Sitting of 30 January 2001

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

  ROYAL LIVERPOOL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL INQUIRY REPORT
  Ordered,
  That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of a report, summary and conclusions, evidence and supporting papers of the independent confidential Inquiry established under section 2 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to investigate the removal, retention and disposal of human tissues following post mortem at Alder Hey Hospital (the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust) and to make recommendations.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Winter Fuel Payment
    Mr. David Marshall: How many pensioners in Scotland are benefiting from the winter fuel payment scheme. [146179]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): About 1 million people aged 60 or over will benefit from the winter fuel payment scheme in Scotland. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that that includes about 11,500 people in his Shettleston constituency.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State back to the reality of Scottish politics and wish them every success in their new roles. Their political opponents will be in for a rough ride in the months ahead.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that pensioners throughout the United Kingdom and especially in Scotland gave a warm welcome to the winter fuel payment of £200 this winter, particularly because of the severe cold weather of the past five weeks? For once, it was not a choice for some of them between eating and heating, as it was under the Tories. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if the Tories were ever to regain power—God forbid that that should happen—the winter fuel allowance could be part of the £16 billion-worth of public expenditure cuts that they promise?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments. I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is now
    156
    Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—a job in which all Scotland wishes him well. As not only the first woman to be Secretary of State for Scotland, but the first mother, I am conscious of the fact that this afternoon I am to welcome to Dover House six young people who are to recite Burns for me. That is an appropriate start to my role.
    My hon. Friend is correct about the importance of the winter fuel allowance. Like me, he was a Member of the House before the 1997 general election and witnessed the official Opposition's introduction of VAT on fuel. I am pleased that a Labour Government cut VAT on fuel, pleased that a Labour Chancellor is ensuring that every pensioner receives a £200 winter fuel allowance and pleased that, across government, Labour is seeking to deal with fuel poverty. That represents a significant dividing line between this side of the House and that side. We have practical solutions for real problems.
    Sir Robert Smith: I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State and my good wishes to her predecessor in his new role.
    Does the Secretary of State realise that those pensioners are receiving a non-means-tested benefit? Can she explain to them why the Government think that personal care should not also be non-means-tested? She proudly referred to the £200. Can she explain to pensioners why the Government plan to cut that back to £150 next winter.
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that the Government have spent more than £9 billion on pensioners in the lifetime of this Parliament. That goes way beyond the proposals on which he fought the last election. He knows that matters of personal care are for the Scottish Parliament and it underlines the power of the devolution settlement that the Scottish Parliament can take such decisions. The Government have made progress in creating a stable economy, low interest rates and low unemployment so we are in a position to benefit every pensioner in the country. We shall do so with fairness and compassion. We shall not pull the wool over their eyes.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I also congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State.
    The Secretary of State will be aware that in my constituency as in hers, many pensioners are not yet taking up fully the benefits to which they are entitled. We must remind pensioners about the minimum income guarantee because taking it up would give them £100 more in disposable income than they had when the Government were elected. Will she remind pensioners that they ought to take up the minimum income guarantee, especially as the application forms have been simplified.
    Mrs. Liddell: Predictably, my hon. Friend makes a sensible point. Many pensioners are too shy to apply for the benefits that are available to them. Indeed, some may not have received their winter fuel allowance, and I urge them to take it up. There is a helpline, and I am sure that the House will not mind me reading out the number, which is 0845–915–1515. Help is available for pensioners and it is important that they realise that the minimum income guarantee is their due. It is not charity; it is their due. Many pensioners are not aware that, from April 2001, pensioners who have savings of up to £6,000 before their

    157
    minimum income guarantee award can still receive the minimum income guarantee. The savings limit is to go up to £12,000. That is very important for every pensioner: the Opposition do not like it, but pensioners do.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I too welcome the Secretary of State to her post. May I ask her how the issue of fuel payments relates to the welcome announcement of free personal care? Although extracted at the point of a parliamentary gun, and humiliating for the Secretary of State, it was welcome none the less.
    Was the Secretary of State kept in the dark about the announcement yesterday, as suggested by that fine newspaper the Daily Record this morning? If not, can she explain why she said on yesterday's "Today" programme that the Scottish Executive were still considering the matter and would report back—just a few minutes before the First Minister's announcement?
    Mrs. Liddell: What a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. We have not seen him here for a long time. Indeed, when he last left he said that he was going to Holyrood because this place was—what was it?—an outdated irrelevance. Apparently we were soon to be extinct, but now the hon. Gentleman is coming back. Edinburgh is not big enough for him and his hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
    In the context of personal care and the Sutherland report, it is a sign of the strength of the devolution settlement that the Government have provided a Scottish Parliament with the will of the Scottish people. As for what I said yesterday on the "Today" programme, the hon. Gentleman will today hear from the Scottish Executive about their arrangements for the Chisholm committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is present now.
    Labour Members believe in devolution as something that strengthens the United Kingdom, unlike the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who wants to split Scotland from the United Kingdom and has been chased back down here by his hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside. He is the weakest link; goodbye.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I add my welcome and congratulations to those extended to the Secretary of State and the Minister.
    Does the Secretary of State believe that the winter fuel payment, together with other relevant Government measures, can help to cut the tragic incidence of hypothermia and other cold-related serious illnesses among the elderly, not least in the cold north-east of Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The whole issue of fuel poverty has been at the forefront of the Government's thinking. A fuel poverty taskforce, working across Government and with the devolved Administrations, has come up with real proposals to deal with the problem. It is estimated that some 35,000 deaths in the United Kingdom are caused by diseases related to cold, which is why what the official Opposition propose is such an unpleasant prospect. They intend to get rid of a winter fuel payment that puts £200 into the pockets of pensioners—the people who need it most.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their new responsibilities.
    May I raise again the question of benefits to pensioners from free personal care? The right hon. Lady says that the Executive are looking at the Sutherland proposals, whereas the First Minister is embracing the Sutherland principles in full. Is there not an incompatibility between those two expressed viewpoints? And what on earth was Lord Lipsey doing in Scotland over the last few weeks if he was not seeking to influence the decision of the Executive? My impression was not that he was there to learn reeling from the White Heather club.
    Mrs. Liddell: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not even know what the White Heather club is.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Oh yes he does.
    Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps I was being over-generous: I did not think the hon. Gentleman was of that vintage. Anyway, I thank him for his good wishes.
    As for the Sutherland proposals for personal care, because of the devolved settlement which the hon. Gentleman's party opposed, the Scottish Executive are in a position to make their own arrangements for care of the elderly. I believe in devolution; I have been committed to it for many years. The opponents of devolution sit on the Conservative Benches, and link themselves to the separatists.
    Lord Lipsey is free to go to Scotland and say whatever he wants. Unlike some Opposition parties, we do not seek to cut Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Scottish Executive take further their proposals on the Sutherland report, they will have to consider the means whereby those proposals are implemented. That is common sense: it is what I said yesterday, and what the First Minister said yesterday.
    I have known the First Minister for 30 years, and I have a good deal of respect and affection for him. He is leading Scotland along with this Westminster Government, because we believe that together we can create a better Scotland and a better United Kingdom.
    Mr. Grieve: I thank the right hon. Lady; I find those remarks reassuring. However, what seems to have occurred in the past 18 months has been the operation of a system in which the Government have given devolution with one hand, but tried to claw it back through the back door—through the mechanism of Labour party control—with the other. May we have some reassurance that that USSR style of Government will not be hers, and that in future there will be transparency and a respect for the arrangements to which devolution inevitably leads?
    Mrs. Liddell: I was over-generous in assuming that the hon. Gentleman was much younger than he is, because he obviously lives in some sort of dark age. The reality of devolution is that the Scottish Parliament can take its own decisions. It was Conservative Members who opposed devolution, and who—in some of their wilder proposals—would seek to reduce the powers of Scottish Members in this Chamber. They will be going into the next general election saying, "Please vote for me because I will not be voting at Westminster on your behalf." Those are the

    159
    bizarre proposals that the hon. Gentleman promotes. Labour Members believe in partnership—a partnership of the Scottish Parliament with this Parliament, a partnership that rights a 300-year-old wrong, and a partnership that strengthens the United Kingdom.
    John Robertson: May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming the Secretary of State? Does she agree with me—my constituency has one of the highest proportion of over-60s—that over-60s and pensioners are far better off under this Government than they would be if any Opposition party had control?
    Mrs. Liddell: I well remember going at the end of last year to a pensioners' club in my hon. Friend's constituency. It was obvious from the support that he was enjoying that his pensioner community very much recognises what the Government are doing for them. As election fever is whipped up and we see the posturing of Conservative Members, of course we have to examine what they would do for the pensioners of Scotland—such as removing the winter fuel allowance. However, many pensioners are interested not only in pensioner issues, but in issues such as the working families tax credit—which is under threat from Conservative Members. Pensioners are also interested in the new deal—which is under threat from Conservative Members. All the communities of Scotland, including the communities in my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine, recognise that the Labour Government are working for the people of Scotland.

    Manufacturing Employment
    Mr. Graham Brady: What recent discussions she has had with the First Minister regarding manufacturing employment. [146181]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have had a number of meetings with my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)— the First Minister of Scotland; I keep forgetting that I must not refer to him as an hon. Member in this place—on the support and development of employment in all sectors of the Scottish economy. It is an exciting time for the Scottish economy, and we shall work together to strengthen that economy.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those comments. It is clear that, despite having, as she claims a 35-year friendship with the First Minister, she has not necessarily had the fullest discussions possible about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Scotland. With manufacturing jobs going across the country at the rate of 100,000 in the past year, and going at the same rate in Scotland, why does the right hon. Lady not give proper priority to the loss of manufacturing jobs? What is she going to do about it? Is it the responsibility of the Government here in Westminster or of her friends in the devolved Administration in Edinburgh?
    Mrs. Liddell: I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman on manufacturing industry. He may have forgotten that, last Thursday, there was an Opposition-day debate on manufacturing employment; I know because I replied to it. I can tell him that looking at the Opposition Benches was like looking at the Mary Celeste.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: I was here.
    Mrs. Liddell: Yes, the hon. Gentleman was present. The SNP Benches were singularly empty.
    What the Government are doing for manufacturing industry in Scotland is to create a stable economy, with low inflation. Employment in Scotland is at its highest levels since 1960, and claimant-count unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since February 1976. So no one in this House will take lessons from Opposition Members about manufacturing industry in Scotland.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, for the first time in 20 years, the Scottish coal industry is starting to recruit workers? Does she agree that the announcement of 150 vacancies is tremendous news, for the central region of old and for west Fife? The revival of the industry means that we will be able to get cheap coal—and therefore cheap electricity—which will fire Scotland's manufacturing industry and secure employment for years to come.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a poignant point. Like him, I represent a mining constituency. [Interruption.] We can hear the barracking from Opposition Members, whose Government sought to destroy the coal industry and coal communities in Scotland. I was very proud to be the Minister who was able to negotiate the deal that will save Longannet. I wish the work force there every bit of luck in the future. The complex has modern technology and committed people with great drive who deserve the support of everyone in this House.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, respectively, to their new posts. I am sure that they would both acknowledge the tremendous contribution made by the onshore oil fabrication sector to the manufacturing base of Scotland and the UK as a whole.
    The Secretary of State will be aware of the downturn in employment in that sector, with some large-scale redundancies being the order of the day of late. In her previous ministerial capacity, she will have learned that McDermotts is seeking to retain about 65 per cent. of the surplus in its pension fund. Representations to the firm are in order: can we seek the right hon. Lady's support?
    Mrs. Liddell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss these matters. I am well aware of what is happening with McDermotts, and in the offshore supplies industry in general. Because of the partnership that was developed between the Government, the industry and those who work in it, I was able, as Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, to announce before Christmas an additional investment of £1 billion in the industry in Scotland. That helped to protect the 200,000 jobs that depend on the oil and gas industry. I am aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised and should

    161
    be happy to meet him in a delegation, if that would be of value to him. I am also happy to make representations with him to Treasury Ministers, and especially to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am sure will take an interest in these matters.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: I, too, extend my congratulations and good wishes on their recent appointments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Does my right hon. Friend share my fury at the audacity of Conservative Members in raising in this Chamber the subject of manufacturing jobs, on which they have shed crocodile tears both today and last week? When the Conservative Government were in office, my constituency and the area covered by the Paisley postcode lost 95 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs: 10,000 jobs at the mills in Paisley; 5,000 at the Linwood car plant; 5,000 at Babcock; 7,000—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Secretary of State has got the message.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that hon. Members will have noted how Conservative Members responded to the catalogue of disasters visited on my hon. Friend's constituency. The actions of the previous Government decimated the manufacturing sector in Scotland. With the exception of the hon. Members for Lichfield and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), no Conservative Member now heckling from a sedentary position bothered to attend last week's debate on the manufacturing industry. I was there; I replied to it.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on their elevation to the Scottish Front Bench. If we had a decent amount of time for Scottish questions, we might even hear the hon. Gentleman, which would be a pleasure. In particular, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her historic position as the first woman Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Now, more than ever, Scotland needs strong voices here at Westminster, and however much we might disagree with what the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman say, I am sure that theirs will be strong voices. This afternoon, however, they have addressed the wrong statistics. The fact is that we are facing yet another broken promise by the Labour Government. They promised to increase manufacturing industry in Scotland but the fact is that 300,000 jobs have been lost. Will the right hon. Lady apologise to the people of Scotland?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady is a fine product of St. Columba's in Kilmacolm. I am sure that her former teachers will be very proud of her good manners—slightly more gracious than those of some of her right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Manufacturing is very important to the Scottish economy, but what is even more important is building a manufacturing industry for the future. The previous industrial revolution was based on coal, on iron and steel, on shipbuilding and on textiles. The new industrial revolution will be based on knowledge. The Scottish economy is well suited to play its part in that
    162
    knowledge-driven economy. I see my job as Secretary of State for Scotland as promoting that knowledge-driven economy. We will ensure that, in the future, Scotland will have as proud a record in employment as it has today, with the best employment figures for more than a generation.
    Mr. John Swinney: I welcome the Secretary of State and her ministerial colleague to their office. Bearing in mind the fall in manufacturing employment since Labour came to power in 1997 and the Government's responsibility to create the right economic conditions for manufacturing, is the Secretary of State concerned by the expectation of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive that jobs created by inward investment will have fallen by 11,000 in Scotland from last year to this? Is that because the Government have got the economic conditions wrong for Scotland, or is it just another example of the First Minister and the Scottish Executive failing to deliver?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman, in one of his rare forays down here, should have noted that manufacturing output is actually up in Scotland. The stability that has been created by this Labour Government and our reputation for competence make Scotland more attractive to inward investors. Separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom would damage the Scottish economy and damage jobs.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Football Transfer Fees
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If she will make a statement on representations she has received on the European Commission's proposed reform of European law relating to football transfer fees. [146204]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have received no such representations. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is actively involved in this area.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which will no doubt fill the football fans and football players of Scotland with a great sense of reassurance.
    Despite the excellent efforts of Craig Brown, Scotland currently lies 25th in the FIFA world rankings, a mere four places above Trinidad and Tobago. The FIFA general secretary said today that a new deal on transfer fees will be announced within weeks. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to use her influence so that, when asked for a legal interpretation, she will ensure that football's unique position is respected. In that way, we can ensure that Craig Brown and the Scotland coach have a generation of young talent for years to come. If we abolish transfer fees, my fear is that up to 10 Scottish clubs will go bankrupt or part time within the next five years.
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: If someone beats a path to my door seeking my advice, I will do my best to give a legal opinion, if appropriate. So far as giving help, comfort and support is concerned, I think that the Prime Minister and other Members the Government have already made it plain that they support a system that will assist smaller clubs, promote the development of young players, stabilise the sport and encourage those in it. The junior clubs in my hon. Friend's constituency will, I am sure, be very grateful for his support in this matter.

  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Govan
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: When she next plans to visit Govan to inspect projects which have attracted EU regional aid. [146182]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): I hope to have the opportunity to visit my hon Friend's constituency to see projects that have benefited from EU structural funds, especially the national science centre, which was awarded a grant of £20 million—the largest single award in the west of Scotland from structural funds.
    Mr. Sarwar: I join my colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office on their appointments. I pay tribute to their predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for their support in securing Govan shipyard and the shipbuilding industry on the River Clyde. They will always be welcome in my Govan constituency.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister points out, the Glasgow science centre received £20 million from EU development funds. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visit the centre at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State and I will both be happy to do so. My hon. Friend offered congratulations on the work of our predecessors—and rightly so—but he, above all, deserves a great tribute for his excellent work as a constituency Member. During my 21 years as a Member of the House—do not say that it is too long—I have rarely seen such an active and well organised campaign as that run by my hon. Friend. He deserves great tribute. It is thanks to such campaigns that unemployment is the lowest it has been for 25 years and employment is the highest it has been for 40 years. That bears constant repetition to Opposition Members.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Magistrates Courts (Derbyshire)
    Mr. Mark Todd: What the (a) original estimate was and (b) latest estimated cost is of modernising Derbyshire's magistrates courts. [146207]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the private finance initiative contract for new courthouses in Derbyshire that is currently being negotiated. The original estimate of the procurement costs in 1997 was £500,000. It is now £1.5 million.
    Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The cost of that bloated project will increasingly be levied on the council tax payers of Derbyshire. Those in my constituency will measure up the increased bill that they receive against the fact that the local courthouse in Swadlincote will be closed and they will face a bus journey of more than an hour to reach the new super-court in Derby. How does my hon. Friend suggest that that should be explained to them?
    Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Derbyshire magistrates courts committee made a determination to close the courthouse at Swadlincote and to transfer the work to Derby. As for work on the new court in Derby and the cost of the project, neither officials of the Department nor those of Derbyshire county council or Derby city council believe that work on the shire hall, which is to be brought back into use, could have been undertaken at a lesser—or no—cost. It is a grade 1 listed building of great antiquity. English Heritage strongly advocates its re-use for courts. On occasions, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I cannot win on any account.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that the hon. Lady brings tremendous diligence and skill to her brief. Some of us believe that she wins every time. Will she assure the House that she will bring to the administration of the magistrates courts of West Sussex the same diligence and skill that she applies in Derbyshire?
    Jane Kennedy: I thank the hon. Gentleman and can give him that assurance.

    Sentencing Standards
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the application of common sentencing standards in England. [146208]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Sentencing is a matter for the courts. Parliament lays down the parameters within which sentencers must work, but it is then for the courts to decide on the sentence in individual cases. Sentencing guidelines are laid down by the Court of Appeal and the Government have set up the sentencing advisory panel to provide advice for the Court of Appeal when it proposes

    165
    to lay down such guidelines. Additionally, the Magistrates Association publishes guidance to assist magistrates with sentencing.
    Mr. Brake: I listened carefully to that response. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a case in my constituency in which someone was found guilty of indecently assaulting a young girl but received no prison sentence. In considering those guidelines, will he look again at common sentencing standards across England to ensure that such crimes receive suitable punishment?
    Mr. Lock: I am not aware of the individual case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It would clearly be inappropriate to comment on the sentence imposed and, if there is an appeal, the matter must be referred to the Attorney-General. However, the Home Office is assisting the Magistrates Association to achieve greater consistency by supplying it with figures for each bench showing the sentencing patterns for selected offences and how they vary by petty sessional area. It is hoped that that will be a further inducement to magistrates to maintain consistency—while, of course, recognising the features of the individual cases that come before them.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not it a fact that a large proportion of crimes is committed by a small number of people who commit crimes over and again, yet the "three strikes and you're out" legislation that the Government enacted has not been applied in a single case? If the judges will not apply the law, will the Government reconsider it? What is the point of passing laws when judges are so evidently out of touch with what is required?
    Mr. Lock: It does not come well from the hon. Gentleman's lips to criticise judges, who, by and large, do an extremely good job. Neither is it fair to say that the courts are too lenient in sentencing. Most people base such comments on what appears in the press; they do not have the benefit of hearing all the evidence or reading the reports. It is interesting to note that, when members of the press were asked to look at a case study and reach a sentence in a recent exercise, they arrived at a range of sentences somewhat more lenient than the courts would have imposed in those cases. I invite the hon. Gentleman to be extremely careful when criticising judges for being too lenient.

    Human Rights Act
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What assessment he has made of the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the operation of the court system in England and Wales. [146209]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The courts are responding very well to the requirements of the Human Rights Act. In a majority of cases, human rights points are being raised alongside other arguments in cases that would have come before the courts in any event. Court work loads have been stable since 2 October.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister accept that the implementation of the various articles of the European
    166
    convention on human rights incorporated into British law will have a devilish impact on the whole legal system in our country? Did he assess the impact before the Human Rights Act was introduced? If so, what estimate did the Government make of the extra cost that would fall on the courts?
    Mr. Lock: Promoting a culture of respect for human rights and responsibilities throughout society and enabling British citizens to exercise the same human rights in British courts as those that they can exercise in any part of the European Union is not something that I would describe as "devilish".
    I was asked whether there is chaos. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no chaos. In fact, the average length of a hearing was shorter in November 2000 than in November 1999. He also asks about the provision that has been made for additional costs. We plan to spend an extra £21 million on running the courts this year—4.7 per cent. more than the existing provision. We also plan to spend up to an extra £39 million in legal aid payments—a possible addition of 2.3 per cent. It is far too early to say whether those additional provisions will be required. At present, court work loads are stable and the time taken to hear cases is decreasing, so perhaps the predictions of chaos were a little exaggerated.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend refers to a £39 million provision for the legal aid budget. In the light of the debate on legal aid in Committee last week, to what extent does he think that that budget is protected against all future contingencies?
    Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend raises an important point, because £39 million extra in the legal aid budget to protect our human rights are one thing, but I understand that the Conservative party's proposals are to take £525 million out of civil legal aid, which would completely remove the ability of people in this country to exercise their civil rights. That proposal would certainly provide no money at all, for example, for the victims of domestic violence who want to get injunctions to prevent them from being repeatedly abused. It clearly shows the value that the Conservative party places on the human rights of such people.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Human Rights Act is being used as an excuse to close many rural magistrates courts, including the one in Lampeter? Will he comment on the case of a defendant last week who got up at 4.30 in the morning, walked 60 miles to a court case in Aberystwyth and arrived at 4.30 in the afternoon? The magistrates took pity on him and he was discharged. Had the court at Lampeter still been open, he could have gone 15 miles up the road and attended the local magistrates court. How can we deal with human rights when we are forcing defendants to walk 60 miles in rural areas?
    Mr. Lock: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are fit enough to walk that far. Decisions on whether individual magistrates courts are to close are matters for individual magistrates courts committees. I would not expect any magistrates courts closures to arise directly as a result of the Human Rights Act. That is a smokescreen. Other issues are involved and the quality of

    167
    court houses, including their facilities for disabled access, is also important. I am sure that he would want to ensure that every court house has proper access for disabled people.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that people throughout the country will regard his answers as astonishingly complacent? On the case raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and other matters that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), campaigners in the Borders and mid-Wales recognise that licensees have to travel 74 miles on a round trip for a five-minute hearing because of court closures such as the one at Machynlleth. It is unacceptable for the Minister to wash his hands of the problem and say that it is all a matter for magistrates courts committees, as he and his colleagues have repeatedly done. This mismanaged, bungled introduction of the Human Rights Act has taken place at vast cost. We no longer have local justice in rural areas, and that is the Government's fault. The Minister cannot escape responsibility.
    Mr. Lock: Is not it interesting that the framework under which these decisions are rightly taken locally was not passed by this Government, but by the previous one? It was their decision to allow magistrates courts committees to take such decisions, and they must be taken locally. [Interruption.] If Conservatives Members do not like it, they can complain from a sedentary position, but it was their legislation. We believe that these decisions should be taken locally, and they have nothing whatever to do with the Human Rights Act.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Tories are against this human rights thing, should not they be happy that people cannot get to court on time?
    Mr. Lock: I often wonder why we have copious briefings from civil servants when, as always, my hon. Friend makes the point far more effectively and succinctly.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Minister's Department is currently considering various appeals against the unwarranted closures of magistrates courts, particularly in Devon and Cornwall. Despite the fact that no appeal decisions have been taken by the Minister, magistrates courts committees have usurped his function and gone ahead and closed those courts, thus undermining not only him but the lay magistrates who strongly believe that the courts should stay open. Will he immediately order the reopening of the closed courts?
    Mr. Lock: I understand the hon. Gentleman's passion on such matters, but where cases are allocated and which courts sit on which days are not decisions for me or for my colleagues as Ministers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. They are decisions for local magistrates courts committees. I understand his point about the position in Devon and Cornwall, but he will appreciate that no decision has yet been made. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt it by making an announcement this afternoon

    Lay Magistracy
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the future of the lay magistracy. [146210]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation—if I may call it that—to the Opposition Front Bench as junior health spokesman.
    As for the question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November 2000, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 19 December—they are nothing if not persistent. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor gave evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee last Tuesday and said that he had a very high regard for members of the lay magistracy. They give their time for no reward, reflect the community that they serve and typify the quite remarkable lay involvement in this country's system of justice, and our justice system is better for it.
    Mr. Swayne: The Minister is kind, but does she agree that the lay magistracy affords a welcome measure of common sense to the criminal justice system? What thought has she given to increasing the number of lay magistrates at the expense of stipendiary magistrates? She will, of course, recall that the perverse decision in Abergavenny last summer was taken by a stipendiary magistrate sitting alone.
    Jane Kennedy: The number of district judges and magistrates who serve are determined by statute. We constantly seek new recruits to the lay magistracy. It is testament to the Government's efforts to increase civic involvement in our justice system that the number of magistrates has been increasing. Indeed, gender and ethnic balance have also improved.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    People's Peers
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many application packs were sent out to aspiring people's peers; and how many were returned (a) complete and (b) incomplete. [146222]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I understand that about 13,000 packs were sent out in response to expressions of interest. Some 3,141 nominations were received by 17 November, of which about 300 arrived via the internet. I understand that only two were deliberately incomplete, and that some other people omitted details by oversight, which the Commission has followed up with the nominees.
    Mr. Prentice: Those are fascinating figures—30,000 putative people's peers and 3,141 people who actually

    169
    replied. Of that number, only eight "outstanding individuals"—in the words of the Appointments Commission—will be selected in the next eight weeks and given ermine. Is it not the case those eight so-called people's peers can never be representative of Britain? We are creating a legislative joke. Is it not possible, even at this late stage, to join forces with the Liberal Democrats and some Conservative Members to create a legislature that is fit for the 21st century so that we do not persist with this Gormenghast creation?
    Mr. Tipping: Those are fascinating comments. I am delighted to hear calls from Pendle—of all places—to work in co-operation with the Liberal Democrats. It has really changed up there.
    I know that my hon. Friend is a contender for parliamentarian of the year, but I must gently correct his figures: 13,000 people applied for packs. I am not confident that there will be eight nominees—that is yet to be decided—but I am confident that the new procedure will create an Upper House that is more balanced and representative of the community in which we live.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: If the system is so good and there are so many applicants, why do we not simply select all the people to serve in the other place and get rid of the lot who are there right now—or would that reduce the income of the Labour party.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman needs to remember that 29 per cent. of Members of the Upper House are from the Labour party. He should reflect on his party's record because other people have not forgotten it.

    Select Committees
    Mr. John Healey: What representations she has received following the publication of the Government's response to the first report of the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, HC 300, on Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive. [146223]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received a number of representations, some in support of, and some in opposition to, the Liaison Committee's proposals.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. The Liaison Committee's report is certainly a mixed bag. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the half hour that the report recommends be used for a debate after questions each week is too short for a decent debate, and that such a debate is the wrong format for holding Ministers to account more effectively? Will she acknowledge the case for devoting more time on the Floor of the House to major reports? Will she consider a slot for tabled oral questions, which could give priority to members of Committees, but would also allow the whole House to exercise its scrutiny function?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposal. He will know that the Government were unattracted by the suggestion that there should be a special half hour for those debates, and he makes a
    170
    different point that the time would be too short and the format wrong. I wholeheartedly share the view that it is important that we scrutinise and discuss more Select Committee reports. He will know that successive Governments have always found it difficult to find more time to do so on the Floor of the House, by whatever means.
    I know that my hon. Friend, and I hope the whole House, will be pleased to learn that whereas in the whole of the previous Parliament we debated only about 50 of the nearly 600 Select Committee reports produced, in the previous Session we discussed 22. That is a good way not only to hold the Government to account but to reflect the worth of Select Committees' work.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give the House the opportunity to vote on the proposals before the end of the Parliament?
    Mrs. Beckett: That is very unlikely.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not precisely because previous Governments have always run away from the problems of Select Committees that it would be in the Government's interests to set a new and good example to parliamentarians everywhere by accepting that Select Committees' work is best not only debated but questioned? The response of Ministers, which at the moment is given in written form, would not only enliven but assist the House if it were debated for half an hour as suggested by the Liaison Committee.
    Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend knows, I think that the idea is perfectly legitimate and worthy of discussion. Indeed, it has been discussed. She invites us to set a new and good example, and I believe that we have done so by providing far greater opportunities to debate Select Committee reports. However, the Government are not of the view that it would assist the House, irrespective of any impact in Government, for Ministers to be invited or pressed to give an off-the-cuff response, which is in effect what we are talking about, to what may be weighty Select Committee reports. There is genuine creative tension on that point. Surely, the more serious and the more in-depth the work of Select Committees, the more Select Committees want the Government to consider their work fully and give an in-depth response, rather than reacting in the relatively short term.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The right hon. Lady will recall that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that there would be a free vote on the Liaison Committee's report, and she has just told my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that there will be no occasion to have that vote. Is not that a demonstration of the way in which this Executive treat the legislature and of how the right hon. Lady has betrayed her position as Leader of the House?
    Mrs. Beckett: No, it is a demonstration of how difficult the Opposition find it to pay attention to what is said. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked whether there would be a vote on the matter and whether

    171
    it would be a free vote, he correctly said yes, because it is a House matter and House matters always have a free vote.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I invite my right hon. Friend to read column 1100 of the Hansard of 13 July 2000, where the Prime Minister explicitly gave the undertaking that there would be a free vote?
    Secondly, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, in 1992 and 1997, the Select Committees were constituted almost in the last week before the summer recess, and they were not operational until the October? One reason why the House wants to have a free vote on the matter, which is our property, is that the Select Committees can be set up and operational soon after the general election, and not six months later, with Government unscrutinised in the meantime.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am entirely familiar with the Hansard reference that my hon. Friend quotes. I am familiar also with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said because I was sitting two places away from him at the time. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about delays in appointments. I hope that he will appreciate that, whatever may have been the position in 1992, in 1997 there was a substantial change in the membership of the House. He will know that, at least in the Labour party, Members were invited to indicate on which Select Committees they would prefer to serve, and an attempt was made to meet as many of those requests as possible. That process takes time. I hope that he will acknowledge that the Government proceeded as expeditiously as we reasonably could in perhaps somewhat exceptional circumstances.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Paragraph 28 of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report, which recommends a debate on a substantive motion, says:
    "The Government also see little advantage in debates on a substantive motion since this would be likely to lead to more pressure on members to take a party political stance not less. This is unlikely to be conducive to a respect for the independence Committees rightly value. Moreover, the more substantial reports often contain a complex set of comments and proposals. It is hard to see how a considered decision could be made purely on the outcome of a substantive motion."
    Why, then, are the Modernisation Committee's proposals put to a substantive motion in, for example, introducing deferred votes to our Standing Orders? Could it be that, unlike other Select Committees that are chaired by Back-Bench Members, the Modernisation Committee is chaired by the right hon. Lady and is really a tool of government to force on the House changes in our Standing Orders?
    Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, because she has raised the issue before, the decision to set up a Select Committee on Modernisation and to have it chaired by the Leader of the House was a manifesto pledge made on behalf of the Labour party.
    The hon. Lady makes a rather separate point, as was made in the Liaison Committee's report, about the suggestion that there should be substantive motions on Select Committee reports in general. She is correct to say that the Government expressed reservations about that for
    172
    exactly the reason that she quotes, namely that it would be much more likely to introduce a decision to have whipped votes than to leave the House to deal freely with Select Committee reports.
    If I recall correctly—I am sure that if I am wrong, someone will correct me—it was for precisely that reason that the previous Government abandoned the notion of private Members' motions. It had become an issue where there was whipping on both sides of the House, and it was thought to be counter-productive.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Programming Sub-Committees
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the operation of Programming Sub-Committees. [146224]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this issue.
    There have been some teething problems. I understand that the procedures adopted were at first significantly more prescriptive than the Modernisation Committee had envisaged, but experience seems to suggest that things are settling down.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for confirming her reputation as the mistress of understatement. Given the widespread concern that programming sub-committees are meeting in private and holding unminuted discussions, that there has already been unresolved disputes about who said what to whom and when, and that nothing in the Sessional Orders requires the continued adoption of this secretive format, why do not the right hon. Lady and the Modernisation Committee strike a blow for glasnost by recommending that, in future, such committees be conducted in public and that a proper minute be kept, so that right hon. and hon. Members can make their own judgment as to whether everything is fair and above board?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may or may not have had experience of business committees that meet from time to time when legislation is before the House. To a certain extent, it is a matter for Mr. Speaker's ruling. It has always been the case that such business committees meet in private. As for whether there is merit in a note being kept of their decisions, I should always be sorry if disputes arose about such matters. No doubt these are issues that we can continue to discuss. After all, we are engaged in an experiment. I hope—I say this in all seriousness to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has played a distinctive and constructive part in dealing with some legislation already during the Session—
    Mr. Bercow: Do not ruin me.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry about that.

    173
    It is the Government's hope that this will cease to be a matter of such party controversy, and will begin to be a way in which the House can better manage its business and its time. I think that there is scope for such a development, and I very much hope that that will occur.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Clerk of the House
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, on how many occasions since 1998 the Clerk of the House of Commons has been sued in legal action; by whom; and what the cost was to public funds in each case. [146225]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The Clerk of the House, in his role as Corporate Officer, has been involved in no litigation since 1998. In 1996, action was taken against him as Corporate Officer by Harman (CFEM) Facades (UK) Ltd. That case was settled, as set out in a written answer in my name in the Official Report on 2 November last year. In addition, the hon. Gentleman may wish to know that several civil actions have been brought against the commission as an employer during that period.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are we sure, as the House of Commons, that the Clerk should, through the system, be dragged through the courts?
    Mr. Kirkwood: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the involvement of Officers of the House in litigation in the courts of the land. The hon. Gentleman may know that the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 made the Clerk the Corporate Officer of the House. Under that Act, he is given managerial responsibilities for the heritable property of the House and, in that capacity, is enabled to enter into contracts.

Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I wish to make a statement about the inquiry into events at Alder Hey hospital, Liverpool.
I am today publishing the report of the inquiry into the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust, known as the Alder Hey Hospital. I am publishing alongside it two further documents. First, the chief medical officer's census into the extent of organ retention in the NHS in England. Secondly, the chief medical officer's recommendations for reform of organ retention procedures. All three documents are now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents affected at Alder Hey should also have access to copies of the report.
I would like to record my thanks to the chairman of the Alder Hey inquiry, Mr. Michael Redfern QC, and his fellow panel members Dr. Jean Keeling and Mrs. Elizabeth Powell, for conducting what has proved to be an extremely difficult inquiry. The inquiry was established in December 1999, following evidence to the Bristol inquiry that a large number of hearts from deceased children had been retained at hospitals in the NHS. Alder Hey was one such hospital. It is a world-renowned hospital treating 200,000 children a year. For many years, the hospital has made use of human hearts for research and teaching. The Redfern Report says:
"there are now more than 1,600 living children who would have died in infancy or childhood without the improvements in surgical techniques and care which were pioneered in Liverpool."
As the inquiry report makes perfectly clear, however, many of those hearts were obtained without consent. According to the report, in addition to over 2,000 children's hearts, there are a large number of brain parts, eyes taken from foetuses, over 1,500 stillbirths or foetuses and, perhaps most disturbingly of all, a number of children's heads and bodies. The Redfern report reveals
"a lack of respect and a failure to appreciate the circumstances which led to the …taking of human material."
For example, the report cites entries about foetal material labelled with the words:
"Neck deeply lacerated. Pull it to pieces some time and reject."
Some of those entries date back very many years. However, the number of organs retained by Alder Hey increased dramatically in the seven years following the appointment by the hospital and the university of Liverpool of Professor van Velzen in 1988 as chair of foetal and infant pathology in the department of pathology.
During van Velzen' s time at Alder Hey between 1988 and 1995, he systematically ordered the unethical and illegal stripping of every organ from every child who had had a post-mortem. He ignored parent's wishes, even when they told him explicitly that they did not want a full post-mortem, let alone the retention of any of their child's organs.
According to the report, van Velzen lied to parents. He lied to other doctors. He lied to hospital managers. He stole medical records. He falsified statistics and reports, and he encouraged other staff to do the same.
For any parent, the death of their child is a tragedy. To bury that child, to grieve, to hold precious their memory over the years is how many families gradually come to terms with their loss. It is hard to imagine the trauma and
176
anguish that each of the Alder Hey parents faced when, many years later, they discovered that their child's body had not been buried intact, as they believed, but had been stripped of its entire internal organs, leaving the body as a shell.
That happened not to one set of parents in Liverpool, but to several hundred. The hospital and the university now admit that they will never be able accurately to tell parents what happened to every organ of every child between 1988 and 1995.
What we do now know is that the vast majority of organs that were taken were never used for medical research. Parents cannot even take comfort in the knowledge that their children's organs were used to help other children. It is clear from the report that the understanding of cot death—for which van Velzen was funded—was not advanced one iota by his practice of stripping organs from the bodies of children.
The question in the minds of parents and others is how van Velzen got away with it for so long. The answer is that the hospital authorities and the university of Liverpool failed to monitor his practices and failed to take action to stop them. Numerous complaints were made. Problems were not properly investigated. Action was not taken.
These failures were compounded by the incompetence and the insensitivity of both the hospital and the university authorities, once the truth did begin to emerge. The hospital seemed overwhelmed by events. The university seemed simply to have turned its back on parents. Some parents faced up to four funerals, as different organs from their children were returned to them at different times. The pain caused to the parents by this dreadful sequence of events is, in my view, unforgivable. I am deeply sorry for the wrong that was done to them, their families and their children. Those who did wrong will now be held to account.
The inquiry report says that Professor van Velzen must never be allowed to practise again in this country. I can tell the House today that he has been referred to the General Medical Council for disciplinary action. I understand that he has been summoned to appear before the GMC later this week. I can also tell the House that the inquiry report has been referred to the Merseyside police and passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They will determine whether criminal prosecutions should now proceed.
Four NHS staff, including the current chief executive of the trust, have today been suspended. Their employers will consider appropriate disciplinary action. The role of other NHS staff will be examined by their employers. The doctors criticised in the report have been referred to the General Medical Council. Other staff have been referred to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the president of the council of the university of Liverpool to review the evidence in the report and to take appropriate disciplinary action. The current acting chairman of the trust board is today leaving the trust, along with two non-executive directors whose resignations I have today accepted. Also today, I have appointed Angela Jones as the new chair. It is right that the trust should have a fresh start.
Alder Hey hospital relies on its dedicated staff, who have been as shocked as we all are by these events. I want to thank those staff, who have continued through these

177
difficult times to provide treatment and care for children from Liverpool and elsewhere. The action that I have taken today should help them to re-establish the hospital's relationships with the community that it serves. I am confident that Alder Hey can recover and rebuild its reputation as a leading national and international centre for specialist paediatric care.
What the report describes as
"the exceptional practice of van Velzen"
between 1988 and 1995 made Alder Hey unique. However, elsewhere in the NHS it is clear that organ retention without relatives' full knowledge and agreement was widespread. The recent national summit on organ retention, which was organised by the chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed that that was also the experience of parents in many other parts of the country.
Professor Donaldson's census shows that 105,000 organs are retained throughout the country. Poor standards of cataloguing and record keeping mean that those figures may not be wholly accurate. Twenty-five hospitals account for 88 per cent. of the organs. At least 16,500 of the organs and tissues have been retained in apparent contravention of the law, as they were used for coroners' post-mortems and should not have been kept beyond the time needed to establish cause of death. As at Alder Hey and Bristol, the coroner system throughout the country has proved ineffective in that respect. The current law and post-mortem consent forms are both ambiguous. They talk of taking tissues when they often mean taking organs and they record lack of objection rather than informed consent.
In the past four years, the Government have made an unprecedented effort to protect patients better. The changes that we have already made and the reforms that are still to be introduced enjoy widespread support among both patients and doctors. The NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones. Our reforms are aimed at supporting them to become even better. They include a new statutory duty on quality for every NHS trust, independent inspection through the Commission for Health Improvement, annual appraisal of doctors that is linked to periodic revalidation, and reform to make self-regulation faster, more open and more accountable.
Now we need to go further. The chief medical officer's census, our consultation with parents and the medical profession, and the reports from Bristol and Alder Hey have formed the basis for Professor Donaldson's recommendations for reform. I am accepting them in full. The major proposals are as follows. First, I am establishing a special commission under the chairmanship of Margot Brazier, professor of law at Manchester university, to oversee the return to families of organs and tissues from around the country, should those families wish to have them. We have ensured that parents who are seeking more information today can obtain it by contacting the NHS Direct telephone helpline.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set in train a review of the coroner system so that we can learn the lessons of what went wrong at Alder Hey and elsewhere.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will establish a review of the accountability and management arrangements between
178
NHS trusts and universities where senior staff are employed on joint contracts. Fourthly, we will ensure that all NHS trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement. I expect that arrangement to be in place throughout the NHS later this year.
Finally, the law will be changed to enshrine the concept of informed consent. The existing law in this area has become outdated. The Human Tissue Act 1961 does not even contain penalties for breaches of its provisions. The law has ill served bereaved parents in our country and causes confusion for staff. It must now be changed.
I will therefore bring forward measures urgently to amend the Act to clarify that informed consent must be given, that organs and tissues must be specified and to make it a criminal offence to ignore informed consent.
We will also undertake a wider review of existing laws on all aspects of taking, storing and using tissue and organs from both the living and the dead. When the review is completed, we will seek to legislate to introduce the necessary changes.
The changes in the law will be supported by a new statutory code of practice, which will be issued to the national health service. It will cover organs that are used by the pharmaceutical industry, and it will be accompanied by a new standardised consent form, which will be introduced throughout the health service.
There is one other important point. Informed consent does not need to be at the expense of medical research. Proper post-mortem procedures and archived tissues and organs hold the key to many medical advances, such as discovering the effects and causes of disease, and finding cures for illnesses that disable or kill. However, retaining public confidence in those procedures requires public consent. Members of the medical profession share that view. Indeed, it is reflected in the recent guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists.
When I met families from Alder Hey, Bristol and elsewhere, many told me that if they had been asked properly, they would have been only too willing to allow their child's death to help another child live.
Doctors and pathologists have an incredibly difficult job. They have usually acted with the best intentions to create greater understanding of disease and to improve standards of care in a way that avoids causing further anguish to grieving families. Those are laudable aims and honourable intentions. However, as the events at Alder Hey show, modern patient expectations and traditional clinical practices have grown apart. The national health service can no longer assume that the benefits of science, medicine or research are somehow self-evident, regardless of the wishes of patients or their families.
The relationship between patients and the service today has to be based on informed consent. That will require changes in practice, policy and medical education. As I have made clear today, it will also require changes in the law.
The parents whom I have met from Alder Hey and elsewhere have acted with great dignity and purpose. I pay tribute to them. I hope that our reforms will provide some comfort for the pain that they have endured. I commend the reforms to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for his courtesy

