral unit, the responsible body is the head teacher, but for all other schools the responsible body is deemed to be the proprietor. I am concerned on two accounts. First, the term "proprietor" reflects the normal accepted meaning and not what the parliamentary draftsman chooses to make it mean. It should be replaced by "governing body". My second concern goes further than that. If it is right for the head teacher of a maintained nursery school or a pupil referral unit to make a request for a reassessment of a child, it must also be right for the head teachers of all other types of school to do so. The amendment would replace the word "proprietor" with the phrase
  "headteacher and the governing body (or both)".
  thus enabling either or both to make an application for reassessment.
  Whatever comforting words come from the Minister, the amendment will be pressed to the barricades. "Proprietor" is not the right word. Governing bodies, head teachers and others need to be included. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blackstone: Not all independent schools are required to have governing bodies and many do not. The amendment would mean that LEAs were not required to inform those in charge of some independent schools about their parent partnership services. Independent schools have nothing to fear from being informed about the arrangements for parent partnership services. They do not allow LEAs to intervene in the day-to-day running of independent schools. The service is simply available to help the parents of children in those schools, as it is for other parents. There are many cases of children with special educational needs in independent schools. It is just as essential that they have access to the information and advice they need to enable them to make informed decisions as it is for others. If those in charge of independent schools were not aware of these services, the parents of the children in those schools could be at a disadvantage compared with those whose children are in maintained schools. Members of the Committee will agree that parents of children at independent schools should have the same right of access to both information and advice.
  Turning to Amendment No. 50, at present parents have access only to a named person where the child has a statement. In future all parents whose children are identified as having SEN will be able to draw on the support of an independent parental supporter if they so wish. By "independent" we mean that they should not be part of the decision making process that is going to affect the particular child's provision. Not all parents will wish to have support of this kind but, where they do, they should certainly have access to it. The independent parental supporter can provide parents with more information and make them feel that they are real partners, which of course they should be.
  Members of the Committee have raised concerns that the right of parents to have access to an independent parental supporter is not on the face of the Bill. In the draft code of practice, however, we say that there needs to be a range of practical services, including access for all parents to an independent parental supporter. The IPS should be seen as a central component within the range of services offered to parents. Naturally, the code is statutory guidance to which LEAs have to have regard.
  Amendment No. 53 seeks to limit access to the new arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes to maintained schools, maintained nursery schools and pupil referral units. This would mean that where a child has a statement to attend an independent school, or attends a non-maintained special school, the parents of that child would not be entitled to use the new dispute resolution arrangements. The Government believe that it is important for access to
  CWH102
  these new arrangements to be widely available. Disputes regarding a child's statement can occur in any school. We need to minimise the disruption to which disagreements can lead. We have recognised that it would not be appropriate to require independent schools to take part in these arrangements unless they are receiving LEA or central government funding. That is why the definition of relevant schools excludes independent schools in other circumstances.
  Turning to Amendment No. 57, the Government recognise that it is essential that parents know about the new dispute resolution arrangements and that information is widely available, so that parents are enabled to make the informed decisions that we all want them to be able to make. Where a child has been placed in an independent school by a statement of SEN, the parents of that child still have a right to know about the dispute resolution services and LEAs have a duty to inform proprietors of schools so that parents and schools know of these services.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 81. We have some sympathy with this amendment which would enable all head teachers of relevant schools to request an assessment of a child's special educational needs. However, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands and simply delete the term "proprietor" in favour of
  "head teacher and the governing body (or both)".
  That is because some of the institutions that will be covered by this Bill, such as city academies, will not have statutorily recognised governing bodies. The term "proprietor" encompasses both governing bodies and the management of city technology colleges, city academies and city colleges for the technology of the arts. We are, however, prepared to consider adding "or head teacher" at the end of Clause 8(12)(b). I hope the noble Baroness will be able to accept my general reassurances and withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: That is the most unsatisfactory answer I have had so far in these debates. I simply do not understand some of the things the noble Baroness said. "Proprietor" has a very specific meaning—it does not have the generic meaning which the noble Baroness gave it. Subsection (2) reads:
  "A local education authority must also make arrangements with a view to avoiding or resolving, in each relevant school, disagreements between the parents of a relevant child";
  and if my amendment is accepted will continue, "and the relevant authority of the school about the special education provision for that child".
  I cannot understand the explanation that the noble Baroness has given that putting "the relevant authority"—which could be the head teacher, the governing body, the proprietor or anything, because the authority has to be relevant and has to be of the school—could limit the parents of children at an independent school from having access to the resolution procedures. It simply does not add up.

  CWH103
  The next amendment refers to subsection (5), which would state:
  "The authority must take such steps as they consider appropriate for making the arrangements made under subsections (1) and (2) known to—

  (a) the parents of children in their area,

  (b) the head teachers and [relevant authority] of schools in their area".

  As I say, the relevant authority might be the governing body, the head teacher or the proprietor; it may be any of those things. However, there are many schools in this country, independent and/or maintained, who do not have a proprietor. They have a relevant authority, and the "relevant authority" leaves the flexibility for it to be a relevant authority at the school.
  Finally, on Amendment No. 81, the noble Baroness cited city technology colleges and academies. They all have governing bodies. The statute requires them to have governing bodies and so to say that they may not have a governing body and therefore a proprietor is more appropriate; they do not have a proprietor. A city technology college does not have a proprietor: it has a governing body and a board of trustees, but it does not have a proprietor.
  As I thought and pre-empted it would be, the legal advice on these amendments frankly is not up to the normal standard. I do not accept the arguments that have been given by the noble Baroness. "Proprietor" is a very narrow word, with the connotations such as those I set out when I initially spoke to the amendments. "The relevant authority", "head teachers" and "governing bodies" are the people to be informed, and they are the people to allow access to resolution procedures. I simply cannot accept the explanation given by the noble Baroness.
  6.00 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been very critical of the legal advice which lies behind the answers I gave in my initial reply to her amendment. I understand that "proprietor" has a very long-standing legal meaning. It is defined in Section 579 of the Education Act 1996 as meaning:
  "The person, or body of persons, responsible for the management of the school, including governing bodies".
  I think it goes back much earlier in legislation—it might even go back to the 1944 Act. That is the legal reason for using this term. It covers all the points the noble Baroness raised because it applies to governing bodies.
  Baroness Blatch: I have never believed that two wrongs make a right and that just because it has been in previous statutes in fact becomes the reason and rationale for it to be here now. If one looked in a dictionary, "proprietor" would not have the wide meaning, while "relevant authority" does. It is the relevant authority of the school, and the relevant authority will be different in different situations— boards of trustees, boards of governors, head teachers. Indeed, it goes even further than that: "relevant authority" will pick up more than one person while a proprietor is only one body. It may be that it is just the
  CWH104
  head teacher or the governing body, but not both; whereas "relevant authority" will pick up any authority that is relevant to the school. My view is that my amendments would make more sense. I shall withdraw them for the moment, but we shall come back to all of them on Report, so this Committee procedure will not save a great deal of time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 51:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  RESEARCH
  (" . In the 1996 Act, insert the following section—
  "Duty to research.
  318A.—(1) The Secretary of State may fund research into the operation of this Part, and into the effectiveness of alternative methods of educating children with special educational needs.
  (2) For the purposes of such research, a local education authority shall collect such data as the Secretary of State may require.
  (3) For the purposes of such research, a school shall provide a local education authority with such data as may be required for the purposes of subsection (2) above."").
  The noble Lord said: We are looking at spending a great deal of money on special educational needs and putting the future of a great many of our children at risk on the basis of decisions on how to spend money on their behalf. We ought to know that it is being spent effectively. I do not know any way of doing that other than by research into what is done on behalf of children in deciding which way is best.
  It has taken us an astonishingly long time to come round to that in medicine, but we now have proper evidence-based medicine. We are gradually reaching the point of chucking overboard some long-established and ineffective practices and supporting some effective practices that had been confined to the wilderness. In education we have not yet reached that point.
  This is a good place to start. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me with a description of the three current SEN research projects. It is a very short list of projects—not at all the 20 or 30 pages that I had hoped to receive and that one ought to receive into such a difficult, complicated and long area, which should be the subject of a great deal of long-term research and a lot of looking forward to 10 years hence when we will really understand what works best.
  I hope the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us that what we have learned in health will be applied to education. I beg to move.
  Lord Rix: This is an interesting amendment. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, reminded me that when I was Secretary-General of Mencap, many educational theories were put forward—not necessarily in this country, but in America and Hungary—that divided parents forcibly. There were many rows and high costs were involved for parents to undertake these experimental educational processes