179
in making it available to the Opposition in advance. As he said, the inquiry came about as a result of the Bristol inquiry, which took in many parents in my area. Our thoughts are with them today, because the publication of the report will reawaken many painful memories.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the balanced way in which he presented his statement, because there is a need for perspective. Nothing would be worse than blowing up the tragedy and thus creating a general climate of fear and anxiety. That would only make more difficult the complex but necessary work of those engaged in the research from which we may all ultimately benefit. The work is necessarily gruesome and we need to maintain a sense of realism about it. I am therefore grateful for the tone of the statement.
I want to concentrate on two specific issues. The first relates to Professor van Velzen and the second to the wider use of retained tissues and organs. It is clear from the statement and the report that Professor van Velzen lied and broke the law. He must answer for that. Is he being investigated elsewhere for similar reasons? If so, is that happening in the United Kingdom or another country? Our regulations must ensure that no doctor guilty of a disciplinary breach can work in the United Kingdom. It should be a statutory duty for doctors to report to their employers, as a matter of routine, any disciplinary investigation that is being carried out into their work in this country or any other country.
The Secretary of State said that the question in the minds of parents and others was that of how Professor van Velzen had got away with his activities for so long. I would add that a question in the minds of most decent people would be, "Why did he do it?" Most of us completely fail to understand the thought processes or motives of such a man.
The taking of organs or tissue, even with consent, should be accompanied by a clear explanation of the purpose for which they are being taken. I hope that the Secretary of State will include such a provision in his proposed legislative change. The Opposition would fully support such a change in the law. We must also question the role of the universities, which should maintain a proper supervisory brief over those whom they appoint to positions as sensitive as the one held by Professor van Velzen.
The Secretary of State is right to say that it is essential that neither the report nor any exchanges in the House should affect the reputation of Alder Hey hospital or its staff, who carry out dedicated, quality work for which they deserve thanks and praise.
Turning to the wider picture, we fully agree with the concept of informed consent. As the Secretary of State said, most parents would agree, if asked, to allow tissue and organs to be used in research for the benefit of others. Some, of course, would not. In that sense, the special commission under Margot Brazier will have a difficult task that will call for great sensitivity.
It is essential that when parents want organs returned, the organs should be returned all at one time, and not on a number of occasions. We must also accept that some parents will not want organs returned, and that some will not even want to know about the retention of the organs of their children, as that could reopen many painful emotional wounds for them. Their views must be respected.
180
I welcome the proposed review of the coroner system, especially after the Shipman case, which raised even more questions about the system's operation. I also welcome the proposed code of conduct for the pharmaceutical industry, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that it should go further and cover all third parties to whom organs or tissues may be given, especially if money is to change hands. That should apply whether the third parties work inside or outside the national health service.
We fully agree with the need to reform the Human Tissue Act 1961, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider, first, what parallels there might be with the way that tissues are dealt with when individuals donate their bodies for anatomical dissection for medical education purposes, and secondly, whether those rules also need to be amended.
The Opposition will give every support to any legislative change that the Government intend to introduce. If the Government can achieve those changes by means of the Health and Social Care Bill currently passing through Parliament, they would have every support from the Opposition for its speedy passage. It would be ridiculous for both the main parties to approach a general election promising the same changes to legislation, when we could bring about that legislative change imminently.
This matter concerns treating the living and the dead with dignity and respect. We welcome and encourage research—including that involving the use of organs and tissue from the deceased—because we can all gain from it. However, we all lose if such research is not carried out in a climate of decency and respect.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for the tone and content of his speech.
On his specific question about Professor van Velzen, the House is probably aware that van Velzen is under investigation in Canada for his activities there. There is evidence that medical records were taken from this country and that they ended up in Canada. There is also evidence that van Velzen retained animal and human organs, which he stored in a furniture container in Canada. The Canadian authorities are currently investigating that case, and a copy of the report will be passed not only to the regulatory bodies in this country but to the medical regulatory bodies in Canada, Holland and other European Union countries.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to ensure clear explanations of post-mortem procedures, and of the real scientific and medical benefits of being able to conduct research on organs and tissue. That is important, and we all have a job of work to do in that regard. We must ensure that the public—particularly relatives faced with horrendous decisions soon after a loved one has died—are better informed of what a post-mortem entails and of what the advantages and disadvantages are. There is a job of public education that we will need to undertake. As I said in my statement, there is also a job of work to do to ensure that medical training procedures and systems are changed.
On the return of organs, it is extremely important that the commission—which, incidentally, is operating in shadow form and will come into full being in April with, I hope, the agreement of the House—learn the lessons of

181
the mishandling of events at Alder Hey over recent years. We cannot have parents and relatives facing multiple funerals as a consequence of organs being returned in the way they were.
The hon. Gentleman also made another important point. People have a right to know, should they want to take up that right, whether organs have been retained. They also have a right not to know. The commission must enshrine that principle. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's offer of support, but, on the feasibility of amending the Health and Social Care Bill, I am advised—we have checked this—that it is not possible to use the Bill to achieve the legislative changes that we want to make to the Human Tissue Act 1961. As soon as possible, however, we shall seek another legislative opportunity to do precisely that.
Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State allow me to express a couple of views that families on the Wirral have asked me to put forward? First, they stress that parents who lose their children never get over it; the best they can do is live with it. The events that my right hon. Friend described make it much more difficult for them to live with the death of their children as other parents might. Secondly, they do not want to appear to be luddites. They are not against research, but when research might be carried out, they are anxious that parents should be key players in deciding whether it should proceed, so I am sure that they will draw great satisfaction from my right hon. Friend's statement that he intends that parents should not only be involved, but should be the key decision makers.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right. In my dealings with the Pity II organisation, which represents some Alder Hey parents, and the National Committee on Organ Retention, which represents parents throughout the country who have faced such a situation, I have been most impressed by how movingly they say that, had they been given the opportunity, they would of course gladly have donated their child's organs to help another child. Some would not, however, which is the important point. Donation has to be based on the consent of the parent or the relative. Tragically in this case, the opportunity to give or withhold consent was never offered to the parents at Alder Hey.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State will be aware that I have been involved in this issue for some time—since parents in my constituency discovered that their children had been victims at Bristol. My constituent Mrs. Michaela Willis became the national chair of the organisation representing parents. On behalf of them all, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, his blunt acknowledgement of the seriousness of these problems, and his apology on behalf of the NHS for the great wrong that has been done and the grief felt as a result of it. That represents a marked contrast with the reaction of hospital authorities when questions were first asked.
The Secretary of State rightly condemned a particular individual, but how widespread has such practice been throughout the country? By today's standards, would we not consider the typical attitude to be arrogance belonging to a different era, not to a modern health service that treats
182
informed patients? I express my appreciation of the fact that both today's reports pull no punches and I welcome the specific proposed changes, including to the law. Although they are significant, it is probably even more important that they should not be rushed.
On two specific points, I urge the Secretary of State to consider whether Professor Brazier's commission ought to be more permanent than he implied and whether an independent body should specifically be charged with on-going consideration of all such issues rather than examining problems that have arisen in the past.
Secondly, if we are to expect doctors—as I am sure we are—to sit down and spend far more time patiently going through the benefits and the issues with parents and other relatives, that will obviously have considerable resource implications. Will there be someone with expertise in each hospital? There is no doubt that if these matters are handled correctly, in the vast majority of cases parents will see the benefits and will want to feel that something can be learned from the deaths of their children.
Mr. Milburn: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Mrs. Willis and all the work done by her national committee. I have had the pleasure of meeting her and her fellow committee members, and she and others have helped to contribute to the chief medical officer's recommendations which I announced to the House today.
The hon. Gentleman is broadly right in what he says about practices generally. Practices that might have been considered acceptable in the 1950s or 1960s are not considered acceptable nowadays, for the simple reason that we live in a very different era. Public and patient expectations are very different. Systems, ways of working and, I think, the whole culture of the health service have lagged behind; it needs to catch up, and it needs to catch up quickly.
I think that we should be optimistic. Discussions with the medical profession—whether with the British Medical Association, which welcomes some of the changes that we seek, or the Royal College of Pathologists—have shown an enormous willingness on the profession's part to adapt to the new environment in which we all find ourselves. In many ways, doctors in some parts of the country have been leading the changes, and I pay tribute to them. We must build on that, and ensure that the appalling practices that took place at Alder Hey are not repeated.
I will gladly consider the basis for the commission. We need to think about that. I think it right for the commission to be given a specific job to do in the first place—and it will be an extremely difficult job: make no mistake about it. We shall then need to think about whether the commission should continue in a permanent form thereafter.
Some trusts—well over half, I believe—already provide specialist bereavement advisers. We need to ensure that in the future not just some but all trusts take the issue extremely seriously.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I understand that at present no criminal sanctions can be used against those who have perpetrated what most of us would regard as crimes. Would my right hon. Friend ensure that any legislation that is introduced—before the

183
general election, I hope—will make it unlawful, indeed a criminal offence, either to possess or to dispose of a human body or its parts?
How does my right hon. Friend think that the injustices done to bereaved parents can be addressed? Is his Department floating any ideas for a compensation scheme? May I impress the urgency on him? Often, in cases of emergency, the House has managed to pass legislation in a single day when there has been no opposition. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of passing legislation before the election.
Mr. Milburn: In regard to urgent legislation, we shall certainly discuss with the Opposition parties, through the usual channels, how best we can make rapid progress. I take the point made by the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) that it is important for us to get these things right, but there is clearly great urgency in this case.
What my hon. Friend said about criminal sanctions is absolutely right. I understand that, under the Human Tissue Act, the coroner's rules of 1984 and the Coroners Act 1988, although the taking of human tissue or organs is illegal, we have no criminal sanctions. That gap in the law must now be filled, and we shall present proposals in both the short and, as I have said, the medium term to correct those deficiencies.
On the two occasions on which I met parents in my office—and indeed last night, when I spoke to Mr. Ed Bradley, who is the chairman of the Pity II Group of parents—the compensation issue generally was not raised. People will have different views on the issue. Some parents will feel very strongly about it, whereas others will not. However, I think that there is consensus on what the parents really want. They want an apology and an explanation and to know that those who are responsible for what happened to them and their families will be brought to book. Above all, they want to know that it will not happen again, and that action will be taken quickly to prevent it from happening again. We are committed to taking that action.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am grateful for the chance to contribute because the death of my young daughter some years ago makes me feel very involved in this particular issue.
Although I understand the Secretary of State's anger, may I ask him to reflect on three matters? I should like, first, to underline a point that has already been made. Probably because I am a coward at heart, I do not want someone knocking at my door to discuss parts of my daughter. I simply do not want wounds to be reopened.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State keep in mind the difference between the use of parts of a dead child and the way in which they are obtained? In the anguish of the moment, I forgot to ask whether any parts of my daughter could be used to help others. I can only say that I wish that someone had asked me.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State think very carefully about the compensation issue? The bottom line is that the only thing that every bereaved parent really wants is his or her child back. To maintain one's sanity, one has to accept that that cannot be. I speak with some feeling when I say that the pursuit of compensation can all too easily prolong the grief.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He understands these issues
184
better than most of us because he has faced precisely the type of situation we are discussing. I give him a very clear assurance that we will not have the situation that we had at Alder Hey, where hospital authorities were ringing up parents out of the blue to inform them that they had found yet another organ from their child. We will not have that.
As I said to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), parents absolutely have a right to know, if that is what they want. Equally, they have a right not to know. We have to respect the views of the individual parent. I certainly intend that the commission should operate in such a manner that it enshrines respect for parents and for relatives as I have described, precisely to avoid the type of situation that we had at Alder Hey not only once, but, sadly, on very many occasions.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Not only as a Liverpool MP, but, more important, as the uncle of one of the mothers who has been traumatised by these events, may I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his statement has been—not only for the openness of his account and the range of his conclusions; but for the expedition with which he is seeking to implement the necessary action? In the course of his inquiries, has he been given any reason to be concerned about allegations that the hospital sold live tissue to pharmaceutical companies? If so, could he elaborate on that?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. On the issue of the sale of organs taken from live children at Alder Hey, it is our understanding that there was such a practice at the hospital in the early 1990s. We suspect that there was such a practice also at other hospitals across the country. Thymus glands were taken without the consent of parents and handed to a particular pharmaceutical company, to produce drugs that help to avoid the rejection of transplanted organs. It therefore clearly had medical and clinical benefits, but the central issue for the House and for parents is that the organs were sold without consent.
In my view, the principle and issue of consent must come first. I assure my hon. Friend that we will issue very clear guidance to the national health service about the matter, and the statutory code of practice that I mentioned in my statement will cover precisely the set of circumstances that he described.
Mr. Tim Boswell: The Secretary of State's emphasis on informed consent is entirely welcome, but will he accept that it is likely to require NHS hospital trusts to invest a great deal of time and effort in handling individual cases sensitively? Will he give attention to two particular matters? First, if a mother is recovering from a difficult confinement or emergency procedures, will he ensure that no consent is sought from her at that time? Secondly, would it not be highly desirable if both parents involved had to give consent jointly and subscribe to it together? I recognise that it may be difficult to make that a legal requirement, but it would remove any question of subsequent recrimination.
Mr. Milburn: In respect of matters of timing and pressure on hospitals, it is true that changes in practice will be needed. Many hospitals have changed their practice, and the chief medical officer issued interim guidance to the national health service in March last year

185
on some of these issues. I am pleased to say that it has produced some changes and improvements, and has led to issues such as this being handled more sensitively in many parts of the NHS—although, sadly, not in all parts. It is true that there will be challenges in that regard.
The NHS faces a choice. We can go on as before, pretending that we can live in the previous century; or we can bring practices up to date, so that they are more relevant for this century. That is no choice at all: the national health service has to change.
On the specific issue of consent, there are profoundly difficult issues that we must get right. That is why the code of practice will involve consultation—with the medical profession, parents' organisations and bereaved parents—so that we can get right the practicalities of informed consent, and avoid some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman described.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for the openness and feeling with which he confronted the issues in the awful report that has been presented to us. Will he say whether Professor van Velzen, as distinct from the hospital, is being investigated over the sale of organs? The professor has damaged the high and hard-earned reputation of a fine hospital. Will my right hon. Friend assure people on Merseyside that he will give special support to Alder Hey hospital to help it win back its reputation?
The parents are the ones who have suffered most. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the question of compensation, and respect the parents' wishes? Will he bear in mind also that a number of parents have incurred great expense, on top of the grief that they have suffered? Finally, will he assure me that they will receive a personal apology—as distinct from an impersonal apology—for all that they have suffered?
Mr. Milburn: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is right. He is as aware as I am that the events described by the Redfern report could not have been handled in a more insensitive fashion. What happened, and how it was handled subsequently, could not have been more appalling. We must learn from that.
I am not aware that van Velzen was implicated in the sale of organs. He may well have been; that is something which we will have to ascertain.
Let me repeat what I said earlier about Alder Hey. It is a fine hospital, staffed by fine people. The doctors, nurses and others who work there have been through thick and thin over the past few years. Yes, they will need specialist support. Strenuous efforts will have to be made by the community and the hospital authorities to rebuild the bond of trust which I know so many people in the hospital are desperate to do. I hope that, before too long, I will be able to visit the hospital and meet some of the parents to discuss these issues.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Bereaved parents in my constituency of Southport on Merseyside were probably the first to ring the bells about Alder Hey. They were not necessarily alarm bells but they certainly brought the matter to the attention of the House.
186
What is happening with consent forms? The old ones are still being signed. Is the consent form to be changed immediately, and what will happen thereafter? Can the word "disposal" please be explained? It could mean that the hospital, or Liverpool university—which is not blameless by a long way—could dispose of organs by sale. They are saying that the disposal was not by way of a sale but had a "transaction fee" attached. Does the right hon. Gentleman go along with that?
Mr. Milburn: It is true that there are many different consent forms within the national health service. Myriad advice is available from a host of organisations such as the Child Bereavement Trust, the Royal College of Pathologists and, indeed, the Department of Health. My view, which is also the recommendation of the chief medical officer, is that we must end that nonsense. We must have a single, standardised consent form, used in all parts of the national health service, so that parents, relatives and patients know what their rights are. We will consult on that; we need to get it right and ensure that the new consent form does not replicate some of the disadvantages of previous consent forms. That is precisely what we are committed to doing, and we will try to do it as quickly as possibly. However, as the events at Alder Hey have shown, sometimes when things are rushed, people get them wrong. I am determined that we learn the lessons from that and get the consent form right.
As for the disposal of organs, particularly the selling of organs, we need to look at the issue in detail. We need to ascertain the facts. We will enshrine in the code of practice precisely the arrangements that the national health service needs to undertake in the future.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: This is a truly awful situation, with echoes of the grave robberies of the 19th century. Listening to my right hon. Friend's statement, I was struck by the fact that the commercial pressure to sell organs needs to be looked at. Does the report contain any reference to the pressure on hospitals to generate income at a local level?
In looking at where we go from here, in particular at the reforms now going through the House and the emphasis on the role of the patient, is it possible to bring forward proposals to involve patients at a local level in the ethical decisions that are made in this context?
Mr. Milburn: When these events were taking place at Alder Hey it was, as the report makes clear, a time of huge change in the national health service. The internal market was being introduced into the health service, although I do not particularly want to go into that today because I do not think it appropriate. However, there were very real financial pressures, and from the outset questions were raised over the way in which van Velzen was appointed and whether appropriate funding had been made available for his post and his department. That is what the report states—clearly we must learn from that too.
Apart from the specific changes that we have to make in response to the report and to other evidence, we need to effect a wider set of changes in the NHS. Although they are extremely simple on one level, they are extremely complex on another. We need to ensure that our interests—those of the people who use the service; namely, the patients—always come first. It is the vested

187
interest of the patient that counts. That means that, in future, some of the decisions that used to be made behind closed doors must be brought out into the open.
I believe profoundly that some of our proposed changes—for example, the appointment of patients to trust boards and patients forums, with patients on the spot in the hospital—will make a profound difference.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for the way he dealt with the statement. One of the new facts that emerged is the information about the number of hospitals that are holding organs. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman must be in a dilemma; tomorrow, the newspapers and the media will try to find out which hospitals are involved. Clearly, on the one hand, the sooner we can give that information, the better—at least perhaps people will know that their hospital did not retain organs. However, on the other hand, hospitals will have to be ready to provide the information. Will the Secretary of State help the House by telling us how that will be handled? He might also help the media, by asking them to be careful how they deal with the matter.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Yes, those are real dilemmas—we should be clear about that. I believe profoundly in one important principle—it is a question that I, as Secretary of State, and all my colleagues have to be able to answer: in the end, does the patient have the right to know? The answer must be yes. However, that brings downsides as well as upsides. Risks are attached to that principle—not least because, sometimes, the information is not handled as responsibly as it should be. In this case, we should put the information into the public domain and that is precisely what we will do.
Maria Eagle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his steadfast determination from the beginning to ensure that the full truth of what happened at Alder Hey hospital was published. I also thank him for his acknowledgement that the Royal Liverpool children's hospital is a fine one, staffed by many dedicated employees, who have had a difficult time during this period. Every day, the hospital saves and improves the lives of children and it will continue to do so.
For 15 months, many of my constituents from bereaved families have been trying to get at the full truth of what happened to their child. How long will it be before we can tell those families that they have the fullest possible information—even if it is incomplete? How long before we can say, "That's it, you know everything that there is to know"?
Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the role that she has played both in liaising with the parents and in supporting those who were working at the hospital through extremely difficult times. In some ways, we shall never know the full truth about what happened at Alder Hey. Certainly, the lack of accurate records and the appalling record keeping mean that some parents will never know the truth about what happened to their child—I regret that deeply, but, sadly, little can be done about it now.
The Redfern report offers the best insight that we can have into what actually happened and into the number of children and other people who were affected. However,
188
I hesitate to say that that is the end of the story. Every time that I think we have reached the end of the story of Alder Hey, a new piece of information comes into the public domain—as we saw on Friday, in respect of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on thymus glands. The work of Michael Redfern and his panel has given us as comprehensive a picture of what happened at Alder Hey and of the subsequent events as we are likely to get.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his frankness. He mentioned that other hospitals were involved. Although the report dealt specifically with England and Wales, I am aware of the situation in Northern Ireland. Is the right hon. Gentleman consulting Ministers in the devolved regions to ensure that the same regulations are carried through?
Earlier, the Secretary of State referred to coroners courts. It is my understanding that consent is not needed for a coroners court order, so, as we have discovered, the coroners court has failed actively to uphold its own legal system. Therefore, how do we encourage those in executive positions—whether medical practitioners or administrative staff—to be less concerned about defending the record of the institutions and to come clean when there are faults in them? May I press the Secretary of State at least to communicate with the World Health Organisation about the introduction of a world health regime in which those with black records cannot move from one country to another, which happened so often in the last century?
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Indeed, I agree with many of them. As he rightly says, the chief medical officer's report does not apply to Northern Ireland, but discussions with colleagues in Northern Ireland on how best to make progress will be necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that coroners' post-mortems do not require consent, for the good reason that they take place in cases involving unusual circumstances—perhaps murder or death during surgery. However, it is now painfully clear that the coroners rules have not been applied as they should have been; they have been broken. For example, hospitals have no right to retain organs beyond the point necessary to establish the cause of death, yet that has happened.
As the Alder Hey report makes graphically clear, there will be patients who have been promised a decent burial for their children when the investigation has taken place, but that has not happened. We must learn the lessons of those events. We must therefore review not just hospital post-mortem procedures, but how the coroner system operates in tandem.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank the Secretary of State for commissioning these very important reports and for his clear commitment to change. Has he any further information on how the parents and their families will be helped to cope with new and traumatic information? What progress has he made in improving accountability at Alder Hey hospital itself and at the university?
Mr. Milburn: Accountability issues have to be addressed not only in the NHS, but in the education

189
system. Inevitably, many colleagues' questions have dwelt on the role of the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust, but the university of Liverpool authorities need to answer some profound questions, and the NHS and higher education will need to answer some joint questions, too.
We have tried to make support available today for those parents who wish to read the report and to ensure that counselling, and so on, is available. I believe that if a properly informed consent regime is to operate in all parts of the NHS, it will be necessary for hospitals throughout the country to invest appropriately in bereavement services. Some do, some do not; but all will have to in future.
Mr. David Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that two parties are responsible for this tragedy—the hospital trust and the university? Given that he has described how he will hold the health service accountable today, is it the intention that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make a further statement to deal with the other issues that have arisen?
Mr. Milburn: No, it is not—at least, not so far as I am aware—but I have held discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and I can assure my hon. Friend that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—who is responsible for the coroner system—take very seriously indeed the fault lines that have appeared not just in the NHS, but in the coroner system and, indeed, the university system in relation to Alder Hey.
Mrs. Joan Humble: May I reinforce the point that was made earlier about information being passed to parents? On Friday, I was approached by two parents who had lost baby girls in the early 1980s. They have not yet received a reply to a letter sent in July last year asking for information about what had happened to their babies. They know that organs disappeared, but they do not know what, they do not know why and they do not know how. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that those parents who are still waiting—some others have waited for as long as my constituents—get some form of reply? It might not be in the detail that they want, but they deserve at least the courtesy of being given some information.
Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with that sentiment. I shall certainly take what steps I can to ensure that those parents receive information. People should not wait that long; they should receive replies. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the information has not always been available in the way it should have been, so the authorities have not been able to reply to parents in the way they should have done. However, I hope that the advent of the new commission will help to cut through some of that bureaucracy and to provide a streamlined system so that parents and other relatives receive the information that they require.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he is bringing this tragic and scandalous cover-up to some kind of conclusion. I know that several of my constituents have been victims of the Alder Hey case and they will be grateful for the apology
190
that he has made today on behalf of the national health service and, more important, for my right hon. Friend's determination that similar events should never happen again.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of my constituent Mrs. Elaine Isaacs, who, 12 years after the tragic suicide of her husband, Cyril, by chance discovered that his brain had been retained without the consent of the family? That fact was confirmed by a message left on her answering machine by a doctor. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will insist that that case is investigated thoroughly and that the whole issue of the retention of brains in cases where the cause of death may have been related to mental illness will be considered specifically? Many fear that what happened in this case has been common practice in the NHS for many years.
Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I will look into the specific case that he mentioned. He is right to suggest that it has broader implications, and we have to ensure that the new informed consent regime applies across the piece. It should apply not only to the relatives of children, but to the relatives of adults who suffered from mental or physical illness. Over the next few weeks and months, there will be an opportunity to explore how best we can put in place an informed consent regime that will apply to all parts of the national health service.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: This morning I had a meeting with a representative of the National Kidney Research Fund. Both he and I are a bit concerned that the Alder Hey findings could have a negative impact on the donation of organs. According to my colleague, the shortage of kidneys already means that 5,000 would-be recipients, many of them children, wait an average of nine years for a kidney transplant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media could play a positive role by encouraging the carrying of organ donor cards at all times, particularly in our ethnic minority communities where the shortage of organs is even more acute than among the rest of the population?
Mr. Milburn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her extremely sensible remarks. It is important that the results of the Alder Hey case do not have an adverse impact on organ donation. My hon. Friend is right to say that we face a shortage of organs, and there are a variety of reasons for that—some good and some bad. The fact that there are fewer road traffic accidents and the great advances in neurosurgery in recent years mean that we do not have the number or quality of organs that are required for transplant purposes.
A vigorous campaign is encouraging more and more people to carry organ donor cards, and many people—about 8 million or about 14 per cent. of the population—already do. My hon. Friend conveys an important message, and I hope that those who cover these events will act responsibly and ensure that the messages that are imparted to the public do not do lasting damage to the number of organ donations.
Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend said that there had been many complaints. It is clear that they were not taken seriously; otherwise the extreme practices that are described in the report would

191
not have taken place for so long. That revelation and my casework lead me to conclude that hospital authorities in the NHS fail to investigate complaints properly, especially when they are against senior staff who are able to influence the promotion prospects of their colleagues. Is he confident that the changes that are being implemented in the NHS complaints procedure and other arrangements will deal with the problem of how such matters are investigated?
Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a cogent point. The existing complaints procedure is inadequate. It must be changed and made more independent. However, we should not use the failures in the system to excuse the failures of individuals at Alder Hey. The complaints were clear and consistent, and did not come just from patients. Ironically, many of the complaints about van Velzen's procedures came from other doctors. For example, there was a huge backlog in the number of post-mortem cases and he did not undertake the appropriate histological examination. Doctors in the trust complained about that to van Velzen, to the pathology department and, as the report makes clear, to managers. Sadly, the appropriate action was not taken. We must learn the lesson of that and ensure that internal procedures work. We need checks and safeguards but, more important, we must use external complaints from patients to introduce change rather than to cover up problems.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Did any of the complaints lead to internal inquiries at Alder Hey? Untoward incident procedures are dealt with internally. If there were internal inquiries, what were their substance? Were they anything more than a cover-up and whitewash of those unhappy events?
Mr. Milburn: When my hon. Friend gets an opportunity to read the report, he will see that an endless succession of inquiries was conducted by the university, the hospital authorities and senior clinicians, but they came to nought. Is not that precisely the series of events that we see all too often in the NHS? Everyone knows that there is a problem, but no one does anything about it and the patients suffer. That is why we need not only a new culture and way of working in the NHS, but new systems. That is why clinical governance, a statutory duty of quality, a patient advocacy service and a patients forum that is independent of the hospital are needed in every trust. Those will make a profound difference because they will break down the barriers that have often meant that serious complaints have not been dealt with as they should have been.
Dr. Howard Stoate: The dismay expressed by all hon. Members will be shared by the many people who work in the NHS who will feel extremely let down by what has happened. How can we ensure that such tragic events, from which we must learn great lessons,
192
will not massively undermine public confidence in the NHS, which would be detrimental to patient care in the long term?
Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. It is important that the trenchant criticisms of the Redfern report and the chief medical officer do not allow us to lose sight of the truism that the overwhelming majority of people who work in the NHS—the doctors, nurses, managers and so on—are doing their best for patients. They are good—not bad—people. We cannot allow a few bad apples to damage the reputation of the health service as a whole. It is true that profound cultural changes must take place.
Public confidence will be most undermined if problems are covered up—we will not be able to deal with them unless we can get them out in the open. By dealing with them, we will rebuild public confidence in Alder Hey and in the health service as a whole.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), when my right hon. Friend reviews the law will he take the opportunity to examine some of the areas of legal uncertainty that currently surround the taking of organs for donation, such as issues pertaining to elective ventilation? With the informed consent of patients and their relatives, we might be able to increase the number of organs for donation.
Mr. Milburn: Those are hugely important and sensitive issues, and we will of course have to consider them. There is a more general point that we have to view informed consent as something that applies not only to a narrow group of patients but to every single patient in the NHS. We have a long way to go, but I believe that the changes in law, training and practice recommended by the chief medical officer, which I have outlined this afternoon, will produce the right results.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 114 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (legislative proposals and other matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland)) and Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)),
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. Pope.]

Question agreed to.

Licensed Victualling (Regulation of Hours)
4.41 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit licensing authorities to regulate the sale of alcohol from licensed premises after 11 o'clock at night in prescribed circumstances, in prescribed locations and on prescribed days.
It is estimated that some 40 per cent. of violent crimes, 78 per cent. of assaults and 88 per cent. of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol. The Government's White Paper, "Time for Reform", contains proposals for the modernisation of our licensing laws which would help to reduce the levels of alcohol-related crime in this country.
One key proposal is for flexible opening hours for pubs and clubs, with the potential for 24-hour opening. The aim of that proposal is to discourage binge drinking before closing time and to avoid the mass exodus on to the streets of drinkers from town centre pubs after 11 o'clock. Research indicates that over 50 per cent. of all arrests for drink-related crimes occur at that time, while 47 per cent. of all incidents of violence and disorder take place at closing time on Friday and Saturday evenings.
Fear of alcohol-related violence and intimidation has also meant that large numbers of people avoid town centres on weekend evenings, and that has had a significant effect on many town centre economies. It is hoped that the introduction of flexible opening hours would lead to a significant reduction in reports of drink-related offences and arrests, a reduction in the incidence of bingeing and drunkenness, the increased availability of transport facilities and fewer reports of noise nuisances.
Flexible hours have the potential to create a new generation of more responsible, socially aware drinkers, who are less likely to get drunk and less tolerant of drunkenness and drunken behaviour. Longer opening hours would help to place greater emphasis on the social function of pubs, and encourage people to drink less, or at least more slowly and responsibly. However, any relaxation of licensing regulations in favour of prolonged opening must proceed with caution.
Under the proposals in the White Paper, the courts would consider reasonable objections to an application for extended hours based on crime and disorder issues, public safety and public nuisance considerations, but the burden of proof would fall on the objector, not the applicant. It would be far from easy, in advance of the licence being granted, to provide substantive evidence that the extension of premises' opening hours would lead to an increase in crime and disorder or cause unreasonable public nuisance.
If local authorities possessed a town centre strategy, clearly defining what is and what is not acceptable in licensing and planning terms, it would be possible to provide the substantive evidence needed. Unfortunately, few local authorities possess such a strategy. In the light of the White Paper and the Human Rights Act 1998, many local authorities face the problem that, having raised no objection to one application for extended opening hours, they find it extremely difficult to object to a second application for a similar extension of opening hours, even if they have strong grounds for believing that the presence
194
of two venues with extended hours in the same town centre would be unsustainable. The powers of local authorities to control and regulate the night-time economy are therefore in urgent need of review.
The assumption made in the White Paper is that if more pubs and clubs are allowed to open for longer, there will be both a gradual drift from premises and lower densities of people in each place. There is a case in Dartford for allowing certain premises to open for longer to reduce the number of people on the street at any one time, but there is a feeling that allowing a significant number to be open for longer would lead to a greater and potentially unsustainable influx of people into the town centre to fill any spare capacity that would be created.
We need not simply flexible opening hours but staggered opening hours in our town centres. Given, though, that a system of staggered opening hours is unlikely to be achieved through a voluntary agreement between licensees and the licensing authority, there is a clear need for a new regulatory framework to be introduced.
If a town centre management strategy framework existed with a clearly defined town centre strategy and guidelines for the development of a night-time economy, local authorities would be able better to assess the impact of each application for extended hours, and would be able to point to the framework if it felt that a particular application was unsustainable.
I would like to see local authorities placed under a legal duty to produce such a town centre strategy management framework. Authorities would also have a duty to consult local residents, the police, the emergency services and licensees on its contents to ensure that it fully reflected the needs, rights and responsibilities of each section of the community.
Though the local authority would still have to accept the burden of proof should it decide to object to an application, it would be able legitimately to object if it deemed it not to meet the development criteria set out in its framework.
Officers of my local council tell me that the lack of an effective consultation mechanism between the council, the police, licensees, residents and emergency services has undermined any attempts to establish an effective town centre strategy.
A town centre management framework would not only enable more joined-up thinking to take place but would allow local people to have a genuine say in how they want their town centre to develop. It would also require the local authority to evaluate what expansion of the local night-time economy could be tolerated within the existing service infrastructure, and require it to establish a set of clear long-term objectives for the development of the town centre. As such, it would make the licensing procedure more open, more transparent and more accountable. Having been involved in the consultation process, local people would have a clearer understanding of how the licensing system operated and how their town centre was being managed, and would be more inclined to make representations to the local authority and so play an active role in shaping the future of their own community.
In short, a legally enshrined town centre management framework would provide local authorities, working in partnership with local agencies and residents, with the

195
opportunity to forge a joint strategy and better manage and regulate the night-time economy. If local councils are prevented from exercising adequate control of the night-time economy, it is likely that further fissures will appear in the fabric of urban society; disenchantment with the ability of the local authority to manage the town centre will grow; and urban residents will become increasingly disinclined to use their town centres. For those reasons, I recommend placing on local authorities a legal duty to establish a town centre management framework.
In conclusion, I shall read a letter of support that I have received from the divisional commander of part of the Kent police, Superintendent David Ainsworth:
"In respect of the evening economy there is a need to achieve the right balance for all town centre users taking full cognisance of issues such as housing policy, access to transportation, food and liquor licensing, lighting. CCTV schemes, entertainment licensing, parking, emergency service provision and pedestrianisation … I very much support this initiative by Dr Stoate, the Member for Dartford. As Chair of the Dartford Community Safety Partnership, I see the management framework he calls for as representing a major step forward in terms of establishing the basis for positive engagement by both public service and private sector partners to the benefit of everyone in Dartford."
4.44 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Initially, 1 thought that I could wholeheartedly support the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). However, having listened to his speech, I have been dissuaded. I frequently argue that there should be staggered licensing laws. We see a huge number of people turned on to our village streets, town streets and city streets, in the case of Lichfield, at 11 o'clock at night. They often cause disturbance on a Friday and Saturday night. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's tone is completely right. What put me off what was not the hon. Gentleman's excellent preamble, in which he stated the reasons for having staggered licensing hours, but his subsequent proposal that the burden of proof should be shifted. He argued that it should be shifted to those who oppose staggered licensing hours, not to pubs applying for licensing hours to be extended.
The hon. Gentleman then used a series of phrases that are anathema to me. He said that an objection should be valid if it relates to a proposal not within the development criteria. He said that there should be better management and regulation, and talked about needs, rights and responsibilities in a town centre strategy. That sounded rather like new Labour speak. I support anything that would reduce the burden on town centre policing. Heaven knows, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is listening patiently on the Front Bench has heard me speak about that on several occasions, and knows that I think
196
that it is wrong that there are only three or four police officers available in the city of Lichfield on a Friday or Saturday night.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke)rose—
Mr. Fabricant: Although the Minister wishes to intervene now, there will be many opportunities for him to do so in a later debate on this very subject. I promise him that I will raise this issue again and give way to him then.
The sort of regulation that proposes controls and states that businesses should not be free to decide for themselves whether or not they should be open after 11 o'clock is patently wrong. If a pub were next door to housing and might cause a disturbance to elderly people late at night, of course it would be right for a local authority to say that it would be inappropriate for it to remain open. That is right and proper. However, the idea that there should be a town centre strategy has great dangers. For example, what if Dartford took one view and Sevenoaks a different one? What would be the result? Far from there being drift into a town centre—which, at least, would be a pedestrian drift—people might get into their cars at 11 o'clock at night and drive from Sevenoaks to Dartford, if Dartford took a liberal view, or vice versa, if Sevenoaks took a liberal view. That could lead to situations in which there was more drink-driving, which the whole House and every Member would deplore.
The Bill is well intentioned—as much new Labour legislation is well intentioned. However, when we get into the detail and start to read the fine print, we realise that it is impractical and destroys that which it is our main cause to preserve, namely the tranquillity and safety of our streets and cities late on Friday and Saturday nights. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Karen Buck, Mrs. Diana Organ and Dr. Desmond Turner.

LICENSED VICTUALLING (REGULATION OF HOURS)
Dr. Howard Stoate accordingly presented a Bill to permit licensing authorities to regulate the sale of alcohol from licensed premises after 11 o'clock at night in prescribed circumstances, in prescribed locations and on prescribed days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed [Bill 35].