  CWH105
  outside this country. It would be very good if such research were undertaken by the appropriate authorities and parents could be told with certainty how specific educational processes might work for their child. There is no doubt that a great deal of money has been wasted by parents in chasing will-o'-the-wisp educational methods in the past 20 to 30 years. All of us touch wood when we have a disabled child born to us, but touching wood in education seems to have been a very expensive process. I welcome the amendment, although it may not be correctly worded at the moment.
  Lord Northbourne: I support the principle of ascertaining the best way of helping SEN children, but I cannot help wondering whether that is best done by research or by assessment and dissemination of best practice.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the amendment. I am glad to see subsection (3), because schools are currently inundated with requests for data, largely from the Department for Education and Employment. It is good to protect them from that and to put the duty on the local education authority rather than the school.
  Evidence-based practice is a very good idea. I should like to come in in support of the social sciences as distinct from the medical sciences. There has been a great deal of very distinguished research in the educational field. We have a number of extraordinarily good institutes such as the National Foundation for Educational Research. Over the years they have published a great deal which has not always been adhered to by politicians.
  Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, know, I am very much in favour of having good research to back up policy making and in support of parents who need as much information as they can possibly get about special educational needs. Good research providing evidence about ways in which we can best help children who have special educational needs is really vital if we are to make progress.
  Amendment No. 51 confers a power on the Secretary of State to conduct research and in particular points to the possibility of research into the effectiveness of different methods of educating children with special educational needs. There are also duties requiring LEAs and schools to collect data.
  The amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has the power to fund research into the operation of the special educational needs framework. Indeed he has the power to fund research into any element of activity across his remit. The Secretary of State has used his existing power to fund a number of projects on special educational needs and I set out a few examples in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I could give another 10 or 15 but I shall not go through a long list because I do not think that that would further the purpose this afternoon. I am happy
  CWH106
  to give the noble Lord a longer list if he would like it. There is a great deal going on, far more than the examples that were given.
  On the collection of data, I can assure the noble Lord that, once again, these powers already exist in Section 29 of the Education Act 1996. The Secretary of State can require LEAs to provide him with such information as he may require, and in particular information about the provision of education for children with special educational needs. LEAs are obliged to compile such information and to make arrangements for conducting or assisting in conducting research for this purpose.
  Section 537 of the Education Act 1996 allows the Secretary of State to require governing bodies to provide him with the information that is needed.
  Having set out that the powers are there and are being used, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Lucas: Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I should like access to the long list of the research that has taken place, in whatever form the noble Baroness finds convenient to provide it, particularly if it is on the web. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 52:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROVISION: INTERESTS OF CHILD
  (" . In the 1996 Act, insert the following section—
  "Interests of child.
  315A. A local education authority shall at all times act in the best interests of a child for whom they are responsible."").
  The noble Lord said: We have covered the matter before so I shall not go into all the byways of it. The basic question is this. In the Bill dealing with children, why should we not have the same basis as in other modern Acts dealing with children? That is to act in the best interests of the child.
  The Minister gave one answer to that when we touched on the matter previously: that it was not clear to whom this duty applied. However, in the amendment it is quite clear that it applies to the local education authority. It would solve a lot of other problems in the Bill on how the local authority will act in particular circumstances and what matters it will bear in mind.
  I remain of the opinion that the amendment would be a neat way of bringing the best interests of the child into the Bill, and one which would have many advantages for all concerned. I beg to move.
  Lord Northbourne: I was one of those who started this hare about the best interests of the child and it is a hare that I intend to pursue. I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Would there be a need slightly to reword the amendment so as to place a

  CWH107
  balance between the needs of that child and the needs of other children? That is the question I ask, though it could be taken at a later stage.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: It is exactly the last point to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred that is perhaps at issue with regard to this apparently uncontentious suggestion that the best interests of the child should come first. After all, we would surely all agree that the watchword of all statutory service providers for children should be to seek to act in children's best interests. The problem arises in terms of the necessary balance to be struck between best interests and available resources.
  The SEN framework already safeguards the interests of children with SEN. The wider framework of education Acts is intended to ensure that the educational interests of all children are protected. Placing a duty on LEAs to act in the best interests of individual children would not improve the way children's special educational needs are met. LEAs are already under general duties under the 1996 Act to make provision for children with special educational needs. They have a particular duty to assess and make suitable arrangements for children with the greatest difficulties. Governing bodies of maintained schools have a specific duty to use their best endeavours to make the necessary provision to cover the learning difficulties of all the children in their schools.
  The current statutory arrangements, supported by the advice given in the SEN code of practice to schools, LEAs and others, already provide for children's special educational needs to be addressed. Our SEN action programme, of which this Bill forms an important element, is designed to improve SEN provision.
  The amendment would promote unproductive contention and argument rather than the partnership we are trying to promote. What constitutes the best interests of the child is not always straightforward and clear cut. Those noble Lords with children will be aware that there can be divergence between what a child considers, and what its parents consider, to be in his or her best interests. Many of us would probably confess that the two parents can also differ on what they consider to be in the best interests of their child! We are all aware of the difficulties that occur in this area. Where relationships are good, there ought to be negotiation and agreement on how to make proper provision. Through parent partnership services and conciliation arrangements we are promoting improved relations between parents and schools and LEAs. Thus, through working together, children's needs can be met effectively. Ultimately, schools and LEAs have to use their professional judgment on how to meet a child's learning difficulties. In some cases parents will continue to disagree with decisions arrived at by schools and LEAs.
  However, in such cases parents will continue to have the right to ask for their children's needs to be assessed and to appeal to the SEN tribunal. We all know that parents will always, quite properly, demand more than may easily and readily be provided by the local
  CWH108
  education authority or school. This apparently straightforward amendment—with whose sentiments I could not possibly disagree as a basis of principle for all our actions in relation to children—concerns the allocation of resources to needs. That, surely, requires a framework of partnership, negotiation and reconciliation rather than a mere statement of principle.
  Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that helpful reply. We shall doubtless return to the subject at Report stage but will be better informed when we get there.. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Resolution of disputes]:
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 54:
  Clause 3, page 4, line 13, after ("made") insert ("in a statement").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 54. There are some interesting amendments in this group but mine is just technical. I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I aim to speak to Amendment No. 55 in this group and also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59, which also fall within this group.
  The purpose of these amendments is to specify in slightly more detail some of the issues that arise in relation to the parent partnership conciliation service. By and large, we support the idea of an intermediate body between the schools and local authorities and the tribunals. There is no doubt there have been difficulties here and the notion that you can have a more informal body in the way in which you can help to reconcile the differences is a good one. The reservation is whether there will be enough people both to provide the advocacy support for parents on the one hand and to provide those who will end up as the conciliators and facilitators provided for in the Bill. It is suggested here that whoever plays that role is an independent arbitrator, and we would very much endorse the independence.
  However, we also feel rather strongly that whoever does this job should be well informed about special educational needs provision. As those of us who are participating in the Bill recognise, it is an area where there is a great deal of case law, practice, codes and so forth, and it is not one that somebody coming in from outside with no knowledge of the area could easily fulfil. Therefore, the purpose of Amendment No. 55 is to suggest that it should not only be an independent person but someone who is knowledgeable about the issues arising in special educational needs.
  Amendment No. 58 picks up a different issue, which is that the conciliation service might be seen as something of a soft option and parents might be pushed in that direction without being informed that, at the same time, they have rights. This picks up the proposal in the subsequent Amendment No. 59 that they must be kept informed that, if they wish to do so, they can proceed and go to appeal at the tribunal but

  CWH109
  that they should not be held up unnecessarily in the process of conciliation. Some of them might feel that they were be pushed towards conciliation, that there was not much hope, quite frankly, of reaching conciliation through the conciliation service and that they were going to a tribunal and they did not really want to be held up by the process of the conciliation service. It is reasonable that there could perhaps be time limits on this.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: I speak to two amendments and support the other amendments but particularly Amendment No. 59. With Amendment No. 56 it is important to ensure that the independent persons who are required to resolve a dispute are truly independent of the previous decision, but, nevertheless, have the relevant expertise. So it really is a belt and braces amendment, which reads,
  ""Independent persons" as required in subsection (3) above, shall mean persons with no previous connection with the parents and the child, nor of any of the authorities involved in the dispute, but shall include persons of knowledge and experience relevant to the special educational needs of the child".
  I hope it is self-evident that, if it is to be an independent assessment, it ought to be not just independent but seen to be independent.
  Amendment No. 60 is a fleshing-out or extending of the definition of "relevant school", to include an independent school named by the parents of the child. The provision of this part of the Bill needs careful examination. Clause 3 deals with the arrangements to resolve the disputes with the parents. It sets up a panel of independent persons to examine and resolve the dispute.
  In the clause, the term "relevant school" is used and Clause 3(8) defines what is meant in this context by "relevant school". It lists maintained schools, city technology colleges and so on, and it includes an independent school named in the child's statement of special educational needs.
  Where the statement does not name any independent school, or even any school at all, or where the independent school is not one asked for by the parent, then the "relevant school" in the matter of this dispute may well be one which the parent prefers, even if the local authority does not, and thus that school should be a "relevant school" and should at least be informed of the dispute and even consulted upon it. It is a matter of bringing all interested parties into the resolution process.
  My amendment adds to the list of what is a "relevant school" by saying,
  "an independent school named by the parents of the child".
  I support the amendment.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may say a few words. The Special Educational Consortium says briefly in regard to Amendment No. 59:
  "The Government have placed great emphasis on information for parents, indeed Clause 2 is all about providing this. The Special Educational Consortium believes that this is precisely the information that the Government would wish parents to have. It just doesn't say so."
  Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may raise on the back of my noble friend's last amendment the disparity between the Clause 1(4) list of schools, and the list of schools we find in Clause 3(8). There are differences in drafting which I find confusing. For example, in Clause 1(4) we have in (a) "a special school", whereas here we have a school approved under Section 342. I presume they are the same. If not, what are the differences? I cannot see why we use two different words for the same group of schools in the same legislation.
  We have defined "mainstream school" in Clause 1(4). If we were to carry that definition through here, that would seem to be a way of shortening this section considerably and making at least the use of definitions consistent throughout the Bill.
  I do not understand why these two sets of definitions do not mesh. I do not understand how they do not mesh nor the reason why they do not mesh.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I thought this was a straightforward debate, and noble Lords are asking me questions about definitions that I know I will be struggling with. Let me deal with the parts I can immediately, and I hope reasonably positively.
  I have some reservations about Amendment No. 60, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will have anticipated. I shall come to those in a moment. The other amendments tend to develop the strong theme which ran throughout the debate that there was support for the plans of the Government to require all LEAs to establish arrangements which clearly include an independent element to avoid or resolve disputes between parents and schools, and parents and LEAs. I am confident that we shall ensure that we minimise the disruption to pupils' education and prevent damaging long-term breakdowns in relationships which have occurred in the past and which, where they occur, are obviously to the detriment of the education of the individual child concerned.
  I recognise that these are amendments directed towards the constructive part of the Bill. Let me deal first with Amendment No. 54. This seeks to limit access to the new informal arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes between parents of children with SEN and schools. It would mean that this new additional service would only be available to parents of children who have SEN statements. Only about 3 per cent of pupils are in that category. The amendment would have the effect of denying access to the new service to the vast majority of parents whose children have special educational needs but not a statement. It can often be traumatic for parents when their child has SEN. This can lead to misunderstanding and disagreements.

  CWH111
  The Government believe it is essential that the new dispute resolution arrangements are widely available. Disputes can occur regardless of whether the child has a statement. The new arrangements should therefore extend to the parents of all children with special educational needs, whether or not the children have statements.
  Increasingly, we need to find more informal and quicker ways of preventing and resolving disputes. It can often be traumatic for parents when they first find out that their child has special educational needs. The issues can be complex and hard to understand, and can lead to disagreements between parents and schools, or parents and their LEA. That is why we want the service to be provided as widely as possible. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to consider withdrawing the amendment.
  On Amendment No. 55, the Government recognise that it is essential that those helping to avoid and resolve disputes should have a wide range of skills, knowledge and expertise. Such expertise should include not only knowledge of special educational needs issues, but also, for example, counselling and negotiating skills, the ability to listen and the ability to establish and maintain communications.
  I am happy to give the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, an assurance that the revised code of practice will set out that it is desirable for the independent persons appointed to facilitate the resolution of disagreements to have these skills and a sound understanding of SEN systems and procedures.
  We are providing £2 million from April 2001 to support the independent element of the new dispute resolution arrangements. Resources will also be made available in the subsequent year. The resources will support training for those helping to avoid and resolve disputes. I hope, therefore, that, given this strategy and these assurances, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness may consider that they can withdraw their amendments.
  Turning to Amendment No. 56, I can assure noble Lords that the Bill already provides for facilitators to be independent. That will not mean, however, that they have no connection whatsoever with local authorities or schools, otherwise they could not deal with the authority or school concerned on more than one occasion. What is important is that facilitators should have the necessary skills, knowledge and expertise that I mentioned a few moments ago.
  Some have called for impartiality rather than independence. Parents who responded to our consultations on the Green Paper, Programme of Action, and the response to this Bill, clearly signalled that they wanted a degree of independence in the new arrangements. The code of practice accompanying this Bill would clearly set out guidance on who an independent conciliator should be. What we propose simply delivers the services that parents want.
  CWH112
  Turning now to Amendment No. 58, again we recognise the vital importance of resolving disputes between parents and schools and parents and LEAs as quickly as possible. This is particularly important where a child has special educational needs. This is the very reason we are seeking to place a duty on all LEAs to establish informal arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes where they occur. Far from slowing down the process, we would expect the new services to speed up the resolution of disputes. This will ensure that we minimise the disruption to pupils and to their families. The revised SEN code of practice will set out that the new informal arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes should seek to find solutions as rapidly as possible. I hope that, having heard these assurances, the amendment will not be pressed.
  Turning to Amendment No. 59, I can assure noble Lords that the Government recognise that it is essential that parents know that engaging in new, informal arrangements for preventing and resolving disagreements does not in any way compromise their right of appeal to the SEN tribunal. I know that we have referred to this point before in Committee, but I seek to emphasise it again. We believe that this is best achieved through regulations.
  I am happy to give an assurance that we will use the regulation-making powers provided for in Clause 8 and Schedule 7 of the Bill to require LEAs to inform parents about their arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes, and that if parents take advantage of those additional services it will not affect their entitlement to appeal to the tribunal in any way. LEAs will also need to inform parents of the statutory time limit for lodging an appeal and that dispute resolution can run alongside the appeals procedure.
  We also envisage that Chapter 2 of the revised. SEN code of practice will reiterate the need to inform parents about how the arrangements will work and that they do not affect their right of appeal. I hope that having heard my reassurances, Amendment No. 59 will not be moved.
  Lastly, the effect of Amendment No. 60 would be to place a duty on an LEA to provide the new arrangements for preventing and resolving disputes to parents who have exercised their right to send their child to an independent school. That would place an inappropriate burden on the LEA to provide a service where the LEA has no direct involvement in the education of the child.
  The Government recognise that, where a parent has exercised their right for an independent school placement for their child, it would not be appropriate for an LEA then to be asked to pay from the public purse for a service to that parent in relation to the new arrangements.
  The Government recognise that the new arrangements for the prevention and resolution of disputes should be available to parents whose children have been placed in an independent school by a statement and the LEA is either funding the place in full or in part. The responsibility of the LEA in those

  CWH113
  circumstances is clear. But where parents have exercised their right to pay for an independent school place for their child, they should not then be covered by the new arrangements. Their relationship with the school is a private matter and the Government are reluctant to interfere in that. That is why I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend rises to reply, I think I should say to the Minister that he has not quite got the effect of Amendment No. 60 correct. If he refers back to Amendment No. 21, which was moved by me in our last consideration in Committee, he may find that helpful. There are a number of special independent schools which are not approved under Section 342 and which clearly should be in this process if the object of the exercise is to speed it all up and move things forward more smoothly before the tribunal stage is reached.
  As usual, I declare an interest in that my daughter went to a special independent school that is not an approved school under Section 342 and therefore, unless my noble friend's amendment is accepted, all those schools would be excluded at this stage of the procedure by the wording of the Bill as it stands. I do not know how many there are, but there are probably at least 50 in the country that are really good schools— helpful to local authorities and to the whole process.
  Baroness Blatch: I was going to come in on a slightly different tack, because I also believe that the Minister did not answer the specific point of the amendment. This section of Clause 3 is about a resolution procedure. The need for the resolution procedure, which I support, is to try to resolve, where possible, any tensions between the parents and/or the schools or recipient bodies which will be receiving a child with special educational needs.
  One reason for tensions between the LEA and the parents may be that the LEA has prescribed one kind of placement and the parents have chosen something different. The parents may well have disapproved of a school named in the statement. They may have preferred a city technology college which the LEA did not support, a pupil referral unit, or a place in a maintained school. They may also have preferred an independent school. If that dispute is to be resolved, any party to the difficulty should be involved in the resolution.
  The Minister said that the amendment would give parents a right to go to an independent school of their choice. No, it would not. The amendment is about resolving a dispute; it is about the LEA giving its reasons why a particular choice or preference of the parent is not appropriate.
  As well as the parents having a right to argue their case, it is important that the school named by the parents should have an opportunity at least to be part of that process. My amendment would give no right to anybody to dictate which school they go to. It would
  CWH114
  simply give parents a right to be part of the resolution process. It seems quite extraordinary that every other type of school is mentioned.
  We have said from the outset that we believe that there should be no "no go" areas when looking for the appropriate placement for a child with special educational needs. We should look right across the educational sector, covering maintained and independent schools. No schools should be excluded. A parental preference for an independent school could be a conspicuous cause of tension between the parent and the LEA. The school should not be denied the right of representation in the resolution procedures.
  I hope that the Minister will discard his speaking note on the amendment and will answer the particular point about parties being excluded from the resolution procedure. I am not talking about a right to go to a school that is not of the LEA's choosing.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: Let me clear up as best I can the issue of definition that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, addressed to me. The Section 342 approved schools are non-maintained special schools. They are covered by the new arrangement, so we were not in any way excluding them from the general reconciliation procedures.
  I listened carefully to the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put forward. When parents and the LEA are dealing with a dispute about the allocation of a school and the arrangements to be made, both those parties are covered. The independent school would be part and parcel of such discussion. The arrangements would be limited if the dispute occurred between the LEA and the school.
  The issue is straightforward. I am talking not about what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said about Section 342, but about any independent school. The issue with regard to the independent school would be worked out during the process of conciliation.
  If the parents and the child have decided to remain outside the state supported local authority sector, our contention is that when there are disputes between parents and the school about the proper provision for the child, it would not be right for the conciliation procedures of the local authority to be drawn down. Clearly, the amendment presented by the noble Baroness would bring such procedures into play in those circumstances. That is what I was seeking to resist and constitutes my explanation for the amendment not being acceptable.
  Baroness Blatch: That is not my reading of what the Bill states here. My understanding of the purpose of Clause 3 is that a local education authority must make arrangements with a view to avoiding or resolving disagreements with parents of children in its area. The dispute is between the parent and the local education authority, the reasons for which can be many and varied. For example, in the specific case that I am addressing with my amendment the LEA may wish to make one kind of amendment when the parent has expressed a preference for another. The 1993 Act and the 1996 Act provided that parents' preferences should