Vehicles (Crime) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
4.55 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18th December 2000:

Vehicles (Crime) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Eight o'clock.
  Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  5. 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 programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill should be completed this evening. The programme is supplemental to the one approved for the Committee stage, which finished, as planned, on 23 January.
  In Committee, we generally had a serious debate. There was a good deal of constructive comment from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. It is true that there were some contributions that I would regard as entirely self-indulgent, but it was a good Committee stage none the less. There was full discussion of all the relevant matters and the debates were completed within the time set by the previous programme motion.
  There was only one occasion in Committee when time presented some difficulty. That arose from a filibuster by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), which led to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) being kept out of his debate.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification from you. If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) or I had been filibustering, would not that have been out of order, and would not the Chairman of the Committee have ruled it so?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly possible for hon. Members to seek to take extra time in dealing with a particular matter, and provided that what they say is not in breach of the Standing Orders of the House, they
  198
  are entitled to do so. Only when hon. Members stray out of order will they be corrected by the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I withdraw the word "filibuster" if it is offensive to you.
  A large number of contributions from the hon. Members for Buckingham, for Lichfield and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and others were constructive and to the point, and helped to clarify matters in Committee. I observed that there were other contributions, particularly from the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Lichfield, that were less constructive and more time-passing in their approach. The effect of such exchanges was that, after one of our Committee sittings, the hon. Member for Colchester was full of ire, because he felt that he had not been able to make the points of substance that he had wanted to make in the debate.
  With that one exception, it is fair to note that the debate in Committee took place within the time set by the programme motion; that in general it was positive; and that there were no divisions on issues of substance, although there were divisions on matters of process and procedure.
  That has reinforced the view that programming is a good idea and has benefits for both Government and Opposition. For Bills of this size, with 45 clauses, it is particularly suitable. However, I acknowledge that there is an issue of principle across the House about whether programming is desirable.
  If we had been confident that all hon. Members would honour the conventions and move the Bill forward, the programme motion might not have been necessary today. There are no outstanding matters of great substance. It is important that the new clauses, some tabled by the Opposition and some by the Government, should be debated. Those debates could be conducted in a positive spirit if we could rely on all hon. Members behaving as the House would expect, but we cannot. That is why the programme motion has been tabled.
  In Committee, we focused on the clauses of greatest interest, which related to the substantial parts of the Bill and ensured that there was thorough scrutiny. That applied to the parts relating to regulation of the motor salvage industry and control of the supply of number plates, and also to the clauses that had already raised questions on Second Reading and in the media, such as the hypothecation of magistrates courts receipts to fund an increased number of safety cameras, and police access to motor insurance information.
  I am delighted to say that although no amendments were passed in Committee, the Government have tried to address the Opposition's concerns by tabling a number of amendments to insert additional offence provisions in the Bill. Those concern the supplying of false information when a person applies to be registered as a motor salvage operator or number plate supplier. We have tabled those amendments in response to the debate in Committee. That demonstrates the consensual spirit that informed our debate there.
  There are a number of drafting amendments as well, and some lesser amendments, mainly of a technical nature, but we are not introducing by way of Government amendment any major new issue of principle. One day

  199
  should therefore give us ample time to debate the remaining stages of the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
  5 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to have to begin my remarks on a note of discord with the Government, but I am afraid that the position is simply stated. The tone of the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is mellifluous, but his message is sadly one of menace. I am bound to say that he has a brass neck to hold Conservative Members—e referred specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and I—esponsible for the tantrum in which the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) engaged towards the end of the Committee's proceedings.
  I was saddened by the inability of the hon. Member for Colchester to speak for any significant time on an important occasion when there was material business to discuss, but Conservative Members were not responsible for that. Indeed, the record shows that we spoke for only six or seven minutes. The Minister of State should check his records if he doubts the veracity of my remarks. The inability of the hon. Member for Colchester to speak is attributable rather to the fact that the Government provided a wholly inadequate time scale within which we struggled, through our best endeavours, to satisfy our responsibility and the interests of our constituents.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that I did not use the word "tantrum", which is his word? When I described the behaviour of the hon. Member for Colchester, I said that I considered his position to be justified. I should like it to be clarified that the word "tantrum" is the hon. Gentleman's word and not mine.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister is notoriously sensitive about being misrepresented in any way, as we saw in Committee. Of course I am happy to confirm that he used the word "ire" and that, in accordance with the principles of the Lib-Lab pact, he said that the hon. Member for Colchester was justified in his outburst. He also said that the remarks of Opposition Members were not justified, although he rightly said that constructive debate occurred in Committee. I am happy to concede that he and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), have tabled a number of amendments that reflect the spirit and intention of those that the Opposition originally recommended.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right to commend the Government for drafting amendments to reflect some of the aspects that the Opposition said were missing from the Bill. However, does he agree that although the amendments reflect our suggestions in principle, their detail is not precise and that we must oppose some of it?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He will have an opportunity to develop that argument further later in our proceedings.
  The fact remains that it was palpably inadequate for the Bill to be considered for a time that fell just short of 23 hours. If I remember rightly, the deliberations occurred
  200
  between 9 and 23 January, in only 10 Standing Committee sittings, in which time the Committee had to consider no fewer than 45 clauses, 84 amendments and nine new clauses. If my arithmetic serves me correctly—for all his other failings, the Minister of State is a distinguished mathematician—that works out at roughly 10 minutes per issue; in other words, there were 10 minutes for each amendment, new clause and clause. That was unsatisfactory, but the current circumstances are even worse. With no fewer than 61 new clauses and amendments to consider, the Government now suggest that hon. Members should be expected to wrap up business before Third Reading commences at 8.30 pm. Frankly, that is unsatisfactory.
  The argument has a number of strands that I want to develop. It is important that it should not be regarded as a dry, arid and irrelevant constitutional argument that is of no interest or relevance to the people whom hon. Members are elected to serve. On the contrary, it is profoundly significant, as it tells us much about the way in which the Government treat Parliament and the methods by which the Executive seek to downgrade and relegate the role of the legislature. Ultimately, it affects the capacity of the House to discharge its obligations effectively.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if time is limited, it is vital to maximise it to good effect?
  Mr. Bercow: I agree, but that argument is sometimes used to justify not having a proper debate on a programme motion. The hon. Gentleman's argument is honourable but mistaken, and it plays into the Government's hands. It is important to set out exactly what is wrong with the procedure.
  First, I want to point to a sign of, at the very least, Government discourtesy. Paragraph 4 of the motion states:
  Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
  As I was not familiar with that aspect of the Sessional Orders, I made inquiries about it and discussed the matter with the Clerks. The Sessional Orders do not merely provide for, but are supposed to insist on, the creation of a Programming Committee, which comprises several individuals almost as of right and meets explicitly and exclusively to determine the allocation of time when considering a Bill on Report and on Third Reading.
  The Government are inviting the House to disapply the Sessional Order and to substitute for a Committee and proper cross-party discussion a brief motion, which the Government intend to ram through on the payroll vote. If the Minister was sincere in being open minded about how the new procedure works, it is extraordinary that he, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope)—who, as a Whip, is currently silent, as he should be—made no attempt to communicate with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was the Opposition Whip on the Standing Committee, with me or with any of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee about the time allocation for Report. Instead, they ignore the Sessional Orders and

  201
  devise a cheeky ruse whereby they can insist, through the payroll vote, on only a day's consideration of the remainder of the Bill.
  We are witnessing as clear a demonstration as we could wish for of the arrogance, temerity and wilful disregard of the rights of the House, which are the hallmark of this overweening Labour Government. It is unacceptable to behave in that way and then to expect us to provide results.
  Secondly, as the Minister knows, the Secretary of State for Health made an important statement today. I do not detract from its significance or underestimate hon. Members' interest in its contents. I accept that it was important. However, the Minister and the Government Whip knew that we were due to consider 61 new clauses and amendments today, yet the Government decided to make the statement, thus deliberately and calculatedly limiting the time available for debate on Report. I therefore appeal to hon. Members—even those who might be described as part-time opponents of the Government, namely Liberal Democrat Members—to recognise that such behaviour is unfair and militates against the effective discharge by the House of its duty as the proper body for scrutinising Bills.
  I have mentioned the 61 new clauses and amendments. I emphasise that number so that hon. Members and those listening to our proceedings are aware that they have not all been tabled by the Opposition. Partly in response to our representations in Committee, and partly through initiatives taken on their own account, the Government have tabled no fewer than 39 of the 61 new clauses and amendments. A large proportion of the new proposals has, therefore, come from the Government.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would formally concede that many of the amendments and new clauses directly respond to matters raised in Committee, in pursuit of commitments that I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions my hon. Friend the member for Steatham (Mr. Hill) made to the Committee following the good, constructive points raised in debates there.
  Mr. Bercow: I certainly accept that the amendments and new clauses have been tabled in response to concerns that we have expressed, but I fear what the Minister seems to regard as the corollary of his own point. He seems to think that the corollary of the fact that the Government's intentions in tabling the new clauses and amendments are good is that it is somehow less incumbent on the rest of the House to make a judgment on the validity of those new clauses and amendments.
  I hope that I shall not hear such a response from the Minister's lips, but I recall a number of debates on Report in which a Minister has had the audacity to say to an interested Back Bencher seeking to intervene, "No, I shall not give way to the hon. Member because he"—or she—"did not serve on the Standing Committee." It is incumbent on Ministers to recognise that the purpose of this exercise is for the Standing Committee's deliberations to be reported to, and subjected to the assessment of, this House. That is what it is all about.
  Of course, the Minister is justified in tabling new clauses and amendments and he has done so at least partly in response to the representations and advocacy of the
  202
  Opposition in Committee. However, that does not divest us of our responsibility fully to consider their contents. Although the Minister's intentions are good, it is not clear that the precise wording, form and likely effect of the new clauses and amendments will necessarily commend themselves to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the need for debate on the proposals—indeed, for debate by hon. Members who were not members of the Standing Committee. I am grateful to him for accepting my intervention, and I want to ensure that he does not feel that the Government are in some way behaving wrongly in tabling amendments for consideration by the House. The reason that we tabled them was precisely to respond to concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: That is true. However, so far I have—in characteristic fashion, as my hon. Friends will understand—been a bit soft and a bit generous towards the Minister. I am very lucky indeed—I count my blessings—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has not yet joined us. If he were to do so, I would probably be chastised severely for the rather wimpish approach that I have hitherto adopted.
  Although the Minister's intentions are good, some of the amendments should never have been necessary in the first place. It beggars belief that a distinguished mathematician, described by Mr. John Kampfner in The Guardian newspaper—where else?—as a likely future leader of the Labour party, could be the Minister in charge of a Bill that came before the Committee with no provisions for an offence of falsely seeking to register as a motor salvage operator or a registration plate supplier.
  Those omissions seem to be an example of the most extraordinary negligence on the part of the Government. Those were simple points that they should have anticipated. Indeed, they were simple and obvious points that would probably have been described by the late Enoch Powell as so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could have failed to see them. It is no good the Minister pleading for brownie points from me and asking for a belated Christmas present. It is no good his saying what a good, democratic fellow he has been because he has tabled amendments that should satisfy the appetite of Conservative Members.
  The Minister is a very important, very distinguished, very senior and very respected fellow with very many commitments. He is very ambitious and has a very full diary. We should not need to be considering the amendments now. Had he been willing to lose a bit of face—and to pay a genuine and deserved tribute to my hon. Friends and me—by accepting the original wording of our amendments, which pointed up the lacunae in the Bill and remedied its deficiencies, it would not now be necessary for him to expect us to take an average of four minutes to debate each amendment while we go at a whistle-stop pace through the Report stage of the Bill.
  I do not know what the Minister's commitments are. When we were in the Programming Sub-Committee, he got very testy and started looking at what looked like a little diary card in front of him because I had developed a couple of points at reasonable length and asked some

  203
  questions. It turned out that he was in danger of missing his pre-prandial drink. That was not a matter of concern to me.
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point. I shall take this opportunity to ask him whether he would concede that, in the Programming Sub-Committee, he proposed no changes of substance to the order of consideration of the Bill, or to the amount of time for debate within the time available. The only changes that he suggested related to the total length of consideration. He proposed none at all on the detailed proceedings.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister makes a point that is both right and staggeringly irrelevant. This is where he and I disagree. He is absolutely right to say that I was not remotely concerned to propose a change to the order of consideration of the clauses. He has in mind such monumental, nationwide issues of great popular moment as whether we should consider clauses 16 to 30 first, as the Government proposed, or whether we should follow the chronological sequence of the Bill. I admit that I did not, and do not, give a tinker's cuss about the order in which those matters were considered in Standing Committee.
  My point is that it is no good the Minister arguing about the order in which we eat our meal, if the meal itself is not large enough. I am a little chap, but that does not mean that I do not have a reasonable appetite. When I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Buckingham, I took it as my responsibility to subject the Government to scrutiny regularly, consistently and in detail. That is what my constituents expect me and my hon. Friends to accomplish. The fact is that 23 hours were not sufficient.
  I hope that the Minister will not dispute that, on the occasion to which he has just referred, I proposed that there should have been 32 hours' consideration in Committee rather than 23 hours. That was a modest proposal, and I am glad that he is not disputing that I made it. One of our objections—as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a keen student of these matters—is that the conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee was disgraceful. It took place in private; no minute was taken; nor was a verbatim account provided. Subsequently, as I pointed out in a question earlier this afternoon to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, there was an unresolved dispute between us as to who said what, when and to whom. That dispute will never be resolved, however long we pursue it, because there is no account of it.
  Mr. Clarke: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge here in the House—as he did in Committee—that the responsibility for the conduct of the Committee and the rules under which it takes place are a matter for the Chair, not for the Government of the day. We honoured and supported the decisions of the Chairman at that time.
  Mr. Bercow: There are two very unattractive features about the Government, and they necessitate the House taking the maximum time for consideration and on Report. One is the tendency to hide behind public servants—that is, Departmental officials. I shall not dilate on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if I were to do so I might incur your wrath, and that is not something that any self-respecting Member of Parliament would willingly countenance.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Gentleman has done so once or twice before.
  Mr. Bercow: I may have done so inadvertently.
  I have said that the Minister tends to take refuge behind civil servants. [Interruption.] The Minister asks me to withdraw that comment, and of course I do so. He is getting very excited. I know that he is very ambitious, has many commitments and wants to fulfil all kinds of future desires. I do not want to embarrass him by going into too much detail about that.
  The Minister may not seek to hide behind the cloak of official approval, but many Ministers seek the imprimatur of public servants for decisions that are ultimately their own responsibility—decisions that it is their job to defend before Parliament.
  Ministers often say, "Ah, that is a matter for the Chair." I have repeatedly made the point to the Minister that it would have been perfectly possible for him specifically to recommend that the Programming Sub-Committee meet in public and that minutes be taken. It would also have been possible for him either to recommend or to agree to recommend lengthier consideration. That is the significant point.
  We have many important issues to discuss, such as penalties and offences. I have referred to one example of an offence that the Government had not apparently considered in the first place, which they now propose to introduce—an attempt falsely to register as a motor salvage operator or registration plate supplier—and it is necessary to scrutinise and debate that properly this evening. There is also the important but vexed question of the use of court receipts to finance a major roll-out of speed cameras across the country.
  Whatever the politically correct prejudices of Ministers and their Back Benchers, that issue causes considerable disquiet in my constituency and in the constituencies of a number of my hon. Friends. Such matters need to be debated not only by members of the Committee, although I am delighted that they have faithfully turned out today, but by other Members of the House. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who might seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the epitome of the traditional parliamentarian. He believes in debate, scrutiny and holding Ministers responsible for their decisions. While the Minister is busily preoccupied with his ascent of the greasy pole, my hon. Friend is busily preoccupied with the effective and persistent representation of the people of Aldridge-Brownhills. He does that by contributing on issues of public importance that will have an on-going impact on the people whom he is elected to represent.
  The crucial issue of police powers is of no apparent interest to the new Stalinists on the Labour Benches. As a Conservative libertarian—I am proud of that description or epithet—I happen to be concerned about the number of occasions on which police officers or other representatives of authority can gain access either to business premises or private property to pursue their inquiries. The Government suggest that registered motor salvage operators or registered registration plate suppliers should be susceptible to unannounced visits—without even the decency of a warrant—by police constables or other representatives of authority. However, the premises of those who are not registered plate suppliers or salvage

  205
  operators, but who are suspected of unlawful or even criminal activity, can be entered and inspected only if the police or other representatives of authority have secured a warrant.
  My hon. Friends and I have argued on several occasions that that inequality of treatment and lack of symmetry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to have strayed from the terms of the motion. He has discussed the respective merits of hon. Members and their perspicacity and is now discussing the substance of the Bill. However, the time for that has not yet arrived, so he should confine himself strictly to the terms of the motion. I hope that he will not engage in further repetition.
  Mr. Bercow: I certainly will not engage in repetition—and far be it from me ever to disobey your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Greg Pope: Tedious repetition.
  Mr. Bercow: I have not engaged in that at all and I challenge the hon. Gentleman to provide a single example of my making the same point twice. I have not done so and do not intend to do so. As always, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for returning me to the straight and narrow.
  The point that I was trying to make—as a modest fellow, I am happy to concede that I was obviously making it very inadequately—is that precisely because these matters are contentious and precisely because there has not yet been a proper opportunity for Members of the House who were not members of the Committee to debate them, it is important that there should be adequate time to do so.
  I give another example—fees and charges—not because I want to dilate on that, but because it is an example of an important subject, which hon. Members should have more time to debate. An extraordinary series of exchanges took place in Committee. My hon. Friends and I proposed an amendment that would have ensured that the Government could not impose stealth taxes, but could levy charges such, and only such, as to recover the administrative costs incurred. The Minister quibbled about the terms and suggested that the clause as it stood was preferable to the wording that we recommended. However, when Ministers were challenged to guarantee beyond doubt that a profit to the Exchequer would never be involved, they retreated into waffle and obfuscation. Those matters need to be properly debated tonight.
  The central point is that it is unreasonable—simply and plainly unreasonable—for Ministers to expect 61 new clauses and amendments to be intelligently and comprehensively debated in only three hours. Now, I am not the very distinguished and upmarket mathematician that is the Minister. Nevertheless, I scraped through the O-level. Three hours is 180 minutes, so it is clear what considering 61 new clauses and amendments in 180 minutes means: fewer than three minutes per new clause or—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To my certain knowledge, the hon. Gentleman has repeated himself twice in half a minute. He has also repeated an argument that he has already used in his 26-minute speech.
  Mr. Bercow: Well, you have slapped my wrist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I bow to your authority and the discipline that you have imposed. I apologise, but my hon. Friends are clear about our objection. The Government are trying to ram through too much in too little time with too few opportunities for hon. Members to voice their concerns. That is not acceptable.
  If the Minister is so confident of the robustness of his case and so convinced that the Government are being fair in their proposed allocation of time, why have neither he nor either of his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench had the courtesy to consult through the usual channels about the apportionment of time? The fact is that they did not consult on either the amount of time that they proposed to allocate or its proposed distribution on Report and Third Reading. I must emphasise that, to me, that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Pope: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten our conversation behind the Speaker's Chair last week?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I have not. The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent Whip, has started to dig his own grave and I am afraid that I must throw the earth in to fill it. It is certainly true that he approached me. He wanted to established whether I was content with a day's consideration and it was pretty clear to him that I was not. My response was twofold. First, it was incumbent on him to go through the usual channels and speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, because that is the way that business is done. Secondly, the time needed—based on the proposals that the Government themselves would produce—was crucial. I must emphasise that.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is decent and fair-minded enough to acknowledge that I said to him, "It depends how many new clauses and amendments the Government choose to put to the House." At that stage, the hon. Gentleman, who was kept in the dark by his very senior, very distinguished and very ambitious Minister, was not in a position to advise me about what the Government intended.
  We face a strange situation as we consider the allocation of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and I were not aware of what the Government would propose for the simple reason that we were not the proposers and they would not tell us what they had in mind. Inevitably, as the Opposition in the dark, we were in a state of ignorance. The situation on the Government side resulted in this pitifully inadequate allocation of time: the Minister apparently knew what he had in mind, but the hon. Member for Hyndburn, the Government Whip, did not.
  If the Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn do not communicate about these matters, it is their problem, but there is no reason why the rights of the House should be imperilled or, indeed, ultimately trampled, as a result of such a pitiful failure of communication.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Yes, for the last time.
  Mr. Clarke: First, there is no difference relating either to information or to knowledge between my hon. Friend and me. Secondly, I am glad the hon. Gentleman had the grace to concede that there was a consultation, and that a meeting took place. Thirdly, I had a similar conversation with the hon. Gentleman before the Programming Sub-Committee considered the Committee stage, and received a similar response to that described by him. I have to say that I think it very difficult to take him seriously, in terms of the possibility of engaging in a serious discussion of these matters.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am anxious to ensure that a balanced debate takes place. I know that others wish to speak, and I suggest that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) limit his remarks.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall follow it. In any event, it is difficult to reply to what the Minister said, because it was so vague as to border on the opaque. Whether he meant that I just chuckled at him when he spoke to me, or whether he suggested for a moment that I was guilty of tergiversation—that I said one thing on one occasion, and subsequently changed my mind—I know not. The fact is, however, that there was not proper conversation between the Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn. The fact is that either the hon. Member for Hyndburn did not know how many new clauses or amendments the Government intended to table, or, if he did know, he failed to divulge the information to me. And the fact still is that, despite that non-communication, based on either secretiveness or lack of knowledge, the hon. Gentleman had the cheek to expect me to agree to a circumscription of the rights of the Opposition in particular, and of the House in general. That is unacceptable.
  No amount of dancing on the head of a pin by the Minister will change the fact that the Government have treated the House with disdain, indifference and contempt. The allocation of time is unsatisfactory: this is not a proper way in which to do business. I am sorry that there are too many part-timers who do not take their legislative responsibilities seriously. My hon. Friends and I do, and I know that, in particular, traditionalist Labour Back Benchers take those responsibilities extremely seriously. The many Members who take them seriously and who share my view that the time allocated is inadequate will doubtless wish to register their concerns.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be extremely brief, and perhaps demonstrate to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that it is possible to make points succinctly, and in a short time.
  I have served on a wide range of Standing Committees, and will draw on that experience to illustrate my view not only that there was sufficient time in Committee, but that there is plenty of time for us to deal with substantive arguments—if there are any—this evening.
  208
  As you have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been an element of repetition. In Committee, I heard the arguments about pieces in The Guardian six, eight or even nine times. If the hon. Member for Buckingham were to confine himself to substantive issues, I am sure that the time allocated would be sufficient.
  If hon. Members look at the report of the Committee's first sitting, they will see that the hon. Gentleman took up more than half the first 38 columns. If they then go through the record line by line, deleting references to The Guardian, spider bites and similar trivia outside the scope of the Bill, they will note that the hon. Gentleman effectively occupied a reasonable proportion of the debate; but it is a different matter when we start to add all the trivia. For instance, the hon. Gentleman takes up eight and a half out of 10 columns in the debate on clause 17.
  The Bill deals with important issues. I want adequate time tonight to deal with clause 37, which I sought to amend in Committee. Coincidentally, the hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned the constituency of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). There are extremely effective speed cameras throughout the heart of that constituency—at least, I think it must be that constituency—along the A5.
  Such issues are important, and we must deal with the substance of them. We can only do so, however, if Members on both sides of the House confine their remarks to what is relevant—although I would point out that the Committee stage ended before the scheduled time.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: As only about four minutes remain, I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible so that others can speak if they want to.
  The Minister is right to say that the Committee stage was, in the main, even-tempered and intellectually engaged with the issues. Much of the Committee's progress through the clauses before it was due to the fact that he and his colleagues offered to table amendments addressing the points that we had made. It is true that amendments have been tabled, but we now have less than three and a half hours in which to discuss them—significantly less than the three minutes per amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Moveover, if Divisions took place we would have even less time.
  I must register my concern. A number of important issues were, to a degree, sidelined in Committee while we waited for further information from the Government, and further amendment in recognition of the points we had raised. I fear that in the time available we shall not be able to deal with those issues properly, and shall not have an opportunity to be reassured by the Minister that the amendments are sound.
  It is traditional for us to suffer—well, not suffer in this case; but we must recognise that statements from Ministers tend to precede debates such as this. I find it a little strange, however, that an hour and a half of our short time has been allocated to Third Reading, given that Third Reading tends to feature a repetition of what has gone before and to give some Members an opportunity merely to exercise their vocal cords. I would far prefer much of the time to be spent debating amendments and new clauses.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister is right to say that Conservative Members dominated the Committee's proceedings. I was not present for the first week because I was unwell—any further talk of spiders and bites and anti-venom is not necessary now—but I was there for most of the time, and I can say that my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I made powerful points. So powerful were those points that the Government have now adopted them, because they related to glaring omissions at the time—so glaring, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said just now, that they staggered the imagination.
  The Bill says that it is unlawful not to provide information, or to provide information that is wrong. To include such a provision, and then not to include provision for a penalty for such an omission, is extraordinary, but it is typical of this Government and their arrogance—
  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 318, Noes 168.

  Division No. 91]

  [5.39 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caplin, Ivor

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Casale, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Ashton, Joe

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clwyd, Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Blizzard, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Darvill, Keith

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cann, Jamie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  210

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Efford, Clive

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lammy, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Foulkes, George

  Love, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hendrick, Mark

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hill, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hurst Alan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Illsley, Eric

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jamieson, David

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pearson, Ian

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Joyce, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  211

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Rapson, Syd

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Robertson, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Rogers, Allan

  (Dewsbury)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Todd, Mark

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Salmond, Alex

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tynan, Bill

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Watts, David

  Singh, Marsha

  White, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  (Swansea W)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Snape, Peter

  Wood, Mike

  Soley, Clive

  Woodward, Shaun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wray, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chidgey, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Norman

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Ballard, Jackie

  (Rushcliffe)

  Beggs, Roy

  Collins, Tim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brake, Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fallon, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Flight, Howard

  Burnett, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  212

  Fraser, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Öpik, Lembit

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Paice, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rendel, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Harvey, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hayes, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heald, Oliver

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Horam, John

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

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Leigh, Edward

  Townend, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Livsey, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Walter, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Webb, Steve

  Luff, Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Willis, Phil

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilshire, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  Moore, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray.

  Oaten, Mark

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 18th December 2000:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2. Proceedings n Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past Eight o' clock.
  Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
  Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  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 programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Vehicles (Crime) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Vehicles (Crime) Bill
    New Clause 1

      OFFENCE OF MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS
      `.—(1) A person who, in making an application to be registered in the register of a local authority or to renew his registration in such a register—

      (a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular; or

      (b) recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

      shall be guilty of an offence and, subject to subsection (2), liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale if—

      (a) any previous application of his to the local authority concerned for registration or renewal of registration was refused under section 3(3); or

      (b) previous registration of his in the register of the local authority concerned was cancelled under section 4(1).'.—[Mr. Hill.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.55 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 37, in clause 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
      '( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 1 and 4 to 6.
      Amendment No. 40, in clause 18, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
      '( ) Any person who knowingly makes a false application under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 7 to 14.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 26, page 14, line 16, leave out "3" and insert "5".
      Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.
      Amendment No. 42, in clause 27, page 14, line 34, leave out "4" and insert "5".
      Mr. Hill: Discussion in Committee—prompted primarily by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—showed that there was a gap in the range of offences created by clauses 10 and 18, and I agreed to consider the matter further. I am happy to designate new clause 1 and the associated amendments as "the Buckingham amendments".

      215
      Clauses 10 and 18 created offences of failing to notify the local authority or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of various changes, but they did not make it an offence to make a false statement in an application for registration, or for renewal of registration. New clause 1 plugs the gap for salvage operators by making it an offence to make a false statement that is material to the application.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How was it that civil servants in the Minister's Department, when they scrutinised the Bill before it reached the House, failed to spot something that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) managed to spot? Should not the Minister make an apology to my hon. Friend?
      Mr. Hill: I hardly think that an apology is in order. I fully recognise that there was an oversight in the drafting. We are extremely grateful to the Opposition, and to the hon. Member for Buckingham specifically, for drawing our attention to the lacuna in the Bill that the new clause is intended to fill.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I thank the Minister for his generosity in calling the new clause the Buckingham amendment. However, does not he agree that, more scrutiny, with other lacunae might have been spotted? Can he guarantee that there are no other lacunae that might have been spotted had more scrutiny time been made available?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the House that, in the context of this debate, we should stick to the lacuna that is before us.
      Mr. Hill: I am delighted to deal with this particular lacuna, which we debated at some length in Committee. We dealt with a wide range of matters in Committee. We debated all the amendments that had been tabled, and in fact finished early. All the issues that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members wanted to raise were covered more than adequately in Committee, and the time provided was more than adequate for the purpose.
      The offence that I described is punishable by a fine at level 3—that is, £1,000—in line with the penalties for the other clause 10 offences. However, we believe that a higher penalty is appropriate for those who make false statements when they have previously had an application refused—or registration cancelled—on the grounds that they were not "fit and proper" persons.
      Such people have been through the procedures before and know what is required. They know that if they applied in their own right, their application would not be successful. We must not allow them to think that an attempt to deceive the local authority is less risky than trading while unregistered. The penalty for trading while unregistered is set at level 5—that is, £5,000-and new clause 1 provides for the same penalty to apply to those caught by subsection (2).
      Government amendment No. 1 qualifies the offence in clause 10(1), so that any change affecting the accuracy of the information submitted with an application must be "material". That makes it consistent with new clause 1. It is likely that a wide range of information will be submitted with applications, and we do not want the
      216
      offence to apply to inaccuracies that will not weigh in the balance when local authorities are making decisions. Such inaccuracies might include, for example, mistakes in the spelling of names or addresses. A similar amendment, Government amendment No. 14, has been proposed for the number plate scheme.
      Government amendments Nos. 4 to 9 and Government amendment No. 12, which relate to clause 18, on the application for registration for registration plate suppliers, have a similar effect to the changes proposed for salvage operators. We propose to introduce a new offence, with a level 3 fine, of either knowingly or recklessly making a false statement when applying for registration.
      A business convicted of making a false statement might not be considered in some cases to have made a valid registration, so the option of suspension from the register might not be open to the court. We therefore propose to give the court the power to impose a period of up to five years during which such a business will be barred from making a false application.
      We also want to address the situation in which a business that has been suspended from the register or debarred from making a further application attempts to reapply before the relevant period has elapsed.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind remarks of a few moments ago. I do not want to be pedantic, but I do want to be precise. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be possible under the new arrangements to prevent someone from making a false application for a period of five years. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say a further false application.
      Mr. Hill: To the extent that the applicant has already been barred or suspended from the register, an offence has been committed. I certainly accept the rephrasing of the expression along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, this is a somewhat convoluted way of dealing with the issue. We have tussled hard to find an appropriate way forward on the matter. It is a convoluted form; nevertheless, it serves to achieve the desired effect.
      As I was saying, this may involve a deliberate attempt to deceive the registration authority by providing false details. In line with the proposals for salvage operators, we are proposing a level 5 fine. This offence is more serious than simply providing false information, and ranks alongside the offence of trading while unregistered.
      Government amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 13 relate to clause 19, which provides that a suspension from the register of number plate suppliers imposed by a magistrates court should not have effect until the time for appealing to the Crown court runs out. This is a sensible provision, because suspension from the register means that it will no longer be possible for someone to trade legally as a number plate supplier and that should not occur while there is still the possibility of a successful appeal.
      There are two ways of dealing with an adverse decision of the magistrates court. One is to appeal to the Crown court; the other is to state a case on a point of law to the High Court. This is done when the magistrates court has exceeded its powers or seriously erred in law. The procedure should be used only in exceptional circumstances; it is, indeed, seldom used. Nevertheless, the legislation must allow for such circumstances.

      217
      Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 apply the same provision as on appeals to circumstances where a case is stated to the High Court.
      Amendment No. 11 places a statutory duty on the courts to notify the DVLA when a registration is suspended or a business is ordered not to make another application for a specified period following a conviction for making a false statement. Unless the amendment is made, there will be no mechanism in law for notification from the courts. It is essential that the courts provide the DVLA with this information so that the register can be amended accordingly.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 15 to 17 is to describe the new offence relating to the sale of counterfeit plates more accurately, and to introduce a defence. The amendments relate to clause 27, which sets out to address two scenarios. The first is when defective number plates are sold to an unwitting customer. The second deals with the problem of customising number plates to a customer's specifications. It is already an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to display such a number plate, but many suppliers are happy to sell such plates and let the motorist take the risk of being caught. We want to deter that practice. It is right, however, that the defence should be available to cover any genuine cases in which the defect was slight and the supplier could prove he did not know of the defect and was not reckless with regard to the defect. In the light of those observations, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
      I fear that I must resist Opposition amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42,. Let me explain why. Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 would make it an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000, knowingly to make a false application for entry in the register of motor salvage operators or number plate suppliers. The Bill requires a motor salvage operator to make an application for registration. It does not, however, address the situation in which someone makes a false declaration as part of that application.
      We appreciate the motivation behind the amendments. Indeed, the same proposals in Committee prompted us to table new clause 1, the related amendments to part I, amendment No. 4 and the related amendments to clause 18.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The crucial difference between the Opposition's amendments and the Government's new clause is that, whereas under the Government's proposals the offence occurs when someone either knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement, under the Opposition's proposals, the offence is committed when it is done knowingly, but not in circumstances of recklessness. Why does the Minister believe that recklessness should be included in the offence? What sort of circumstances does he think would be covered? How would he deal with the point made by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), when I proposed that recklessness should be imported into the offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? He said that to import recklessness would introduce great
      218
      complexity, legal technicalities and difficulties to the situation. How would the Under-Secretary deal with that point in this context?
      Mr. Hill: I hope to come on to those points and set out the Government's objections in the course of my remarks.
      We prefer the Government amendments chiefly because, unlike the others, they draw a worthwhile distinction between a false application per se and deception attempted by an applicant whose previous registration has been cancelled or refused. We consider the latter more serious, and deserving of a higher maximum penalty.
      Amendment No. 41 relates to the registration of number plate suppliers. It seeks to increase the level of the fine for failure to notify a change of particulars from a level 4 fine of £2,500 to a level 5 fine of £5,000. We believe that that lacks a sense of proportion. One must compare the various offences in the Bill and give each its due weight. Is a failure to notify the DVLA of a change of address as serious as failure to register altogether? We do not think so. Our view is that the two cannot be treated in the same way. To carry on a business while unregistered is to flout the core purpose of the legislation. It cannot be compared with a failure to keep the DVLA updated in every material detail.
      Mr. Bercow: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is, no doubt inadvertently, giving the impression that the offence of failing to communicate a new address to the DVLA is somehow trifling. Will he, by contrast, accept that it would not be at all trifling if a change of business premises was not notified to the DVLA, so that, as far as that central authority was concerned, the registered salvage operator or registration plate supplier might just as well not be registered at all?
      Mr. Hill: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but an element of intention must be taken into account in this context. A bona fide supplier has obviously gone through the registration process, thereby demonstrating his integrity and acceptability as a supplier, but he may inadvertently fall into the trap of failing to convey a change of address in due course. That is a problem—but although it is an offence, it is not deeply serious and certainly falls into the category of possible accident rather than malevolence. On those grounds, we think that a worthwhile distinction can be made in the degree of seriousness of the offence. I am sure that we can return to those matters in due course.
      Like amendment No. 41, amendment No. 42 treats an offence more gravely than is warranted. The offence under clause 27 is designed to deal with the practice of selling number plates where the characters are so arranged as to make them resemble a personal name or other word that might mean something to the owner.
      The Government want to stop that practice, as it can make it difficult for cameras and witnesses to read number plates. That is already an offence, punishable by a level 3 fine of £1,000. However, we do not believe that selling a plate with the numbers "1" and "3" placed close together to look like a "B" is as serious as failure to register as a registration plate supplier, which, of course, attracts a level 5 fine.
      In the light of those reasonable objections, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
      Mr. Heald: My question was obviously quite difficult as the Under-Secretary completely failed to address it, despite saying that he would do so.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the way in which he has taken up the issue and brought it to a conclusion—which, even if it is not not an entirely satisfactory one, is miles better than what preceded it. My hon. Friend identified the serious risk of people working illegally as motor salvage operators trying to obtain registration by giving false details. In almost every walk of crime, whenever there is an opportunity to make money by using false particulars to obtain the imprimatur of the state—the necessary licences or documentation—there are always cases of false representation. That is true in every field of crime; for example, the use of false identities to claim benefits or for the abuse of credit cards. It is surprising that the Government failed to identify that risk.
      If the offence had not been created, gangs would have tried to obtain several registrations using false materials and representations. They would have been able to enter the system; they would have been seen as clean operators and would have been able to salvage vehicles, break them up and sell the parts. My hon. Friend has done an invaluable service; the amendments should indeed be known as the Buckingham amendments. The whole House owes my hon. Friend a debt, and I was pleased that the Government were able to acknowledge that.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary was rather shocked when that point was made. He said:
      "Although I shall resist the new clause, I shall resist it in an extremely qualified fashion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 January 2001; c. 66.]
      He was obviously in retreat before the logic of my hon. Friend. However, that is no bad thing; it is good for Ministers to retreat when good points are made. They can then make better proposals on Report. The Minister of State, Home Office will be doing a good deal of that when we consider the Criminal Justice and Police Bill in Committee next week.
      The creation of an offence of knowingly or recklessly making a false statement in registering as a motor salvage operator, instead of the provision that we proposed—that it should be an offence when a false application is made knowingly—begs the question: why do the Government believe that the words "knowingly or recklessly" are the way to go?
      There is a problem with the use of the word "recklessness", as the Minister of State pointed out to me during our discussions on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which included an offence of unlawfully intercepting a communication. Such an offence could only be committed by the authorities—or was most likely to be. I suggested that, if the authorities were to use their powers and facilities to intercept the communications of private citizens, it was wrong if the offence was only that they did so knowingly because, as servants of the state, they should be guilty if they acted recklessly.
      6.15 pm
      The forces of the state—the authorities—in this country do an excellent job, but we do not want them to be able to act recklessly without redress. The Minister replied that we could not make such a provision because the law on
      220
      recklessness is so complex that no one really understands it, and the Court of Appeal had made contradictory decisions on it. I ventured to suggest that the definition of "recklessness" was a simple matter. If there is a clearly identifiable risk that damage would result from particular conduct and if, having recognised that risk, people engage in that conduct, they are reckless. However, the Minister said that that was not the only definition and cited various cases. I was so concerned at the Minister's reply that I asked that the Attorney-General attend our Committee to give us a proper legal definition. I did not agree with the Minister.
      What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. People who may be brought before the courts for making a false statement "recklessly" to register as motor salvage operators may simply be innocent business men who made their statement in ignorance. They may not have understood what was needed on the form. They may be very good at salvaging cars, but not much good at paperwork.
      If there is a problem with the law on recklessness, it is wrong that we cannot have recklessness in an offence that applies to the state and its servants—the authorities—because it is far too difficult and complicated and nobody will understand it, but that it can apply to a man running a small business. Such businesses may involve breaking up vehicles—occasionally for spare parts. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) knows such small businesses only too well from his days in Southwark—I do not suggest that he ever took his taxi to them.
      Is it right that an ordinary business man, with a small business, should be put at risk of being found guilty of acting recklessly, when the real mischief that we want to attack is committed by the fraudster? We want to go after people who knowingly make false statements when registering as motor salvage operators. It was worrying that the Under-Secretary could not give me a ready reply to my question, because he drafted the provisions. There is clearly a significant difference between our suggestions in Committee and his proposals: it is the word "recklessness". If that word has been inserted without the hon. Gentleman's knowledge—or if he has not even thought about it—that really is a poor do. I hope that he will reflect on the matter. Perhaps during the debate he will recall why he thought that the word "recklessness" offered the way forward.
      Our amendment No. 37 provides for an offence of "knowingly" making a false application. That is the basis on which we should proceed. Government amendment No. 4 provides for the offence of recklessly or knowingly making a false statement as to the registration of a number plate supplier. Again, I make the same point that I made about the earlier provision: there is an offence not merely in respect of "knowingly" but in respect of "recklessly" making a false statement.
      Government amendment No. 4 includes proposed new subsection (2B), under which no application can be made for up to five years if the person has been banned from registering as a result of a conviction for making a false statement to apply. That is sensible; it is right that fraudsters should be banned, but is it fair to ban someone who has acted recklessly? Clearly, such a ban is fair enough if someone has behaved dishonestly, and knowingly so, but recklessness is a borderline issue and the Minister may feel that the provision presents dangers for small business men.