  CWH115
  be given some priority. The only exception is where the LEA believes the parents' preferences to be inappropriate or where they can be superseded by some other provision that meets the special needs of the child. Obviously cost would be taken into account in such a case. This is a matter to be resolved between the LEA and the parent. Where the parent believes that appropriate provision for his or her child is in an independent school not named by the authority, the independent school should, in that particular dispute, be given the option to be known as a relevant school. The resolution of the dispute might involve the parents' preference being agreed to. However, the parents' preference may not be agreed to. Nevertheless, the school in question—the one to which the parents wish their child to go—should be contained within the list. That confers no rights apart from the right to have the school represented in any resolution dispute procedure.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying the matter. It was clear to everyone on the Committee apart from me and I apologise for my slowness in appreciating it. I accept the argument that she puts forward; namely, that where the dispute is between the parent and the LEA it is entirely right that the procedure is brought into play if the issues cannot be resolved through straightforward discussion. The amendment is open to the possible interpretation that where a dispute exists between a parent and the independent school attended by the child, that dispute could be brought back to the LEA's procedures for conciliation and reconciliation. I want to obviate that. I consider the amendment defective because of that interpretation. I shall, however, look again at today's discussion. I certainly accept the first point that the noble Baroness outlined.
  Lord Lucas: The Minister seems to have ended on a high note as he began when dealing with my amendment, which I am delighted to withdraw. I had not appreciated the great ambitions of the Government, on which I congratulate them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 55 to 60 not moved.]
  Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 61:
  Clause 3, page 4, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(9) In the arrangements made under this section with respect to a dispute arising under section 316, the local education authority must make provision for the child's views to be taken into account having regard to the child's age and maturity.").
  The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Ashley who is unable to attend today's meeting of the Committee, I speak on his behalf in not pressing the amendment at this stage. Thus I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  6.45 p.m.
  Clause 4 [Compliance with orders]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 62:
  Clause 4, page 5, line 5, at end insert ("and no prescribed period will be later than 6 months after the date on which the order was made").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 62 concerns delay and timescales. It will be essential for the tribunals to remain impartial while accepting the need to seek the best outcome for the individual child. However, over time tribunals may become ever more aware of and sympathetic to the financial or other constraints experienced by a local education authority. In turn, those financial or other constraints may constrain the timetable of the tribunals' decisions.
  I do not wish to sound too cynical about the work of the tribunals, because I believe that they do a very good job. However, it seems to me that the reason outlined should not be a reason for delay. If there were a specified period for the implementation of the tribunals' decisions, no such constraint need arise. The child's parents, the school and the local education authority would then be on an even playing field.
  My amendment calls for a time limit of six months. I should like to be flexible about that. If the Government find that six months is too short a timescale, I shall be prepared to consider other suggestions. However, it is important that the principle of having a timescale should be agreed to. I beg to move.
  Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support Amendment No. 62 and speak to Amendment No. 63. The issue in Amendment No. 63 is very different from that in Amendment No. 62. Amendment No. 62 is about the timescale; Amendment No. 63 is about compliance.
  As things stand, if the local authority does not comply with the tribunal, it is left to the parents to take the local education authority back to the tribunal and to secure compliance. The initiative lies very much with the parents. This can involve the parents, therefore, in seeking further legal advice, possibly even an appeal to the High Court with all the emotional stress and financial expense that that involves.
  Amendment No. 63 seeks to put the onus on the local education authorities not only to comply with the tribunal decisions within a given period of time but also to put the onus on the LEA to provide evidence of compliance in a written letter stating that they are in compliance with the requirements of the tribunal. They are not doing so satisfactorily. It still leaves the onus on the parents to go back to the tribunal but at least the LEA has produced some evidence that it is genuinely prepared to sign the letter. Few chief education officers would be prepared to sign such a letter unless they were in compliance with the requirements of the tribunal. That is why we put forward the amendment.
  Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 deal with compliance by LEAs of orders made by the special educational needs tribunal.

  CWH117
  Amendment No. 62 will require that the regulations to be made under Clause 4 should prescribe that the timetable for compliance with SEN tribunal orders should never exceed six months.
  The regulations to be made under Clause 4 will be informed by detailed consultation that has already been undertaken on this issue during late 1999, with a wide range of interested parties including parental and voluntary groups, LEAs and others. The consultation put forward suggested timescales for different types of orders. Respondents supported the introduction of specific timescales for implementation of SEN tribunal rulings and were clear as to the need for them. We are still considering the consultation responses but I can set out our provisional plans on timetables. Taking account of views expressed during consultation, we envisage that the likely timescales for orders, such as making or amending a statement which is the most time-consuming, will not exceed five weeks. In some cases, orders will have to be carried out to a shorter timetable; for example, starting the assessment or reassessment process where we envisage the timescale being no more than a month. We also intend to require that reinstatement of a statement shall take place within a week, while seeking to maintain a statement shall be carried out immediately or on the LEA's proposed date.
  These are demanding timetables but they take account of views expressed during the consultation exercise. We have sought to balance the wishes of parents for speedy compliance with tribunal orders with the practicalities for LEAs of complying with the orders. The timescales were also informed by the views of the SEN tribunal itself on how long LEAs would realistically need to comply with an order.
  It must be remembered that when the tribunal comes to make an order there will normally have been a substantial amount of work already undertaken. For example, an LEA would have 20 working days, once it had been notified by the tribunal of an appeal, to submit its comments on the appeal if they wished to oppose it.
  On average, a tribunal decision is now made in just over four months from when it receives an appeal. That reflects an increase in tribunal efficiency since it was first established when the time was over five months. I should like to make the point, however, that this efficiency of the tribunal is not at the expense of parental appeals. It would be quite wrong if it were to be. Of the 1,196 decisions made in 1999–2000, over three-quarters—78 per cent—involved the tribunal upholding some or all of the parents' cases.
  It is unnecessary to require on the face of the Bill a six-month limit for complying with tribunal orders, as that will be substantially in excess of the longest period we envisage requiring under the regulations.
  Turning to Amendment No. 63, the aim is to ensure that LEAs comply with orders made by the tribunal when it finds in favour of the parents following a
  CWH118
  parental appeal. However, LEAs will be under a legal duty to comply with such orders within a period which will be prescribed by regulation.
  To impose that confirmation requirement upon LEAs will not provide any additional safeguard for parents and children, but would impose an additional administrative burden upon the tribunal which would be responsible for ensuring that such confirmation was received and then processing it once it was received.
  Clause 4 ensures that LEAs will have to comply with SEN Tribunal orders within a specified time. We do not believe it should then be for the tribunal to start adopting a policing role and to follow up LEAs' compliance with individual decisions. There are other ways of ensuring compliance, including the ability of the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly in Wales, to investigate complaints from parents. There is also the work of Ofsted and the Audit Commission in their general inspections of LEAs.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that it will be possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that full answer. There is nothing between us in what we are trying to achieve. There is no doubt that there have been delays in the system which are unacceptable to parents, and sometimes for a very good reason. LEAs and/or the people involved with the resolution of such applications for a place for a child with special needs present many problems, and sometimes cost or resources are a problem.
  We are building on previous statutes and trying to minimise the need for delay. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I shall read carefully what she said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 64:
  Clause 4, page 5, line 5, at end insert—
  ("( ) Regulations under this section. so far as they relate to Wales, require the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales.").
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Unopposed appeals]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 65 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 66 due to pre-emption.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 65:
  Clause 5, page 5, line 16, leave out ("withdrawn") and insert ("granted to the parent").
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. If a local education authority notifies the tribunal that it no longer opposes the parent's appeal,

  CWH119
  surely the parent has won his appeal. Measures should be taken to implement the requirements of the parent as made in that appeal.
  The subsection says that the appeal should be treated as having been withdrawn, but surely that cannot be right. The parents have not withdrawn their appeal—they have won it, and their wishes should now be respected. If the appeal is considered only to have been withdrawn, the LEA could legally still pursue a course of action contrary to the parent's wishes, which may even result in a re-application to the tribunal. If the LEA withdraws its opposition to the appeal then, ipso facto, it has to agree with it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Blackstone: Does the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wish to speak?
  Lord Lucas: I shall listen to the answer first.
  Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 65 would treat these kinds of cases as decisions upheld in favour of the parent. The SEN tribunal already extensively reports its appeal decisions in its annual report, which provides a great deal of detail about the speed with which the tribunal deals with appeals, the number of appeals decided or withdrawn, the type of appeal heard, the outcome of appeals and the types of disability most frequently dealt with.
  The tribunal provides that extensive breakdown of information not as a statutory requirement, but because it gives a clear record of the number of the appeal cases heard and the tribunal's ability to deal with them in a timely and effective way.
  The tribunal keeps its statistical systems under review and will look at its current arrangements once the Bill is enacted. That includes the best means of distinguishing between types of withdrawal—for example, whether a withdrawal under Clause 5 should be treated in the category of "successful appeals".
  From its extensive experience with withdrawn appeals, the tribunal already estimates that the majority of withdrawn cases arise from concessions by the LEA to the parent. The amendments would result in cases withdrawn on a formal basis under Clause 5 being treated differently from those in which something similar happened under a more informal arrangement. If an amendment is withdrawn, there is no opposition so there is no difficulty and the tribunal will make the order that the parent wants.
  As the tribunal is already considering the issue, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: I am not sure whether the noble Baroness meant that the Government are considering agreeing to an amendment along the lines that I suggested. Any case that a parent takes to the tribunal will clearly be against the LEA. If the LEA concedes or withdraws its opposition, the parent has won the appeal. It is almost mealy-mouthed not to recognise that it is not just a question of withdrawing—it is not a technicality. The parent has successfully appealed. That should be properly recognised.
  7.00 p.m.
  Baroness Blackstone: Clause 5 provides that the LEA has to comply. The issue of winning is, in a sense, irrelevant. What matters is that there is compliance as a result of the LEA accepting what the parents' case is.
  Baroness Blatch: That strengthens my case, which is that if the LEA has either caved in or withdrawn its objections, or given concessions that now successfully satisfy the parents, the parents have won the case. They have taken the case to tribunal; before it is heard the LEA found some way of appeasing the parents, and so the parents have been successful. It seems to me to be more than a technicality. It has not just been withdrawn; it has been resolved successfully for the parents.
  Lord Rix: Perhaps I may interrupt for a moment. If I was a parent and I received a note to say that the appeal had been withdrawn, I would believe that I had lost.
  Baroness Blackstone: That would be a very odd response from a parent. If the LEA conceded that the parent had a case, there is no need to pursue it in a tribunal. It is only withdrawn in that sense; it is not withdrawn in the sense that they have been told that they have not got what they are claiming is required. In a way we are dancing on the head of a pin here. I do not think there is much between us and it is simply a matter of whether we regard a case that is resolved outside the tribunal as one that has been won through the tribunal. It has not really because it was resolved before the hearing of course. In a sense, the parents had their argument heard and the concession was made. I do not think there is much between us.
  Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness is right; we are dancing on the head of a pin. This is a cost-free amendment. On the basis that if we are given a little we become quite mellow in our protestations, it might be one worth conceding.
  The case can only be successful if the parent in the first place had a grievance which they had taken to the tribunal, and the very fact that it has been resolved before it had to be heard by the tribunal means that it was a success on the part of the parents. I should like to think that the Government would reflect on making a very minor change to this Bill. It would be helpful to receive a letter that the parents had been successful, rather than that the application had been withdrawn. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 67:
  Before Clause 7. insert the following new clause—