      221
      Government amendment No. 5 is technical and Government amendment No. 6 is consequential. Government amendment No. 7 provides that if a person has been convicted of making a false application, he can be removed from the register and a prohibition will apply. We have no problem with that. Amendment No. 40, which we tabled, would make it an offence to submit a false application to register as a number plate supplier. Again, it includes the word "knowingly".
      We suggest that a level 5 fine should be imposed for the offence of failing to notify changes in information on the register. The Under-Secretary dismissed that suggestion, saying that there is a great difference between not notifying a change in circumstances and making a false statement at the outset. However, my experience, as a Minister with responsibility for benefit fraud, was that people would often make a genuine claim initially, but their circumstances would change and they would not tell the authorities. That was a big problem. In a sense, such fraud was almost a crime of omission, although dishonesty and guilt were involved. People often find it easier to mislead the authorities by not doing what they have a duty to do than by deliberately setting out to lie. The same applies to these provisions.
      If a motor salvage operator begins perfectly satisfactorily, tells no lies and has a good business, but that business goes badly wrong, he may be tempted to make changes to the business that may lead it into the black market and to become involved in the activities that the Government want to curtail. In those circumstances, not giving notification of a change of address could be a crucial indicator of the fact that that operator is operating dishonestly and is misleading the authorities. It is often easier to detect crimes in which people have to tell the authorities something and lie than those in which they do not have to tell them anything. It is therefore important to impose a fairly tough penalty in such cases to dissuade those who may be tempted to fail to give the information to which the authorities are entitled. I ask the Under-Secretary to respond to that important issue.
      Government amendment No. 15 will add the concept of guilty knowledge to the offence of selling a counterfeit registration plate. Again, it states that someone must know, or be reckless about the fact that, something is not a true plate. It is good that that will no longer be an absolute offence and that the Minister is prepared to introduce the mental element or the golden thread to which I have referred—but not too often because the Minister of State hates lawyers and does not like to be reminded too much about the country's legal history. I am not sure why that is so, because if the Minister of State ever becomes Prime Minister, he will look with delight on the country's history and think himself part of a great chain of historical events. He might think that our legal system is rather good; it is one of the things for which this country is most prized. Our common law is recognised internationally as one of the things that we have given to the world and our system of justice is well respected across the Commonwealth and half the world. Perhaps it is not the law but the lawyers at which he aims his attack.
      It is good that the golden thread of knowledge and the mental element of crime will be introduced under Government amendment No. 15, but the Under-Secretary should explain the use of the term "recklessness". Why
      222
      has that complicated concept been introduced, given that the Minister of State has told us that it is almost impossible to understand?
      Amendment No. 42 would increase from level 4 to level 5 the penalty for selling a counterfeit plate. Such matters depend on whether people believe that selling a counterfeit plate is a serious crime. On Second Reading, we were told that it was important, that it fuelled crime and that it should be stamped out. I agree with that; everyone who hears media reports of criminals who steal cars and fit counterfeit plates to them knows that it is a way in which they mask their identity. If that is crucial to the commission of crime, surely selling such a plate is an important matter for which a substantial sentence should be imposed.
      With the best will in the world, we have to recognise that those who commit such an offence do so for money. It is a commercial offence, so a £2,000 fine is surely too low. If this is a commercial exercise designed to stop people committing the offence, it seems wrong to set the penalty at such a low level. I hope that the Under-Secretary is prepared to reply to those points. Perhaps he will tell us his detailed views on the law of recklessness. If not, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what he thinks later.
      Mr. Fabricant: I, too, rise to support amendments Nos. 37, 40, 41 and 42, tabled by my hon. Friends. As I said during the debate on the programme motion, I find it extraordinary that the provisions contained in new clause 1 were left out of the Bill. Many hon. Members know that I am pro-American. Being so pro-American, I think that they should be called not the Buckingham amendments but the Bercow amendments because that is what they would be called in the United States and it would be in recognition of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) discovered this lacuna in the Bill. It is a truly amazing gap.
      The Bill is primarily intended to enable the registration of licence plate suppliers and motor salvage operators, but there was no provision imposing sanctions on those who deliberately provide false information when registering. That extraordinary omission clearly demonstrates the need for scrutiny—and, indeed, the need for the House—so it ill behoves the Government deliberately to limit the time available for such scrutiny.
      In the previous Session, the Utilities Bill was cut in half, but the Government propose additions to this Bill. I suppose that we could argue that we at least have a listening Government because, now that the Opposition have had time to identify gaps in the legislation, they now suggest the inclusion of the missing provisions. I am not convinced that the Bill does not contain other, similar lacunae. Of course, the Under-Secretary cannot guarantee us that no other lacunae exist because there has been insufficient time to deal with such issues.
      I want to speak to Government amendment No. 15. The Under-Secretary wondered whether it was trivial for the numbers 1 and 3 to be put together to make the letter B. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has already asked whether the £2,000 fine is sufficient to deter criminals from altering number plates, given that such crimes often involve large sums. This morning I met Sir John Stevens, the London police commissioner, who said that people under the age of 17

      223
      commit about 70 per cent. of crime in London—a sobering statistic. Nevertheless major crime is committed to obtain big money. I hardly think that a fine of £2,000 is an adequate deterrent.
      6.30
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that his proposition is supported by the Government's own advocacy for the Bill on Second Reading? They made it clear that the measures were designed to tackle car crime in and of itself, not only because of the damage that it does and the emotional scars that it can cause but because it is the gateway to the commission of more serious offences, including drug trafficking and terrorism.
      Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend is completely correct. He leads me on to a fresh point. The police are beginning to use interesting new technology in their fight against crime. I welcome the use of the automatic licence plate recognition equipment, which is already used at some of our ports. I hope that it will also be introduced on major trunk roads. The equipment is made up of television cameras that are linked to computers that can recognise and read the licence plates of cars as they move by. If a car is stolen or if the police need to survey it for any reason, the computer will immediately flag up its existence and draw it to the attention of the relevant authorities.
      I was about to intervene on the Under-Secretary when he concluded his remarks. I believe that he said he did not think it was too serious a crime to alter a licence plate by putting a "1" and a "3" together to look like a "B" or to use italic instead of standard script, even though to do so would contravene existing road traffic and other Acts. What would be the effect on the new equipment if plates were altered in that way? Surely, if a police officer were trying to detect the whereabouts of a stolen vehicle or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggests, one containing drugs and a "1" and a "3" were together on its licence plate, is it not possible that the equipment might see that as a "B" and not highlight to the relevant authorities the fact that the vehicle had just moved by or entered the country? At present, the equipment just recognises UK licence plates, but it will shortly recognise those from other countries.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman approve or disapprove of people who amend their licence plates in the way that he has described?
      Mr. Fabricant: I hope that I made myself clear. However, if I have not done so, I make it absolutely clear now that I disapprove of such conduct. I regret the fact that the Under-Secretary finished his speech before I could intervene, but I got the impression that he was making light of the fact that people could amend their licence plates to make them more attractive. I am sure that he will clarify that when he winds up this debate. For example, if I had the licence plate "FA 13", would I be tempted to change it to "FAB"? I think not. Unlike the late lamented Gerald Nabarro, I have no desire to have a series of vehicles with the licence plates, "NAB 1", "NAB 2" and "NAB 3", or even "FAB 1", "FAB 2" and "FAB 3".
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Or "FAB FM".
      Mr. Fabricant: Or "FAB FM", as the Minister suggests, referring to a non-existent radio station with which he thinks I was involved some years ago.
      This is a serious matter. If one changes a licence plate to such a degree that a police officer cannot recognise it either with the naked eye or automatic equipment and thus is unable to follow the vehicle or stop it if it is stolen, surely that negates the whole point of having plates in the first place. Does the Under-Secretary not think that he was being reckless in suggesting that such an offence would not be as serious as some of the others in the Bill?
      Mr. Graham Brady: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the issue of automatic licence plate recognition, will he tell us whether he shares the concerns that I and other hon. Members have about the misuse of such technology and the civil liberties implications? Does he not consider it possible that the existence of such technology might make it more likely that people will wish to change their licence plate numbers even if they are not guilty of a crime?
      Mr. Fabricant: If people were to change their licence plates, they would be guilty of a crime. I shall not go into great detail on that question, because that would be out of order, but I merely say that I do not regard the use of the equipment as an invasion of civil liberties. However, I accept that some people will argue that it is another example of big brother.
      However, one could argue that if one had a police officer on every street corner—oh, I dream about that nightly for Lichfield, but it will not come about.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: I shall give way to the Minister, who tried engagingly to intervene on me in the debate on the ten-minute Bill. I realise that he is a relatively new boy and did not know that one cannot intervene in such a debate. I promised that I would give way to him at a suitable juncture; I suspect this is the point.
      Mr. Clarke: I was almost out of order earlier, but the hon. Gentleman helped me. However, I wish to point out that there was a useful Adjournment debate this morning with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the issue of police numbers in Staffordshire. We were all disappointed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) could not attend to discuss his views in detail in the appropriate forum.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister has raised that point, because I can now put on record where I was this morning.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House is mainly concerned by the fact that the hon. Gentleman is here now, and should be addressing the new clause that is before us.
      Mr. Fabricant: Of course I will abide by your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if I had been

      225
      able to attend the debate, I would have been there. I was with the Staffordshire Regiment, but I cannot say any more because that would be out of order. It was an equally important event to do with my constituency of Lichfield, but I was torn because I wanted to attend that debate.
      To answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I do not believe that the use of the equipment is an invasion of civil liberties. I regard the use of extra police officers or new technology to apprehend criminals as protection for all law-abiding people. It helps to protect innocent, decent, honourable people—and, by definition, we are all honourable in this House—so it is a good thing.
      My hon. Friend is a philosopher. Like Topol in "Fiddler on the Roof", he always see two sides to an argument. He has an Hasidic viewpoint—on the one hand this, on the other hand that—and he is right because he is truly a statesman. On balance, I would prefer it for the new technology to be rolled out. I accept that the civil liberties lobby will say that it is an example of big brother but, if big brother is there to protect me, I am happy. Big brother will be a good brother provided that the Bill is properly scrutinised by the House. That is why I get so upset when Bills are rushed through under timetable motions.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to pick him up on an important theme in the debate. Does he not agree that one of the reasons—a reason on which I did not dilate in the debate on the programme motion—for us to have more time thoroughly to consider the contents of the Bill is that several of its key provisions, amendments and new clauses are not ultimately a matter of party politics? They involve matters of discretion and judgment by individual Members in different parties. There is no uniformity of view on some of the issues, so does my hon. Friend accept that we need a—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot rehearse the arguments that we heard in the debate on the programme motion. There are many groups of amendments to cover and other hon. Members may want to contribute to the debate. I should be grateful if that were borne in mind.
      Mr. Fabricant: My final point relates to recklessness. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander when we compare the Bill with other legislation. However, I have a specific issue to raise.
      New clause 1(1)(b) states that someone who
      "recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence".
      How will it be possible to prove in a court of law that a statement was made recklessly? The principle of English common law, about which my hon. Friend waxed so lyrically and accurately, is the gift that we have given the world. Under common law, it is necessary to prove a guilty mind—there must be mens rea. How will we be able to get a conviction under new clause 1(1)(b)? How will people be able to prove that a statement was made recklessly rather than by pure accident or out of innocence? How can we get into the mind of the individual? That is my criticism of the word "recklessly".
      226
      I suspect that the Minister used the same argument when we discussed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, to which my hon. Friend referred.
      Mr. Bercow: The word "reckless" was not mentioned in the Standing Committee's deliberations. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is describing the distinction between inadvertent neglect and wilful contempt? It is important that that be clarified.
      Mr. Fabricant: As ever, my hon. Friend uses words carefully. The courts would try to differentiate in that way, but it would be difficult for them to do so because English law is about evidence. If a crime has been committed, the evidence has to be provided in court so that a magistrate or jury believes that the person has committed the crime. There must be a guilty mind; there must be mens rea. How will we get into the mind of the individual to show that he was reckless rather than in contempt of the law? It will be impossible to prove that.
      The Bill was hastily presented, which gave rise to the massive lacuna that the Government are attempting to fill with new clause 1. I suspect that the new clause has also been hastily tabled. It contains a series of lacunae, or at least loopholes, that will keep lawyers, who are so hated by the Minister, in business for many a year. It is sad that, since 1997, Bills have been hastily prepared and, although they have been filled with good intentions, they have also been filled with giant loopholes. Either they contain loopholes that keep lawyers in business for years or, as happened with the Utilities Act 2000, great chunks are removed before they reach the statute book.
      Can the Under-Secretary assure me that the new clause has not been recklessly compiled? Can he assure me that there will be convictions under new clause 1(1)(b)? Can he assure me that, if licence plates are changed—for example, when the numbers 1 and 3 are put together to make the letter B—so that police officers and the vehicle licence plate recognition equipment cannot read them correctly, that is not an unimportant matter? If so, why will a level 5 penalty not be applied?
      6.45
      Mr. Hill: The exchanges to which we have just been treated demonstrate that there is not much difference between the Government and the official Opposition. I shall attempt to deal with the points that have been raised.
      The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned the level of fines if a person fails to notify a change of address. The Government are responding to most people's perception that such a failure, which is more likely to be an unwitting action, is not as serious as providing false information.
      Mr. Heald: If the Under-Secretary wants to table a manuscript amendment that contains the word "knowingly", I shall be more than happy to consider it.
      Mr. Hill: It is with great enthusiasm that I address the vexed issue of recklessness and knowingness. I shall have several stabs at answering the questions. Let me set out my stall. It is vital that the application process generates true and accurate information. No doubt we would all agree on that. Clause 10 deals with accuracy; the new clause deals with true information. Why should people

      227
      who are reckless and do not care whether the information that they submit is true be allowed to escape? That must be discouraged. The conscientious who make a mistake are unlikely to be reckless.
      Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hill: No, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to return to the issue of recklessness.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked how we can get a conviction on the grounds of recklessness. Bearing in mind the amount of time that he took to make his point, I am extremely glad that he is not my lawyer.
      It is for the judicial process—the courts—to decide whether an act was reckless. It is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the accused took no steps to verify the information. The prosecution would have to ask whether a reasonable person knew that his statement was false. The fact is that there are many reckless offences in statute. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 contains such offences and successful prosecutions take place under it.
      Mr. Heald: I made those arguments when we discussed unlawful interceptions by the state authorities in our debates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. When we dealt with the important matter of the state committing offences, the Minister told me that it was impossible to have the offence of recklessness when the arrogant use of power was the issue. He said that the subject was so complicated that the courts could not understand it and that there were different interpretations of the law. Now, why should the poor old garagiste in Peckham, Southwark, Eltham or north Hertfordshire have to wrestle with the concept of recklessness if it is not good enough for the Secret Intelligence Service and the authorities in Britain?
      Mr. Hill: It is a matter of eternal regret to me that I was not a member of the Committee that considered that Bill and was therefore unable to listen to the hon. Gentleman at even greater length. We are dealing now with an entirely different Bill, and there is no comparison between the two measures.
      I return to the issues of recklessness and knowingness, on which I was seeking to help the Opposition. At present, a person accused of knowingly committing an offence will escape conviction if he shows that he does not know because he does not care. The introduction of the concept of recklessness fills that gap, as it does in other legislation, and it differs from knowingness in that "knowingly" means that someone has subjective knowledge—he knows that he is making a false statement, rather than just not caring. That is a pretty clear distinction between concepts.
      I shall have a final stab at explaining that difference to the Opposition. "Reckless" means not taking pains to ensure whether what is said is true. We want to deter that in the application process, where it is important to be accurate, and that is consistent with clause 10, where reckless failure to notify will also be an offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is perfectly clear to me from the acclaim that I am receiving from my hon. Friends that I have explained that distinction to the satisfaction of the majority party.
      I propose then to proceed to the last issue of minor substance, the question of offences in connection with the supply of number plates, which was raised by the
      228
      Opposition in their response to my opening remarks. As we have explained repeatedly during our many fascinating discussions on the subject, the issue that the Government are seeking to tackle is the abuse of the number plates supplied, which is the most serious problem.
      It is not our purpose to criminalise the number plate supply industry. However, we wish to deter the practice of selling number plates with characters so arranged as to make them resemble a person's name. As I have said before, we think that a level 3 fine is just about appropriate in those circumstances, and we are pretty sure that the majority of the great British public—25 million of whom are motorists—would agree.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      UNIFIED POWER FOR SECRETARY OF STATE TO FUND SPEED CAMERAS ETC
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments in respect of the whole or any part of the expenditure of a public authority in relation to—

      (a) the prevention or detection of offences to which subsection (2) applies; or

      (b) any enforcement action or proceedings in respect of such offences or any alleged such offences.

      (2) This subsection applies to offences under—

      (a) section 16 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which consist in contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles imposed under section 14 of that Act;

      (b) subsection (4) of section 17 of that Act which consist in contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles imposed under that section;

      (c) section 88(7) of that Act (temporary minimum speed limits);

      (d) section 89(1) of that Act (speeding offences generally);

      (e) section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which consist in the failure to comply with an indication given by a light signal that vehicular traffic is not to proceed.

      (3) Payments under this section shall be made to—

      (a) the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made; or

      (b) any other public authority for payment, in accordance with arrangements agreed with the Secretary of State, to, or on behalf of, the public authority in respect of whose expenditure the payments are being made.

      (4) Payments under this section shall be paid at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.
      (5) In this section "public authority" means—

      (a) any highway authority (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980);

      (b) any police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1996, the Metropolitan Police Authority or the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority;

      (c) any responsible authority (within the meaning of section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997) or the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority; and

      (d) any body or other person not falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) and so far as exercising functions of a public nature.'.—[Mr. Hill.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—Abandoned vehicles: payments to local authorities—
      '2A. The Secretary of State may make payments to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in complying with the provisions of section 3(1) below, though such payments shall not exceed the amounts paid in fines in respect of offences under section 2(1)(a) above.'.
      Government amendment No. 43.
      Amendment No. 26, in clause 37, page 21, line 48, at end insert—
      `(f)section 2 of that Act (dangerous driving);
      (g)section 3 of that Act (careless, and inconsiderate, driving);
      (h)section 4(1) and 4(2) of that Act (driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs);
      (i)section 5(1) of that Act (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit).'.
      Government amendments Nos. 46 to 54.
      Mr. Hill: Amendment No. 43 would remove clause 37. That will satisfy Opposition Members who tabled an amendment to remove the clause. I welcome their intention to withdraw that amendment. New clause 7 would take the place of clause 37, and I shall explain our reasons for tabling it.
      Clause 37 establishes a power for the Lord Chancellor to make payments to the authorities responsible for funding magistrates courts to meet the full costs of administering speed and traffic light offences. However, the provision does not enable the Lord Chancellor to make payments to other bodies such as local authorities and the police, which can form partnerships to carry out the enforcement activities. The other bodies involved in the partnerships formed to fund camera placement and operation already have established financial arrangements with other Departments; for example, the police are of course funded principally from the Home Office.
      When the Treasury took the decision to allow payments to be made directly from netted-off fine revenue in certain circumstances, it quite rightly placed on any proposals to do so several important criteria that had to be met before approval would be given to proceed. One of the criteria was to ensure that any scheme put in place did not result in increased bureaucracy. As a new Labour libertarian, I fully endorse that sentiment.
      We are therefore left with a clear choice either to fund the various partners through several separate funding routes or to link them all up for these purposes by channelling the netted-off revenue through one Department. That is exactly how the current safety camera pilots are operating. The funds are channelled through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for distribution to lead authorities in each partnership, which in these cases is a local authority. That arrangement is allowed for the time being under the provisions of the Appropriation Acts, but that can only be a temporary measure. It clearly follows that to meet the
      230
      Treasury criterion of keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, we must seek to continue the system that is working so effectively in the pilots.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister state categorically whether the new clause is a road safety, crash reduction measure or a revenue generator?
      Mr. Hill: It goes without saying that this is a measure concerned with road safety and the prevention of road accidents. It could not be for any other purpose, and it would be grossly irresponsible and unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Russell rose—
      Mr. Hill: I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, so of course I will give way again.
      Mr. Russell: I welcome that clarification and reassurance. I was just observing that so far the words "road safety" and "accident reduction" have not passed the Minister's lips.
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing that clarification. I know very well of his excellent work in RoadPeace, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about these matters.
      We had hoped to be able to sustain the pilot scheme arrangements within existing law, rules and conventions by allowing DETR to act as a paying agent for other Departments, but that has not proved to be possible.
      Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary assures the House that in no sense is this a revenue-raising measure, but so far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, this seems to be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much". Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in no one year would the receipts to the public fund exceed the expenditure on road safety that those funds would afford?
      Mr. Hill: It would certainly be the Government's purpose to ensure that there was an appropriate balance of receipt and expenditure, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will realise that it is not possible for any Minister, any Department or any Government to ensure that that is invariably the case. There is an intention that is fulfilled over time and in general terms, but it would be unrealistic for a Minister to offer the precise guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman really is digging himself in deep. For the delectation and edification of the House I must repeat what he just said. He referred to an appropriate balance. That does not mean an equal balance. He referred to its achievement over time in general terms. I suggest that as a harbinger of good intent, it would be helpful if he could confirm that the equality between receipts and expenditure on road safety should have to be achieved within five years. Will he, as a junior but rising Minister, at least sign up to that commitment?
      7 pm
      Mr. Hill: Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's slightly improbable blandishments, I will not make the commitment that he is seeking—as with the foreign policy issues on which he tempted me earlier in our proceedings. I repeat the assurance that I gave to the distinguished hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). The purpose of the provisions before us is entirely to improve road safety and to reduce accidents. The Government's objective will be to ensure that there is a balance of expenditure with revenue, and these matters are subject to the auditing process. They are for the public record and for public demonstration.
      Mr. David Chidgey: I fully accept what the Minister is saying about balancing budgets over time. That is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman can give us any idea from discussions in his Department of what is expected in terms of revenues from fines arising from the use of speed cameras being channelled into road safety measures. What is the Department's perception of the increased funding from the use of speed cameras being used to increase road safety measures? Does the hon. Gentleman have a programme in mind? By how much will we be able to extend the use of speed cameras from the pilot schemes, which have clearly been successful?
      Mr. Hill: The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the programme to be rolled out nationally on the basis of eight successful pilot schemes. In due course, we are anticipating a significant increase in the resource that will be available to introduce speed cameras. I hope that that is of some assurance to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Given the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I wish there to be no misunderstanding. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the money is for road safety purposes. It is therefore axiomatic that the money must be spent on road safety purposes. It would be clear to any auditor and to any highway authority that the use of the money for any other purpose would be against the will of the House.
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. He puts the matter most succinctly, and I am grateful for his help.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is always a pleasure to joust with him.
      We do not quite know the purpose of the intervention of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), because his purpose is rarely clear. However, the effect of his rather foolish intervention, whether he intended it or not, was to tie the Minister down. Will the Minister confirm that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that the money must effectively be ring-fenced—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman did. If the Minister agrees that the money can be spent only on road safety measures, which means in practice that it will be ring fenced, why is he not prepared to commit himself to the proposition that that is exactly and exclusively how it will be spent, measured over a five-year period? It is a simple challenge. Why can he not rise to it?
      Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is not making an unreasonable proposition. On balance, over a five-year
      232
      period, one would expect these matters to even out. I accept the general thrust of his observation but I am not in a position to say that there will be precise equality between revenue and expenditure at the end of a five-year period.
      Mr. Bercow: Why?
      Mr. Hill: However, that would be a desirable outcome to which the Government are certainly working.
      I heard the hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, ask, "Why?" On the whole, the Government like to approach these matters in a slightly more considered way than responding to flashes of inspiration from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman has had not a bad idea, and I have tried to be responsive to the broad thrust of his observation. However, he cannot expect me to make policy on the hoof, even though we are impressed by the ideas that flow from him in such a fecund fashion.
      I return to the point that I was evidently so laboriously trying to make. I was saying that we had hoped to make the provision within existing conventions by allowing the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to act as a paying agent for other Government Departments. That has not proved to be possible. Therefore, to establish a clear power for DETR to make payments on a permanent basis, new clause 7 introduces a different arrangement from that set out in clause 37.
      New clause 7 is purely a mechanism to allow the funds to be channelled efficiently to any future partnerships through the one Department. In so doing, it allows the funding mechanism for speed limit and traffic signal enforcement to be established as simply and effectively as possible. I stress that the scope of the clause is limited entirely to funding enforcement activity that is associated only with speed limit and traffic signal violations.
      Mr. Chidgey: Further to my previous intervention, the Minister will accept that I am generally supportive of the ambitions of the clause. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman provided a little more detail in relation to the national programme that will be funded as he has described. What specific difference will it make to existing plans within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to extend the programme of speed cameras? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate what amount of revenue—or funding, if he so wishes—will be raised in addition to what would otherwise have been budgeted for in the Department's capital programme? What impact does the Minister think the scheme will have?
      Mr. Hill: First, the Government take these matters step by step. We implement experimental or pilot schemes to ascertain whether ideas are sustainable. In this instance, given the success of the pilot schemes they evidently are. Secondly, we roll out the legislation so that the measures can be applied nationally, recognising that that is likely to produce desirable results.
      Within the framework that we are debating, we shall proceed in conjunction with local authorities to work out a detailed scheme of support and allocation of resource so that there can be a significant change in local arrangements. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. It seems it does, given his assent from a sedentary position.

      233
      If clause 37 is to be replaced, there need to be some minor amendments to the schedule to reflect that. These can be seen in amendments Nos. 46 to 54.
      We have debated both on Second Reading and in Committee the principle of the netting-off procedure for safety camera operation. I believe I am right in saying that there is a consensus that it is right and sensible, in the context of improving road safety and reducing the risk of accidents, to press ahead to make netting-off for speed and traffic signal enforcement available nationally. Indeed, in tabling amendment No. 26 to expand the netting-off procedure to cover careless, dangerous and drink or drug driving, the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and for Colchester clearly demonstrate that general support for this road safety measure is evident in the House.
      I fully recognise that the proposed Opposition amendment is well intentioned, but in this context it is not appropriate, for reasons that I shall set out. The netting-off process is to be applied only to specific fixed-penalty offences. It was decided at the outset that the scheme would be limited to fixed-penalty offences, and the pilot schemes are proceeding on that basis. Some of the receipts from the penalties will be invested in greater enforcement activity, which will continue to put road safety first.
      However, more complex cases outside the fixed-penalty procedure are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. We maintain strongly that those cases are not to be included because courts may appear vulnerable to the charge that penalties were set in individual cases for reasons of wider monetary pressures, rather than in the interests of justice and the income of the individual. The amendment includes some serious offences that can be dealt with only by court appearance and, following conviction, would result in mandatory disqualification and perhaps even a custodial sentence. Fixed penalties are certainly not appropriate for those offences.
      The House will be aware that the Government are currently addressing the wider issue by conducting a review of penalties for the main road traffic offences, including drink and drug-driving, careless driving and dangerous driving. Its purpose is to consider whether the current maximum penalties remain appropriate, and to ensure that any proposed changes to penalties that we may wish to make are consistent within the whole sentencing framework.
      For the reasons that I have given, it is right that the clause should be limited to netting off fixed-penalty revenue to fund speed and traffic light violation enforcement and is not suitable for expansion into other areas. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Lichfield will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
      I now turn to new clause 5, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and others, which is legally defective. It is headed,
      "Abandoned Vehicles: payments to local authorities"
      and its references to sections are unsourced and make no sense in the context of the Bill, clause 2 of which refers only to the registration of salvage operators. There is no "section 2(1)(a) above" as the amendment states. It is possible that those who tabled the amendment had in mind
      234
      the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, which makes it an offence to abandon a vehicle in a public place and obliges the local authority to remove such vehicles in certain circumstances.
      The amendment seeks to allow the Secretary of State to make payments to local authorities for the purpose of removing abandoned vehicles, provided that the payments do not exceed the value of fines imposed for abandoning them. That would be an additional resource for the collection of abandoned vehicles. Of course, we understand the extent of concern about abandoned vehicles, and agree that the problem must be tackled. In fact, it was raised on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). However, we do not agree that the amendment would provide the practical solution that it seeks. In particular, it does not take account of the work of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the police.
      Mr. Bob Russell: If that is not a practical way forward, will the Minister indicate what measures the Government have in mind to take action against that growing problem?
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was coming on to set out those precise measures.
      As I have said, we are keen to tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles, which are an eyesore and cause considerable concern to the public. They are also dangerous. I well remember a pupil at a Glasgow school at which my wife once taught who died after playing with an abandoned vehicle and dropping a lighted match into the petrol tank. There was an explosion and the child was killed. It is because of such cases that it is important to deal with the issue.
      7.15 pm
      We are watching closely a pilot scheme in Medway, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford is involved and which is partly funded by the DVLA. The scheme was due to begin on 22 January, and I understand from my hon. Friend that it has already made a promising start. I rather think that we will hear more from him, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the mean time, I want to put on the record my tribute to my hon. Friend for his personal contribution to initiating that important scheme.
      Abandoned vehicles are usually untaxed and, under the scheme, untaxed vehicles will be wheel-clamped by one of DVLA's contractors—Sureway—and, if they are not taxed within 24 hours, will be removed to one of two car pounds and disposed of after 35 days. The pilot is a multi-agency approach to the problem and, if successful, could be used in other areas. There will be no advance publicity associated with the scheme: the aim is to deliver a short, sharp shock to the owners of unlicensed vehicles and force them to relicense. A number of abandoned vehicles will also be caught in the net.
      Mr. Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether that scheme involves recouping the costs of disposing of those vehicles? The experience in my local authority, which is spending about £160,000 a year on the disposal of abandoned vehicles, is that, when the owners are approached, they say that they have sold the vehicle to a person in the pub or somewhere, but that he or she

      235
      has not come to pick it up. They are literally discarding their vehicles on the roadside and leaving it to others, through their council tax, to pay for their disposal. Unless a penalty is involved, that practice will continue.
      Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right: the disposal of abandoned vehicles is enormously costly to local authorities—both those like my own authority of Lambeth which is almost adjacent to my hon. Friend's authority, and others nationally. The problem is enormously expensive and the Government are certainly looking at costs as we review the issue of abandoned vehicles—a matter in which I personally take a close interest as a Minister. My hon. Friend's observation is therefore taken very seriously.
      To return briefly to the Medway pilot scheme, we hope its evaluation will provide us with solutions that we can introduce nationally, some of which may require legislative changes in their own right. In the light of his observation, may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) that it seems more sensible to consider all possible legislative changes as a whole in due course? In addition, on the horizon is the vehicles (end-of-life) directive which seeks to make provision for the collection and environmentally sound destruction, or recovery and re-use, of vehicles that have outlived their usefulness. We are currently looking at how best to implement the directive which will, we hope, tackle the problem that the amendment seeks to address. In the meantime, for the extremely cogent reasons that I have advanced, I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will agree not to press his new clause.
      Mr. Bercow: There has been a remarkable change of heart on the part of the Government. Of itself, that is not necessarily to be regretted or deplored, but the extent to which, at this relatively late stage in the consideration of the Bill, Ministers seem uncertain about the means by which to achieve their objective is scant reassurance to the rest of the House, the affected industries and, indeed, the wider public.
      Despite the fact that the Minister must have been considerably embarrassed about that about-turn, he did his best to camouflage it and presented a difficult case with his usual vigour and alacrity. However, there is a big change on the Government's part. Previously, they thought that the arrangement was fine and, only 10 days or so ago, they were commending their planned intentions to the Standing Committee. Now, it seems, there has been a turf war, from which the Home Office—the lead Department dealing with the Bill—has, not surprisingly, emerged victorious. Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns about the Government's position on the proposal to finance a wide-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras.
      The main concern that my hon. Friends and I have, which we explained in Committee and which was not convincingly answered, is that the proposal is far less a road safety measure than it is a tax-raising device. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) takes a different view. Not surprisingly, in view of past experience, he ended up a few moments ago disagreeing with himself, though he was probably unaware of it. That is a curious state of affairs. Hon. Members often disagree with each other across the House, and it is not entirely unprecedented for
      236
      members of the same party to disagree with each other, but it is very strange for a Member of Parliament to disagree with himself, and it is even more curious—I dare go so far as to suggest that it is unprecedented—for an hon. Member unknowingly to disagree with himself. That, unfortunately, is the situation in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself.
      Mr. Bob Russell: I seek clarification from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Will he support new clause 7 or will he divide the House?
      Mr. Bercow: There are other matters on which there might be Divisions, and the hon. Gentleman, who has a natural and well-developed inquisitiveness, must await developments. I am not prepared to tell him now when we might have a vote. [Interruption.] No, I am not disagreeing with myself. I am simply telling the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that I understand his curiosity, but I assure the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) that I am not yet ready to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity.
      As will become clear to hon. Members, my hon. Friends and I do not approve of new clause 7. We approve of new clause 5—not surprisingly, as it is ours. Let me be specific. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston had something of a tantrum a moment ago when I accused him of disagreeing with himself, and started insulting me from a sedentary position. I know that he has considerable knowledge of much legislation, and I respect that knowledge. However, people who are very knowledgeable can often be wrong-headed, and the hon. Gentleman is wrong-headed.
      I shall explain why I accuse the hon. Gentleman of internal inconsistency and disagreement with himself. He asked the Minister in an intervention to confirm that all the proceeds of fines would have to be spent on road safety measures, for if that were not done, it would effectively defy the will of the House. In other words, any moneys raised would have to be spent on road safety measures. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was not being cynical. Whatever his other failings and merits, I have not accused him of being cynical. I assume that he was saying not just that money raised from fines would be spent only on road safety measures, but that all money raised from fines would be spent on road safety measures, and that it would not be appropriate, for example, to use the money to reduce interest charges that the Government might face. Not only could the money not be spent on another public policy, such as purchasing hospital equipment, but it could not be spent to satisfy another obligation, such as reducing a debt. All of it would have to be spent on road safety measures.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting to the Minister—it was so clear that none could doubt or gainsay it—that the Government would ring-fence the funds. The Minister speedily responded and accepted that. He said yes, he thought that that was the intention. Thus the hon. Gentleman suggested ring-fencing, and the Minister took him up on it and said yes. I challenge the Minister to confirm that the ring-fencing would apply, if not in every year without fail—errors occur, and there can be a mismatch in one year or another—at least over the five-year period of a Parliament or, in view of the way in which the Government apparently intend to cut and run, over the expected four-year term of a Parliament.

      237
      At that point, the predictable confidence and remarkable assurance that the Minister usually displays in the delivery of his arguments immediately deserted him. All of a sudden, he retreated into a combination of the evasive and the coy. Now, I am very fond of the Minister. After all, he was my constituent when I was a young councillor in the London borough of Lambeth some years ago. We used to chat on the bus on which he travelled home, so we have always had good relations. I have the highest regard both for his integrity and for his debating skills. However, when he gets into difficulty, he waffles. When he does not know the answer, he becomes evasive. When he is severely under pressure, he says to the House, "Oh, but I am just a junior Minister. This is not a matter for me. I obviously cannot commit my senior, distinguished and highly respected right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will get into frightful difficulty if I do."
      All that I was challenging the Minister to do was to confirm that, if the funds are to be ring-fenced, they will all be spent on road safety measures over a five-year period. All that I required from him was an answer in the affirmative or the negative. Instead, I got a circumlocutory evasion. That was not good enough.
      Mr. Miller rose—
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston thinks that he is about to enlighten the House, so of course I give way to him.
      Mr. Miller: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Will he put on record how much he estimates needs to be spent on road safety schemes in his constituency, and what the shortfall is between that and current Government expenditure plans?
      Mr. Bercow: That is a fascinating challenge, but I shall be honest and tell the hon. Gentleman that off the top of my head I do not have the square root of a clue. If he would find it a stimulating and enjoyable experience to correspond on the subject, because there is a genuine public interest at stake or he wants to pursue an important debating point with me, I should be happy to correspond with him.
      I accept that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair challenge. He is right that, off the top of my head, I do not know the answer. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I receive regular requests for support for particular schemes, and I lobby vigorously on behalf of those that I think are in the public interest. I do not know what the figures are, but seriously, I would be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman. Moreover, I accept the thinking underlying his intervention: that much work needs to be done to improve road safety.
      What I found in Committee, as my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and—if she were present, which sadly she is not—for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) would testify, was one of those rare but striking occasions on which not only did Government and Opposition Members disagree about speed cameras, but there was almost blank incomprehension of each other's position. It is certainly fair to say that of the
      238
      Government's attitude to us. The Government seemed to think that using fines for the purpose of the massive roll-out of speed cameras would be a thoroughly good thing, that it would obviously be effective, and that only the most bizarre specimen could possible oppose it.
      The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston nods to confirm that. [Interruption.] He rather impolitely spoils his point by saying from a sedentary position that the odd individual whom he has in mind is none other than yours truly. The trouble with that point is that it would apply if I were speaking only for myself, but, as 1 hope he will accept, I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition.
      We believe that there is a degree of disingenuousness in the Government's plans, because they are not prepared to pledge that all the funds will be spent on road safety measures, and that the Government are in error in distorting by over-emphasis. They exaggerate the significance of speed, important consideration though it is, and the cost-effectiveness of a large-scale roll-out of additional speed cameras, as against various other causes of road accidents and possible means by which to address those problems.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as road safety is in need of major investment across the country, any revenues generated by speed camera fines should be in addition to what is provided by the Exchequer, not a replacement for it?
      Mr. Bercow: Liberal-Conservative alliances are rare in this Parliament, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for providing ballast to my argument. He is right to make that point, and he probably would not have to do so if the Government had confirmed more explicitly that all the money would be spent on road safety, and that that money would be in addition to, not instead of, other moneys. I think that the hon. Gentleman is hinting, in his understated and polite fashion—and, in my slightly less understated and polite fashion, I am happy to take up the hint—that the Government have an appalling record on so-called additionality.
      7.30 pm
      I know that you are familiar with the concept of additionality, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have heard you expatiate on it in relation to Suffolk matters. The concept relates to whether Government spending is additional to, or a substitute for, what would otherwise be spent. Ordinarily, such argument arises in the context of lottery funding, but I shall not animadvert on that subject now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you would probably get cross if I did so. I would not want that to happen as we approach the dinner hour of some hon. Members.
      None the less, the hon. Member for Colchester made a fair point. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the funds are additional to any other funds that might be spent? That is a fair challenge. [Interruption.] I wish that I could have heard the sedentary observation made by the Minister of State, Home Office, as I might have been tempted to reply.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made an observation about dinner, and I remarked that the presence of only one Back-Bench Conservative Member suggested that the Opposition were

      239
      more keen to eat dinner than to participate in the debate in the manner that the hon. Gentleman described during consideration of the programme motion.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who can never resist an opportunity to point score—something that I never do, as he well knows. All that I can say in response is that I have no intention of going to dinner, although he would probably prefer me to do so. Apart from anything else, I am anxious to retain whatever element of a trim figure I currently possess. I am much more interested in discharging my obligations on Report and Third Reading than I am in consuming whatever the estimable House of Commons Refreshment Department has to offer.
      As I have tried to emphasise, the Opposition are anxious that the Government are attaching a disproportionate significance to speed and that they are not attaching enough importance to other forms of dangerous driving. I know that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston disagrees with that argument. His views will doubtless be informed or reinforced by his constituency experience, so I assure him that I am speaking not off the top of my head, but on the basis of representations made to me by my own constituents. I say in all sincerity that such representations have been made to a number of Opposition Members. I find it inconceivable that they have not been made to Labour Members also.
      Perhaps the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston does not agree with the validity of my point. He might think that the only people who make such observations spend their time driving around at extraordinary speeds. However, a lot of people feel that many accidents are caused by dangerous and inconsiderate driving. It is not true to argue that such driving consists exclusively of excessive speed.
      Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the clear evidence to show that decreasing car speed from 30 mph to 20 mph reduces by 60 per cent. the injuries caused in crashes involving children?
      Mr. Bercow: Yes. I have heard that point before and I know that it is correct. The hon. Gentleman's comments support the view that we should try to clamp down on speeding. I accept that view, but it does not mean that tackling speeding is the only method by which one should seek to improve road safety and reduce the number of accidents.
      Mr. Miller: I agree.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on that point and accept that speeding is not the only form of dangerous driving. We must therefore make a judgment on whether it is wise to use all the proceeds of fines for the exclusive purpose of extending dramatically the number of speed cameras throughout the United Kingdom. Although the spending of some money on that purpose might be justified, I am politely suggesting to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think it proportionate or wise to devote all of it—if, indeed, that is what the Government will do in practice.
      Mr. Fabricant: On speeding, is my hon. Friend aware of the good work done by the hon. Member for Newport,
      240
      West (Mr. Flynn) on bull bars? That work has my wholehearted support. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke about statistics on the killing of children at speeds of 30 mph and 20 mph, but is my hon. Friend aware that a child who is hit at head level by a bull bar—we should bear in mind that bull bars are usually fitted for cosmetic purposes—can be killed by a vehicle travelling at only 4 mph?
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. I was aware of the potential damage that bull bars can do, although I did not know about the important work done by the hon. Member for Newport, West. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlightening me on that point.
      Conservative and Labour Members must agree to differ, both on the rationale for proposals to use fines for the funding of speed cameras and on their likely implementation. I refer to likely implementation as it is not clear whether the Government intend to stick in practice to the principles of ring fencing and total expenditure of fine proceeds on speed cameras, even though those are the principles that they appear to avow to the House.
      We disagree not only about that point, but about payments to local authorities in respect of the obligation to secure the removal of abandoned vehicles. I should like to deal briefly with this matter, as the Minister of State and I disagreed about it in Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) also disagreed with me. I listened with respect to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as I know that he is attending closely to the pilot scheme in his area, but I was fairly unfazed by his comments on a multi-agency approach. Although I always listen to him with interest. I thought that the frequent restating of the need for a multi-agency approach was a substitute for a policy rather than proof of one.
      Mr. Heald: In due course.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly indicates that the approach is still for the future. We are not even getting multi-agency co-operation now; it is to occur in the far-distant yonder. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford seems excited, so I shall give way to him.
      Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am not that excited, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he wants facts rather than proposals—that is my interpretation of his remarks—he should know about the pilot that has started in the Medway towns. It brings together the DVLA, the police, the fire brigade and the local authority. The Medway towns now have a minority Conservative-led administration, so no partisan point is at stake for me. However, he might like to know that, before the pilot began, on average, four abandoned and untaxed vehicles were removed each week from the streets of the Medway towns. Within the first week of the pilot, however, between 50 and 60 vehicles were removed. If he is talking about the proof of the pudding, he should know that the pilots are certainly working.

      241
      They are bringing together the powers of all the agencies by introducing the proposal that I described in Committee. I think that that proposal will work.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He speaks as a constituency Member of Parliament and I do not seek to gainsay him, but I point out that it would not be right to prejudge the outcome at this early stage. He will accept that it is only on the conclusion of a pilot, when all the evidence has been considered and submitted—this applies also to the public and other inquiries of which we currently hear so much—that one can draw a conclusion about likely effects.
      Mr. Shaw rose—
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He knows that I am usually happy to do so, but I want to make progress.
      I was a little disappointed that the Minister of State cavilled at our references. As he knows perfectly well from Standing Committee debates, the Opposition grounded our proposal on the requirements of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Under that Act, it is already an offence to abandon a vehicle in any place in the open air, and fines of up to £2,500 can be levied for such an offence.
      A recent Royal Automobile Club survey found that between 150 and 200 cars were being abandoned each month in Islington alone. We must do something to tackle that problem. Although the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was enthusiastic about how to deal with it in Medway or Chatham and Aylesford, he seemed baleful—nay, doleful—about the prospects of achieving progress elsewhere. Indeed, he suggested that pessimism was his middle name. He said that nothing could be done, that it was too much to expect, that the funds could not be provided, that local authorities would not deliver and that it was all very unfair. He suggested that we had to reconcile ourselves to huge numbers of abandoned vehicles while the Government engaged in a feeble display of collective hand-wringing.
      Mr. Shaw: It is gracious of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He mentioned the Medway scheme earlier, and said that it was wrong to prejudge a pilot. Do not his proposals prejudge what local authorities will be able to collect? As I advised him in Committee, officers from Kent county council and Medway council, which are both Conservative authorities, advised me that 90 per cent. of abandoned vehicles were untraceable.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the significance of financial constraint as a means of halting or retarding the progress of local authorities in tackling abandoned vehicles. Our proposal is based on our belief that assistance is required. The hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Opposition of anticipating or second-guessing the pilot scheme. I disagree, because the approach that he commends—the final results of which we will be made aware of—need not be incompatible with the simultaneous pursuit of the national policy that the Conservative Opposition recommend. Let a thousand lights burn; let a variety of approaches be adopted, and
      242
      let the availability of resources that we recommend be a staple feature of the policy. Councils will then have the resources to discharge their obligations.
      We developed the arguments clearly in Committee. I was sorry that the Minister and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford were so unenthusiastic, because I believe that many people who live in areas where abandoned vehicles multiply by the day look to the Government to take decisive action. We recommend such action, but the Government resist it. We believe that we are right and that they are wrong.
      Mr. Miller: New clause 7 grants a clear set of powers. They are welcome, especially to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who have had the unfortunate responsibility of dealing with constituents who have lost a loved one through a road crash.
      I have persistently and consistently nagged the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on the matters that we are discussing. They therefore know that I believe strongly that we need to do much more about road safety. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that much wider measures are required. I want local authorities to use more widely their powers to reduce speed limits in urban estates. I support better driver education and more rigorous enforcement of the regulations that govern the substances that people may have consumed. I have discussed with the British Medical Association a range of ethical matters that relate to drivers who are hospitalised after causing a crash. Many issues need to be tackled.
      I am especially pleased that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are present. They accept that Parliament and the Government have a responsibility for dealing with those matters, even though some aspects are not popular with the public. That is shown by the failure of the hon. Member for Buckingham to support new clause 7 although he supports the removal of clause 37. Of course, people who believe themselves to be good drivers—we all do when we are behind the wheel of a tonne of steel—are frustrated if they come across too many lights. However, they are there for the good reason that speed kills. The evidence is unequivocal; a reduction in speed causes a reduction in deaths and serious injury.
      7.45 pm
      As a result of much work, some of which I have mentioned, I want us to reach a position whereby the new clause becomes defunct. In an ideal world, we would educate our drivers, develop vehicle safety, road design and other aspects to the point where such technology became unnecessary. The hon. Member for Buckingham asked about the figures in five years and whether they would be balanced. I should like us to reach a point, through a wide range of measures, where the Government of the day—I am sure that my hon. Friends will remain on the Front Bench—can decide that the provision has achieved its objective and begin to devise other methods of using the resources.
      The new clause has revenue implications, and I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that the provision should not create a revenue-raising power. That is why I

      243
      probed my hon. Friend the Minister through an amendment to ascertain whether any revenue would be used for road safety measures. My hon. Friend confirmed that in Committee and today.
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman spoke of an ideal world in which road safety measures would be so successful that awful accidents would not happen. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that if the national programme for speed cameras is so successful that the number of offences is significantly reduced, the revenue will also be reduced? There is a law of diminishing returns. I am seriously worried about the ability to continue supporting the programme.
      Mr. Miller: If we considered that argument in isolation, the hon. Gentleman would be right. However, when we take all aspects of death on the road into account he is wrong. It has been estimated that every death costs approximately £1 million. The hon. Member for Colchester agrees with that. We must consider the overall figure. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) presents an intellectual challenge, but he must consider the issue in the round.
      A point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham sums up the difference between the Government and the official Opposition on the issues that we are considering. In debates on previous clauses, the hon. Gentleman described victims of vehicle crimes as potentially suffering emotional scars. I do not disagree with his view, but I should like him to say that he understands and commits himself to dealing with those who suffer more serious emotional scars after losing loved ones.
      Mr. Bercow indicated assent.
      Mr. Miller: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. It is vital for the House to take a lead with policies that are unpopular with the wider public. People do not like speed cameras, but when they consider the full facts, they take a different view. The Government have got the new clause exactly right. It will provide another opportunity for the relevant authorities to maintain the pressure on road safety. I hope that, with the many other matters that the House must continue to tackle, the provision will contribute to a reduction in the approximately 3,000 deaths that occur on our roads every year.
      Mr. Bob Russell: It is an honour for me to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), whose record on tackling the question of road deaths and crashes I admire. I concur with the points that he made.
      I am disappointed that Conservative Members do not intend to force a Division on the new clause. Their language suggested that they were opposed to the new clause—or at least parts of it—yet they will not oppose it. In a way, I ought to be pleased that they will not, but there is nevertheless a conflict between their language and the lack of a Division.
      I am also disappointed with the Government for not making it clear that all the moneys generated by the fines will be spent on road safety in the broadest sense. They are missing the opportunity to deal with road safety in the round by narrowing the proposal down to include only
      244
      speed cameras. I suggest that speed bumps in the vicinity of a school are a more effective road safety device than speed cameras.
      The Government could have done more to spell out whether the money generated by the provisions of the new clause will be available in addition to what is currently spent. That was not said, and when something is not said, a degree of uncertainty can emerge concerning the Government's intentions.
      Will the Minister give us a definition of a speed camera? Two kinds of camera could be described as income generators, in that their use can result in a fine—fixed cameras, and hand-held radar equipment. Recently, in a village in Cambridgeshire, I saw a different type of speed camera, whose use does not result in an offending motorist being fined. About two years ago, on the M25 in Kent, I saw a speed camera which flashed up a sign to inform drivers that they were breaking the speed limit. In the case of the camera in Cambridgeshire, if a car—or any other vehicle—exceeded the 30 mph speed limit, a sign flashed up "30 mph".
      I understand, however, that the downside to those devices is that some motorists have been tempted to drive at speed to activate them. I suggest that we need a hybrid speed camera. If the object of the exercise is to reduce road deaths and improve road safety, rather than to generate income, we should ensure that vehicles do not speed in the first place. We need speed cameras that warn drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit. If they continued to do so, they would deserve a hefty fine, because they would have progressed from a yellow card to a red card, to use football terminology.
      I urge the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and those who are gifted in the design and development of such technology to ascertain whether it would be possible to develop a speed camera that was both a warning device and a means of imposing a penalty.
      Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend stirs the imagination with his concepts of developing the technology of speed cameras. Has it occurred to him that making speed cameras more visible might provide a greater deterrent? Perhaps they might attract attention more readily—and instil some caution into the motorists approaching them—if they were bright, fluorescent yellow, to continue my hon. Friend's football analogy.
      Mr. Russell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. Speed cameras are at present a nice grey, which blends into the street scene.
      There is no excuse for motorists speeding. The object of the exercise must be to reduce the speed of vehicles and the number of accidents. We know that 3,500 people are killed on our roads each year, and that the number of people injured runs to hundreds of thousands. We also know the cost to the public purse of all those road accidents. Surely it makes sense to prevent the speeding and the accidents from happening in the first place.
      I agree with hon. Members who said that there must be a culture change. I was not helped when I received a letter from an organisation called the Association of British Drivers bearing the sub-heading "Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe driving", which states:
      "Unfortunately, the Speed Kills dogma … has the exact opposite effect".