  OBJECTIVES CONCERNING ACADEMIC PROGRESS
  (" . The code of practice shall require that all pupils with special educational needs, with statements and without, shall be set clear objectives concerning academic progress, including progress in reading, against which the provision specified or provided shall be monitored and reviewed.").
  The noble Baroness said: I know that Amendment No. 67 is somewhat contentious, but in speaking to my amendment I want to refer back to one of the most inspirational visits I ever paid to a special school—and I have visited quite a number in my time. It was a school in the North East, and if I could possibly remember its name I would do it the honour of naming it for the record.
  I visited that school, which took children in from around the age of 18 months to two years old right through to the top end of secondary school—16 years—and in special circumstances even young people who were over the age of 16 years. I do not think I have been more impressed with a school. They regarded the recording of progress being made by children, from whatever stage they had started, and setting targets tailor-made to each individual, as being absolutely paramount.
  If I had the time I would relate how I watched a group of very tiny children, who were just old enough to sit on a chair, progress from not being able to sit on a chair [they simply could not support their bodies— to sitting on a chair; washing their hands; wiping their faces; using mirrors—all being observed through one-way glass windows so there was not too much intrusive adult activity in the classroom—right through to a young person who was completely braced in an upright position but nevertheless was following a fairly academic programme. I remember that it coincided with the early introduction of the national curriculum. The head of the school insisted that the school should use the national curriculum as a structured way of ensuring that young people were part of mainstream education in the wider sense and that even a young person working towards level 1 in key stage 1 was part of that structure. There was provision in the system which could act as an impetus for a child moving progressively upwards.
  Having said that, in a "Dear Colleague" letter written on 18th December last year the Secretary of State said:
  "We will also stress the need for statements to set out broad objectives against which the child's progress, and the provision being made, can be monitored and reviewed".
  Amendment No. 67 is about that. Progress for all children is important, however slow and limited by the ability of the children. I referred to small children progressing from being unable to sit on a chair to sitting on a chair. We are not talking about reading, writing, history and geography, but about physical and skilful progress. Those children would not have been making that progress if it had not been for the
  CWH122
  work of that school with children of all ages including young people doing GCSEs and moving on to A-levels.
  At present no published information or statutory requirement exists to demonstrate that special needs provision or funding results in confirmed, measurable educational attainments for the pupils concerned. The clause is intended to remedy that defect and ensure that special needs provision and funding are more accountable in terms of achieving higher standards and, possibly, the removal of funding or provision if progress is not made.
  I know that the provision will be contentious but it builds on the sentence in the Secretary of State's letter that progress is important for all children and that for children with special educational needs encouragement to make progress is very important. As we all know, many of these children could thrive better if there were this impetus to make progress.
  I am also reminded of something that I heard the Secretary of State say on a television programme. I cannot paraphrase him directly, but he appeared to make the point that while he has done exceptionally well—and we would all agree that he is a remarkable man for the way in which he has coped with his blindness—there are many other young people with special needs, particularly sight impairment, who could do a great deal better. The Secretary of State wishes schools to do better by these children and my amendment would include a provision to that effect in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness's assiduous attention to the statements of the Secretary of State is matched only by my own. I am grateful that he has been quoted in evidence today.
  There is not a great deal between us with regard to the amendment. We agree that all teaching requires the setting of objectives and monitoring how well a child is progressing against them. That has been emphasised in relationship to the progress of educational reform under this administration, as well as being an issue covered by the previous government. The question of how good teaching is achieved is common to all children. I would be chary of identifying specific aspects of good teaching in relation to special educational needs. We all recognise the specific teaching which is required at times but not the principles upon which good teaching is effected. I emphasise that the current code of practice advises schools that individual education plans for children at stages two and three of the code should include targets to be achieved at a given time and monitoring and assessment arrangements. I note the comments of the noble Baroness about the particular school which impressed her. It is doubtless by no means the only example in the country but we all draw inspiration from our direct experience of good teaching in good schools. It is one of the joys of being involved in educational policy issues. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her illustration. She identified the exact practice that we would wish to see followed in all schools.

  CWH123
  The code that is established to advise on how individual education plans should be developed is the basis on which progress by the child is to be identified and is a measure of effective teaching by the teacher. The noble Baroness also referred to literacy. We all recognise the enormous emphasis that has been placed by the Secretary of State and indeed by the whole Government on improvements in literacy. That extends to students with special educational needs as well as to the rest of the population.
  The amendment that the noble Baroness has put forward identifies exactly the basis upon which the code means to express good teaching. That applies right across education in this country.
  Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. It would still be helpful to see exactly what the code states on these matters. It would seem from a number of the answers that have been given this afternoon that the code is fairly well written. It would be a huge help to have it before us on Report or at Third Reading. It would be yet further reassurance that what we are striving for in these amendments will be honoured in the code of practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 [Duty to inform parent where special educational provision made]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 68
  Clause 7, page 6, line 3, at beginning insert—
  ("( ) The parent of a child for whom no statement is maintained under section 324 shall be informed before special educational provision is made for him, and if the parent objects to such provision being made as being unnecessary or inappropriate. the dispute shall he resolved as provided for in section 332B of this Act. and until it is resolved, the special educational provision shall not be made.").
  The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 68, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. Section 317 of the 1996 Act makes provision for children with special educational needs but who are not subject to a statement to be given the special educational provision that they need in the school in which they are currently registered. Whilst I agree with that, we should seek to cater for all children with special needs—a point that has been made again and again in our debate—including the many who have such needs even if they do not have a statement.
  However, no provision was made for the parents of the child to be informed that such special provision was to be made. Nor were the parents asked for their agreement before it was made. The outcome is that such special provision can be made without the parents' knowledge. If a child who falls short of needing a statement has special learning difficulties and a school intends to make special provision for that child, it should be the parents' right to know that that is happening. We all know that in the best of schools, and certainly in those with which I have been involved, that would happen automatically. Parents would be consulted; they would be counselled if necessary and they would be given a full explanation of why the school had decided that special provision was
  CWH124
  required. I am, therefore, requesting that there should be something on the face of the Bill to indicate that it should be regarded as a right for parents to know that.
  Clause 7(1) of the present Bill seeks to remedy this deficiency but only in so far as to inform the parents after the event, once the child is already receiving the special educational provision. That must still be wrong. My amendment, therefore, provides that the parents of a child at any school should be informed of the intention to make special educational provision for perceived special educational needs before such provision is made and that the parents shall have the right to object to its provision and that any dispute resulting from such objection will be resolved by the dispute procedure in Clause 3.
  The existing provision for informing the parent after the event can remain in the Bill along with the additional subsection, which would at least act as a fallback should some mistake be made and prior notice not have been given, on the basis of better late than never.
  Amendment No 70 says:
  "that the parent's consent is being sought before such provision is made, and that in the event of a dispute with the parent. it shall he resolved according to the procedures in section 332B of the Education Act 1996."
  In two other places in Clause 7 it is presumed that special provision has already been made or is being made for the child. These two amendments are consequential on my previous amendment that the provision to meet special educational needs must be proposed but not yet implemented to trigger the provisions of Clause 7, and that the parents must have the opportunity to appeal if a special educational needs provision is being proposed and they disagree with it. I beg to move.
  7.15 pm
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I must confess to having some real anxiety about the implications of these amendments. I fear that, however unintentionally, they might hamper schools, nursery education providers and pupil referral units from making speedy responses to children's newly identified special educational needs. They would also affect the exercise of teachers' professional judgment.
  The problem with the amendments is that they appear to give parents the right to object to special educational provision to meet their children's needs. The SEN code of practice emphasises the importance of schools and parents working together so that children's special educational needs can be met effectively. Clause 7 furthers that objective by ensuring that parents are fully aware of the SEN provision that is being made for their children. However, it cannot be right that parents should be given a veto over the SEN provision that schools make for their children. The amendments would at least delay the SEN provision that children needed and could result in that provision being denied because, for whatever reason, the parents said that they were not prepared to have it. The amendments presuppose that in every case the parents

  CWH125
  have a more fully informed and well-founded understanding of their children's educational needs than do the teachers.
  We must look to teachers and schools, working in accordance with the guidance they receive from the SEN code, to identify children's special needs and intervene as soon as possible to ensure that difficulties can be addressed, if possible, before they become deep-seated.
  If some parents objected to their children being identified as having SEN because they feel there is some stigma attached to it, we would look to teachers and schools to work with parents to address those concerns and reassure them that the provision was in the best interests of their child.
  Amendments No. 68 and 70 refer specifically to Clause 3. Arrangements under Clause 3 are a significant advance for dispute resolution. They would be available to the parents of children in certain schools and maintained nursery schools even without Amendments Nos. 68 and 70. However, the arrangements under Clause 3 would not be binding and if cases under Clause 7 were dealt with under the Clause 3 arrangements, there would be a danger that either the school or the parent would refuse to take part or refuse to comply with the outcome. In instances of dispute over Clause 7 cases, we expect and recommend that the parents address their concerns to the schools first, where we expect the vast majority of cases to be resolved.
  Because of these anxieties, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendments.
  Baroness Blatch: The Minister referred to children in special referral units. All I can say is that, if children are in a special referral unit, they would already be treated differently; they would already have special provision made for them. I cannot conceive of any situation where a child has been referred to a special referral unit without the parents knowing about it.
  If I might speak personally for a moment, I can remember a particular school to which my two older boys went when they were very small where we received a monthly report on how our children were doing. They received two marks in the month; one for achievement and the other for effort. So we knew if we had a bright child who was not working very hard or a child who was not so academically able who was working his socks off. One way or another, we knew how much effort was being made by the children.
  In the course of those little reports we received once a month from the school, which was a very good primary school, we were also told if our children were withdrawn from class for special reading, or if they had special numeracy classes, or if they were being checked for behaviour. Those little snippets of information were important for us as parents to know, rather than leaving it until one annual general meeting when all parents attend only to discover that for the whole of the year a child has been receiving special treatment for
  CWH126
  reading, numeracy or whatever it might be. Therefore, one part of the aims and objectives of my amendment is to make sure that, where a child is having learning difficulties, parents know about it. It seems quite wrong for schools, with all the best intentions in the world—they are clearly well-intentioned if they are making special provision for a child within a school— to allow that to be done without the parents' knowledge.
  The second part of the amendment causing great anxiety for the Minister is the right of a parent to object. "Object" may be taken too strongly; but it gives the parent the right to challenge why their child is being treated in that way; why their child is being withdrawn for special classes. It allows the school to give an explanation as to why that is and to make a case for it. And it allows the parent to be reassured about what is happening.
  All I am saying is that it gives way to a form of informal resolution procedure which allows a dialogue to take place between the parent and the school to ensure in the interests of the child that, whatever provision is being made for the child, it is appropriate to the needs of the child.
  I believe I was taken a little out of context by the Minister in the way he responded to these amendments. However, they are important amendments and I shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Review or assessment of educational needs at request of responsible body]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
  Clause 8, page 6, line 45, after ("body") insert ("or the parent of the child").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 71 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 74 and 77. Other amendments in this group are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 78 and 79.
  Amendment No. 71 provides for the responsible body—that is, the head teacher or governors—to ask for an assessment or reassessment of the child. We should also make provision for the parents to be able to ask the local authority for an assessment or a reassessment of their child and my amendment allows the parents to say that they believe their child qualifies for an assessment.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 72 is that the subsection allows an interval of six months between the request for an assessment and the assessment being made. I am afraid that is too long. I should like to cut that down to three months, which should be time enough for the local authority to get their act together. Six months, depending on the time of year—certainly if it is six working months—can mean a very long wait indeed for a child's educational needs properly to be assessed, let alone be met.
  Amendment No. 73 is that, as the subsection stands, it remains open to the local education authority to reject the request as being unnecessary. They cannot know whether an assessment or reassessment is necessary until they have assessed the child. Therefore, our amendment would require the LEA to make the assessment if a request had been made. Since such a request is to be made by the responsible body—or under the previous amendment, the parent—it is not likely to be frivolous. It is likely to be in the interests of the school and the parents to ask for an assessment only if, with their knowledge of the child, they deem it to be necessary.
  On Amendment No. 74, the Minister needs to explain to me the phrase
  "before deciding whether to comply".
  Surely the local education authority must comply and make the reassessment. There is no question of whether to comply. My amendment would require the parents to be informed, as in the rest of the subsection, before the LEA began the assessment, rather than before the LEA considered whether to begin the assessment.
  Amendment No. 77 would remove the words "decide whether to", because the local education authority has to comply. The amended subsection (5) would require the LEA to comply, but only after the 29-day period for parental representation had elapsed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I shall speak to Amendment No. 75. I am somewhat confused because the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is asking for the parents to ask for assessment. I thought that was already specified in Section 329A of the 1996 Act—although I may be quite wrong.
  My briefing says that when a parent requests a statutory assessment, the law imposes a six-week time limit on an LEA to answer yes or no. My amendment would impose a time limit on an LEA's response to a request from a responsible body for a statutory assessment. It is essential that there is a time limit for an LEA's response if a request comes from a school or a professional, such as an educational psychologist. Without a time limit, situations such as the one that I shall briefly describe—and which IPSEA says are very common—will continue to arise.
  The parent of a child with special needs rang IPSEA for help. A request for assessment had been sent to her LEA by the head of her child's school and the educational psychologist. There had been no response by the LEA, despite the request having been made over nine months previously. IPSEA helped the parent make her own written request, which then imposed a six-week deadline for the LEA to reply. However, the missing nine months could not be retrieved which, in the life of a child, is a hugely long time.
  I warmly welcome the Bill's introduction of a right of appeal for a parent when an LEA turns down the request of a school or a professional for a statutory assessment. Before turning down the school's request for assessment, the LEA must send a proposal to the
  CWH128
  parent. The six-week deadline follows the sending of the proposal. However, that will not get the whole thing to kick in at the beginning. There could still be that nine-month delay, because there is no time limit on the period between the LEA receiving the request from the school or professional and it sending the parents the notice of the proposal to assess. There is no early trigger, so delays could still continue without the new deadline proposed in Amendment No. 75.
  Lord Lucas: Amendment No. 76 in this group inserts the words
  "10 days nor more than"
  before "29". Suppose, under subsection (3), the local authority were to say that the specified period were to be two years, which it certainly could under subsection (4), because the only restriction is that it has to be longer than 29 days. That would seem to be an excellent way for the local authority to delay the procedure until everyone had forgotten about it..
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, said, we need some restriction on the ability of the LEA to spin things out. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which parents need more than 29 days to consider their rights under this section, and 10 days should be adequate in most circumstances when things are bubbling along reasonably nicely. Likewise, if the local authority has submitted a notice under subsection (3) and the parent says, "Yes, by all means go ahead", why should the local authority then have to wait 29 days, or however much longer is specified, before it can do anything about it? Everybody is agreed; they are all sitting around waiting; but subsection (5) makes them sit around until this arbitrary time period has elapsed. I do not see why. If the parent agrees, the matter should go ahead straight away.
  The last of my amendments would allow the responsible body to appeal under subsection (8)(b). Since those are the people who have raised the matter in the first place under this section, I do not see why they should not be able to appeal.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Addington: One of the points raised relates to the length of time matters can take. Again there was a great deal of supporting anecdotal evidence The length of time involved in getting help has been an issue which has always dogged anyone who did not fit into the main stream.
  We must have some better idea about the length of time. I instinctively worry about a provision which allows the time to be extended because such a provision has been abused in the past. A good reason for doing nothing is that it does not fit in with your plan. The general thrust of these amendments is valuable.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I begin by indicating that Amendment No. 71 is unnecessary. It gives parents as well as schools the right under this clause to refer children to local education authorities for statutory assessments. They already have that right under Section 329 of the Education Act 1996. Presumably