      245
      I wonder what the Minister has to say about that.
      I draw the House's attention to a worthy publication called Essex Safety Cameras, which contains the latest news about the Essex partnership and pilot schemes. If any hon. Members have not yet received a copy, I am sure that Essex county council, the Essex police or the Essex magistrates will be happy to provide them with one. The publication spells out the success of the pilot scheme, and if anyone needs to be convinced, they should read it.
      The Association of British Drivers has a different view, however. It tells me:
      "Councils such as Essex have a deliberate policy of preventing both drivers and professional highway engineers from deciding what is a safe speed to travel at. Instead, completely unqualified local residents can choose, based on nothing but their own prejudices."
      I find such comments regrettable in the extreme.
      Speed is a contributory factor in many road deaths and road accidents. We do not know precise figures. If the Bill results in just one death being prevented, it will be worth while. However, I believe that it will result in many deaths and serious accidents being prevented. I therefore urge the House to support it. I also ask the Minister to consider incorporating a proposal that every penny generated by the new system should be spent on road safety in the broadest sense, in addition to moneys already earmarked for the purpose.
      Mr. Efford: I want briefly to raise one or two points with my hon. Friend the Minister. I accept all the arguments about road safety, but I want to concentrate on the issue of abandoned vehicles, which is dealt with in this group of clauses.
      I accept my hon. Friend's point about the flaws that may exist in new clause 5, but I want to raise the point about the cost to local authorities of dealing with abandoned vehicles. My hon. Friend said that the Bill would restrict its focus to fixed penalties. Abandoned vehicles attract fixed penalties. While we are dealing with issues such as vehicle registration, it would not require a giant leap to add not only the issue of speeding but that of abandoning vehicles by the roadside.
      8 pm
      The scrap value of such vehicles has disappeared, which is why we are experiencing this problem. Disposing of a vehicle properly costs money so perhaps we should ask vehicle manufacturers to cover the cost of disposal. Furthermore, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency cannot pursue an individual who has disposed of a vehicle on the roadside. It may ask, "Is this your vehicle? You are the last registered owner," but that person may reply, "No, I have sold it to somebody else—it is no longer mine." Even though the vehicle may be parked outside that person's house, the DVLA can do nothing about it.
      I have pursued the issue with my local authority, which assures me that that is the case, but it is surprising that the DVLA has no power to pursue the last registered owner if that person states that he no longer owns the vehicle, even though he may not have returned the log book with a new owner's name on it or taken some such step. There are regulations in place that would allow the DVLA to pursue such individuals, but we must place the responsibility to
      246
      deregister a vehicle on the person disposing of it. We must impose strictures on the last owner, who should remain responsible for the vehicle—and, therefore, responsible for its disposal—until another person is registered as the owner.
      Up and down the country, and in London in particular, council tax payers and local authorities face the huge expense involved in disposing of vehicles abandoned on the kerbside, and there are no comebacks on those who deny that they own such vehicles. There are more powers to deal with someone who disposes of litter on the street than with someone who disposes of a vehicle. Abandoned vehicles can be extremely dangerous as well as inconvenient and costly to the public purse.
      I want to put my views on record and stress to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there is an urgent need to take action. Abandoned vehicles represent a huge cost to the taxpayer and an enormous problem that will not go away unless we give powers to impose a cost on those who dispose of their vehicles in such a way.
      Mr. Fabricant: Certain expressions come to mind when one thinks of the new Labour Government—hit the ground running, the people's Parliament, the people's dome and joined-up government, for example—but the new clause reveals not joined-up government, but turf wars between Ministers. Government amendment No. 43 will delete clause 37; it will be replaced by new clause 7. However, I shall speak to amendment No. 26, which stands in my name and, I am delighted and slightly embarrassed to say, that of the Liberal Democrats in the form of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who served with us in Committee, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who, like me, is one of the seven chartered engineers who are Members of the House. It is always worth plugging that issue.
      I listened to the argument presented by the Under-Secretary as to why the Government would not support my amendment, which and I must confess is a probing amendment that highlights certain issues that the British Motorcyclists Federation and I want to be known. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, under clause 37 and new clause 7, income derived from speed and traffic light cameras will be ring-fenced for road safety. We approve of that. However, we have tabled our amendment for a simple reason.
      Under proposed new subsection (5) clause 37, speed and traffic light cameras will deal with the speed of vehicles, contraventions of restrictions on the speed of vehicles, temporary minimum speed limits, speeding offences generally and traffic light signals; but perhaps that sends the wrong message as to the cause of road traffic accidents, and I shall refer to analysis carried out by a number of institutions.
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that time is short because of the programme motion. I shall not be making a speech so I am grateful to him for accepting my intervention. Does he recall that the Minister said that extending the offences relating to the amendment beyond speeding would introduce a distortion of justice in terms of the penalties inflicted? When he argues that moneys raised should be spread wider in terms

      247
      of road safety, will he address the point on which I sadly did not receive a satisfactory answer from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port (Mr. Miller)?
      Mr. Stephen Pound: Ellesmere Port and Neston.
      Mr. Chidgey: Somebody from somewhere, from a sedentary position, reminds me not to forget Neston.
      Does the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) accept that, notwithstanding the overall cost of accidents to the economy, as such schemes become more effective and motorists become more law abiding in respect of speed, revenues, by definition, will fall? Consequently, there will be less money for such schemes.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman shows an engineer's logic, if I may say so. [Interruption.] A chartered engineer's logic, absolutely.
      Mr. Chidgey: A fellow, even.
      Mr. Fabricant: A fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers, I believe. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman displays sound logic. If the implementation of speed cameras is effective, there will be fewer offences and, therefore, less income. That makes one wonder whether there will be sufficient money for road safety programmes. One could go on with the argument and say that if there were no accidents one would not need a road safety programme, because the roads would be safe. I guess that everyone would like to achieve that.
      To bring the House back to the amendment, I point out that considerable analysis has been undertaken of the characteristics of urban motor cycle accidents. They rarely have anything to do with speed. Keith Booth, of Modern Analytical Studies, Rochford, Essex, has done an analysis showing that 62 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles, mopeds and scooters were primarily caused by other road user groups.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: No, simply because we have to move on. There will be a vote at 8.30—
      Mr. Heald: Oh!
      Mr. Fabricant: I suspect that there will be a vote. We must at least end consideration on Report at 8.30 because of the draconian conditions laid down by the Government. I want to move on quickly to say that 50 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles were caused by car drivers, 10 per cent. by pedestrians and fewer than 1 per cent. each by pedal cyclists, buses and coaches and heavy goods vehicles. Other causes—for example, animals running into the road—accounted for 3 per cent. while 35 per cent. were caused by motor cyclists, of whom 30 per cent. were on motor cycles and 5 per cent. on mopeds and scooters.
      Any motor cyclist will say that motor cyclists have to drive carefully. A driver of a four-wheel vehicle will barely notice the small bounce as he goes over a pothole.
      248
      However, the rider of a motor cycle would be likely to fall off, causing considerable injury and considerable expense to the rider.
      It is often the car driver who causes the accident. He may be executing a quick turn from the left or right, and, not looking in the rear-view mirror, he may not notice the motor cyclist. Motor cyclists tend to be rather safe on the roads, and the fact that a large percentage of them are involved in road accidents should not lead people to believe that they are causing accidents. In fact, car drivers are the main cause of motor cycle accidents.
      According to Whitaker, Hurt and others, and according to "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998", motor cyclists emerge badly, by comparison with other drivers, from the DETR's annual survey of drivers' observance of speed limits. However, Whitaker estimated that the speed of impact of the motor cycle in 93 per cent. of the 425 accidents in his British sample was under 40 mph, and that in 75 per cent. it was under 30 mph. My point is that accidents involving motor cyclists do not necessarily involve speed.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Some do.
      Mr. Fabricant: That is true.
      Mr. Pound: And most do not.
      Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, most do not. I am not sure of the statistic that the hon. Gentleman is using, but we should not belittle him for saying that. An obsession with speed on its own is a distortion of reality—a distortion of the truth.
      Perhaps the most interesting findings were those of Carsten and others in 1989 with regard to careless driving. They were that
      "At the top-high level, major driver/rider factors were 'failure to anticipate'… or unable to anticipate…and 'failure to yield at junctions'".
      That is plain bad driving; it has nothing to do with speeding.
      As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, and as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the speed of a vehicle can of course kill, but the design of the vehicle will also affect its ability to kill. When a bull bar is fitted to a car or a four-wheel drive vehicle merely as a cosmetic device, that too can be a major contributory factor in the creation of a killing machine.
      I am very conscious of the time. I am also very conscious of the draconian timetable set by the Government, and of the many other groups of new clauses and amendments that we wish to discuss. I shall therefore not press amendment No. 26 to a vote. I accept the Minister's point that if the issues raised in the amendment were included in the clause, pressure might be put on magistrates and juries to apply fines rather than disqualification or imprisonment. I hope, however, that the House has noted that speed is not the only issue, and that motor cyclists get rather a raw deal.
      Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for not pressing his amendment to a vote. He made a well-informed speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and

      249
      for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I am sure the House will agree, however, that we heard especially serious, expert and indeed creative contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), both of whom are distinguished members of RoadPeace. I am extremely glad that we have now heard the speech from the hon. Member for Colchester of which he was cheated in Committee.
      8.15 pm
      In our earlier exchanges, I remarked with a degree of awe on the fecundity and fertility of the mind of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I fear, however, that fecundity and fertility have now fallen into fantasy. It is preposterous to describe the provisions that we propose as a tax. New clause 7 provides for the money raised by fines to be used by local authorities for traffic matters. There is no taxation here. After all, the fines go into the coffers of central Government now. The provision is not a tax, but a penalty for an offence. Drivers who keep to the speed limits will not be affected; only those who break the law will be penalised.
      As with so many road traffic measures—for instance, those to enforce bus lanes—we are dealing with the encouragement of compliance. We expect the number of fixed-penalty offences to fall as more drivers reduce their speed and observe traffic light directions: the Eastleigh proposition, in other words. We believe that fewer fixed-penalty notices will be issued, with a corresponding decrease in the amount of receipts. Increased compliance will also reduce the number of casualties. This will mean lower costs for the motoring community, and safer roads.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Madam Deputy Speaker(Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The Question is, that all remaining—I am sorry; we now come to new clause 2.

    New Clause 2

      IDENTIFYING MARKS ON VEHICLES
      It shall be an offence for any person

      (a) to be in possession of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which does not show a valid identifying mark, or

      (b) to deface, remove or otherwise alter or attempt to alter a valid vehicle identifying mark;

      and for the purposes of this Act a valid identifying mark shall be those numbers, letters or combination thereof marked on or affixed to the vehicle by the original manufacturer for the purpose of identification and so registered in the registration documents issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or such other agency as shall be responsible for such registration.'. —[Mr. Chidgey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I thought for a moment that I was about to be airbrushed out of the debate, cut off in my prime—and what a prime to be cut off in!
      250
      New clause 2 deals with the problem of identification of motor vehicles. Specifically, it proposes that it should be an offence for any person
      "to be in possession of a motor vehicle or motorcycle which does not show a valid identifying mark",
      or
      "to deface, remove or otherwise alter or attempt to alter a valid vehicle identifying mark".
      A key issue throughout the Bill's perambulations has been the traceability of stolen vehicles. Concern about that has been shared by members of all parties. In Committee, we had a number of detailed debates about how the Bill would help to strengthen the audit trail of vehicles and their parts, especially in the case of vehicles that were stolen and broken up so that their spare parts could be sold illegally. The new clause is intended to strengthen that audit trail by improving identification of vehicles: the onus would be placed on the purchaser of a vehicle to ensure that it bore an appropriate identification mark.
      The new clause is particularly relevant to motor cycles. I am sure that Ministers will be familiar with—indeed, will have read avidly—a 1998 Home Office publication entitled "Nought to Nowhere in five Seconds—a guide to motorcycle security". It is not an election manifesto from any party that I would wish to name. [Interruption.] That publication—with which, as he has acknowledged from a sedentary position, the Minister is intimately familiar—stated that in the past three years, meaning from 1995 to 1998—
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the title of the work—"Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds"—is an abbreviated history of the Liberal Democrats?
      Mr. Chidgey: I really should not have given the Minister that opportunity, but my generosity clearly knows no bounds. He will know that when I quoted that title, in my own mind I was thinking of the official Opposition. However, unlike the Minister, I thought it better not to make such a low, churlish and cheap political point. Clearly the Minister does not share my good nature, or perhaps my politeness towards other hon. Members.
      That now notorious document, which I am sure will be mentioned in other contexts in future, shows that, in the past three years, 54,800 motor cycles—worth £55 million—were stolen and not recovered. However, the Motorcycle Industry Association's statistics tell a different story. They show that 25,000 powered two-wheelers are stolen annually, which is considerably more than is indicated in the statistics that the Home Office seems to think are correct.
      Moreover, of those 25,000 vehicles, only 14 per cent. are recovered. It is a very revealing statistic when one compares it with the stolen car recovery rate, which is 60 per cent. Clearly, motor cycle theft is a growing and disproportionately serious problem. Information would therefore seem to be far more important in that context, to identify motor cycles, than it is in identifying stolen cars.
      I am pleased to say that, although motor cycle theft is increasing, there is phenomenal growth in motor cycle sales, which demonstrates that powered two-wheelers are considered a very attractive alternative to car. All of us who have an interest in transport policy and in reducing pollution and congestion should welcome that growth.

      251
      Last year, 175,000 new powered two-wheelers were sold in the United Kingdom, which was the highest motor cycle and powered moped annual sales figures for 18 years. Moreover, since 1999, sales of those vehicles have increased by 10 per cent; and they are more than four times greater than they were only five years ago.
      The huge growth in motor cycle ownership demonstrates just how important it is to tackle that sphere of vehicle crime. Unfortunately, however, the issue has so far been neglected in our debates on the Bill. As such vehicles become more popular and more numerous on our roads, and as opportunities to steal them off our roads increase, their theft, illegal possession or illegal disposal must be a growing concern.
      As the Home Office recognised in its now infamous document "Nought to Nowhere in Five Seconds", it takes no more than five seconds to steal a motorcycle—to load it into the back of a van or to drive it away. Motor cycles are highly vulnerable to theft. Moreover, because there is no left or right-hand bias on a motor cycle, they are very attractive throughout the world market.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Just like us.
      Mr. Chidgey: The Minister may like to reflect on the fact that left or right does not encompass the third way, and that the middle of the road is a recipe for a rather serious accident but, perhaps that is a different story.
      Organised criminals are responsible for stealing motor cycles to order, removing their registration plates, obliterating identifying marks and rendering them almost untraceable. Although police have the power to seize suspected goods, current legislation—such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is insufficient if vehicle ownership cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, the suspect goods have to be returned to the probably illegal owner.
      New clause 2 would combat such crime directly by creating a new offence of possessing a vehicle without a valid identifying mark. It would place the onus on the legitimate purchaser of a motor car or a motor cycle to ensure that the vehicle carries the appropriate mark. Additionally, the mark conforms with the detail shown on the V5 form.
      The new clause would also put the force of law behind current advice from trading standards officers and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. New clause 2 would underline the need for caution by any person acquiring motor vehicles of any description.
      Mr. Hill: The offence that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has proposed in his well-intentioned amendment is already catered for in legislation. Section 173(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence for any person who—with intent to deceive—forges, alters or uses any plate containing particulars required to be marked on a vehicle that, in this instance, relate to the vehicle identification number, which is already required on motor cycles by statute.
      The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is very well taken. However, for the reason that I have given, I very much hope that I can persuade him to withdraw his motion.
      Mr. Chidgey: I can see that the Minister is in some haste, for purposes not connected with debating my new clause. However, as I do not wish to play unpleasant
      252
      games with the House, I shall take note of what he said and take a future legislative opportunity to check whether the facts that he elucidated are indeed correct—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) questions my doubting the Minister, but that is life.
      I have listened to the Minister's comments, and in the spirit of those comments, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      INSPECTION OF PREMISES: PART II
      '( )—(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.
      (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).
      (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

      (a) require production of, and inspect, any registration plates kept at the premises; and

      (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a registration plate supplier is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

      (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.
      (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Bercow]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Bercow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Inspection of premises: Part I—
      '( )—(1) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a constable or (as the case may be) an authorised person to enter and inspect premises, provided that admission to the premises is reasonably required to secure compliance with the provisions of this Part, or to ascertain whether these provisions are being complied with.
      (2) A constable or an authorised person may, if necessary, use reasonable force in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1).
      (3) A constable or an authorised person may at any reasonable time—

      (a) require production of, and inspect, any motor vehicles or salvageable parts kept at the premises; and

      (b) require production of, inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business as a motor salvage operator is required to keep at such premises by virtue of this Part.

      (4) A constable or an authorised person in seeking to enter any premises in the exercise of his powers under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall, if required by or on behalf of the owner or occupier or person in charge of the premises, produce evidence of his identity, and of his authority for entering before doing so.

      253
      (5) Any person who obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his duties under a warrant issued under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.
      Amendment No. 30, in clause 9, page 6, line 5, leave out clause 9.
      Amendment No. 31, in clause 25, page 13, line 14, leave out clause 25.
      Mr. Bercow: As hon. Members who served in Committee are aware, the arguments on the subject of the right of entry to and inspection of premises were well rehearsed in Committee, so there is no need to develop them now. Suffice it to say that, as far as we are concerned, the overweening power of the state to enter and inspect is already very great indeed. We are concerned about that. We believe that warrants should be required. It is not acceptable that entry should occur without them.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on the exceptional brevity and clarity of his speech. Had we only experienced that in Committee and in all our proceedings on the Bill, we would be in a different position today.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter exhaustively in Committee. I do not think there is any need to go through the discussions again. Deciding the circumstances in which warrants are needed and the circumstances in which they are not is simply a matter of balance of judgment. In our view, the introduction of the new clauses in this group is inappropriate as they require warrants to be obtained even in the case of registered premises. The Government consider it to be right that a registered business should be open to routine inspection by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the House.
      Operators will have agreed to comply with the obligations imposed on them under the registration scheme, and it would make no sense to require warrants to be obtained for routine inspections to ensure that the scheme is in fact being adhered to. The Bill already contains a limitation on the power of entry and inspection to such times as are reasonable.
      As I said, we have debated the matter at length. I am confident that the power of my rhetoric will have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion, and I hope that he will do so. If not, I urge my colleagues to vote down the Opposition.
      It being half-past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 326.

      Division No. 92]

      [8.30 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brady, Graham

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Beggs, Roy

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bercow, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cash, William

      254

      Clappison, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      (Rushcliffe)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Madel, Sir David

      Cran, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maples, John

      Day, Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Alan

      Moss, Malcolm

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Evans, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Faber, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Prior, David

      Fraser, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gale, Roger

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gibb, Nick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gill, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shepherd, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gummer Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Streeter, Gary

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Horam, John

      Townend, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hunter, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Key, Robert

      Whittingdale, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wilkinson, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Yeo, Tim

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lidington, David

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Loughton, Tim

      Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray.

      Luff, Peter

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allan, Richard

      Benton, Joe

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Best, Harold

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blackman, Liz

      Ashton, Joe

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Borrow, David

      Austin, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Banks, Tony

      Breed, Colin

      Barnes, Harry

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Barron, Kevin

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beard, Nigel

      Burden, Richard

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Burgon, Colin

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Burstow, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      255

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cann, Jamie

      Hancock, Mike

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Healey, John

      Chaytor, David

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Chidgey, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hendrick, Mark

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clelland, David

      Hill, Keith

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Joyce, Eric

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drew, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Efford, Clive

      Kidney, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ennis, Jeff

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Feam, Ronnie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Lammy, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lepper, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Fyfe, Maria

      Livsey, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lock, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Love, Andrew

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Steve

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      (Makerfield)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      Macdonald, Calum

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      256

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Singh, Marsha

      Mallaber, Judy

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Martlew, Eric

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Gillian

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

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Snape, Peter

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Soley, Clive

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Spellar, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mitchell, Austin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moore, Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      (B'ham Yardley)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Stringer, Graham

      Mudie, George

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Todd, Mark

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Touhig, Don

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pike, Peter L

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pond, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tyler, Paul

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tynan, Bill

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Watts, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Webb, Steve

      Purchase, Ken

      White, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rapson, Syd

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Rendel, David

      (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Willis, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winnick, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wood, Mike

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woolas, Phil

      Roy, Frank

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruane, Chris

      Wray, James

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Salmond, Alex

      Salter, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Tony McNulty and Mr. Clive Betts.

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 10
      NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 6, line 37, after "affecting" insert "in a material particular". —[Mr. Pope.]
    Clause 16

      REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION FOR REGISTRATION PLATE SUPPLIERS
      Amendments made: No. 2, in page 9, line 25, after "he" insert "—
      (a)'.
      No. 3, in page 9, line 26, at end insert—
      '; and
      (b) is not an exempt person.
      (2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for—

      (a) activities of a prescribed description to be treated for the purposes of this Part as not being activities which consist in selling registration plates;

      (b) persons of a prescribed description to be exempt persons for the purposes of this Part.'. —[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 18

      APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) A person who, in making an application for registration—

      (a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in material particular, or

      (b) recklessly makes a statement which is false in a material particular,

      shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (2B) Where an order under section 19(A1)(b) has effect in relation to a person who has been convicted of an offence under subsection (2A), no application for registration shall be made by that person under subsection (1) in contravention of the order.'.
      No. 5, in page 10, line 23, leave out "19" and insert "19(1)".
      No. 6, in page 10, line 23, at end insert—
      '( ) A person who makes an application in contravention of subsection (2B) or (3) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'. —[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 19

      SUSPENSION OF REGISTRATION BY A COURT
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 10, line 26, at beginning insert—
      '(A1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 18(2A) the court before which he is convicted may, instead of or in addition to imposing a fine, by order do either or both of the following—

      (a) provide for the removal of any entry relating to him in the register;

      (b) prohibit him from making an application for registration under section 18(1) within such period not exceeding five years as may be specified in, or determined under, the order.'.

      No. 8, in page 10, line 27, after "Part" insert—
      `(other than an offence under section 18(2A))'.
      258
      No. 9, in page 10, line 30, leave out "The suspension shall not" and insert—
      No order under subsection (A1) or (1) shall'.
      No. 10, in page 10, line 32, leave out "to the Crown Court".
      No. 11, in page 10, line 34, at end insert—
      '(2A) A court shall give notice to the Secretary of State of the contents of any order which has been made by it under subsection (A l) or (1) and which has effect.'.
      No. 12, in page 10, line 35, leave out from "register" to "has" in line 36 and insert "—

      (a) to give effect to any order of a court under subsection (A1)(a); or

      (b) to reflect any suspension effected by an order of a court under subsection (1),

      but may not do so until the order concerned'
      No. 13, in page 10, line 37, at end insert—
      ( ) In this section "appeal" includes an application under section 111 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (application by way of case stated).'—[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 26
      NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS: PART II
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 14, line 5, after "affecting" insert "in a material particular"—[Mr. Pope.]
    Clause 27

      OFFENCE RELATING TO COUNTERPART REGISTRATION PLATES
      Amendments made: No 15, in page 14, line 21, leave out from "which" to end of line 22 and insert—
      'is not a registration plate as a registration plate knowing that it is not a registration plate or being reckless as to whether it is a registration plate'.
      No. 16, in page 14, line 26, leave out "selling counterfeit registration plates" and insert—
      'activities which are unlawful by virtue of subsection (1)'.
      No. 17, in page 14, line 29, leave out from "person's" to end of line 31 and insert "unlawful activities;".—[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 28

      OFFENCE OF SUPPLYING PLATES ETC. TO UNREGISTERED PERSONS
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 14, line 36, after "person" insert—
      '(other than an exempt person)'.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 30

      INTERPRETATION OF PART II
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 15, line 13, at end insert—
      ' "exempt person" means any person who is an exempt person by virtue of regulations made under section 16(2A)(b);'.
      No. 20, in page 15, line 26, leave out "and".
      No. 21, in page 15, line 33, at end insert')—
      '; and

      259
      "selling registration plates" is to be construed in accordance with any regulations made under section 16(2A)(a).'. — [Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 35

      ACCESS TO CERTAIN MOTOR INSURANCE INFORMATION
      Amendments made: No. 22, in page 20, line 2, leave out from first "by" to first "the" in line 3 and insert—
      `regulation 10 of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972 or by any subsequent regulation made under any corresponding power in'.
      No. 23, in page 20, line 15, after "means" insert "—
      (a)'.
      No. 24, in page 20, line 18, at end insert—
      `; or
      (b) information relating to motor vehicles to which section 143 of the Act of 1988 does not apply or to any certificates or other documents issued in connection with such vehicles.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Clause 37
      FUNDING OF CERTAIN MAGISTRATES' COURTS' COSTS RELATING TO VEHICLE CRIME
      Amendment made: No. 43, in page 21, line 9, leave out Clause 37.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Clause 44

      EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 45, in page 24, line 5, leave out "to 37" and insert—
      `, 36 and (Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.)'.
      No. 25, in page 24, line 8, at end insert—
      `( ) Section 35 extends to England and Wales and Scotland.'.—[Mr. Pope.]

    Schedule

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 46, in page 26, line 26 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
      `(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.)'.
      No. 47, in page 26, line 32 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
      `(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.
      No. 48, in page 26, line 36 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
      `(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.
      No. 49, in page 26 [The Schedule], leave out lines 37 to 40.
      No. 50, in page 26, line 43 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(1) below" and insert—
      `(Unified power for Secretary, of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'.
      No. 51, in page 26, line 46 [The Schedule], leave out from beginning to "references" in line 48.
      No. 52, in page 27, line 2 [The Schedule], leave out "59F(3) below" and insert—
      `(Unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.) of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001'. [Mr. Pope.]

    Title
    Amendments made: No. 53, in title, line 3, leave out "Lord Chancellor" and insert "Secretary of State".
    No. 54, in title, line 4, leave out from "certain" to "to" in line 5 and insert "expenditure relating".—[Mr. Pope.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    I shall repeat some of the points that I made earlier when we discussed the programme motion. The Bill has been subjected to thorough scrutiny in Committee. I express my appreciation to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who led that debate and to my colleagues who made constructive contributions throughout. As I said earlier, some aspects were less than constructive, but the overwhelming majority of contributions were positive in tone.
    The Bill has emerged the better for its time in Committee. Helpful suggestions were made to improve it, and on Report we discussed some of the proposed changes, but its essential principles remain unaltered.
    I shall assess the issues that arose over the guillotining and programming of the Bill. We moved a programme motion on the meetings of the Committee itself. It is generally acknowledged that a full debate was held in Committee; Members had the chance to make their case in the time available and the arguments were fully and substantially made.
    That was less true for the programmed debate on Report, which we have just concluded, because four groups of amendments could not be discussed. The new clause on specifications of registration plates, tabled by the Opposition, had no relation to the Bill. The matter arose from the euro-fanaticism of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) who wanted to raise a marginal issue. The second group related to the scope of activities and persons covered in parts I and II. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to acknowledge that the debate—like that on inspection of premises—would have been a reprise of the Committee debate, when we discussed the issues in great detail.
    The third group related to fees for registration; again, we discussed that matter in detail and at great length in Committee.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Some of us were not in the Committee. Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Clarke: I will give way, but first I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's sedentary remark. During the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Buckingham made the point that the purpose of the Report stage was to allow hon. Members who might not have been members of the Standing Committee, such as the right hon. Gentleman, to participate in the debate. Throughout the whole debate on Report, there was no participation from Conservative Members, apart from the

    261
    Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, who were in constant attendance and participated fully in the debate; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who was a member of the Committee, and also participated fully in this debate; and an intervention from another Opposition Member. Although it is true that, in theory, hon. Members should be able to discuss the measure—I acknowledge that—in practice, no other Members wanted to discuss the issues.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister, who daily demonstrates his lack of parliamentary experience, but I suppose he will learn—if he is spared to spend a bit more time in this place. The reality is that Report gives an opportunity to those Members who are not on the Committee to participate, if they choose so to do. I suspect that one reason why so few Members chose to participate is that the Government are not allowing a proper opportunity for proper debates on Report. The Government cannot have it both ways—they cannot crush all debate and then complain that hon. Members do not turn up to participate.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making his points, which are pretty familiar to the House. As I said in the debate on the programme motion, the difficulty, which is reflected in the exchanges that occurred just before I spoke, involves those on the Conservative Front Bench ensuring that hon. Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, can operate through the usual channels. That is one of the key issues in the House. The right hon. Gentleman also makes some offensive remarks, which he is entitled to do, but I have attended fully throughout all the debates—perhaps ad nauseam—and have dealt with the issues raised by my hon. Friends, if not all those raised by Opposition Members.
    The final group of amendments contained several technical amendments and a point of substance on the affirmative procedure, on which the hon. Member for Buckingham might have divided the House, but, as he will acknowledge, that matter was debated fully in Committee. I make those points, which are perhaps not fully relevant to Third Reading, because I am aware of the arguments made by Members such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and want to place on record my belief that the debates in Committee and on Report have been constructive and positive. The debates in Committee took place within the time constraints of the programme resolution and were finished in a way that allowed all hon. Members to make their points.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Almost all.
    Mr. Clarke: We addressed that matter earlier.
    Although we did not debate certain amendments on Report, my assessment is that the various points represent a reprise of the debates in Committee. Notably, few Opposition Members participated, other than those on the Front Benches and the hon. Member for Lichfield, to whom I give due credit.
    The Bill is necessary because the public are greatly concerned about vehicle crime. It is a serious matter, and the statistics speak for themselves. Some 350,000 vehicles
    262
    are stolen annually, of which more than two fifths are not recovered. We are on target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years. It has already fallen by 20 per cent. since we took office. The Bill will help significantly to reduce it further and shows that partnership is a central precept of the Government's approach to reducing crime.
    We established the vehicle crime reduction action team, whose membership included a broad cross-section of the vehicle industry, the police, motorists, local government and insurers. The team proposed a series of important recommendations, which the Government have sought to honour. One set of recommendations dealt with changes in the law, which is why we introduced the Bill. It is not simply a clever Government idea; it is the result of a considered and proper process—the model for developing such proposals.
    The Bill will fill the gaps in the existing law. At present, stolen vehicles may find their way into a salvage trade that is quite unregulated, as may vehicles that are fraudulently reported to have been stolen. Criminals can all too easily get hold of false number plates to disguise such vehicles that come into their hands and others that they have stolen themselves.
    Vehicles that have been written off may be repaired and put back on the road. They are not required to undergo any check as to their true identity. Some of those vehicles are of course stolen. Those problems are addressed in the Bill, which will cut the scope for profit from vehicle crime, so diminishing its appeal. As a result, we hope that there will be at least 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts and 6,000 fewer fraudulent insurance claims—so-called theft claims—each year.
    The Bill will also extend the time limit for prosecuting the crime of unauthorised vehicle taking. It will assist the detection of uninsured driving, by giving the police the right of general access to the motor insurance database. It will make it possible for the money collected from fixed-penalty fines for speeding and jumping red lights to be directly applied to road safety in the ways that have been discussed.
    Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage dealers. More than 40 per cent. of stolen vehicles are not recovered. Criminals in the salvage industry can disguise stolen vehicles or break them up and sell them as parts. Vehicles may be reported stolen when they have been sold to the salvage trade. That is insurance fraud. Part I will require motor salvage operators to register with their local authority and to renew their registration at intervals.
    Concern was expressed in Committee about whether applications to register could be made on a standard form. It would be possible to prescribe such a form in secondary legislation, and we acknowledge the suggestions that were made in Committee. We will consult local authorities and the industry fully on the regulations to be made, and standardisation will be discussed. The Committee also said that it might be necessary to have slightly different information-collecting methods for different types of business. It discussed that issue fully.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Buckingham and other Conservative Members suggested making it an offence to supply false information when applying to be registered. The House will have heard from the discussions on Report that we have taken that point on board. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that and I

    263
    acknowledged publicly the role that he played in drawing our attention so clearly to this issue. The suggestion has become a helpful addition to our measures to regulate the salvage industry.
    Part I also enables us to make sure that registered dealers keep proper records. The police will have powers to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. That will make it difficult to dispose of stolen vehicles, and it will deter insurance fraud.
    Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. Many people are surprised to discover that there are no controls over this trade, and vehicle thieves naturally take advantage of that. However, the consequences of the current lack of regulation are by no means confined to vehicle theft. Burglars and terrorists use false plates; others use them just to deceive speed cameras. Under part II, number plate suppliers will have to register with the DVLA.
    Mr. Fabricant: The Minister has raised an important point, but how easy is it to forge a number plate? Although many in the House may recognise the importance of controlling the manufacturers of number plates, if the plates can be forged easily by someone in his own home, that will negate the whole effectiveness of part II.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raised that point fully and positively in Committee. I reinforce the point that regulations can be made under the Bill to specify further information to be held on number plates. That will make it difficult to forge plates or to disguise the identity of a vehicle. There will be a link between the information on the number plate and the vehicle for which the plate is intended. The specific purpose of the provision is to enable the Government to specify, after wide consultation, the form of the number plate, so that it is clear that every number plate meets certain criteria. I accept that forgery can never be outlawed, but it will be made a great deal more difficult. The identification that results from that will enable us to deal with vehicle crime more effectively.
    The Bill also provides powers to make suppliers keep records, which should deter the purchase of plates for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide an audit trail for the police, who will be able to enter and inspect registered premises without a warrant. It will be an offence to provide plates or materials to an unregistered supplier or to sell counterfeit plates. The Committee persuaded us that it should also be an offence to supply false information to the DVLA in an application to register. We have introduced proposals to that effect.
    Part III deals with vehicle licensing and registration. There will be a compulsory identity check before the issue of a new registration document for a vehicle that has previously been written off. That should help tackle illegal tampering. Part III also targets uninsured driving, which can be associated with dangerous driving and other illegal activity, but is all too often undetected. To deal with the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed, and the Bill provides, that the police should have bulk access to insurance information. We expect this access to be available from 2003.
    Clause 36 lengthens the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders. Those who take vehicles without authority cause immense distress and may even become
    264
    involved in accidents. Joyriding sometimes leads to yet more serious crime. However, as the law stands, no charges may be brought for this offence more than six months after it was committed. We want the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to bring charges so as to signal that joyriding is not an offence that will be treated lightly.
    Mr. Heald: We have just voted on a proposal to allow the Minister to determine that certain activities do not constitute the sale of registration plates. The Committee discussed whether manufacturers who do not sell directly to the public would be exempted. Does the Minister have that possibility in mind?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, although I think that we covered it in Committee. The purpose of the proposals is to ensure that the Bill is targeted on the right people. We had a long discussion about people who deal in parts. The vintage bike industry was mentioned. The Committee tried to respect the needs of hobbyists by ensuring that the Bill did not become a sledgehammer that hit the legitimate activities of such people. That is why we wanted the sensitivity with which the Government always exercise their Executive powers to be enshrined in legislation.
    Clause 36 will extend the time limit to three years and enable proceedings for taking a vehicle without authority to be brought at any time within six months from the date when sufficient knowledge came to the attention of the prosecutor.
    A more widespread threat to public safety is speeding, which we debated at length on Report. Rolling out speed cameras nationally is a vital part of our road safety strategy. New clause 7 will allow the money that magistrates courts receive from fixed penalties for speeding or jumping red lights to be used to fund road safety. The funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime and our efforts to improve road safety. That will ensure that funding is available to increase the number and geographical spread of safety cameras, for example, which will aid the prevention and detection of speeding and red traffic light offences. As speeding drivers may be guilty of other offences, there will also be a wider crime reduction benefit.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend's hypothecation pertain to motorways? Some 33,000 vehicles were found to be breaking the speed limit on the M2, which runs through my constituency.
    Mr. Clarke: I saw the press coverage of the M2 speed cameras. Our proposal does apply to motorways. However, I must emphasise, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) did, that the process is about promoting road safety, and road safety alone. Some of the press coverage of the M2 cameras suggested that there might be a financial motive. That is not the case.
    Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister said that the revenue from the fines would be used for road safety measures. How broad is the definition of road safety in that sense?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary fully explained the situation on Report

    265
    Road safety will primarily focus on increasing the number and geographical spread of safety cameras. That is the principal consideration. I do not want to hide that fact from the House, but it does not exclude taking a wider look at road safety implications. Safety cameras make an important contribution to road safety and our proposals will extend to motorways.
    Mr. Brady: The Minister told the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) that the cameras' primary purpose is to promote road safety. Is he clear that motorway cameras will focus on stretches where there are roadworks and lower speed restrictions, instead of being rolled out generally across all the network?
    Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that the police identified and focused on accident black spots in the pilot schemes. It is intended that that practice should be followed across the country. The cameras might be related to roadworks and other restrictions, which might be temporary in nature. However, most police forces have a detailed mapping of where road accidents occur most frequently. They naturally want to put cameras at those locations, both to act as a deterrent, which the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) mentioned on Report, slowing drivers down at the key points of danger, and to record the drivers who break the law.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his full reply. Given that we would all wish to maximise the deterrent effect, can he confirm that it is the Government's policy, where possible, to ensure that signs to warn of the presence of speed cameras are in place on motorways?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR are considering carefully how we can improve the signage of road speed limits. The need for improvement has been forcefully pointed out by the AA and the RAC, and it is necessary to work harder to ensure that motorists are fully aware of the speed limit wherever they are. That is an important aspect of the road safety proposals that the Government are considering.
    The operation of those proposals will be a matter for each local authority. My own county, Norfolk, has published a good road safety document, which is in my constituency file. I was reading it earlier because I want to respond to the authority's proposals for improving signage and policies. Road safety is the general thrust of local government policies, and they have been much encouraged by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his colleagues in the DETR.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was asking about the signs warning of speed cameras rather than of the speed limit itself.
    Mr. Clarke: I am sorry if my answer was unclear. I was trying to refer to the specific signage for speed cameras and the more general signage for speed limits. When I drive, I find it frustrating to see a picture of a speed camera without a speed limit attached. Putting those
    266
    signs together is important. It is a matter not for me but for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I know that DETR is working hard on that.
    Mr. Fabricant: Do the Minister and the Under-Secretary agree that if there is to be more widespread distribution of speed cameras, there needs also to be a wholesale review of speed limits? In some cases, limits might need to be lower, but in others they may need to be higher.
    Mr. Clarke: I was just consulting the oracle on this matter—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does the Under-Secretary drive?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether my hon. Friend drives. He is an outstanding Transport Minister, and the people of the country are fortunate to have him. The hon. Member for Buckingham made it clear that he did not use computers, but I do not think that that disqualifies him from being a Member of the House, even though in the modern information age, one might think that he would want to know what was going on around him in the world. Perhaps that is reflected in his contributions.
    Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary is unassailable.
    Mr. Clarke: I never use the word "unassailable". Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I have a lot of experience outside the House, if not in it, and I know that the word "unassailable", especially when uttered by Conservative politicians, should not be used in circumstances that pertain to any significant development.
    In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Lichfield, the Government are developing our road safety strategy, which includes signage. Those matters are also being considered by individual local highways authorities. In my county, for example, the authority is specifically considering, among other things, a 20 mph speed limit in specific areas such as those surrounding schools.
    I emphasise again that the focus of the approach is on improving road safety. As part of the national roll-out of the programme, the Government will issue guidance to local partnerships on signage for speed cameras. I can therefore make a stronger commitment than I did in my off-the-cuff response to the hon. Gentleman that the guidance on signage for speed cameras will include precisely the points that he raised.
    It is the Government's intention to cut vehicle crime at the roots. That means reducing the market for stolen vehicles. We will do that by regulating the motor salvage trade and the supply of number plates, which is the Bill's main purpose. Vehicle identity checks and new requirements for documentation by the DVLA will reinforce the system of regulation. The Bill has three ancillary purposes: first, to extend the time limit for prosecuting so-called joyriders; secondly, to make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving; and thirdly, to enable magistrates courts receipts to be directly applied to road safety.
    The Bill has been closely examined in Committee and has been strengthened as a result. Its consideration by the House means that it will go to the other place in good