  CWH129
  Amendment No. 71 has to be viewed in the light of Amendments No. 72, 73, 74 and 77, which we are considering in this group.
  Amendment No. 72 would mean that the statutory interval between requests for assessment of children from schools and parents would be three months instead of six. The effect of Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 77 would be that LEAs would always have to comply with requests for assessments, whether they came from schools or from parents.
  Neither the proposal that the interval between requests for assessments following a previous assessment be reduced, nor that depriving LEAs of the right to decide whether to assess, can be accepted. Three months is just not long enough for any changes which there may have been to a child's special educational needs since a previous assessment to emerge properly.
  For children whose previous assessments had led to statements, this amendment would mean that their parents could request reassessments within two weeks of receiving the final statement. Were three months to be accepted it would hold out the prospect of a constantly revolving door of requests for reassessment which LEAs would have to deal with. Surely the Committee would regard that as being an unreasonable use of LEA officers' time.
  Depriving LEAs of the right to refuse to assess would also be a retrograde step. It cannot be accepted that every single request for assessment, either from parents or schools, is well-founded. LEAs, in consultation with parents and schools, can often show how a school working within its own budget can adequately meet a child's needs without going through the assessment and statementing process. Surely it is right that LEAs should continue to be allowed to exercise their judgement to decide whether an assessment is necessary. Of course, if they decide not to assess, either after a referral from schools or from parents, parents have the fundamental right to appeal to the SEN tribunal.
  Turning to Amendment No. 75, we understand and sympathise with the aim behind the amendment of the noble Baroness Darcy de Knayth. It is to ensure that parents are informed of the LEA's decisions on whether or not to assess a child's special educational needs following a request from a school within the same six-week time limit as if the request had come from the parent. In fact, the consultation on the SEN regulations which has run alongside the consultation on the revised SEN code of practice proposed changes to the regulations which would ensure that this would happen. Changes to Schedule 26 of the 1996 Education Act to be brought about by Schedule 7 to the Bill already provide for regulations to prescribe time limits on the serving of notices related to the assessment process, including any notices under Section 329A. We will use this to ensure the same six-week time limit applies to school requests for assessment as applies to parental requests.
  CWH130
  On Amendments Nos. 76 and 78, I sympathise with the intention of these amendments, which is to ensure that parents know whether LEAs will assess or not with all due speed after a request has been made by a school. However, they are unnecessary.
  The amendments seek to limit the specified time in which parents can make representations and submit evidence and allow for parents who do so before the specified time to tell the LEA it can get on with deciding whether to assess straightaway. However, the crucial point for parents is not when the LEA starts making the decision but when they can be assured they will hear the decision. As I say, we have consulted on amendments to the 1994 SEN regulation which would ensure that LEAs will have to inform parents of their decision within the same six-week period as if the request had been made by the parents and we fully intend to put those changes into effect. This will ensure that parents are given the information they need within a reasonable period. It is the finishing date we are seeking to emphasise, not the starting date.
  Lastly, Amendment No. 79 would introduce a new group of appellants to the tribunal process of children with SEN—schools which have made a request for an assessment.
  I sympathise with the argument that there are some parents who may not feel capable of appealing to the tribunal and would prefer schools to do so on their behalf. However, whereas in the case of an initial request for assessment parents may never have dealt with the LEA before and may well benefit from this being done for them, by the time it comes to decide whether to appeal to the tribunal, parents would already have been in contact with the LEA when making representations or submitting evidence, even where the school had made the request. Parents who would still value assistance could of course turn for support to the strengthened parent partnership arrangements we are putting in place.
  Against this background, therefore, I ask those Members of the Committee who tabled these amendments to recognise that the crucial issue with regard to the timescale has been and shall be addressed under our arrangements, and that the amendments therefore are not necessary.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and am satisfied on Amendment No. 75.
  Lord Lucas: Returning briefly to Amendments Nos. 76 and 78, do I understand from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that the "specified period" mentioned in lines 18 and 19 is in fact covered by the regulations which he was describing, and that therefore there is some limit on that specified period? Is it the case that it is not a period which the LEA is free to make however long it wants, but that there will be statutory limits on what that specified period will be? That is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to say, and I see he is nodding his head in agreement.

  CWH131
  What is the problem with my amendment to Clause 5? Suppose we have a position where the local authority has said, "Right, suspended for 29 days"; "This is what we are going to do"; "Do you want to make representations?" The parents then say, "Wonderful"; "No"; "At last"; "Go ahead". The local authority then has to wait 29 days doing nothing, twiddling its thumbs with no process taking place at all, merely because it is not allowed to do anything until the end of the 29-day period. What is the purpose of that?
  Lord Davies of Oldham: On the first point, I can offer full assurance to the noble Lord that his interpretation of the position is exactly right. On the second point, what is being considered here is the proper notification and rights of parents. The reason for the 29 days is obvious. Ten days might seem reasonable for the average parent at home, but account has to be taken of holiday periods and people being abroad and so forth. That is why 29 days are stipulated. There is no question of the local authorities electing to, "wait and see". There is no reason why they should prepare and engage in consultations on other views with regard to such a case. In most circumstances, such preliminary work would not be wasted. The implication of the position is clearly there.
  Lord Lucas: Suppose I am the parent of a child and for whatever reason the local authority comes to me under this clause asking to proceed with making a statement. I immediately agree and send them a letter signed in triplicate, witnessed in any way they wish. Under subsection (5) the authority cannot decide to go ahead with making the assessment until 29 days have expired. It cannot even decide to pass first base. It cannot call anyone in; it cannot get the assessment made; it cannot take advice; it cannot make a date with the educational psychologist. It is forbidden, under subsection (5), from doing anything at all until 29 days have passed even when everyone is agreed that things can proceed. I simply do not see the purpose of that. Nothing is happening in those 29 days, except delay.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I share with the noble Lord a hatred of the concept of any unnecessary delay when the signals have clearly gone forward for action to be taken. Obviously, we are concerned about the balance of parental rights in this respect but I shall look closely at the point just made and respond to it in due course.
  Baroness Blatch: That was a useful exchange. I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to reflect on the point raised by my noble friend. However, when the Minister responded to my first amendment saying that it was otiose, he said that parents had that right already. They definitely have the statutory right to ask but they do not have the right for the assessment to take place. Reading on, subsection (3)—the subject of another of my amendments—contains the words,
  "Before deciding whether to comply";
  that is, the authority has the right not to accede to a parent's request for an assessment. My point is that, if parents are sufficiently concerned to want an
  CWH132
  assessment made of their child's learning abilities—possibly but not necessarily leading to a statement— because they perceive that the child has disabilities in terms of learning, then an assessment should be made. A local authority cannot simply refuse since, until they have made an assessment of a child, they are not in a position to say whether a child does or does not have learning disabilities. I do not, therefore, understand the response of the noble Lord. I hope that I am correct in assuming he said that they should have the right to ask for but not necessarily the right to have an assessment.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The position must be taken in the context of the general obligations of the local authority and school in terms of providing education for the child. Although a request in those terms may be made, the local authority already has an obligation to ensure that that child's interests are being advanced as far as possible in their education. So it is not a question of them turning their back on any basis for assessment. Far from it: the child is involved in the educational system and the authority is in a position where it can begin to reach some judgment on the effectiveness of the education presented to the child. That is the context in which I was making the suggestion. I recognise that it is in the context of the subsequent amendments; part of a package. I am possibly being somewhat over precious in addressing those particular remarks to the amendment when it is part of a general package. However, I have explained to the noble Baroness why we are seeking, quite properly, to reserve to the education authority and to practising professionals proper rights with regard to educational judgments in respect of children in circumstances where parents might not be in total agreement with the decisions being advanced.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: It would not be unusual for there to be instances where parents are in disagreement about the provision made for their child. However, parents may think that their child has special needs but there is no obligation on the authority even to explain why it is not going to do an assessment. It has the right to say, "We do not believe that your child needs an assessment".
  There needs to be something somewhere either on the face of the Bill or certainly in the code of practice to state that a parent should receive serious consideration where he is sufficiently concerned— perhaps unnecessarily—that a child has special educational needs which are not being met within the system. If there cannot be a compulsory assessment, there ought to be an obligation on the local education authority to explain why that is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 72 to 79 not moved.]
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 80:
  Clause 8, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
  ("( ) an independent school.").
  The noble Baroness said: This measure allows those responsible for a school at which a child is already a pupil to request of the local education authority an assessment or reassessment to see if that child has special educational needs. Under our earlier amendment, which allows the parent also to make such a request, it should be open for any child at any school to be given such an assessment if those responsible for that child deem it to be necessary. The relevant provision excludes those at independent schools. My amendment adds independent schools. The Government as a whole are responsible for all children, whether they go into or out of the private sector. If parents believe that a child has special educational needs, they ought to have the right as taxpayers and local council taxpayers to approach their local education authority for an assessment. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I largely agree with the case that has been put forward by the noble Baroness and will be pleased to consider this issue further.
  Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 82:
  After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

  INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL NEEDS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY
  (" . In section 323(3) of the 1996 Act (assessment of educational needs), after "an" insert "independent".").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 82 I wish to speak to Amendment No. 83. Amendment No. 82 touches on a matter which we raised earlier concerning educational psychologists and the way in which their independence has been compromised. This is merely a suggested way in which we might start to move back towards the assessments being made in an independent way, not one which is too influenced by the requirement to conserve cash, which may be afflicting a local authority.
  Amendment No. 83 picks up what seems to me to be a loophole in that, if a review had concluded that an amendment should be made, the local authority at present has very little obligation to make that amendment. It can just sit on its hands and wait for the tribunal process to take place, whereas, if it was concluded in a review that an amendment should be made, it seems sensible that the authority should be under an obligation to do so. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I fear that I must disagree with the noble Lord with regard to Amendment No. 82. It looks to me as if this is premised on the assumption that assessments conducted by LEAs are biased and unprofessional. I do not believe that to be
  CWH134
  the case. After all, we look to the staff and professional associates of LEAs and other authorities, such as health and social services, who assist LEAs with assessments, to use their professional skills and judgment to complete full assessments of children's needs and make appropriate recommendations.
  It is difficult to know what "independent" means in this context. Surely an LEA's own educational psychologist is more likely than anyone from outside the locality to have knowledge of local special educational needs provision, which would help LEAs and parents to settle on the appropriate placement. They are also likely to have good links with staff in the schools, which can work to the advantage of the child. We are not saying that the same will never be true of independent educational psychologists—I do not in any way want to cast aspersions on their role—but I hope that it is recognised that we can trust professionals in local employ to do a proper job. If parents do not agree with the statement, they have the right of appeal to the tribunal.
  The same considerations apply to Amendment No. 83. Reviews of statements can be seen in the same light as the advice that goes to LEAs when they are drawing up statements. LEAs have to apply their professional judgment to any recommendation they receive following annual reviews. They should not have that judgment fettered by the amendment. Should LEAs decide not to amend statements in the way that these recommendations suggest, parents have the right to require a reassessment of their child's needs and to appeal to the tribunal.
  Well intentioned though I know the amendments to be, they are unnecessary against the background of our experience of the way in which local authorities professionally address themselves to these tasks.
  Lord Lucas: I see that we will not get any further this evening. The noble Lord is being a little "rose-tinted" in imagining that local authorities can be put under extreme financial pressure and still expected to make totally independent judgments on how much money to spend on special educational needs. There has to be a trade-off between one and the other. Over the past years we have seen increasing pressure put on local authorities, resulting in a shortfall on statements being made. However, I do not need to extend that discussion this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
  Clause 9 [Duty to specify' named school]:
  Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 84:
  Clause 9, page 8, line 19, leave out ("not").
  The noble Baroness said: I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I find this the most depressing room to work in. I am extremely cold. On the first day I ended up with a blinding headache and I have another today. I find the lighting oppressive and I find it distasteful to work here. If health and safety rules

  CWH135
  applied, I think we might have a justifiable complaint. It would be helpful to know when this Committee Stage will end tonight.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand the privations we are all suffering and we are certainly due to finish shortly. I wondered whether the next group of amendments could be moved and dealt with and then we could adjourn.
  Baroness Blatch: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
  I sympathise with local education authorities that hold open special educational places for pupils only to see those places remain empty. The local authority is financially committed and, at the same time, another child is prevented from benefiting from that place.
  The Bill goes too far, in that it may encourage local education authorities not to make enough special needs places available in the first place. All too often in the past, we have heard of parents having to resort to the private sector in their desperation to find the right educational provision for their child. There is, of course, some wonderful provision in the private sector and it is frequently from the private sector that many successful specialist innovations are first introduced and highlighted. Some of the private educational establishments in this country are well known around the world for their high standards of achievement. But the private sector is not always the first choice for parents. For many parents their acceptance of fees is felt necessary only because of the absence of local authority provision. All too often the slowness of the bureaucratic machinery of local government forces parents to find suitable educational provision in the private sector.
  Should the Bill become law as it is drafted, local education authorities will have no incentive to speed up their decision making or to make additional special needs provision. That will result in a Catch—22 situation whereby a concerned parent, while waiting for his child to be statemented or placed in a local authority school, finds a privately-funded place for his or her child and then discovers that the local education authority will make no provision in the public education sector because the child is already placed in the independent sector.
  The amendment seeks to ensure that local authority places are available for those children who need them—my caveat, as always, is if that is appropriate but at the same time, local authorities need not hold open those places indefinitely.
  In moving Amendment No. 84, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 85. Clause 9 exempts the LEA from naming the school or other institution which it recommends for the child's needs if the parents themselves have made suitable arrangements. That is fair enough, as far as it goes, but that parental choice should have to be recorded in the statement as an assurance to all concerned that the special educational needs of the child will be met and where they are to be met. The amendment therefore requires that parental
  CWH136
  choice be recorded in the statement, and that matter of record is important, especially if the situation has to be revisited. I beg to move Amendment No. 84.
  Lord Lucas: I entirely support the amendments tabled by my noble Friend. I had intended to address this subject under Clause 9 stand part, but I might as well do it now. These delays can be intolerable. Sometimes it can take two or three years to settle a child's provision properly in the state sector. If you have a child who is suffering like that and you have the ability to pay for a private school, you would have to be extremely hard-hearted not to, except that, so far as I understand it, we are presented with a situation, under Clause 9 in which, if your nerve breaks and you run for the private sector to give your kid a decent education a year or two earlier than he might otherwise, you lose all right to state support and have to go on paying for private education for ever because there is now no right to turn to the state.
  While the process of appealing and deciding the statement is under way, parents ought to have the right to make provision for their child as they see fit. At the end of the process, when the tribunal has decided and when the thing is settled, if the parents then decide to go private, that is their decision and they take the consequences. However, I do not see why they and their child should be made to suffer because of the delays in the system
  Baroness Blackstone: Clause 9 seeks to ensure both fairness and clarity in the exercise of a duty placed upon LEAs to specify a school by name in part 4 of a statement of special educational needs. It allows authorities not to name a particular school they consider appropriate in case the child's parents have made suitable alternative arrangements—typically by paying for a place in an independent school. It avoids in these circumstances the LEA having to name a school in the child's statement and then having to keep open a place for him when they know that child will not be attending the school—a place which might otherwise be taken up by another child. The LEA would also no longer have to pay for an empty place, which is, of course, not an efficient use of its resources.
  It would be unfair if a place that was unlikely to he taken up by a particular child was denied to another and this clause is designed to prevent that from happening. It is not our intention to allow LEAs to avoid naming a school in a statement in a significant number of cases, but if a parent has made suitable alternative arrangements, it is appropriate that no school should be named. Other than that, LEAs will continue to name schools where appropriate, or a type of school or education otherwise than at a school that has been arranged for a pupil. The clause will therefore enhance the exercise of parental choice by potentially opening up more places for children who need them and whose parents want them to attend. It will remain open to parents who have made alternative arrangements for their children to seek a placement at a maintained school later on if they wish.

  CWH137
  Amendment No. 84 would undermine those intentions by requiring the name of a school or institution to be included in the statement in all cases. Amendment No. 85, like the previous one, would also serve to undermine the aims of Clause 9—which I set out clearly for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—by requiring a school or other institution or arrangement to be named in a statement in cases where the parents have made their own arrangements. Acceptance of this amendment would make authorities liable to meet the cost of the provision arranged by parents, sometimes at independent schools, even though the authority could arrange perfectly suitable alternative provision at a lower cost.
  Authorities are not currently liable to contribute towards the cost of educating a child in those circumstances. We think that that is a sensible use of resources which must also be shared with other young people with special educational needs.
  Amendment No. 86 seems to us to be unnecessary. The LEA is already required to ensure that the educational provision specified in the statement is being made available at one of its own schools or at one of the parents' choice, unless the child's parents have made suitable alternative arrangements for the child.
  If parents arrange their own provision for the child, we see no reason why the LEA should hold open a place at the school currently named in the statement pending the conclusion of the appeal. That could deny a place to another very deserving child. In the meantime, the LEA in any case needs to be satisfied that the educational provision of the parents' choice of school is suitable, including whether it is appropriate for the child's needs as set out in the statement. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will consider these amendments and that the noble Lord can see why Clause 9 needs to be part of the Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: It has been a useful debate and I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's response,
  CWH138
  although I understand the arguments for flexibility. If my first amendment provides something that is much too inflexible, clearly I need to think about it again. I do not think the noble Baroness was correct in her interpretation of my Amendment No. 86. The noble Baroness suggested that somehow or other I was advocating that in the event of the example I gave the local authority would be left picking up the bill for the private education. That is certainly not what I meant.
  I was referring to parents who want a place in mainstream education for their child and who have waited so long that in absolute desperation they have scraped the money together to send them privately; but nevertheless want to get them back into mainstream education. Because they have made provision for their child, the LEA wipes its hands of them. The amendment simply says that the LEA should continue to have an obligation; not that they should meet the fees of the private school.
  A misunderstanding on Amendment No. 86 may well mean that the wording leaves something to be desired. However, I am not a professional in these matters.
  I heard what the Minister said on Amendment No. 85. Again, the really inoffensive objective on my part was that there should be a record of the parents' preference in the statement. But I shall have to read more carefully what the Minister said on that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, 30th January at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.

  European Security and Defence Policy: English Translation
  European Security and Defence Policy: English Translation
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Sierra Leone Army: Training Programme
  Sierra Leone Army: Training Programme
  NATO
  NATO
  WEU Satellite Centre
  WEU Satellite Centre
  Employment Opportunities
  Employment Opportunities
  Jean Monnet Chairs and Centres
  Jean Monnet Chairs and Centres
  Eurostar: Carriage of Pets
  Eurostar: Carriage of Pets
  Methane
  Methane
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Regulations
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Regulations
  Written Answer Content: Policy
  Written Answer Content: Policy
  Northern Ireland: Nominations to Public Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Nominations to Public Appointments
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Cigarette Manufacturers: Secondments to Government Departments
  Cigarette Manufacturers: Secondments to Government Departments
  European Movement: European Commission Grant
  European Movement: European Commission Grant
  Manufacturing Employment since 1995
  Manufacturing Employment since 1995
  Congo: Support for National Dialogue
  Congo: Support for National Dialogue
  Amsterdam Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Amsterdam Treaty: Enhanced Co-operation Measures
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: UN Conference
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: UN Conference
  Vehicle Manufacture, Export and Import Statistics Since 1995
  Vehicle Manufacture, Export and Import Statistics Since 1995
  Steel Manufacturing, Export and Import Statistics 1995
  Steel Manufacturing, Export and Import Statistics 1995
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  GPs: Retirement Forecast
  GPs: Retirement Forecast
  Haemophilia Patients and vCJD in Blood Products
  Haemophilia Patients and vCJD in Blood Products
  Diamorphine
  Diamorphine
  Sexual Health and HIV Strategy
  Sexual Health and HIV Strategy
  Smoking-related Diseases: Treatment Costs
  Smoking-related Diseases: Treatment Costs
  Community Health Councils: Funding
  Community Health Councils: Funding
  Zimbabwe: DfID Funding
  Zimbabwe: DfID Funding