    267
    shape. We shall continue throughout its passage in Parliament to listen to constructive criticism, as we have tried to do in this House, and to consider changes if they will help to deliver the sound legislation to which we are committed. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.9 pm
    Mr. Bercow: The Minister of State, Home Office had the temerity to criticise the Opposition for a poor attendance this evening. He demonstrated not only temerity but unwisdom, given the fact, to which I must refer at the outset, that the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who were all members of the Committee that examined the Bill, have toddled out of the Chamber and have not been present to hear the Minister of State make the case for the Third Reading. It ill behoves the Minister to chide us, to suggest indifference and to accuse us of being part-timers when his hon. Friends, who might have been expected gleefully to listen to his honeyed words, have absented themselves from the Chamber and possibly from the Palace.
    Mr. Bob Russell: For the sake of accuracy, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to about 50 per cent. of Conservative Members who served in Committee, who are not with us this evening?
    Mr. Bercow: Yes. I regret to say that to the best of my knowledge, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is indisposed. That is why she is not present. What is important is that my hon. Friend has demonstrated on Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions the closest possible interest in the Bill. I am sure that the Minister—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now get on with Third Reading rather than talk about the attendance or non-attendance of members of the Committee that considered the Bill.
    Mr. Bercow: We were considering the level of interest on Third Reading. That would be fairly clear. I am developing the argument, and that is precisely what I intend to continue to do, as was my initial intention.
    The Minister's recollection of proceedings in Committee does not entirely square with mine. It is true that the Government were guilty of the most extraordinary Horlicks in failing to determine that false applications to register as a salvage operator or registration plate supplier should be a criminal offence. We pointed that out to the Government, and to their credit they have belatedly accepted the point. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for the tribute that he paid. Beyond that, I do not agree with much that the Minister of State, Home Office said about our proceedings in Committee.
    I accept that we made some progress. However, we were hurried and heavily circumscribed. There was inadequate time and we got through the proceedings only because the vast majority of Labour Members either had nothing to say or had something to say but were instructed in no uncertain terms by the powers that be not to say it.
    268
    I much regret that we are embarking on Third Reading after the most derisory and cursory consideration of the amendments and new clauses that were tabled on Report. There were eight groups and no fewer than 61 new clauses and amendments. By my recollection, we got through four groups. We really only considered three groups, although we voted on the fourth as well. Even if we include matters relating to the inspection of premises, we have covered in a desultory fashion only 38 of the new clauses and amendments, leaving a remaining 23 still to be debated, some of which were new clauses and amendments tabled by the Government.
    In the circumstances, it is preposterous for the Minister to claim that there has been adequate debate on the Bill. I must emphasise, as the Government are seeking a Third Reading, that we think it profoundly unsatisfactory that there was such minimal consideration on Report. One of the reasons for that—I have made the point before and I have had no effective rejoinder to it—is that the Government, in their arrogant, imperious and inconsiderate fashion chose a timetable on Report. They did not consult, there was no discussion and we had no debate. We are being invited to give a Third Reading to a Bill the consideration of which on Report was scanty, to put it mildly. We did not properly get through even half of the groups of new clauses and amendments.
    Mr. Forth: Can I try to lift my hon. Friend into a more optimistic frame of mind? Does he not agree that, as a result of the process that he accurately described, it is imperative that the House of Lords should give the matter the detailed consideration that the Government have not allowed it in this House? At the very least, a compensatory factor might then enter our parliamentary proceedings, so that for every occasion on which the Government denied the Commons the opportunity to examine a Bill properly the Lords had to do so in the utmost detail.
    Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is right. I have referred before, without embarrassment—and I do so again—to the symbiotic political relationship between us. What my right hon. Friend says is pertinent and I hope that it will be heard in another place. Our consideration of the Bill has been inadequate, although marginally less so as the result of deliberations in Committee—[Interruption.] I am bound to tell the Under-Secretary, who is chuntering from a sedentary position and not paying proper attention to what I am saying, that the Bill is better in spite of the Ministers and not because of them. Frankly, they were Tweedledum and Tweedledee in Committee, and did not achieve very much. I was grateful for their tribute to Conservative efforts, but we have seen only a modest improvement in the Bill and it is pitiful that we have made so little progress today.
    I emphasise the fact that, traditionally, Members on both sides of the House have seen it as their responsibility to scrutinise, probe, inquire, test and seek improvement. In this case—and this is an important point in support of our claim that inadequate time has been dedicated to the subject—Conservative Members alone have played any significant part in the proceedings, together with a little input of variable quality and irregular frequency from Liberal Democrat Members. The only Labour Members to have contributed on any significant scale were those who themselves wanted to table new clauses and

    269
    amendments. The fact is that there have been few of them. The vast majority sat doing other things, were not engaged and did not take an interest. Their minds were elsewhere, to use a term that is common parlance in relation to other matters at the moment.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bercow: Yes, briefly, but I must warn the Minister that many points need to be made on Third Reading, and I intend to make them in detail and at whatever length is necessary.
    Mr. Clarke: I wish to place on record the fact that the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the participation of Labour Members in Committee were simply untrue.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister. He is accusing me of telling an untruth, which is dangerous, especially as he is a senior, respected, important and ambitious Member with a full diary. He has great claims and hopes for the future, and it would be unwise for him to traduce me. 1 do not know what he knows but, by now, he ought to be aware that I have a fairly good recollection of who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill's consideration and who did not. I simply make the point that far more Government Members did not speak regularly in Committee than did. That is a matter not of dubiety or speculation but of recorded fact. If the Minister wants to have a wager with me about it, I shall be only too delighted.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend talked about the contribution of Conservative Members in Committee. The Minister himself said that it was a useful and important contribution. Does my hon. Friend share my unease at the continuing lack of scrutiny? By introducing a new clause, we filled a gaping hole in the Bill. The Bill was incomplete when it came to Committee. Does my hon. Friend share my unease about the fact that, because of lack of scrutiny, there may well be other giant loopholes through which criminals and lawyers will be able to pass?
    Mr. Bercow: I am worried about that. I am even more worried when a rising Minister—or would-be rising Minister—complains to the House that had we had this or that debate, it would probably only have been a re-run of what took place in Committee. I made the point before and, for the avoidance of doubt, I remind the Minister now that the purpose of the exercise is for those who served on Committee to report to the House as a whole so that its wider membership can engage in the debate—as I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), to name but one, is ever keen to do. It will not do for the Government to behave in such a navel-gazing, inward-looking, selfish fashion by seeking to dismiss the claims of those who were not fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, but who wish to contribute to the consideration of the Bill. However, I am not to be diverted for a moment longer from focusing on the purpose of the Bill.
    The purpose of the Bill—to cut car crime—is valid. It is the Bill's effectiveness in achieving that purpose which is uncertain, to put it mildly. The Minister of State, Home
    270
    Office, knows perfectly well that between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. In the ensuing year, from March 1999 to March 2000, there was, if I remember correctly, a reduction of exactly 7,000 car crimes, so the incidence of car crime fell by 0.5 per cent. in that period.
    The Minister of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are committed to the goal of a 30 per cent. cut in car crime between now and 2004.
    I am ordinarily an understated fellow, as you know from your own experience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tend to beat about the bush. I am not very good at putting my points strongly. I sometimes think that if only I spoke up and made the argument a little more forcefully, I might have a greater impact. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rather unkindly accuses me of being wet and weedy, but he is probably justified in this case.
    I put it on the record that I wish the Government well in achieving the 30 per cent. reduction in car crime by 2004, but do I believe that it will happen? I am bound to ask the Minister of State, who may have trotted off elsewhere by 2004, "What are those pigs that I see flying in front of my very eyes?" I do not believe that that target will be achieved. The notion that the Bill will be instrumental in achieving that purpose strikes many of us as a triumph of optimism over reality.
    The Minister drew attention to the incidence and cost of car crime. That is germane to the consideration of the Bill. There is an annual cost of £3.5 billion arising from car crime. The hon. Gentleman speaks glibly of the intention to ensure that there are 39,000 fewer vehicle thefts as a result of the provisions of the Bill, but he failed at any stage—on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading—to explain how that objective is compatible with or delivered by the reduction of at least 2,500 in the number of policemen. It is extraordinary that the Government expect more with less: fewer people must satisfy higher targets, but there is no indication how those are to be achieved.
    Another problem in relation to the Government's target, and a lacuna in the Bill, if I may satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, is that it does nothing about thefts from vehicles, concerning itself exclusively and perhaps narrowly with the theft of vehicles. If the Minister of State wants to trumpet the Bill as a flagship measure for the greater good not only of the community, but of his rising ministerial reputation, it is a pity that the terms of the Bill have been so narrowly drawn. The Minister is getting itchy. Although there are many other points and other lacunae to which I want to draw attention, I give way to him.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman set out the legislative changes that he would recommend to deal with thefts from vehicles. Our overall strategy deals with thefts from vehicles, but the Bill deals with one aspect of that strategy. What are the hon. Gentleman's proposals for legislative change?
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman tempts me into a potentially lengthy lecture on the subject. If I embarked upon it, he would be the first to complain. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position.

    271
    A useful signal that we could send to those who engage in car crime of the kind to which I have just referred would be immediately to scrap the home detention curfew scheme or the early release scheme—that ludicrous policy that entitles anyone serving a sentence of more than three months but less than four years to be released from jail on a tag, typically having served less than half of his or her sentence.
    I sense that you are getting itchy, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is an undesirable prospect for you, as well as for hon. Members who think that you may be about to pounce upon them, if I may put it that way. I shall not dilate further, as you would not want me to do so. I was led astray by the Minister of State and I must not pursue the point, although I must say that it is unwise of the hon. Gentleman to make interventions that invite further and legitimate criticism of other aspects of Home Office penal and sentencing policy.
    Mr. Brady: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that one of this Government's characteristics is their tendency to announce policies or to take legislative measures when they believe that the results will be achieved regardless of their actions? May they not have decided that vehicle theft will decrease because of technological improvements, not least in the security devices built into cars? May they not have concluded that results would accrue on theft of vehicles without their intervention? On the other hand, they have no meaningful policy to address the problem of thefts from vehicles.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a sound point, to which I suspect the Minister of State cannot respond.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bercow: Well, I shall give the hon. Gentleman one last chance. Perhaps not. He now appears to have had second thoughts.
    Mr. Clarke rose—
    Mr. Bercow: He now has third thoughts. As he is an ambitious chap, I warn him that such indecisiveness is inconsistent with the tributes that have so far been paid to him.
    Mr. Clarke: With all respect, I point out that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was confusing thefts from vehicles with thefts of vehicles. Technology makes a difference with regard to both sorts of crime. With regard to thefts from vehicles, the most important changes have occurred in vehicle security, in respect of which we are encouraging manufacturers and have introduced various other changes. As the hon. Gentleman said, those changes will reduce vehicle crime as the motor fleet becomes larger.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who has clarified his position in so far as he judged it necessary to do so. I shall not get into a debate about prepositions at this stage, not least because a number of my hon. Friends want to contribute.
    272
    Suffice it to say that the Opposition are anxious about a serious issue that relates to the integrity—or otherwise—of the Bill. That issue is, of course, the use of the proceeds of fines to finance a widespread roll-out of speed cameras throughout the country. An interesting exchange about that subject occurred earlier between the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has sadly departed the Chamber. Knowingly or otherwise—a term that I use advisedly—the latter seemed to be pressurising the Minister. He asked him to confirm that all fine proceeds must be used for road safety measures, as doing otherwise would be defying the will of the House.
    Rather too quickly, and with too great an enthusiasm, the Under-Secretary rushed to agree. I then challenged him to confirm that it was Government policy to ring-fence. I sought a commitment that there would be an exact equivalence between the money raised and the money spent. I did not ask for a commitment in respect of every year, but for the five-year term of a Parliament, although I acknowledged that it would last for only four years if the Government cut and run. I demanded an assurance that all the proceeds of the fines would be spent on road safety measures alone.
    That was when the Under-Secretary's usual self-confidence and unfailing fluency collapsed and he started to use a combination of the obfuscatory and the coy. He was obfuscatory as he sought to get away from the issue, and coy in the charming manner with which we are now familiar. In effect, he said "Oh, I am but a junior Minister and it is not a matter for me. Hon. Members cannot expect me, as a mere junior Minister, to commit to what might happen in future, although I can speak in general terms about what we want to do."
    Mr. Heald: In due course.
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend observes that things will occur in due course. Indeed, it was on that point that the Under-Secretary's previously silky advocacy became nothing more than a celebration of motherhood and apple pie. That issue has not been properly considered. My hon. Friends and I do not intend to divide the House on Third Reading. I have already been subjected to verbal flagellation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is disappointed and strongly opposes the Bill and who believes that we should take a more oppositional line.
    However, I am fair minded, and prepared even now to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. Given the Bill's risible consideration in Committee, the other place will want to scrutinise the provisions in great detail. There is therefore at least an argument for keeping an open mind.
    Speed cameras and the Government's integrity or lack of it on that subject are important. Their attitude to local authorities' responsibility for disposing of abandoned vehicles shows them indulging in an orgy of complacency—a complacency displayed not least by Back-Bench Labour Members.
    Let us consider inspection of premises, which the Bill covers. I am a right-wing libertarian, sometimes known as a Conservative libertarian. I am alarmed by the constant arrogation of powers to the state. I do not like the fact that so many officers of the state, public agencies and

    273
    other officials can, without warrants, enter and inspect commercial premises, domestic property or both in pursuit of their claims. That is unsatisfactory. I generally support the view that, when police or other authorities want to inspect and consider evidence to ascertain whether criminal acts have been committed, they should first be obliged to obtain a warrant.
    The Government's position is that warrants neither should nor should not be required. They have an extraordinary attitude, which is neurotic, difficult to justify in theory and impossible to substantiate in practice. Under the Bill, registered motor salvage operators or registration plates suppliers have somehow signed up to a more rigorous regime, and are able to have their premises entered by a police constable or other authorised person without a warrant. Those who are not registered and are suspected of unlawful or perhaps even criminal activity can have their premises entered and inspected only if the constable or other representative of authority has first acquired a warrant. The registered person therefore gets a worse deal than the unregistered person.
    That is the logic of new Labour in 2001. No amount of vacuous half-hearted attempts at explanation by the two highbrow characters who represent the Government on the Treasury Bench could alleviate our anxieties about the provisions on inspection of premises.
    The Government's performance on the specifications for registration plates was even more pitiful. Many of us are worried that the current drafting of clause 33, especially proposed new section 27A(1)(a) and (b), could allow for the mandatory display of a European Union flag on the registration plate of a car. We debated that matter at reasonable length in Committee. I enjoyed the exchange with the Under-Secretary, my former constituent when I was a Lambeth borough councillor. However, the same technique was employed as on previous clauses.
    The Under-Secretary tried to brush our argument aside; he dismissed it with a good deal of rhetorical tomfoolery. However, when I challenged him to guarantee that the British Government would oppose any proposal to require the display of the EU flag, he retreated into obfuscation and coyness. He said that I was paranoid and that I was getting too excited. He then used the modesty defence, claiming to be only a humble servant, a mere Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, a son of toil who could not question the judgment of the Secretary of State, still less that of the Prime Minister.
    The Under-Secretary also had the brass neck to say that I could not commit the Conservative party to opposing such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman then conjured up an absurd scenario in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was suddenly the leader of the Conservative party. I said that, although I did not anticipate such a scenario, it was conceivable that if such a scenario arose, my right hon. and learned Friend might—though I doubt it—be so unwise as to agree to such a proposal. I also made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that no such proposal would be advanced with my support from the Conservative Front Bench, from which I would immediately feel it necessary to depart in such circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman made no such clarion call, and no such obvious declaration. The risk is that, in future, a proposal could be introduced and the purpose of
    274
    clause 33 would be to facilitate the ready transposition into British law of the provisions that the hon. Gentleman's European masters intended.
    The hon. Gentleman argued that any fees to be levied would cover only administration costs. However, when we tabled amendments that would tie the Government down more precisely, so that no stealth taxes could be levied, the hon. Gentleman resisted them. He engaged in the merest casuistry to try to justify his position and argued that the wording in the Government's existing, unamended clause was preferable to ours. I therefore asked the hon. Gentleman to confirm that the charges levied would never be greater than the level of the administration costs, at which point we had the normal retreat into obfuscation and coyness. I received no answer, no satisfaction and no reassurance. That was not good enough.
    Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend reminds me—although this was not my reason for intervening—that, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) boasted about such stealth taxes being used to build car parks in her constituency.
    Why is my hon. Friend so surprised at the Minister's refusing to guarantee that the European Union flag would not be put on to licence plates? Does he not recall that, although the Labour party in opposition said that it would object to having the European Union flag put on to the credit card-type driving licences, all driving licences now bear the European Union flag?
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the tergiversation of the Government on matters European. They have changed their mind seven times on the issue of whether the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Government are as inconsistent in this important but secondary matter as they have shown themselves to be in the past.
    The Government's position on this issue is unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman was invited to provide reassurance, and he conspicuously and repeatedly failed to do so. I fear the worst. I do not suspect the hon. Gentleman's integrity, but he is—as he has already suggested—but a puppet on a string. The puppet-master is elsewhere, and we have good reason to fear an obnoxious proposal being introduced in the future which it would not be feasible for us effectively to resist.
    One of the most unattractive features of the Bill is that nine of its clauses provide effectively for government by regulation. I am a strong supporter of the affirmative resolution procedure, and highly resistant to the over-zealous use of the negative resolution procedure. To elucidate that point for those who may be listening to our proceedings elsewhere, the issue is whether we debate the regulations or whether they go through on the nod.
    The hon. Gentleman sought to justify the fact that the Government did not intend to debate these matters by saying that they were not big enough, and that such debate would not be a proper use of parliamentary time. I responded that the Government have often made a mess of regulations that have not been debated in the House, and, as a consequence, have had to return to the House to improve the regulations and seek the House's approval for that redrafting. The Government could save themselves a

    275
    future headache if they were more tolerant of present debate. It is most unfortunate that they are taking this dismissive, imperious and arrogant attitude towards the House.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends may ask, "What's new?" That attitude is not new, but it is unsatisfactory, worrying and indicative of the Government's disdain, indifference and contempt for the legislature's right to act as a check on the Executive. That right and responsibility is of the greatest importance to me and my right hon. Friends, even if it is not important to high-flying, very ambitious and, if I may say so, somewhat indifferent Ministers.
    The Bill involves substantial costs and the Government have estimated them, though their estimates usually turn out to be on the low side. I have been very generous—
    Mr. Forth: Too generous.
    Mr. Bercow: From a sedentary position, my right hon. Friend chunters that I have been too generous. He does not think that I have been robust enough and believes that we should divide the House on Third Reading. I am resisting his exhortation to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I have made the judgment that we shall look to the other place properly to scrutinise all the provisions with a view to their further and dramatic improvement.
    I am happy to await the outcome of the deliberations of the other place. Nevertheless, although the Bill is slightly improved, it has many defects. It is the cause of real concern. It is not satisfactory. [Interruption.] The Minister of State can chunter dismissively from a sedentary position, but he cannot disregard the fact that many things were wrong with the Bill, that it still has defects and that substantial progress still has to be made.
    9.41 pm
    Mr. Chidgey: I shall draw myself back to the topics that I would hope to discuss on Third Reading, although that is quite an effort following such an interlude.
    I must place on record my disappointment with the debate. Considering the number of amendments and new clauses that were tabled, we barely scratched the surface of much of the agenda. The Minister, in his winding-up speech on Report, made an effort to explain the substance of the various amendments that were not covered, but that is no substitute for proper examination and the ability to reassure the House about the meaning of Government amendments.
    We have been denied an opportunity properly to scrutinise many amendments tabled not only by the Government but by the two Opposition parties. I am particularly disappointed not to have debated amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which stood in my name. I know that the British Motorcyclists Federation was interested in those proposals because they covered theft, which is a theme throughout. However, although the Bill concentrates on motor vehicle theft, there are few references to the theft and illegal resale of spare parts, which is a matter of great concern in many quarters that would have appreciated a proper discussion of the issues.
    I am quick to say that, in the main, the Bill is welcome. It is clearly intended to have an effect on vehicle crime, and I believe that it will do so. I agree with the Minister
    276
    and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who spoke for the Conservatives, that the Bill is better than it was on Second Reading. However, we should put its effect in context. The Minister mentioned the number of cars that are stolen and rightly said that the measure will stop the ringing of cars. However, one must remember that even though the Bill may reduce vehicle thefts by 36,000, a total of 350,000 vehicles are stolen in this country every year, and such a reduction represents a mere 10 per cent. of that.
    Although we should welcome this brief Bill, which will have some effect, we must bear in mind the context. It is not a panacea nor the answer to vehicle theft and vehicle crime. For example, it will make no impact on the 130,000 vehicles that are stolen, recovered and recorded as recovered. Of course, those vehicles are often wrecked beyond repair and of no use. Nor will it make an impact on the 700,000 thefts from vehicles every year, which the hon. Member for Buckingham touched on. Those 700,000 thefts are, of course, only recorded thefts. Other sources claim that the total number, unrecorded and recorded, is about four times that figure—close to 3 million.
    The Bill will have no impact on spiralling motor cycle theft: the current rate is 25,000 a year, and increasing rapidly. Nor will it have an impact on the organised criminal trade in car and motor cycle spare parts, which is estimated to cost the economy five times as much as vehicle theft.
    Much more needs to be done to prevent the theft of vehicles and parts. As the Minister said in response to an intervention, we need to do far more to make vehicles more secure and more readily traceable, but we also need to do far more to change the culture. As I think was said on Second Reading, we must recognise that there are areas in which communities are disruptive, crime rates are high and, consequently, the rates of vehicle thefts and thefts from vehicles are also high. It is not enough to encourage vehicle manufacturers to make their vehicles more secure; better policing must be provided in the areas that are most prone to theft.
    Mr. Fabricant: I have just noted a statistic. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that between 6 million and 7 million plates are issued every year? Can he imagine how a diminishing police force could possibly regulate that area, in practice?
    Mr. Chidgey: I generally welcome interventions from the hon. Gentleman. Because we share a profession, I always feel that it would be churlish not to listen to his contributions, whatever their worth may be. Perhaps he should refer to the debate on Second Reading, when I drew attention to the manufacture of between 6 million and 7 million plates every year. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a minute, he might get the benefit of my explanation. I speak from memory, but I think that some 2 million new plates are manufactured every year, and some 2 million are used for transfers in the trade. On Second Reading, I asked what happened to the other 2 million. I found it incredible that as many plates were damaged as were distributed for new cars and transferred in the trade.
    That is, of course, the whole purpose of the new legislation on the regulation of manufacture and distribution of registration plates. It is a welcome feature

    277
    of the Bill, but it can only be aimed at preventing the ringing of cars, which involves a mere 36,000 of the 375,000 vehicles that are stolen each year.
    There are still fears in the motor cycle industry that the Bill does not address the vulnerability of motor cycles to theft. The Motorcycle Action Group, the British Motorcyclists Federation and the Motor Cycle Industry Association have all expressed strong, well-thought-out and genuine concerns about the lack of protection for motor cycle owners. They are dismayed that the Bill's aspirations are so limited.
    While car theft is falling—although at a far lower rate than the Prime Minister would wish, judging by his projections relating to targeted vehicle crime—the theft of motor cycles, and the trade in stolen parts from them, is rising dramatically. According to the RAC Foundation, it rose by some 25 per cent. in the last 12 months alone. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that the value of stolen spares from motor cycles in circulation is about £400 million. That is a significant measure of the seriousness of motor cycle theft and the theft and circulation of spares.
    The Bill is very limited in its aspirations. However, so far as it goes and in what it aims to achieve, it is welcome. As the Minister explained, part I will extend statutory regulation to motor salvage, reduce the opportunities to dispose of stolen motor vehicles and assist police in their investigation of vehicle thefts. Those are necessary and welcome provisions.
    Part II has highlighted throughout our debates the shambles of vehicle registration plate manufacture and distribution. There are 27,000 outlets supplying up to 7 million plates annually. Clearly that needs regulation.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is a shambles?
    Mr. Chidgey: Yes.
    Mr. Fabricant: Why?
    Mr. Chidgey: I do not think that I will bother with that type of sedentary comment. The hon. Gentleman must be a little tired. He has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, unlike many of his colleagues. I think that we should make allowances for that.
    We hope that, as amended, part II will go some way towards bringing order out of that particular chaos.
    As for part III, the new laws on vehicle licensing and registration and on raising standards should provide a more effective way of tackling vehicle crime, particularly—as the Minister said on many occasions—in eliminating the ringing of stolen cars.
    New clause 7, which is now clause 37, deals with a matter of great debate, concern and, sometimes, contention. Allowing fines from speed camera offences to fund the costs of extending the system and improving road safety is of course welcome. There is also clear evidence that reducing speed, particularly in dangerous locations, improves road safety. There is, however, a caveat. That funding should not be used as a way of proliferating speed cameras regardless of the need for, and benefit of, more cameras. If that happens, the effectiveness of speed cameras and their impact on improving safety will be reduced.
    278
    The Ministers will recall that, in Committee, various issues were raised to which they offered to return, with amendments, on Report. I have not heard replies to those points in the Government's amendments, perhaps because we have had so little time for today's debates. I shall therefore mention two of them again, to which the Ministers can reply either now or later.
    I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will remember our discussion on what happens when salvage operators cease to trade. What happens to their records? Who is responsible for collecting and storing them? Those records are necessary if we are to maintain an audit trail, which is so important in tracing vehicles. In Committee, we accepted that it was unfair to expect the Minister to have an immediate reply on that point. However, he will remember that he recognised that it was an important point and said that he would return to it. I do not think the point has been dealt with in any of the amendments that we have debated today, although we have not debated all of them.
    The Minister may also recall that, in Committee, we raised the issue of stolen cars that are covered only by third-party insurance. As such cars are not covered for theft and no claim is made when they are stolen, they do not become a part of the insurance companies' written-off trail and simply disappear. In Committee, I expressed very strong concerns about how we can close that loop and catch those who steal the vehicles. As I understand it, about one third of all damaged vehicles fall into that category. Perhaps the Government's amendment No. 22 has addressed the issue. However, as hon. Members will know, we have not had the opportunity to debate that amendment.
    I look forward to the Minister's response.
    9.54 pm
    Mr. Forth: This measure tells us a lot more about Front Benchers in the House than it does necessarily about its specific provisions. It is a typical Labour response to a problem. The arrangement of clauses at the beginning of the Bill includes the tired litany of words and phrases such as "registration", "keeping of records", "right to enter and inspect premises", and so on. Unbelievably, the Bill suggests that local authorities should judge whether a company is fit and proper to conduct its business.
    That is bad enough, but clause 32 says all that needs to be said about Labour's approach to a problem. In that one clause, 10 stages of bureaucracy, intervention and regulation can be identified. They are what the Government seem to believe will solve all the problems in this area. The clause mentions "notification", "issue of duplicates", "correction of errors", "payment of fees", "making of appeals", "carrying out of examinations", "courses of instruction"—
    Mr. David Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman leading up to advocating the well-known Conservative approach of market testing? Under that regime, private firms could bid to provide the registration service that he describes. Perhaps Arthur Daley would be an appropriate person.
    Mr. Forth: That is a very attractive suggestion. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the great world of

    279
    market economics, but my point is this: although I would expect from the Government the bureaucratic, regulatory and interventionist response to problems that this Bill contains, I am very disappointed to find that it has the support of hon. Members on my own party's Front Bench. I thought that I belonged to a party that believed in the operation of the market, in enterprise, in small businesses, and which was against the nanny state. The Bill is a monument to the nanny state, if I ever saw one, and I find it unbelievable and inexcusable that my hon. Friends have been prepared to accept it.
    It appears that the official Opposition are increasingly prepared to accept measures such as this, for reasons that are unclear to me. Perhaps I shall have a word with my hon. Friends after the debate to see whether I can find out what on earth is going on.
    Presumably, we shall have a chance to start opposing the Government's approach—perhaps not in connection with this Bill, but with some other. It is interesting that those who toiled through the Committee stage and who sat through Report spent a lot of time identifying weaknesses that remained in the Bill and in the Government's approach. The Government assert over and again that they want to support and encourage small business, but this measure, through the mountain of regulation that it proposes, can only damage new, small and struggling enterprises. The Government have not yet been able to resolve that apparent dilemma.
    The Bill poses a challenge to the Government and to the Opposition. Have either thought through all the implications of the measures for which they so readily reach? The tired ideas of registration, endless record-keeping, inspections, examinations, tests, expenses, fees, charges and all the rest may or may not go some way towards resolving the problem that has been identified. However, I have heard nothing in our debates of the adverse and negative effects that the Bill is likely to have.
    Bureaucracy will not suffer—the Bill will be yet another of the Government's job-creation schemes, creating even more bureaucrats, officials and inspectors. Whether there will be enough police officers to implement the Bill effectively is another matter, but it will certainly provide more bureaucrats. The one growth area that can be identified is officialdom—the Bill will fail in its adverse effect on small businesses.
    This is a matter of regret to me. I wish that I could divide the House to oppose the Bill. Regrettably, on this occasion, I can only give vocal expression to my opposition to the Bill and hope that next time my right hon. and hon. Friends will do better.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to a couple of points.
    First, I note that all Members who wished to speak in the time allocated to the Bill have been able to do so, thus fulfilling the proposition in the programme motion. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will write to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the points he has raised, because I do not have time to reply to them now. Thirdly, I simply make the observation that the deep division in the ranks of the official Opposition on whether to oppose the Bill shows their position.
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved. —[Mr. Dowd]
    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. Dowd.]
  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. Dowd.]
  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. Dowd.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  ADMINISTRATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Adoption
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Dowd.]
  10.1 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to debate the criteria for adoption and, in particular, appeals. There is a great deal of activity regarding this subject in the media. In addition, the Government have produced the performance and innovation unit report, the White Paper and the ministerial statement. A great deal of attention is being paid to the issue.
  Along with many other hon. Members, my focus has been narrowed, to some extent, by my experience of constituency cases. Very often, adoption cases arouse great emotion among the families concerned and among the wider media when they get into the public domain. I started life in the House with a difficult case that brought to a head issues of age bars and overseas adoption. The case was satisfactorily resolved through the intervention of the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, now the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). The right hon. Gentleman intervened personally and resolved the case to the family's satisfaction and happiness.
  More recently, my constituency has been the centre of attention in a high-profile adoption case. There have been weekly serials in The Mail on Sunday and a great deal of television attention, much of it very distressing. I do not wish to go into the pros and cons of that case because an independent inquiry has been set up. Indeed, it is partly with the help of the Minister and his officials that the inquiry is taking place, and it would be wrong of me to pass judgment on the rights and wrongs of the case. That case, along with others with which I and other right hon. and hon. Members have dealt, illustrates some of the problems in the process.
  I can put my specific remarks in a more general context. The Government have produced a White Paper, based on the Cabinet Office report and the Prime Minister's personal intervention in the matter. All the feedback that I have had from the adopting community—the adopters, the professionals and the social workers—is very positive. It is felt that a lot of progress has been made and that many of the policy prescriptions that have been offered are extremely helpful.
  We are in a very positive environment—the one cloud on the horizon is that we have been here before. As the Minister knows, the 1993 White Paper expressed—probably less well than the present one—many of the hopes for future legislation. However, that White Paper never became legislation. I sincerely hope that the current White Paper does not go the same way. The Minister is not the master of parliamentary business—none the less, the context is positive.
  I wish to start with a general proposition. It might help to promote the ideas in the White Paper if a little more support were given to the role of the adopters and, as a separate group, the foster parents who work on a paid basis for local authorities. There is a clear and positive statement in the White Paper and the associated regulations as to the primacy of the child. That is absolutely right; the language is spot-on and none of us
  282
  would have any quibbles about it. However, the "Introduction to prospective adopters" in the draft adoption standards document includes a passage that the Government intend should set the tone. It states:
  "People who want to adopt will be responded to promptly, given clear information on the recruitment, assessment and approval processes and treated fairly, openly and with respect."
  There is absolutely nothing objectionable about that; it seems to be carefully drafted and entirely proper.
  There is an important omission, however. There is no sense in that document that adopters are valuable, valued and important. Indeed, if they do not come forward in greater numbers, it will not be possible to realise the objectives of the White Paper. It would be helpful to show a little more warmth and commitment to adopters as a group.
  I make that point for two reasons. The first is that—unlike social workers, doctors or teachers—adopters are a scattered community. They are not a profession; they cannot express their frustration, lack of morale, problems, difficulties over bad publicity and so on. That is all the more reason for the Government to acknowledge publicly that they are an important part of the process.
  Secondly, there is a problem of adopter recruitment. Two years ago, there was an enormous profusion of interest in adoption after several harrowing television programmes; 24,000 people expressed interest. Of course, many of those expressions were flippant or had not been thought through. Few of them ever bore fruit. That has never been fully explained to me, but it suggests a lack of receptiveness in the system.
  The appeals process is absolutely crucial to the confidence of adopters. The Government have obviously given much thought to that issue. The White Paper contains a helpful passage—paragraph 6.23—that seems to represent a clear commitment to the appeals process. However, I have some concerns on the matter and some suggestions as to how the system might work.
  Having seen some difficult cases, I think that there is a role for a system of independent appeals for adopters who have difficulties with the approval process; for birth parents, who are also important actors; and for third parties. I am thinking especially of the recent Klinsky case, in which a doctor had independent evidence that something was seriously remiss, wanted to be a whistleblower, but had no access to a suitable process. Appeals could encompass the concerns of all those stakeholders.
  The starting point for discussion has to be the fact that most adoptions work extremely well and smoothly; about 95 per cent. of approvals occur without difficulty. However, the remaining 5 per cent. of cases often generate enormous bitterness and frustration. Because local authorities operate self-regulation systems, there is no outside appeal process so people turn to the law—as in the celebrated case to which I referred earlier.
  As we know, the law is a cumbersome beast; it is slow and expensive. Adoption law is extremely complicated and requires expensive legal advice that people of ordinary means cannot afford. The legal process peters out, so people turn to the press and statements are made that compound the problems. The lack of an independent appeal process crystallises the difficulties.
  Does the Minister agree that there is probably not the same enthusiasm for independent appeals in the professions—in the system and in social work

  283
  departments—as there is among adopters themselves? Indeed, there is some resistance to appeals. That is why I press my case and hope that the Minister will confirm his commitment.
  Why does self-regulation not work? The problem is partly inherent in all such internal complaints systems. For example, despite all the good intentions, the police complaints procedure rarely produces satisfactory remedies, which is why the Home Secretary wants to make it more independent. There is an additional problem with adoption. I do not know whether the Minister will confirm this, but insurance is a particular problem. If a social services department admits liability, it blows its insurance cover. That serious technical problem prevents the openness that would be expected in an internal, self-regulating complaints process.
  Such difficulties lead people to conclude that a proper, stand-alone independent appeals system should deal with the relatively small number of cases that produce a breakdown. I do not know how far the Minister has thought through the practical problems of operating such a system, but various suggestions have been made. The first suggestion is that the system should be broadly based and open to birth parents, adopters and third parties. An obvious requirement is that it should have a gatekeeper, so that frivolous complaints are not allowed and only serious investigations can take place. Clearly, there should be pre-selection, as with the ombudsman and similar schemes. The appeals need to be dealt with very quickly, otherwise the system would defeat the objective of speedy adoption—the key to the policy.
  I do not know whether the Government have considered the suggestion that they will have to set up a body or a formal structure to deal with the ratification of the Hague convention—an issue that arises from the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. That structure could provide a vehicle for an independent complaints appeals procedure. That is the main point that I want to make based on my own experience and discussions with the various adoption groups.
  I am sure that the importance of speed is recognised in fact, it is stated explicitly in the White Paper but I want to make two specific points, the first of which is about infants. I understand that 2,200 children under the age of one are currently awaiting adoption, 770 of whom have waited for more than six months and 990 between two and six months—very young babies. Has any thought been given to creating a fast-track procedure for infants, as opposed to other categories of children?
  My other question about speed relates to the text of the draft standards. The Government are clearly committed to six-month time horizons, making the process quicker. That is welcome, but how will they work? How will local authorities be required to report whether six months has been exceeded? Many of the emotive difficulties with inter-racial adoption are not about race, but about time periods. Everyone accepts that same-race placements are almost invariably best, but it is a matter of how quickly they can take place. The issue is very much one of speed and how time limits can be set and made meaningful.
  I became involved in such problems in the first place because of overseas adoption. Apart from the difficulties of domestic adoption, we have a culture that is resistant to overseas adoption. For example, last year in this country, 350 such cases were approved; in France, it is 10
  284
  times that number. In talking to people in the social services profession, not necessarily those in my area, I have sensed a certain sniffiness and suspicion of the people who opt for overseas adoption. That is wholly unjustified; we live in an increasingly globalised environment. People have voluntary and paid jobs abroad and marry foreign husbands and wives, and it is often very natural to want to adopt from overseas. However, the system is extremely resistant to that.
  As I understand it, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), will make the process easier. However, without something to facilitate overseas adoptions to ensure that the proper channels are used overseas and in the United Kingdom, such adoptions will not become easier, or, if they do, they will happen in a highly irregular manner. The recent internet case is a good example of people using irregular or inappropriate channels. If there were a proper system of accredited agencies or an official agency that was supported with at least its start-up costs, there would be a proper, recognised and regulated procedure. That would help to avoid abuse.
  I should be grateful for the Minister's reaction to those points, and I thank him for staying to reply to them.
  10.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing a debate on the issues relating to the criteria for adoption. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has presented his case with his customary skill and precision. He has put forward a strong case and made some important points.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several issues to do with the White Paper and he also referred to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. He was right to say that his hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) introduced this important Act, and we are very pleased that he did. One of the things that it will do is impose an obligation on local authorities to provide a proper inter-country adoption service. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked whether a proper agency would facilitate the process; in future, that will be done by local authorities or approved adoption agencies. That is an important safeguard for the quality and the integrity of the inter-country adoption procedure. I know that he and his hon. Friend support that very much, as we do.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Act has not yet been brought into effect. I know that some Members will ask why not, since it was enacted in 1999. We have already brought one section of the Act into effect, and that relates to ensuring that people who want to adopt a child from abroad conduct a proper home assessment study in this country which has not been privately commissioned. Several concerns have been expressed about privately commissioned home study reports, and we have made sure that that practice will come to an end.
  However the main thrust of the Act is to provide the legal platform to allow the United Kingdom to ratify the Hague convention. We have to ratify it as a United Kingdom, so the equivalent regulations and legislation have to pass through both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has completed its processes but, unfortunately, the Northern

  285
  Ireland Assembly has not yet done that. I understand that it will do so later this summer, but we are not able to ratify the convention until the Northern Ireland Assembly has completed its deliberations. I hope that will be done soon, and I want to dispel any suggestion that we might be dragging our feet on ratifying the Hague convention. That is not so, but we have to ratify the convention as a United Kingdom.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several important points about aspects of the White Paper that relate to national standards. He asked us to ensure that there is a bit more warmth, as regards the national standards, towards prospective adopters, and raised several important points about the appeal process. I am sure that he understands that the standards have been issued for consultation. We have not yet made any final decisions on what they will look like, and we shall have to wait to see what suggestions people make during the consultation exercise. We shall consider ways of improving the operation of the standards, and we shall examine carefully his comments about prospective adopters.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me to reaffirm our commitment to the introduction of an independent appeals system for prospective adopters who might have been turned down by an adoption panel. As the White Paper made clear, we are fully committed to introducing a proper independent appeal system. There are number of reasons for doing that, and I shall mention two tonight. First, such a system would support good decision making in local authorities. I do not subscribe to the view that an independent appeal system will impede the process of coming to a speedy decision on adoption or will give rise to bad decisions because people are looking over their shoulders at the person standing behind them. It is important that people know that there is an independent and effective appeals procedure, and I believe that that will support, not impede, good decision making.
  The second reason is simple. Concerns have been expressed about the process by which people are approved for adoption. The hon. Gentleman referred to that. Although national standards will help people to be confident that they are being treated fairly and properly, if an adoption panel decides to reject an application, the person concerned will have the right to go to an independent appeal process. It is important that we put behind us the arguments that people have been treated arbitrarily or unreasonably, because such claims are likely to impede our attempts to create greater confidence in the system. We want more people to offer themselves as adoptive parents.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned fast-tracking for infants. The adoption standards in the recent White Paper made it clear that we will ensure that voluntarily relinquished infants are placed for adoption, wherever possible, within three months. Disagreement would make that task harder, but we should be able to proceed more quickly if a child is voluntarily relinquished.
  There is significant interest in the general matter of adoption. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the press and wider public interest in the adoption process which has been sparked by a long-running concern, as expressed by hon. Members, about the failures of the looked-after care system. We know that many children who leave care have limited prospects of employment and few educational
  286
  qualifications. Many of them will experience periods of homelessness and joblessness. That is unacceptable. People in care deserve the same opportunities to enjoy a stable and secure family life as any other child. Unfortunately, they have been denied that because of the way in which the care system has worked. The Government are clear that adoption holds out a positive opportunity for young people in care to enjoy the opportunities that we have taken for granted for our children.
  For those reasons, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister initiated a thorough review of adoption in February. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend commissioned the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to consider the evidence and make recommendations. The report was published on 7 July last year. Following extensive consultation, we published the White Paper "Adoption: a new approach" on 21 December. It outlines the most radical overhaul of adoption law and practice in more than 25 years and sets out a vision for high-quality public services that offer new opportunities for looked-after children. It is based on placing their needs first and designed entirely from their perspective.
  We know that adoption works and want more children to benefit from the generosity and commitment of adoptive families. The White Paper sets a new national target to deliver a minimum 40 per cent. increase in the number of lasting adoptions by the year 2005, although I hope that the Government's measures will help to achieve a 50 per cent. increase in that period. Our aim must be to give many hundreds more looked-after children the chance to live as a permanent member of a stable, secure and loving new family.
  To meet that target, we must attract more prospective adopters. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We must attract adopters who are suitable to meet the needs of children in the care system. We need more ethnic minority and black adopters. We also need more adopters who are able to take on sibling groups, because that is a particular issue. We also know that there is widespread concern about the fairness, clarity and consistency of the adoption process. Many people have explained that that could be deterring many potential adopters from coming forward.
  To help to address those problems, we published the first ever set of national adoption standards. They will help to drive up the standards of service for children and adoptive parents in all parts of the country, making adoption services faster, fairer and more transparent. They have been written to ensure that looked-after children, prospective adopters, birth families and the general public understand what they can expect from the adoption service. They will also set challenging new targets to speed up the adoption process. I shall say a little more about that in a moment, because the hon. Gentleman expressed concern about that aspect of our proposals.
  The draft national standards are underpinned by a clear set of values that govern the way in which adoption services should be managed. Most importantly, the national standards clearly spell out that the welfare, safety and needs of children must be put at the centre of the adoption process. It is important for us all to remember that adoption is about meeting the needs of children, not the needs of adults.

  287
  The Prime Minister's review of adoption identified many concerns about the current adoption process. In particular, many concerns were expressed about the assessment process for prospective adopters. At the moment that is widely perceived to be too slow, too intrusive and too bureaucratic. We are tackling those concerns.
  The standards will set out how prospective adopters will be welcomed and treated in an open and fair way. In future, written eligibility criteria will be provided. People will not automatically be excluded on grounds of their age, health or other factors. There must be no blanket bans based on arbitrary criteria, because they are unfair to children who are waiting to be adopted and to prospective adopters.
  The standards also make it clear that the best family for a child will be one that reflects their birth heritage. I know that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about a constituency case in which that was a controversial issue. However, no child should be denied a loving adoptive family solely on the grounds that the parents have different racial or cultural backgrounds. The primary consideration in determining a child's adoptive parents must be the child's needs, safety and well-being.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, as I was, that current research—such as that recently published by Rushton and Minis—has confirmed that although a same-race placement is preferable, it should not be pursued at the expense of a child drifting in the care system. Our guidance to adoption agencies strongly reinforces this view.
  The draft standards also propose new time scales for processing applications from prospective adopters. They can expect a written response to a first inquiry within a week; a follow-up interview and an invitation to a preparation meeting within two months, and a decision within six months of making an application to proceed. That will be a substantial improvement on the current arrangements.
  We accept that delivering that will be a challenge for local social services departments. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have found, as I have, that some social services departments are able to achieve that already. The issue, as in the national health service, is consistency of performance and of raising the standards of all authorities to those achieved by the best. We know that that can be done because some authorities are doing it already. Clearly, the hurdles are not insurmountable. Social services departments will need to be supported by clear direction of public policy and backed up by investment of new resources. I hope that we are providing a clear lead on that.
  For foster carers who want to adopt a child, when it is in the child's interests to do so, the application will in future be processed in just three months.
  We need to recruit more adopters, however, and from more diverse ethnic backgrounds, and that is a priority too. In future, information on becoming an adoptive parent will be provided promptly, and will include details about what is expected of adopters. The assessment process will be faster, fairer and more transparent, with prospective adopters being given the opportunity to attend
  288
  preparation meetings, to learn more about the children waiting for adoption and to talk to others who have adopted children. I hope that the measures will help us to treat adopters better and to support them better so that we can attract more adoptive parents to adopt more children successfully.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, prospective adopters will have, for the first time, a right to a wholly independent review of their application, should they be turned down by an adoption agency. The PIU report recommended that an appeals mechanism for potential adopters should be put in place in all local authorities, whereby applicants who have been rejected could have their case reviewed by a panel in a neighbouring area. Feedback from the consultation exercise on the report showed that many people were concerned that this would not be independent enough. I agree.
  That is why we have decided to introduce a new independent review procedure for potential adopters whose application is rejected. For the first time, prospective adopters who are to be turned down will have the right to a fully independent review of their case. We will establish an independent body, appointed by the Secretary of State. Its role will be to set up a new adoption panel to look at all the evidence again, and to make a new recommendation to the agency, either in support of the original decision or against it. The agency will have to take account of that new recommendation before making its final decision. The new panel will be entirely independent, with no representation on it from the original panel. I accept that the Department will need to do more work to finalise the details of how the new independent appeals system will work. We will bring forward our proposals in the near future.
  This year the Government will carry out a fundamental review of the adoption assessment process and the operation of adoption panels, including consideration of streamlining the assessment of "second time around" adopters, to explore what improvements could be made, with a view to implementing improvements during 2002.
  In the meantime, we will be working with local authorities to review current assessment practice and to identify areas of best practice. We will also be consulting stakeholders later in the year on how the assessment process could be tailored for different groups such as foster carers, friends and families, and those who have adopted previously.
  The White Paper also spelled out that a clearer legal duty will be placed on local councils to plan for and provide comprehensive support services for adoptive families. That will apply equally to all adopters, including those adopting children from overseas. Families adopting children will be entitled to have their needs for support services properly assessed. They will have access to a comprehensive package of post-adoption support, including adoption allowances, in a way that is more consistent throughout the country—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Area Cost Adjustment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Good morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to initiate this debate.
Area cost adjustment is regarded as a somewhat esoteric subject. However, it is not esoteric in its effects—they are very real and are felt by my constituents in the amount of grant distributed to Cambridgeshire and, indeed, to South Cambridgeshire district council. The area cost adjustment substantially reduces the amount of grant that would be available under a different system of distribution to support local government services. I hope to demonstrate during my introduction that area cost adjustment is important both in its financial effects for local government and its impact on local government services and also because of what it tells us about the way in which the Government have dealt with their election promises during this Parliament.
Immediately before the previous general election, on 30 April 1997, the Cambridge Evening News published an interview with the then Leader of the Opposition—the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was rightly asked about area cost adjustment because of its impact on Cambridgeshire. He said:
"We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year … Changes in line with the recent Elliot review would bring the county an extra £10 million."
Even at that time, I was keen that the issue of area cost adjustment should be pressed to a conclusion as soon as possible, because of the large financial consequences for Cambridgeshire county council; and that in pursuance of the right hon. Gentleman's commitment before the election, it should be reviewed in time for the next financial year—1998ߝ99. As a result, I secured an Adjournment debate on 18 July 1997, when I pressed the Government to deliver such a review and to reform the area cost adjustment.
Unfortunately, in the space of two months, the Government had already found that it was not as convenient to deal with promises two months after the general election as it was to make them two or three days before. At that time, the Minister for Housing and Planning, then Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, said that a review would take place, but that the matter would be very difficult and he could make no promises about the outcome.
The story has continued in much the same way—with expressions of concern, references to technicalities and so on. Those technicalities will have to delay us for a few moments, because it would be unfair to Ministers if they
2WH
were not described. No one has ever pretended that there are no difficulties associated with reform of the area cost adjustment. It is useful to remind ourselves of the series of obstacles and hurdles placed in the path of securing reform of the local government distribution system.
In November 1997, the Government showed that there had been problems with the Elliot review. That review advocated a general labour market approach to setting the area cost element in the distribution of grant—thus the grant would be varied by reference to the general labour market in which local authorities were expected to hire staff. There were several problems—for example, with the data to be used for such calculations in the standard spending assessment. There was potential for overcompensation: many local authorities were employing staff on national pay rates, so to compensate such authorities through the grant distribution as though they were simply buying their labour in the marketplace might overcompensate them if the difference between authorities was not so great because of the impact of national pay rates. However, it was always clear that local authorities were employing staff, using national pay scales and their discretion within pay scales in a way that tried to adapt to the labour market and the pay costs in their area.
Geography also posed problems. Cambridgeshire offers a good example. To operate at county level, as the Elliot review proposed, would not necessarily have correctly compensated for the cost of providing a service in all parts of the county. For example, in south Cambridgeshire, there is, in effect, a London labour market as regards not only costs, but some pay and recruitment pressures, whereas in Peterborough, or other parts of the county, the pressures on costs and pay are different. That illustrates the desirability of operating below county level.
That is why I have no substantial problem with the Government's attempts to pursue what was known as the specific cost approach—looking below county level and considering the way in which authorities adapted in practice the use of national pay scales to their labour costs. However, although—in the Government's view—that necessitated a delay in the implementation of a review for the period beyond 1998ߝ99, the specific cost approach led to the publication, in summer 1998, of 21 options for reform of the area cost adjustment. It would have been perfectly possible—if difficult—to settle on one of those options in time for the 1999ߝ2000 financial year.
At this point, I have to depart from the Government's approach because they failed to deliver on their election commitment. In December 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was not proposing to make a change; he proposed to change some aspects of the SSAs, but not the area cost adjustment. Indeed, he said that he would impose a three-year moratorium, which would take us up to the financial year 2002ߝ03. He did so based on the fact that local government had been consulted about the 21 options—even though it might be argued that such a large number of options precluded meaningful consultation —and there was no consensus.
To complete the chronology, in spring 2000, a document was published on central-local partnership between Government and local government. By late summer 2000, a local government Green Paper had been

3WH
issued that told us almost nothing about the Government's plans for reform of the area cost adjustment, although it told us a certain amount about their desire to reform the grant distribution system in general. That would doubtless encompass the area cost adjustment, but we have no idea how. Yet again, there was no agreement about how such matters were to be undertaken, so there was a proposal for further delay. Another year was to be added to the moratorium, so that we would reach 2003ߝ04 before the Government proposed to initiate any reform of the area cost adjustment.
It is not only that the Government have delayed and, by so doing, have failed to meet the Prime Minister's election promise to review the area cost adjustment in time for the financial year after the previous general election; the date has been moved five years on—with every prospect that the Government will continue to fail to meet their commitment. That, in a sense, is the injury. However, the insult as well as the injury is that not only have the method and data used continued to change in the most recent local government financial settlement, but the consequences are hitting authorities such as Cambridgeshire.
I shall give three specific examples. First, the differential between those authorities that receive the area cost adjustment and those that do not Cambridgeshire is just off the cliff edge in that respect—has increased because new data have been incorporated into the financial settlement. However, people do not agree about that data, because hourly rates of pay, without overtime—not total weekly earnings—are used in the area cost adjustment. That apparently recondite difference has a significant impact on authorities outside the area cost adjustment, such as Cambridgeshire.
Secondly, the change in the area cost adjustment must be financed by others. Not only is the differential greater so that Cambridgeshire is more disadvantaged relatively, but it must finance the cost to the tune of £1.6 million in this financial settlement. Other authorities are in a similar position. Thirdly, the Government have proposed to try to offset some of the consequences, so floors and ceilings have been introduced in the percentage change in SSA. Those mechanisms do not benefit Cambridgeshire, as it did not have an abnormally low or high percentage increase.
As a consequence of the compensation offered, Cambridgeshire suffered an additional loss of £300,000 in its financial settlement because that money was used to finance the floors and ceilings. So there has been a £2 million overall reduction in the grant available for Cambridgeshire. Alongside other authorities, Cambridgeshire has had to compensate for the alterations in the benefits derived from data changes for other authorities—principally those that benefit from the area cost adjustment.
Far be it from me to say that the Government should not consider reality, and I do not dispute that, in reality, changes in relative labour costs impose costs on local authorities. If the Government are to deal with reality, however, they must consider the changed labour market circumstances outside the area cost adjustment
4WH
mechanism as much as within it. We must consider adjusting the grant distribution system if it is to take account of costs.
Have the Government simply moved the goalposts? Back in 1998, the SSA, on which all this hangs, was viewed as a mechanism for assessing how much councils needed to spend to provide their services. Indeed, the plain English guide to the local government finance settlement—clearly, an heroic task for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to undertake—stated, in February 1998, that the SSA assessed how much each council would have to spend to provide its services. Therefore, the cost of providing those services formed an essential part of the SSA calculation.
Interestingly, without any announcement or song and dance at DETR, the SSA was not defined in that way by February 1999. It was defined as being the Government's way of dividing up total standard spending between local authorities. In effect, the Government have shied away from the SSA calculations representing a realistic effort to measure what it costs a local authority to provide its services in the light of its costs and needs. So the Government have compounded their inability to reach a decision on the area cost adjustment, and the unfairness continues.
There is absolutely no logic in trying to divide the cake—the grant available to local authorities—without reference either to what it costs them to deliver services or to the needs that must be met. I shall not go too far down that path, but the Government have elevated local authorities' needs, as they have defined them, above costs. It is therefore easier for the Government to justify diverting money away from shire districts into metropolitan areas for their own political purposes.
The consequences can be seen in Cambridgeshire. My constituency includes the border between Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire and that between Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. Both of those authorities receive the area cost adjustment. Hertfordshire is the best funded local education authority. Cambridgeshire is among the worst funded, with the lowest SSA per head of population for education. If Cambridgeshire were to receive the area cost adjustment on the same basis as Bedfordshire, about £20 million would be added to its SSA, which would have a beneficial effect on the grant. In Cambridgeshire, that represents additional resources for schools of more than £200 per pupil.
Those of us in Cambridgeshire know perfectly well that a comparison of the labour market shows that it is nonsense to suggest that Bedfordshire has higher labour costs than south Cambridgeshire. In fact, the reverse is the case. So, year after year, Cambridgeshire has to spend more than its SSA, which suggests that it is a higher spending authority; but, in fact, its services are being chronically unfunded because of the SSA's departure from reality.
On Saturday, 27 January, the Cambridge Evening News reported the fears of parents with children at St. Alban's Roman Catholic primary school in Cambridge that the school may not be able to continue to provide the same service and may consider reducing its staff. The chairman of the governors is reported as saying:

5WH
"We have been cushioned for some years by the combination of reserves, income derived from letting school premises, and support from the Parents and Friends Association."
Cambridgeshire county council rightly said:
"The decision by Government to divert £2 million from Cambridgeshire's funding to support other local authorities—
the combination of factors that I have mentioned—
"has meant schools are getting less growth this year than planned."
That shows the direct impact on schools.
In early 1997, I took the opportunity to raise the issue in the hope that the Government would do something about it. They had promised to do so, and I wanted a resolution of the issues that arose under the previous Government, who instituted the Elliot review, as well as under the incoming Government. We now approach the end of the Parliament, and the Government are presumably proposing to enter the election campaign having failed to meet their promises. Far be it from me to suspect that the Government will pull a rabbit out of the hat between now and the election if it is only months away, so a Conservative Government may well have to pick up where we left off in 1997 and use the Elliot review and subsequent reviews to take decisions on the structure of local government finance because the unfairness continues.
I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I value what the LGA does in many ways, but I continue to be disappointed that the creation of a single, national voice for local government has not enabled it to cross the bridge and reconcile the different views on the issue among its membership, although it has tried heroically. In a letter, dated 19 October, to DETR officials, Mr. Kinghan, the LGA's director of local government finance, wrote:
"In the longer term, we suggest that the Government should provide additional resources to deal with the entire issue of ACA, so that the support goes to authorities with recognised higher costs without funds being taken from those authorities which do not benefit from ACA."
In a sense, Mr. Kinghan is right—it is inevitable that a mechanism to deal with the area cost adjustment will, in effect, top-slice the local government financial settlement and benefit those authorities with higher costs outside the area cost adjustment. There are two better ways to address the issue of the local government financial settlement more honestly. We either compensate accurately for costs or, if we continue to have a formula-based system—the Government are proposing various formula or plan-based systems—we must deliver a realistic assessment of an authority's relative resources, its relative needs and its relative costs. In the absence of either of those alternatives, no grant system will be fair even if it is predictable.
We want the system to be not only fair, but simple and predictable. It is certainly possible to do that, but it is impossible to do so while we continue to have an area cost assessment that is so obviously perverse in its effects. Despite what the Government have said about a moratorium, the way in which they tinker with the system year on year and introduce new data exacerbates the unfairnesses that derive from the present position.
Although I have been tediously technical in my speech, it is not a technical issue but one of political will. Before the election, the Prime Minister made promises
6WH
that he must have known contrasted with those made by the previous Government. When the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was asked about the subject by the Cambridge Evening News, he made it clear that it was a difficult issue and that a review should be conducted that would result in winners and losers. My right hon. Friend said that he could not make any promises even though he was a Member of Parliament for a Cambridgeshire constituency.
When the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, he did not feel so constrained. He felt that he could make promises and try to gather votes in Cambridge, Peterborough and elsewhere on the basis of them. However, he has failed to deliver on them. The responsibility for that cannot be shuffled on to local government by claiming that councils should have mysteriously arrived at a consensus. The formula for distributing grant to local authorities from Government will essentially be a Government responsibility until we arrive at the day, fondly to be sought, when local government to a much greater extent raises and spends its own money according to its priorities. I hope that day comes.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Hear, hear.
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend and I perhaps recognise that that day is some way off and may be difficult to arrive at. However, until we get to that happy day, the Government must take responsibility for the manner in which they support local government and the fairness or otherwise of the system. The responsibility cannot be shirked, but it has been. We shall arrive at the election with a Government who have broken their promises. As at the beginning of this Parliament, I return to an issue that is vital to my constituents. It illustrates the prevarication and broken promises that have characterised so much of the Government's activity.
9.53 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing a debate on what many Conservative Members regard as an important issue.
For as practically as long as I have been the Member of Parliament for Ludlow, I have campaigned against the formula that determines the amount of money that goes each year to our shire hall. As my hon. Friend said, the formula causes his county similar problems.
To put the issue into perspective with regard to Shropshire, I shall give the House the figures that I obtained in November 1999 and that have not changed substantially in the meantime. The standard spending assessment per pupil means that a primary pupil in the London borough of Southwark attracts the sum of £3,396 while a primary pupil in Shropshire attracts only £2,220. The figure for a secondary pupil in Southwark is £4,377, but for Shropshire it is only £2,837. The differences are dramatic—a 50 per cent. difference in the standard spending assessment for pupils in Shropshire and Southwark.
In a letter to me of 15 December 2000, the Minister for School Standards said that the main cause of the differences in funding per pupil between Shropshire and other authorities was the area cost adjustment. She added that

7WH
"this is a problem we have inherited from the previous Government."
This Government were elected on 1 May 1997, but, as has been alluded to, they intend to do nothing about the formula and the area cost adjustment until 2003ߝ04. That means that, throughout the whole of this Parliament and the first Labour Administration, nothing has been done, and they forecast that, even if they win the next election, nothing will be done for a further two years. For a six-year period, the problem that they identified before they came to power will not be tackled at all.
I simply cannot accept that any reasonable person examining the problem objectively would be impressed by the lame excuse that the present position is a result of a problem that the Government inherited nearly four years ago. Four years is an enormously long time, and time enough for any Government to rectify a problem that they identified at the outset of their term of office. However, the extraordinary fact about the Labour Government is that they have legislated in many areas where there have been neither recognisable problems nor public demand for change. They have gone full steam ahead in many areas where they need not have legislated and where there has been no consensus for legislation. However, on this issue, in which many people have identified a huge problem, they have done absolutely nothing and intend to do absolutely nothing for a very long time.
It is not an excuse for the Government to say that they inherited the problem from the previous Government. They came to power promising to put right all sorts of things that, in their estimation, the previous Government had got wrong. They stand indicted by the fact that they have failed badly to do that.
In a letter to me of 18 January 2001, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), wrote that
"we do understand the strength of feeling caused by local government finance issues, and in particular the Area Cost Adjustment."
There is no doubt in the Government's mind as to the problem; they know what it is. Why have they not done anything about it? The letter adds that
"replacing the existing system with a better system is not straightforward. We have tried reviewing the ACA in isolation—in 1998 we considered 21 different options. But local authorities were unable to agree on the best way forward.
Is it satisfactory for the Government to fail to legislate on this issue because there is no consensus when they have legislated on all sorts of other issues on which there has not been consensus? Does the Minister ever expect to achieve consensus among local authorities when some authorities, such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, are heavily disadvantaged by the system and many others, particularly in the south-east, are advantaged by it? The Minister speaks with a forked tongue when she claims that the Government would like to achieve consensus. It is apparent that consensus is not forthcoming and is unlikely ever to be forthcoming in circumstances in which some local authorities benefit from the system and others are penalised by it.
8WH
The reference to consensus was repeated only last week on 22 January by the Minister for School Standards. She told me that
"there was no consensus amongst groups of local authorities about the way forward."
Are the Government saying that no progress will be made until they get consensus among local authorities? If that is the case, it reveals that they do not intend do anything about the problem. The truth is that there is no political will to solve the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire so eloquently explained.
I said that I have been concerned about the issue for almost as long as I have been a Member of Parliament. The problem for my county of Shropshire dates back to 1990, when the grant-related expenditure allowance was replaced by the standard spending assessment. Since then, Shropshire has found itself more and more disadvantaged, to the extent that in 1995, the then Member for North Shropshire, now my noble Friend Lord Biffen, and I were obliged to vote against our own Government on this very issue.
The problem is not new. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire conceded, it was identified in the previous Parliament. The Prime Minister picked up on it before to the election when he said:
"We will review the area cost adjustment in time for the next financial year."
My hon. Friend reminded the Chamber of the Prime Minister's commitment. He also rightly said that it is another broken promise by the Labour Government.
I can guess what the Minister will say. She will explain that the problem is not as bad as we are making out because funds are directed to our counties by other means. However, the fundamental problem remains: the formula is defective. The area cost adjustment is unfair, which means that Shropshire, Cambridgeshire and other counties are severely disadvantaged compared with many other counties. Voters in my constituency cannot understand that.
I want to remind the Chamber that, as my hon. Friend said at the beginning of this debate, the incoming Labour Government undertook to review the workings of the SSA. We all knew that and hoisted it on board. However, at a meeting with the Minister in her office on 28 June last year, I and many other Members of Parliament from all parties heard her say that it was unlikely that anything would be done in this Parliament. That has been confirmed subsequently and we have been told that nothing will be done this side of 2003ߝ04. That is in spite of innumerable letters, speeches, questions and deputations that I have led to Ministers. No one can pretend that the problem does not exist or has not been identified.
Why have the Government not acted? As my hon. Friend rightly explained, there is a total lack of political will to correct the obvious deficiencies of the system. I am not interested in hearing the Minister say that she recognises the problem and that something should be done, because we have heard that before. I hope that she will say when the Government will correct what is, by anyone's standards, a most unsatisfactory situation.
10.4 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on raising the issue of area cost adjustment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, this is not the first time that it has been raised. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 14 years and the thorny issue of area cost adjustment has been debated every year.
People in Cambridgeshire are severely disadvantaged by the disproportionate way in which local government finance is apportioned. For the past decade, it has been one of the fastest—if not the fastest—growing counties in the United Kingdom. The pressures on the local authority budget have been immense. Despite representations to do something about the area cost adjustment, the situation has become more perverse because the differential between the funding to Cambridgeshire and those counties over its border—Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Essex— has worsened.
At one end of the spectrum, there is pressure on our schools. Only last week, my local newspaper reported that six schools were bursting at the seams and that there was no money to accommodate the rising number of children who were entering primary classes at those schools. At the other end of the spectrum, there are phenomenal pressures on our social services, which has a significant knock-on effect on the health service because it causes bed blocking. We do not have the resources to give proper community care to our people or to ensure that the elderly can move from hospital into residential or nursing home care.
It is also unacceptable that, despite representations, the Minister has ignored our pleas. In fact, she turned down a meeting with Members of Parliament for Cambridgeshire constituencies and county council officials. It is unacceptable that we cannot put our case on behalf of our constituents to the Minister responsible. The Government's arrogant refusal to face up to the problems and issues that people want to put to them is another sign of the way in which they treat local authorities and Members of Parliament.
We have said that the system is totally unfair. Despite the Prime Minister's assurances and promises when he came to Cambridgeshire, we have made no progress. The Government might be hiding behind the excuse that consensus is necessary, but we know that it will never occur because it requires political will on behalf of the Government to impose a settlement that is deemed fair. That might mean robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it cannot be right that, within 10 miles or less, children at some schools in Hertfordshire receive hundreds of pounds more per pupil than we do over the border in Cambridgeshire.
Another perverse outcome of the area cost adjustment is the inexorable rise in council tax—one of the Government's stealth taxes. That means that we have to put our hands in our pockets to fund the services that are essential for our people in Cambridgeshire.
It behoves the Government to address the problem of the area cost adjustment. I look forward to what the Minister will say, but I suspect that nothing will happen before the election and that the promises that were made before the last election will prove empty and worthless.
10.9 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate. I thank him for his courtesy in indicating that he would use the debate to attack the Government—I would have expected nothing less from him.
We have had an interesting debate about the area cost adjustment and local government settlements more generally. The hon. Gentleman argued that his constituency should receive the area cost adjustment as long as it exists. He said that it is unfair that his constituency does not receive it at present because it puts his constituents and his council at a disadvantage compared with neighbouring authorities that do receive it.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), however, said that we should not have an area cost adjustment because it is totally unfair to councils in the north that there is a mechanism that takes account of extra cost pressures on councils in London and the south-east. We also heard from the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), whose constituency borders only places that do not receive the area cost adjustment. I am not sure what his argument is. I do not know whether he wants the area cost adjustment or whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Ludlow that we should scrap it altogether.
Mr. Gill: Let me get one thing straight—I did not say that we should scrap the area cost adjustment. I said that the present formula is grossly unfair, and the whole formula must be revised. Does not the Minister accept that it works perversely against counties such as Cambridgeshire and Shropshire because the amount paid is top-sliced against the money that would otherwise be shared equally among local authorities throughout the country?
Ms Hughes: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that any system that distributes money is a zero sum game, and compensation for higher costs in some areas comes out of the total pot. That is the way in which previous Governments have handled the matter, and it is the only way in which it can be handled.
Mr. Lansley: If it is always a zero sum game, will the Minister remind us who has paid for the increase in the area cost adjustment in this financial settlement? In the past week, the Government have provided between £150 million and £160 million in additional financing for authorities that might otherwise have lost out under the settlement, so who has paid for that? Who has lost out as a consequence?
Ms Hughes: No one has lost out as a result of the additional money being made available.
Mr. Lansley: So it is not a zero sum game.
Ms Hughes: It is a zero sum game in terms of the total pot, whatever the size of the pot.
Mr. Moss: So increase the pot.
Ms Hughes: Hon. Members should let me speak because they have had their time. We have had a period

11WH
of consultation on the settlement, and the total pot has increased as a result and additional resources were made available to respond to pressures. However, it is still the case that a mechanism that compensates authorities for higher costs must be paid for out of the total pot.
Mr. Moss: I am interested in the Minister's argument about higher costs. In education, for example, the bulk of costs for local authorities, particularly the shire counties, are teachers' salaries, which I understand to be the same throughout the United Kingdom. Likewise, local government employees' salaries are the same throughout the country. What, then, are the massive additional costs that mean that Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Essex receive huge sums above those received by Cambridgeshire?
Ms Hughes: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question, as I am sure the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is, because the subject of the debate is the area cost adjustment, a mechanism introduced by the previous Government to recognise the higher costs to local authorities of many of their employees in London and some of the south-east. I cannot in this debate go back to the basics of why that mechanism was set up; I should have thought that whatever the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire thinks about the current system, he had greater knowledge of the arguments and principles that underpin the recognition that the costs, particularly of employment, to local authorities in some areas are higher than elsewhere.
Distribution is important, and it exercises many councils, which are as interested in what other authorities are getting as in what they themselves are to receive in any individual settlement. However, most important is the amount of investment given to local authorities to improve services and to meet needs in their area. In that regard, the big picture since the last general election is very different from that before the election, and I speak from personal experience in local government at that time.
I remind Conservative Members of the figures. In this year's settlement, the Government grant and business rates will increase by 7.2 per cent., compared with a 5.8 per cent. increase last year. There is an additional £3 billion in the Government grant to local authorities, an 8.3 per cent. increase for education and a 6.2 per cent. increase for social services. We have also announced additional neighbourhood renewal fund money, and yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £52 million to help education authorities that are under pressure.
In the past three years, the real-terms increase in investment in local authorities is almost 14 per cent. That compares with a real-terms cut of 7 per cent. in the three years leading up to the election. There has been a massive change in the experience of local authorities and in the investment given to them. That demonstrates the importance that we, unlike the Conservative Government, attach to local authorities and the extent to which we recognise their needs and the pressures on them.
Mr. Lansley: The Minister is getting ahead of herself. We have not yet formed a Government, but I promise
12WH
her that we will do so shortly. As she is in the business of giving us the broad history of local government financing, does she recall that the consequences for local authorities in the past three years include an average increase of £150 in band D council tax throughout the country?
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows well that as the investment in local authorities increased over that period, the increase in council tax has been reduced from 8.6 per cent. to 6.1 per cent. last year. We expect that, as a result of this year's very generous settlement, the increase will be further reduced. Cambridgeshire county council has done rather well out of this year's settlement, with an increase of 4.1 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation.
I want to scotch one of the political points that the hon. Gentleman made, which is that the settlement has been tinkered with to ensure that additional money goes to metropolitan authorities at the expense of the shire counties. In the past two years, the increase in the standard spending assessment for metropolitan authorities was 3.8 per cent; it is 3.9 per cent. in 2001–02. The increases for the shire areas were 4.7 and 5.1 per cent. Within those shire areas, the counties did much better, with increases of 5.1 and 5.3 per cent.
Those figures are entirely the reverse of the hon. Gentleman's contention, and settlements for shire areas have been significantly higher than those for metropolitan areas in the past three years. That is because we have not manipulated SSA methodology, as the hon. Gentleman contended. We said that we would introduce data changes, and we have done so, but the methodology remains largely the same.
Over the years, numerous projects have tried to find a better method of recognising that there are higher costs in some areas. As Conservative Members said, the previous Government commissioned research from Professor Elliot of the University of Aberdeen. He worked out a model for calculating regional pay based on labour costs for all employees in the local economy. That research was undertaken in July 1996, so there would have been plenty of time for the previous Government to introduce the new method if they had demonstrated the political will to reform the whole system that this Government have shown. However, the Conservative Government balked when it came to implementing Professor Elliot's review. They prevaricated for so long that they were still dithering and deciding that they could not do anything when they lost the general election.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister take the opportunity of putting on record exactly what will have been done during the duration of the Labour Administration in respect of the area cost adjustment?
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Government have been dealing with a wealth of neglect and dithering that is the legacy of the Conservative Government. We are systematically working through all policy areas, not only local government finance, to put things right. I shall outline what we have already done and what we intend to do.

13WH
The Government, too, have conducted research openly, and with local government, about local government finance settlements, and especially about the area cost adjustment. As promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he visited Cambridge in 1997, we have conducted a thorough review of the calculation of the ACA before the 1999–00 settlement.
The contention of Conservative Members that a promise is not being delivered is inaccurate. We promised a thorough review, one much more extensive than that which Professor Elliot undertook, and it was undertaken. That review produced a range of different options in the form of models and generated a great deal of debate. Unfortunately, there was no consensus on the preferred option. However, it is interesting that this morning three Conservative Members cannot arrive at a consensus in a debate that was supposed to be about attacking the Government. The three of them cannot get their act together. The chances of local authorities arriving at a consensus were probably much more remote.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the specific cost approach, which featured in several of the models that were the result of research. As he knows, some of the models would not have helped South Cambridgeshire. At least he acknowledged that the outcome of the review was possible if difficult to implement. I shall pick up that comment and explain why implementation is difficult. I shall explain also why we are taking the route on which we have decided, which is to examine the entire local government finance system and the role that the Green Paper, and events subsequent to it, will play in dealing with the issue that is before us. As the hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said—it is the one point on which I agree with him—the entire system needs reviewing, not only the ACA.
The system has become outdated and it is opaque. Local authorities and members of the public cannot understand how they end up with the settlement that applies to them. The system is intricate and complex and it is impossible for the average person to understand the outcome of the settlement for his or her council.
As for the ACA, one of the issues is geography. Difficult issues arise. Where should boundaries be drawn for any mechanism that recognises higher costs in certain areas? The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said that ACA should apply to the area that he represents. However, that area is in the middle of an area that at present does not have ACA. It is some distance away from councils that some would argue face the most pressures as a result of higher costs.
As we could not proceed on the basis of the review, we published the local government finance Green Paper. Conservative Members will be pleased to know that our review of the distribution system that that document catalysed is making excellent progress. We shall not make hasty solutions. As Conservative Members have said today, these are extremely important matters for councils and local people in terms of the money that is made available to provide services and meet needs. We are taking a long and hard look at our shared objectives for the system and the best way in which to deliver them.
The issue goes much further than fighting about slicing the cake. We need to build into the mechanism the right sort of support for local democracy and for front-line services. We need to ensure, as set out in some of the
14WH
principles outlined at the beginning of the Green Paper, that there is transparency in the system. People might not like the result, but at least they should be able to understand how the result was derived from a formula or another process.
We do not expect consensus, but working and moving along with the local government community on these matters is critical if we are to arrive at a system that has enough support for it to be sustainable for a reasonable period. The last thing that we want to do is constantly to change the mechanism. Local authorities have said that they appreciate the stability that we have introduced into the system. There have been broad parameters of settlement for three years. We said that we would not tinker with the system.
There is still a great deal of work to be done and we are eager to press ahead. That is why we are proceeding with a provisional work programme for developing further the Green Paper proposals with the central-local partnership. We are working towards a White Paper that will explore the issues in some detail by the end of the year.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that the Green Paper did not discuss specifically the area cost adjustment. In reforming the grant distribution system in a much broader way, we shall need to reflect the fact that some areas need to pay more to recruit and retain staff than other areas. The precise calculation of the pay cost top-up, as it were, will be considered as part of the overall system. Despite the considerable body of research findings that has been amassed on ACA alone, no robust solutions emerged from Professor Elliot's review or our review. That is why we decided that it would be wrong to change only the ACA element. There was an insufficient consensus among local authorities. On that basis, we felt that we were unable to proceed in the way that we are now proceeding.
We are not rushing to make hasty solutions, but I want to assure all hon. Members that we are working as fast as we can. We want to see the process concluded. The next stage will be a White Paper, which will appear towards the end of the year. Unlike the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I am sure that the outcome of the next general election will enable us to bring forward that White Paper.
The local government finance system deals with huge amounts of money and supports vital public services. It is important that in any significant change to the area cost adjustment, let alone to the whole system, we get things right. It is important also that any change commands sufficient support so that the mechanism is sustainable for the foreseeable future. That is why we have returned to some first principles in our research for a better system, and why we were keen to carry out the review in partnership with local government and other stakeholders or other interested parties. We are conscious of the need to move as quickly as we can, but we should not rush and make mistakes or set in place a system that is not sustainable.
Mr. Gill: In the few moments that remain for the debate, will the Minister assure us that, in examining carefully the formula that governs settlements, she will take real cognisance of the sparsity factor that affects counties such as mine, where the population is spread over a wide geographical area?
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that the Government introduced, among minor

15WH
changes, a sparsity factor into the existing formula. I think that I am right about that. Clearly, that is an important issue.
The big picture is the amount of investment in local government, and that has increased significantly. For all their political reasons, Conservative Members have none the less raised some important issues. The Government are taking those issues seriously and we will reform the system as a whole.

Bus Services
10.30 am
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): We hear a great deal about the role of Back-Bench Members. I cannot say how grateful I am to have the opportunity to raise the issue of urban and rural bus services, which greatly affects my constituency. I am pleased to have the opportunity to have a debate attended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), as he takes great interest in transport and, I know, in transport in Staffordshire. I well remember an interview that he gave when he visited Stafford to look at transport plans being agreed by the county council in conjunction with district authorities and unitary authorities. I very much look forward to a constructive and positive debate arising from this opportunity to put the issue on the parliamentary agenda.
Why this debate and why now? In raising the issue with the Minister I want first to do what one does in a maiden speech and take a little tour around my constituency. Stoke-on-Trent, North is part of north Staffordshire and is in the Potteries. It is very much a place where urban areas meet the countryside. For that reason, it is important that the Government look closely at the way in which the urban network makes decisions on bus services. Clearly, when urban and rural areas are side by side, and people are travelling from one to the other and back again, it is crucial to plan transport where it is most needed.
The local bus company in Stoke-on-Trent is Potteries Motor Traction, which is part of First Group. It changed the service serving Hill Top, which is on the edge of Staffordshire and, as the name suggests, is a rural hill-top community and is about half a mile from Brown Edge. In the thrust to make services commercially viable, PMT removed part of the 69A service, which goes from Brown Edge to the Potteries, so that it no longer went up to Hill Top, where quite a significant number of elderly people and those who use buses to go to school and work live. The effect of the withdrawal of the 69A service left people in that rural part of my constituency stranded.
Those people did not think that that was right and nor did I. As any hard-working Back-Bench Member does, I subsequently arranged meetings with the city council and the county council, bearing in mind the fact that the community needed access to both rural and urban areas. I did a lot of research and contacted people in the area, who were clearly angry about the fact that the bus service had been withdrawn. When I met local authority transport officials, it was clear that the best that we could get—which I do not underestimate in any way, as I pay tribute to the work that the officers did—was four bus trips a week, two into the market town of Leek in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and two into the city centre of Stoke-on-Trent.
That was a huge step forward, but was nowhere near meeting the transport needs of people in Hill Top. The experience of the 69A led me to take a particular interest in bus issues in the past couple of weeks. We have a short-term solution of four bus services paid for by local authorities out of their transport subsidy. It seems that we cannot make a bid for a rural subsidy challenge grant because there are strict guidelines about cut-off dates. Because the route

17WH
to Hill Top was, until recently, a so-called commercially viable route, it cannot be looked at within the context of the additional rural money that is being made available for rural bus services.
We need to look at that. When the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made its investigation on the transport White Paper and looked at the existing subsidy that was already spent, it questioned whether there should be a review of that cut-off date at some stage so that local authority money could be used to make good the services withdrawn in that way. The time for the review may have come, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look closely at that. The four trips from Hill Top are just a short-term solution, but that is the best that we could do under the circumstances.
We now have the rural subsidy grant, which is most welcome, and perhaps we could in a new way in the short and medium term arrive at more flexible solutions for getting people from outlying areas to existing fast, efficient, reliable, quality partnership networks. It is too late for Staffordshire county council to include an opportunity for that kind of flexible proposal in the rural subsidy challenge bid that the Minister is considering and on which an announcement will soon be made. Things like this crop up, and even if the Minister does not want to reinstate the old bus service, will he look at other solutions, such as a flexible taxi service using the investment that he has already invested through the rural subsidy grant in outlying areas of Staffordshire, Moorlands? Could he not invite the county council to make a little additional bid that could cover the rural community of Hill Top?
We need to look at the way in which maps determine rural and urban areas. I have set the scene, but the outrage that I experienced concerning the withdrawal of the 69A service was nothing compared with the subsequent meeting that I had with city and county council officers. During that meeting, I was told, almost incidentally, that PMT had started to deregister other services, which affected urban bus services in my constituency. I immediately took up that further issue with the company and local authority officers. The reply that I received from PMT's chief executive in Burslem stated:
"our resources are continually stretched and we are struggling to maintain the full commercial network we have run up to now when faced with increasing costs and declining revenue. Unfortunately, the continual wet weather throughout the Autumn, followed by the snow at Christmas has depressed our revenue in the area. This has been further exacerbated by the number of businesses in the area declaring redundancies in the last few months."
That is in the context of First Group making operating profits of £73 million in 1999, and £94.2 million in 2000. Suddenly, however, the wrong kind of weather causes it to reduce the commercial viability of its bus services. The chief executive of PMT also refers to increasing operational pressures in relation to wage inflation and fuel price rises. Will the Minister have regard to that, as I accept that point?
Further changes were made by PMT to service 86, which goes from Chell Heath to Chell, Furlong road and Tunstall. That loss-making hourly off-peak service has been withdrawn, and Stoke-on-Trent city council is considering whether to replace it. I campaigned strongly for that service because, before its introduction, we had no bus service to take people to a major health clinic in my constituency. It is not right to have NHS facilities that people cannot access.
18WH
To the north of Stoke-on-Trent, service 92 goes from Newcastle-under-Lyme to Burslem and Brown Edge schools. That service has been withdrawn and replaced by a half-hourly service from Newcastle to Norton Canes, which divides hourly; one part goes to Ball Green and the other to Endon via Brown Edge. In effect, the route along Sytch lane and Church lane in Brown Edge has been withdrawn because of the small number of passengers using it.
I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to an e-mail that I received from the head teacher of the Brown Edge school. It states:
"Dear Joan,
We have just been informed that the PMT is to withdraw the service 92 which terminates at Brown Edge. This service was the only convenient way some of the Norton Green children got to school, albeit 10 minutes late. The old 69 service used to arrive at 8.55. The new 69 service either arrives for 8.30 or 9.30, leaving the children on the playground unattended for 20 minutes or 30 minutes late for school."
I am sure that the head teacher will not mind if I quote him further, as he continues:
"Please could you stir something up as the company seems to take no notice of anything we say to them."
There have also been cuts to service 94, Newcastle-Burslem-Bradeley, and service 96, Newchapel-Furlong road-Tunstall-Middleport-Burslem. There has been a great public outcry, which was taken up by the local BBC radio station, Radio Stoke, in which I know my hon. Friend the Minister takes a great interest, having been interviewed by that station. I have a summary of the comments made by people who telephoned the radio station. The campaign clearly struck a chord. Similarly, the local newspaper, The Sentinel, has been campaigning for integrated public transport, for which I applaud it.
There is a sense of helplessness, which is best summed up by one of my constituents who wrote to me:
"Dear Mrs. Walley,
I thought it was government policy to get people to use public transport, so can you please tell me why the PMT is allowed to cut the bus services in the way that they are?"
I want to find a way forward on all these issues, which are so dear to the heart of my constituents, and explore with the Minister how, through the existing legislative and fiscal framework, solutions can be found for people who have been left stranded as a result of those decisions.
After so many years during which there was no transport planning, the Government's plans for integrated transport are to be welcomed, as is the Transport Act 2000. I welcome also the strategy for urban renewal set out in the urban White Paper and the neighbourhood renewal policies announced last week. As a result of the comprehensive spending review, extra money is being transferred, but too often for additional capital spending, rather than revenue. The extra money being targeted on areas of greatest need, and the Government's response to the urban White Paper and to the local government standard spending assessment settlements are all part of the solution.
What advice and reassurance can my hon. Friend give me and my constituents, and the PMT bus company and local authority officers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, that our problems are being tackled within the existing framework? While preparing for the debate, I read extensively, including the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs inquiry into transport.

19WH
The Socialist Environment and Resources Association considers that many warm encouraging words have been heard about the need to address social exclusion, but, apart from the welcome proposal to cut fares for pensioners, few measures are directly designed to help socially excluded people.
In some respects, the Government have come a long way since the Select Committee inquiry. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that his report, "Social Exclusion and the Provision and Availability of Public Transport", sets out the agenda extremely well. For people who are socially excluded, those who do not have a job, the elderly, women who do not own a car, people who are retired and can no longer afford to drive or keep a car, people who cannot afford transport, and people who simply believe in public transport for its own sake, to cut down on the emissions that contribute so heavily to global warming, it is crucial that we match our concerns about social exclusion with the transport agenda when decisions are made.
That issue was flagged up by the Audit Commission report, "All Aboard", which reviewed local transport and travel in urban areas outside London. It is clear why local authorities want to support social objectives in transport. We know how public transport can contribute to attaining some of the key objectives and improve people's quality of life, by giving them access to family, shops, doctors, work, training and so on, with reduced congestion and pollution.
In the letter that I have from PMT, the company cites a further reason for withdrawing services that are no longer commercially viable: traffic congestion across Stoke-on-Trent is slowing services and making it more difficult to maintain their reliability. The company estimates that because of delays, it requires 12 more vehicles in north Staffordshire than were required five years ago. That is an absurd vicious circle. The more traffic there is on the road, the more difficult it is to operate a bus service, so the buses are withdrawn and more people use their own vehicles, thereby increasing congestion and social exclusion.
Car ownership is not particularly high in Stoke-on-Trent. One third of households do not have a car. A survey would show that we depend heavily on local bus services. Because of cuts to local services, we cannot reach hospitals and clinics. One the services that PMT has adjusted does not affect my constituency directly, but it takes people from Stafford to Newcastle direct to Stoke-on-Trent main railway station, on which a huge sum is at long last being invested. The station is still served by local bus routes, but we need as many bus routes as possible serving the main places that people need to get to.
I applaud all the work that has been done on quality partnerships, which has increased the use of buses. However, that has been done in a way that prevents people from getting to other parts of my constituency, which they need to access just as much as they need to reach the destinations on the agreed quality partnership routes.
How can we achieve good quality services when, almost on a whim, at six weeks' notice, a company can withdraw a service? As bus services are unregulated, little can be done, other than the local authority trying to make good that service.
The Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers has conducted an extensive survey of the occasions throughout the country when bus services have been
20WH
withdrawn in that way. The report's conclusions are alarming. It states that the cost of replacing expired public bus contracts is rising well ahead of inflation, although it is less than it was last year. None the less, it is 16.7 per cent. and authorities estimate that by April 2001, they will have increased their local bus support by an average of 5.2 per cent. over last year's figures. They predict a need for further expenditure growth of 9.4 per cent. next year if they are to retain existing levels of service. Almost half of local authorities will have cut supported bus services by the end of the financial year to stay within their budgets.
I suspect that the issue is not isolated to Stoke on Trent. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) recently made clear in Environment questions that his constituency has similar problems. A great deal of priority is being given to the partnership routes, but other services can be withdrawn at whim. The revenue for local authorities is not keeping pace with the removal of services. Yes, more passengers are travelling on fast, efficient and rapid routes, but such routes cannot easily be accessed by people at the margins. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already commissioned research into other aspects of bus services. However, could the problem to which I am referring be further considered? A pilot project might even be conducted in Stoke-on-Trent to consider how to deal with the withdrawal of services that are not affected by quality partnerships, but which are equally important to local people.
It is critical for us to consider all the issues. There are revenue implications even for quality partnerships. Local authorities can invest in traffic-calming measures and build new bus shelters, but further money is needed for repair and maintenance. If the shelters are vandalised, as has unfortunately happened my constituency, from where does the money come to repair them? People should be able to travel from Bradeley village, whose population includes a large number of elderly people, to the new wonderful NHS walk-in facility at Haywood hospital, which cannot currently be reached directly from Bradeley. As my constituents need to travel to doctors' surgeries, health centres, the main railway station, Burslem and Tuntsall town centres and to schools, we must deal with more than merely the north-south route across a 13 or 15-mile-long city. All transport needs must be considered.
I know that that is precisely what the local transport plans are meant to do and I look forward to working on the issues with the planning officers and the council. However, we desperately need a level playing field. The former metropolitan authorities spent a significant amount on bus services and public transport, but I am mindful that there is a disparity between the per capita amount that is available to the passenger transport authorities, and the amount that councils, including unitary authorities, can use for public transport. That gap must be considered and consolidated.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is currently engaged in talks with the Local Government Association about what action to take on the withdrawn services. Will he draw on the experience of the passenger transport authorities and consider how some of that expertise could be applied to unitary authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent and to county councils such as those of Staffordshire and Northamptonshire? The Northamptonshire branch of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers has had a great deal to say on the matter.

21WH
Local authorities cannot be expected simply to pick up the bill, but neither should the bulk of non-essential services be withdrawn for commercial reasons when they are as important as other services. We must consider revenue spending and the six-week notification period for withdrawal of services. We must have time to plan what should be done during the next financial year. I welcome the fact that the Government have shifted transport expenditure and other investment to local authorities, whose plans should operate in terms not only of 12 months ahead, but of three years ahead. The requirement for a bus company to provide to the traffic commissioner a six-week notification of the withdrawal of a service makes no sense, as it does not give any local transport plan or partnership an opportunity to get the key players together and sort out access for all the areas that need it.
I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies, he will rightly refer me to the urban bus challenge. I see him nod. The £40 million extra investment that is being provided over three years is wonderful and I welcome it. It is far more than we have ever had before, but I point out that the amount currently available for revenue services in the Stoke-on-Trent area is about £270,000. That money is not ring fenced. I shall encourage those concerned to bid for urban bus challenge, but will my hon. Friend explain his timetable for the scheme? Will people be invited to apply, or will everybody apply and only a tenth of applications be successful?
I have a more fundamental point for my hon. Friend. Of course we want innovation, and I hope that the bus challenge funds will be used for innovative work that produces new solutions and addresses the Government's modernisation agenda. However, if the money is restricted and cannot be used to make good some of the essential services that are not affected by quality partnership and cannot otherwise be assisted, how can the basic minimum standard of service be achieved? Unlike my hon. Friend, I did not have the advantage of considering in Standing Committee the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000. However, should not we consider the contracts spelt out in that Act? Might not that be a way of ensuring cross-subsidy between the so-called commercially viable routes and other services that are equally important to local people?
I do not necessarily want an answer now, but will the Government think in detail about commissioning research and even establishing a pilot project in north Staffordshire, as I have suggested? Such work could identify optimum structures and contractual arrangements, as it already has done in respect of quality partnership routes. I am mindful that the Select Committee commented that the bus companies are
"better skilled in trimming resources to match declining demand than in attracting new passengers and encouraging repeat trips".
I have met the chief executive of PMT, which says that it is willing to work in partnership as such an approach is in its interests. To do so, however, it must have the trust of people in north Staffordshire. Will my hon. Friend provide some guidance on how we can benefit from the urban bus subsidy, to give us some hope of finding a way forward?
I am most grateful for having had the opportunity to initiate this debate. We rely enormously on public transport, throughout urban and rural areas. I know that the Government care greatly about public transport, but, despite the new legislation, we have still not achieved a means of delivering the local bus services that people need
22WH
and the new reliance and dependence on public transport that we so desperately want. I understand all the problems and I feel for people whose lives are seriously affected. However, so much is on offer that surely my hon. Friend can give hope on getting some of the bus services reinstated, not only in the short term, but in the medium and long term.
10.59 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing the debate. I also thank her for her courtesy in giving me notice of her main anxieties. My hon. Friend has a long and distinguished record of involvement in transport matters. I listened with interest to her knowledgeable speech, and I shall consider her comments and suggestions most carefully. I shall respond shortly to as many of the specific points as possible. However, given the broad scope of the debate, it is important that I set out the context by making some general remarks about our policies for improving local bus services in both urban and rural areas throughout the country.
In developing and implementing a modern, integrated transport policy, we have recognised from the outset that bus services have a key role to play. Improvements to bus services have therefore been central to the policies in the transport White Paper in 1998, the Transport Act 2000 and the 10-year strategic plan for transport.
We have introduced major changes in the legislative arrangements for bus services. The Transport Act 2000 received Royal Assent last November and much of it will be effected in two days' time. The Act gives local authorities a range of new powers and duties to help ensure proper provision of public transport services and facilities. It provides for statutory local transport plans and bus strategies, which give authorities a clear strategic role in local transport planning, in conjunction with the private sector bus operators.
The Act gives local authorities new powers to establish enforceable quality partnership schemes, allowing them to determine the quality of bus services in exchange for providing facilities such as bus lanes, other priority measures and high-quality stops and shelters.
Authorities also have a new duty to ensure that local bus information is properly provided in their area—if necessary, by arranging it themselves and recovering reasonable costs from bus operators. There are new powers to promote joint bus ticketing, including through-tickets and reciprocal arrangements between bus operators, and to work with train operating companies on bus-rail ticketing.
We are guaranteeing a minimum half-fare reduction for elderly and disabled people on buses, with authorities retaining the freedom to offer more generous concessions. An estimated 7 million people stand to benefit from that change.
When a case can be made, subject to ministerial approval, the Act provides for quality contract schemes: the comprehensive tendering of bus services and networks to a local authority specification—an issue which my hon. Friend raised. Quality contracts are likely to be applicable only in cases of clear market failure. Such contracts will effectively confer local

23WH
monopolies, and the Secretary of State has therefore set a high threshold for their introduction. My hon. Friend will understand those important conditions on introducing quality contracts.
The 10-year plan provides new investment in services through increased funding for rural transport and the new urban bus challenge—about which I shall certainly say more shortly—and, of course, additional funding for investment by local authorities in schemes to help bus services. On the latter, we have substantially increased capital funding through the local transport plan settlement announced last December, which is worth a total of £1.3 billion to local authorities in the next financial year. That is set to rise to £1.7 billion in 2003–04. Public transport improvements feature heavily in local authorities' forward plans. They include quality bus corridors, bus lanes and other traffic priority measures to assist buses.
My hon. Friend will have noted that, as a result of the recent settlement, Stoke-on-Trent's block allocation for implementing its local transport plan was nearly doubled. That is an excellent outcome, which my hon. Friend has warmly welcomed. It provides the basis for a major improvement in local transport provision in Stoke-on-Trent in the next few years. I emphasise that it is up to local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent to find local solutions to local transport problems in the context of generous financial support from central Government.
The local transport plan settlement deals only with capital. However, the position on local authority revenue spending is also relevant to my hon. Friend's anxieties. That local authority revenue spending includes support for subsidised bus services and concessionary bus fares. In the recent distribution of revenue support, the standard spending assessment for transport has been increased above inflation. We took account of the pressures resulting from increases in the prices of contracts for subsidised bus services that are being experienced in many areas. An extra £54 million a year has been injected into revenue support to fund the mandatory improvements in concessionary fares.
The overall revenue support settlement was undoubtedly good. It constituted a substantial growth in funding for the third year running, and a national average increase of 4.4 per cent. in general grant for the coming year. That is in addition to the extra funding through the 10-year plan for rural bus schemes and the urban bus challenge.
When considering financial support for buses, it is also relevant to note that the Government are providing substantial sums—£300 million this year in England—through the fuel duty rebate for local bus services. We made an early decision to remove the previous Government's freeze on the level of rebate. Since we took office, fuel duty increases have been matched by increases in the rebate thus ensuring that they were not a burden on bus operation. We have asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to examine financial support for bus services and I await with interest the commission's interim conclusions on the scope and level of fuel duty rebate. I expect to receive them shortly.
24WH
Let me deal more specifically with my hon. Friend's anxieties. I know how keenly transport issues are followed in Stoke. Indeed, I was recently interviewed about local bus services on Radio Stoke, by my old friend Sam Plank. First, I want to speak about the urban bus challenge. I was able to assure my hon. Friend when answering a question from her a fortnight ago at DETR questions—I am happy to do so again today—that I believe that the new scheme will offer opportunities for Stoke-on-Trent. As I said, we will support the best projects for which bids are made, and we intend to start the first round later this year. We have allocated £40 million for funding successful bids over the next three years.
The aim of the new scheme is to contribute to the regeneration of deprived urban areas by improving transport provision. Combating social exclusion is therefore a key aspect of the urban bus challenge. We are now finalising proposals on criteria and bidding requirements. Consultation will shortly take place with relevant bodies on those proposals. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that, before consultation, I cannot announce final decisions on the guidance today.
Ms Walley: Will my hon. Friend reassure me that he will try to ensure that areas where services have been withdrawn in the way that I described will not be ineligible for money simply because it will be used to replace an existing service, as is the case with the rural transport subsidy? Will my hon. Friend take into account that our bus services are seriously depleted, irrespective of the quality bus partnerships, about which I have no complaint? If services are withdrawn, and the rate of withdrawal is such that even more services are withdrawn nationally by the time the criteria are set, it is essential to consider providing a minimum standard of local services.
Mr. Hill: I hope to offer my hon. Friend assurances about new arrangements for the rural bus subsidy grant and the rural bus challenge. I hope that we will be able to take those provisions into account when we finalise our arrangements for the urban bus challenge. I fully understand my hon. Friend's point.
I want to give hon. Members some broad indications of our thinking on these matters. First, we envisage a wide range of projects that offer innovative and imaginative solutions to transport problems in deprived urban areas. Secondly, we will not be over-prescriptive in defining deprivation for the purposes of the scheme or the types of area to be served. However, we will expect bidders to describe in their proposals the characteristics of the area to be served and how the bid will contribute to tackling deprivation in that area.
Thirdly, we are considering providing that bids can be made under the scheme for any area that is not classified as rural for the purposes of the rural bus grant. We will also draw no distinction in eligibility between outlying urban areas and inner-city areas. That satisfactorily covers the anxiety that an area might fall between the urban and rural schemes. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend indicates her assent from a sedentary position. I hope that she, and Stoke-on-Trent, will examine carefully the potential of the urban bus challenge in the context of local needs.

25WH
My hon. Friend voiced her anxiety about recent bus service cuts in north Staffordshire. She linked that with the development of the quality partnership for the area. I welcome much of the progress that has been made to implement the partnership. It offers substantial improvements—better-quality vehicles and investment in new bus service infrastructure—on several important routes. Having said that, I note the concern about recent cutbacks, which I know my hon. Friend has discussed in detail with the city council and the operator, PMT. I understand that PMT felt it necessary to withdraw the services in question because they were performing poorly and because problems in recruiting drivers were adding to operating difficulties.
Local authorities have an important role in subsidising services when such services are not provided by an operator on a commercial basis. I understand that, in this case, the city council has been able to find resources from its budget to restore at least some of the service withdrawals, though not necessarily to provide the same frequency of service as before.
My hon. Friend referred in particular to service 92. I am informed that that service is to be retained in a slightly modified form, though re-numbered as service 98. My hon. Friend also referred to service 69A. I understand that that service is to be partially restored at a reduced frequency, although, unfortunately, it will no longer serve some 50 homes in the Brown Edge area. I recall corresponding with my hon. Friend last autumn about the eligibility of Brown Edge with respect to rural bus support, and I would again suggest that the possibility be explored of a joint approach with the county council, bearing in mind the fact that the resources for such support are now to be substantially increased.
Ms Walley: I should like to inform my hon. Friend that that has already been done. As a result of that co-operation, we now have four bus trips a week instead of two. However, the real issue is that there is no way of reinstating regular bus services. I pay tribute to the way in which Stoke-on-Trent city council and, in particular, its transport officer, have done their best to make good the deficit, but they cannot make good the whole deficit. The problem is that this is a revenue matter.
Mr. Hill: I am pleased to hear that that initiative has been taken, and that it has led to at least some improvement in bus services.
In a broader context, let me say two things. First, it is sad but true that in public finances, resources are scarce. However, we have doubled the funding available to local authorities by means of support for local transport plans from this year to next, and that sum will increase. That is a significant commitment on the part of central Government.
26WH
Secondly, as I have mentioned, we have also made provision for increased revenue support for bus services, which has been warmly welcomed by local authorities. However, in addition to such initiatives and support from central Government, there is also a role for hard-nosed negotiation at a local level. I offer that advice to my hon. Friend and to local authorities in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere, although I do not for a moment wish to imply that Stoke-on-Trent has been anything other than extremely rigorous in its approach to negotiations with the local operators.
I turn to the more general issue of the rural bus subsidy grant. As announced in the recent rural White Paper, not only are we increasing the funding for this grant by some 45 per cent. over the next three years, as compared with the past three years, but we are broadening its scope to take in services in and around towns of up to 25,000 people—as compared with the previous figure of 10,000. The grant has already been a success, with some 1,800 services being supported and patronage being increased: some 16 million journeys were made on such services in 1999–2000.
The criticism has been made that the grant cannot be used to support existing services. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have already listened to that criticism. I was pleased to announce on 16 January that we have decided in principle that up to 20 per cent. of the grant may be used to support existing services. We are now discussing the details with local government, and new arrangements will be in place for the next financial year. I am sure that the House, and local authorities, will welcome the additional flexibility that that measure will provide.
I again emphasise our commitment to the improvement of bus services and to carrying forward the measures I have outlined today. I do not underestimate the difficulties, and I take seriously the problems and concerns that my hon. Friend. has raised. However, there are already encouraging signs that the long-term trend of decline in bus use has been halted. Bus use in England rose by 0.5 per cent. last year—an encouraging increase when viewed against the background of decline in patronage over the past half-century.
There are also many examples of local growth prompted by the schemes that the Transport Act 2000 and 10-year-plan funding are encouraging. We shall continue to work closely with the industry and local authorities to bring about the continuing improvements that are necessary if buses are to play their full part in a modern transport system.
11.15 am
Sitting suspended.

Medical Research
11.30 am
On resuming—
Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair): Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not present. Oh, the hon. Gentleman has just arrived. I think I shall turn a blind eye to his lateness and, if he will take his place quickly, I shall allow the sitting to continue—although this is rather irregular.
Dr. Evan Harris: Thank you, Dr. Clark. I apologise for my slightly late arrival.
I am very pleased to have secured the debate, which was preceded last night by a useful exchange of views on how we can control what is a significant threat to people pursuing legitimate business interests and carrying out legitimate lines of scientific research.
We need to be clear from the outset that what we are talking about is legitimate research—research that is necessary not just to the discovery of insights into human diseases, but to the development of insights into cures for those diseases. Moreover, much of the work done at the institutions we are talking about, and by some of the researchers we are talking about, is required by Government regulations. A particular responsibility is therefore placed on the Government to ensure that the individuals and businesses involved are protected from extreme actions taken against such people by those who resort to direct action.
I shall deal shortly with some of the concerns expressed by the scientific community about the Government's approach. First, however, let me say that direct action should be seen in the light of the fact that this country is a parliamentary democracy. Many of the comparisons that activists make between their actions, involving intimidation and harassment, and the actions taken by "liberation movements" throughout the world are invidious.
There is a parliamentary system. If people feel, as many genuinely do, that there is a basic reason why animals should not be used in this way, whatever the benefits, they have at their disposal methods by which to put their views to parliamentarians. That is why I think it legitimate for a parliamentary democracy not only to express concern about the methods used by activists, but to seek to ensure that, within the law, individuals and businesses carrying on work that is legal are protected from such actions. If necessary, it should be able to do that by improving the law, creating new laws and ensuring that sentences are appropriate, while also ensuring that the forces of law and order are given the facilities, resources and know-how that they need to tackle the problems.
Another curious aspect of the situation, however, is that the very forces of democracy that people can use to seek changes in the law are subverted by the fears of many parliamentarians for not just their own safety but that of their families and staff, because of threats—or perceived threats—from extremists and, indeed, people who are nothing short of terrorists. Several hon. Members, some of whom may be present, have had to
28WH
take additional precautions because they wish to speak out. I myself have had to take advice, in the light of today's debate, to protect myself, those close to me and my staff from the threat of incendiary and other devices sent through the post. In the light of the possible effect on the ability or perceived ability of representatives of local people to put the case for their constituents, both individuals and businesses, the debate is even more important.
I hope that the Minister is aware that the concerns that reach him may amount to no more than the surface of what would reach him publicly if people did not feel so worried about their safety. The easiest option is often not to put one's head above the parapet. That is certainly the view taken by many scientists who are determined to get their work done, and not to put their colleagues and families at risk by drawing attention to themselves.
It is important to recognise that there are legitimate concerns about the use of animals. Some hold the philosophical view that animals should not be used, whatever the benefit to either animal or human health. I do not share that view, but we can accept that it exists. While I do not believe that it is the majority view in the country or that it is shared by many in the rest of the world, we must recognise that there are those who feel that way. for academic, philosophical or ethical reasons, or simply because of a gut feeling.
What is worrying is the fact that those arguments are supplemented by propaganda that, as well as being factually wrong, subverts our education system. Some people grow up with more sympathy than they would otherwise have had for those who oppose the use of animals, because of misinformation that they have been fed about the scientific merits of the work and the results obtained. Other hon. Members may wish to say more about that.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that newspapers have a role to play? Was he as horrified as I was when the Daily Mail devoted two pages to allegations about a breeding organisation, and when, although the allegations were found to be completely bogus and invented, it published not a word retracting them?
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman, who has taken a deep and commendable interest in the issue, is absolutely right. "No Scandal at Scientific Establishment" is not a headline that will sell many papers; the opposite claim, whether true or false, will sell papers.
We face the problem of the media's potential irresponsibility. The media may name people involved in this work when the allegations are unproven, or even make an error of judgment when they are discovered to be well founded, because of the threat of retaliation. The media may also picture people in television footage, which will alarm those people, their immediate families and their employers. There are ways in which the regulatory authorities, which are very strong in this country, can investigate allegations of wrongdoing; we should ensure that that is done, subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The intimidation is now so widespread, the harassment so frequent and the threats so clear and vivid that it is right for the Government to act. I have

29WH
here a cutting from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Centre newsletter, which was on the web. It is an article entitled "Zero Tolerance", a report from the Kent group. I think it right to put the article on the record so that people know about the actions with which we are dealing—actions which, while falling short of violence, demonstrate a lack of respect for decency and for law and order. It says:
"In Kent, we have a successful zero tolerance policy and great teamwork. All new shareholders have a polite letter sent to them with a factsheet. We obviously do not write our own name and address on the letter but instead give the name and address of another shareholder, so any backlash from our letter is aimed at them and not at us. Meanwhile, we make the first phone call, which is the most important for getting information. They may have both christian names on their answerphone message, or if a child answers and says mum/dad is at work we ask for the work phone number and mobile, etc. This is invaluable for later phone blockades. And initially they are off guard. When we do speak to them, they are either shocked to learn what HLS is all about, or they are obnoxious and tell us they are adamant they will not sell. But they always do in the end. From the list Kent is divided up into three sections, and people are allocated their set of shareholders to flypost. Meanwhile, the girlfriend of an estate agent is busy writing to the ten neighbours of each shareholder from a special computer program. The names, addresses and phone numbers are then circulated to all the active people from our group. The stubborn shareholders have home visits and we set up phone blockades. We also ask other groups to publish their phone numbers in their newsletters. And that is where our zero tolerance policy works, because they are not left alone until they sell their shares. Most of us do our phoning, writing and fly-posting in the evening: while most of us are fast asleep at night, one insomniac amongst us spends the early hours convincing shareholders it would be a good idea to sell. These people are allowed no peace, after all their money keeps HLS in business. We also use the methods suggested by SHAC of parcels …
That excerpt is just one example from one part of the country, showing the extent of the problem. It is important that the Government take a considered but strong view on those matters.
Yesterday, I was very pleased to hear the Home Secretary confirm the statement that he made in a press release last week—that the Government are minded not only to change section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, but to apply an objective rather than subjective test to the offence of malicious communication.
Other issues have to be considered, and some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), have spoken very eloquently about them. The first question that needs to be answered is whether there will be an opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of relevant legislation, to ensure not only that the right balance is struck between the restriction of civil liberties and protection of individuals and the right to free speech, but that all options are considered and there is a full discussion of policing regardless of current legal provision.
The fear is that hon. Members who are not serving in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill will not have an opportunity on Report to debate those issues on the Floor of the House. Concern about the issues spans all parties and is felt on both sides of the House. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government's intention on those issues, which various hon. Members raised in yesterday's debate on the Bill.
30WH
It is important also that we are told the Government's thoughts on dealing with the international aspects of campaigns of intimidation and harassment. We know that activists plan to start using methods and techniques with such a dimension.
Ministers will also have to deal with some wider points, although I shall understand it if the Minister cannot specifically deal with them today. However, in the months leading up to recent events in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, concerns were expressed to me that Ministers, particularly in the Department of Health, were very slow to defend the work being done both in breeding institutions and in laboratories, whereas the bulk of that work was being done to Department of Health specifications. Recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Lord Hunt, has been very clear about the value of that work, and many people want the Government's assurances that Health Ministers' public support will continue regardless of the political climate and public mood.
The Department of Trade and Industry and Lord Sainsbury have been superb in their recent efforts to intervene and help Huntingdon Life Sciences. I am more than happy to commend the efforts of Lord Sainsbury and his staff; the Minister for Science is a true supporter of science.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department at least to consider raising with his ministerial colleagues the issue of what message is sent to shareholders, workers and others engaged in fighting and resisting intimidation and harassment when, at the first sign of a request from the extremists, the Labour party superannuation fund sells its shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences—as it did last year, citing ethical reasons for doing so. That somewhat undermines the thrust of recent Government clarifications on the issue.
I also ask the Minister whether there is any chance of the Government establishing—of their own volition, rather than as a response to requests from extremists—a royal commission to examine the issue. The House of Lords has helpfully established an ad hoc Committee to examine the issue. However, the Liberal Democrat party's view—like that of the Labour party, I thought—is that it is important to create a royal commission to demonstrate that the matter is clearly under review.
I believe that a royal commission would back science, not anti-science propaganda. I also believe that a commission and the associated consultation would provide an opportunity to reassure the public, including people in our schools, that that research work is legitimate, benefits health and science, minimises animal suffering, maintains the world's highest animal welfare standards and is worth continuing. A commission may also discover that, with considerations such as those, unnecessary bureaucracy should not be allowed to impede that work. However, those two issues are separate.
I do not believe that the scientific community has anything to fear from a royal commission. If the Government fulfil their commitment before the general election to establish a royal commission, the debate will be advanced. It is important that the public see that there is such a debate.

31WH
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there have been problems not only in Cambridgeshire, but in Oxfordshire. Well before Huntingdon Life Sciences was targeted by the extremists, Hillgrove Farm, a cat-breeding establishment in Oxfordshire, was also targeted. Although it conducted no experimentation work on the premises, had very high animal welfare standards, was inspected by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and met the RSPCA's standards for such an establishment, the business man concerned and local police were unable to prevent continued harassment and intimidation. Consequently, the institute closed, with job losses and a loss of breeding work for the United Kingdom's science base. Another consequence is that more animals may be imported for that work from abroad, where standards are lower.
I should also be grateful if Ministers recognised the fact that Oxfordshire police spent millions of pounds in their attempt to protect that businessman and the people who worked in his establishment, but that they have not had a penny in compensation. Although the £1 million for Cambridgeshire is welcome—I make no Oxford-Cambridge link—Thames Valley police are greatly concerned that they have had to bear the full cost of that operation with no compensation. The operation has had a significant effect on their ability to perform their general work and to protect scientists in my constituency and in surrounding constituencies who are still working on animals and are prepared to be open about the need to do that work.
It is a big subject and I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. I thank the Government for their efforts in recent days to assure us that carefully considered legislation is on the way. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I want to see the legislation's detail before writing a blank cheque in support of it, I hope that the Government will be taking a cross-departmental view on it. Some issues—such as the protection of shareholder information and the rights of shareholders and directors—are not subjects for debate with a Home Office Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I speak for the Government, and not only for the Home Office, so I should be able to address some of the issues on shareholding that he has raised.
Dr. Harris: My time is up. Will the Minister therefore also address the issue of how we can ensure that company directors do not have to disclose their names and addresses in a manner enabling extremists to target them, particularly as little protection is provided to them? Shareholders in the constituencies of many hon. Members are similarly concerned about that issue, as they are about secondary targeting.
The article that I quoted above was from just one campaign in one part of the country, but it demonstrates the depth of organisation among the extremists. Methods must be established—a national police bureau, perhaps—to provide not only intelligence on the extremism, but operational advice to forces on how best to tackle a national but increasingly international problem.
11.49 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this much-needed debate. When he selected the subject, he was not to know that we would be debating the Criminal Justice and Police Bill yesterday, when we were able to discuss some of the relevant issues. Even so, today's debate allows us to expand on some of them.
I agree that the Government's recent performance on this matter has been good. They moved decisively to protect Huntingdon Life Sciences, and have made some encouraging announcements about their intentions in respect of the overall law to protect scientists. However, I do have some criticism of the Government: their action has come late in the day. More than 12 months ago, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He said that he was looking at the law in this area and that he was aware of the problems, but the proposed changes to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill still do not appear in the Bill. They will have to be introduced as amendments, and it is fair to criticise the Government for that.
A further criticism applies to the Labour party, and, as a member of that party, I accept a share of responsibility. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the sale by the Labour party pension fund of its shareholding in Huntingdon Life Sciences was inappropriate, unhelpful and ill judged. However, I shall not accept too many lectures from Liberal Democrat Members, as we have no idea where their party's pension fund has shareholdings. If the fund ever held any such holdings, we do not know whether it sold them off before anyone found out about them.
Dr. Ian Gibson: The Liberal Democrats have no money.
Dr. Ladyman: That may be true.
Labour party members must hold up their hands and accept that the sell-off was a mistake. The action being taken by the Government now may have saved Huntingdon Life Sciences but it is too late for many other small organisations, such as Shamrock Farms. It also comes too late for the many scientists who have left the business because of pressure from evil people—I maintain that they are evil, even though they may think that their motives are good.
I believe that animal experiments are vital and necessary. Unlike other speakers on this subject, I do not hide behind the legal requirement that many animal experiments must be carried out to develop medicines and to get permission to market them. Even if the law did not require such experiments to be carried out, many medical advances could not be made without the animal experiments needed to underpin the knowledge base on which they are made. The necessity of such experiments is completely independent of any legal requirement that they be carried out.
It is claimed that animals are a poor model for what happens in human beings. However, they are one model for that, and represent an important contribution to determining how a new treatment, therapy or drug affects human beings. Animal experiments offer part of the picture that scientists need to build up. They are not

33WH
the whole picture—for that, experiments also have to be carried out on human beings—but they are a vital component. Without them, there would be no new medicines or therapies.
Over recent weeks, some people have tried to defend animal rights activists from a position of ignorance. One annoyed me so much when I heard him on the radio the other day that I feel entitled to name him and annoy him back. Michael Mansfield QC said, "We don't need animal experiments. Hammersmith hospital has just announced a new cure for leukaemia. It is entirely cell-based and does not require animals to be used in the development of a drug."
The cure is not a drug-based therapy and so might not require animals in the development of a drug, but every bit of research on which it is based was conducted on animals, mostly mice. Mr. Mansfield speaks as a respected member of society. He is considered to be learned and intelligent. When people hear him on a popular radio programme, they think that he must have some information that is worth knowing. Yet he speaks from a position of absolute and total ignorance.
When idiots such as Mr. Mansfield say such stupid things, they promote in society a body of opinion to the effect that animal experiments can be done without. The truth is that they cannot. The bioscience and pharmaceutical industries would do without animal experiments tomorrow if they could, as they are very expensive. Those industries spend a fortune trying to find alternatives, but so far with no success. Until alternatives are available, animal experiments will be needed.
We need to protect people who carry out animal experiments, as they do important work on behalf of the economy and our health. In my constituency alone, £1 billion has been invested in the pharmaceutical industry. That investment comes not from the UK but from the United States of America, and 5,000 people are employed in the industry in my area as a result. That investment will come to an end tomorrow if we cannot convince people that we mean business and intend to protect scientists.
We need to protect scientists in all sorts of ways. The criminal justice legislation needs to be improved, as the House discussed last night. In addition, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is very concerned about these matters, that the Home Office needs to look at some of the measures that could be taken.
For example, bogus allegations were recently made against an animal breeding organisation. The Home Office spent £36,000—and 1,000 hours of officers' time—investigating the allegations, only to find that they were completely false. Moreover, the inspectors found only one person who might have committed a crime during the events included in the allegations, and that turned out to be the undercover operative who made the allegations in the first place.
However, the Home Office was unable to try and recover the costs involved from those who made the allegations, or to prosecute anyone for making false allegations. As far as I know, the undercover operative was not charged with the crime that may have been committed at the time. Only when legal action is taken against them will those involved in obstructing science realise that they must abide by the rules.
34WH
I shall not repeat too much of the detail of what I said in the debate last night about the need for other and more extensive protection. We need to look at how campaigns are organised so that we can ensure that their leaders are responsible for the actions of the people who take part. We need to look at the legislation on harassment, and to define the limits of peaceful protest.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke of the security measures that he is having to introduce for his staff. I can tell him that I have a personal security alarm that was issued by my local police force. I might be prepared to risk going without it, as I am responsible for my words and actions, but members of my staff also have to have personal security alarms. Whether they are the result of over enthusiasm or deliberate intent, threats against MPs and their officers, and against scientists and others working in the industry, cannot be right. We need to define clearly what is meant by the term "peaceful protest".
In addition, we must make sure that people are protected from secondary targeting. Consideration must be given to what should be done with regard to the addresses of shareholders and company directors, and with regard to malicious communications and protests outside people's homes. We should review the available legislation across the board, and we should do so very soon.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon in that I still believe that there is merit in the possibility of a royal commission to look into animal experiments. However, the terms of reference would have to include the possibility that any such commission could find that the status quo was appropriate. In other words, a royal commission would have to be able to agree with me that the present legislation in this country is the best and tightest in the world, and that it does not need to be changed.
A royal commission's terms of reference should also allow it to conclude that the current regulations are too tight, and that their administration is too onerous for scientists trying to carry out experiments. It would be bogus and inappropriate for the terms of reference to state that the only possible conclusion for a royal commission was that the regulations had to be tightened.
Science has nothing to fear from explaining what it is doing. So long as it is given a fair opportunity to do so, I believe that it will be able to make its case. It is up to the Government to protect the scientists who do this vital work.
Dr. Michael Clark (in the Chair): Order. There are only two other speakers before the Minister. I hope that whoever I call next will bear that in mind and keep their contribution appropriate so that the other speaker may be able to get in.
12 noon
Mr. Phil Willis: I thank you for allowing the debate to go on, Dr. Clark. That was very courteous of you.
I represent Harrogate and Knaresborough, where there is a major laboratory, Covance. I wish to thank the Government for taking the issue seriously. I agree with the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) that

35WH
it is rather late in the day in many respects. We had been promised that there would be action much earlier, but we welcome it even at this late stage.
Many people with genuine concerns about animal welfare have a right to be involved in the debate. It is a debate for the whole country, not simply for scientists. We should take seriously issues of animal welfare brought up by organisations with a genuine commitment to see as little suffering to animals and as little experimentation on them as possible.
There could be greater control over some experiments, particularly repetitive ones, often on the same drug for different companies. I believe that we could cut down considerably on experiments for 20 different types of aspirin, for example, or other products.
Much of the debate so far, and much of yesterday's debate, seemed to centre around Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories and the tremendous level of activity there. I know the chief executive—Brian Cass—well because he was the chief executive of Covance laboratories in Harrogate before going to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Although there is a lot of interest in Cambridgeshire, many laboratories throughout the country also need the sort of support given to Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Covance in Harrogate is a major laboratory—in fact, it is the major private sector employer in my constituency. We were particularly disappointed that the Minister could not find time to visit Covance and meet the staff who were suffering enormous harassment earlier in the year and are continuing to do so. It is unacceptable that my constituents, particularly relatives of people working at the laboratories, should be subjected to continuous harassment. They receive threatening letters and threatening telephone calls in the middle of the night; their children are followed to school and excrement is put through their letter boxes. Such behaviour occurs not just in Huntingdon but throughout the country, and particularly in my constituency.
I am enormously worried that not only are the scientists at Covance harassed but so are the cleaners, the secretaries and the people who deliver the sandwiches. We have to look beyond the scientific community and consider the community as a whole.
The assurances from the Home Secretary yesterday, when introducing the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, went some way towards allaying our fears. No doubt tightening up the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 will have an impact. However, the existing legislation could have been applied more vigorously. There are sufficient powers under both Acts to have dealt with many of the worst effects of the present protests. I suggest that one reason why that has not happened is because police forces such as ours in North Yorkshire do not have the resources to deal with the level of protest that occurs from time to time. The £1 million given to Cambridgeshire police is very welcome, but will the Minister accept that forces such as that in North Yorkshire also need resources to police the Covance laboratories in Harrogate and offer the necessary protection to individuals and their families?
36WH
On some occasions, when police have been called to support a family, virtually the whole force for Harrogate has been involved in the incident, leaving the rest of the patch unpoliced. That is unacceptable. The Minister knows that the deputy chief constable of North Yorkshire is heading the taskforce and bringing the information together, yet North Yorkshire has to pay for that work. That matter needs to be addressed.
There is a basic right in this country that people's homes and families should be protected by the law. I do not know what arrangements are being made under the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, but could we have an early look at the amendments that are being proposed so that if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, they cannot be debated on Report, at least we can have fair wind of them so that we can make representations to the Home Secretary?
It is my understanding that, as well as going international, as my hon. Friend says, the organisations are going on the internet in a big way. Given that there will be a massive rolling out of the internet in the next couple of years, that could be a major problem. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point.
Finally, one concern on the other side of the argument is that we should provide people with greater certainty about animal welfare in terms of inspections and, in particular, the RSPCA's access to animal laboratories. It is a respected organisation, and giving it greater access would be a help.
Ultimately, this is a legitimate business, and, as such, I will support my constituents. I hope that the Home Secretary and his Department will do so too.
12.7 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate and raising the subject.
On Sunday lunchtime, I debated for two hours with Stop Huntingdon Animal Centre on local BBC television. Surprisingly, I found it quite mild and entertaining; I had been expecting the talk to be violent. SHAC members condemned the violence—a fact which I welcomed. I also welcomed the contribution of Brian Cass from the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratories. He said that the Government had reacted positively and well.
It was also very interesting to hear Roger Spiller, the local regional officer of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, which represents most of the workers in Huntingdon and also those in Occold near Eye in Suffolk, who are suffering the same kind of intimidation and threats. The movement has gone from Huntingdon to intimidate the workers at Occold, and I am very pleased that the unions have taken up an issue that traditionally one might not have associated them with. The issue has the full official support of the union, and such support will gradually, I hope, move across the whole trade union movement.
I should like to say a few things about the need to use animals in biomedical research. I am grateful to friends such as Professor Nancy Rothwell of Manchester university, who is an outstanding scientist, and other members of the scientific community with whom I have

37WH
debated these issues over the years. They have made it clear that advances in the prevention and treatment of disease over the past 50 years have led to dramatic improvements in the quality and quantity of all our lives, yet major diseases still remain to be conquered—heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer's and cancer. There is no cure and no useful treatment; much remains to be done on infectious diseases and drug-resistant micro-organisms.
A great deal of research is needed. We need to understand the normal biological processes of cells. Despite the magificence of our molecular, cellular and human studies, the use of experimental animals will have to continue for the foreseeable future. That is agreed by organisations such as FRAME, or the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—there is no substitute for some degree of animal experimentation.
I realise that the issue is sensitive and complex and that public opinion is divided, but 80 per cent. of the population support the use of animals for the possible treatment of human diseases. Recently, during debates in both Houses on stem cell research, many members did not understand the issues and were confused but were able to make up their minds based on an open, proper, educated and intelligent discussion.
It is often forgotten that well over 96 per cent. of experimental animals are non-human primates. We use such animals to investigate medicines, biological functions and so on. I offer an example of an animal experiment that led us on to a new path of treatment. I am sure that it will interest you, Mr. Winterton, as it led to a cure for prostate cancer.
A major company developed a drug that acts like a natural hormone and was expected to stimulate the ovaries, testes and sex organs. However, during long-term animal studies it was unexpectedly found that the drug caused the sex organs to shrink. That paradoxical discovery would not have been made in the planned clinical use in infertility treatment and it might simply have been concluded that the drug had failed. In fact, the scientific understanding that it brought led directly to its use as a highly successful, reversible treatment for prostate and, indeed, breast cancer. As calculated by Professor Rothwell, it has already offered more than 3 million patient years of valuable treatment.
Professor Rothwell has also carried out research on interleukins. Animal experiments gave an extremely interesting result that has allowed us to develop new cures for strokes and brain injuries. There are other examples that do not tell such an exciting tale, but we have to use those approaches as well as considering alternative methods.
Scientists constantly try to replace, refine and reduce the number of animals used. The Government made a majestic strike on animal experiments when they took on the cosmetics industry. Many of us thought that useless experiments were being carried out merely to make us all look prettier. The Government took a huge step forward; almost from day 1, they took on that silly use of animal experimentation.
Despite strong regulation and much discussion, it is true that, now and again, some apparently inappropriate experiments are approved. However, that is being cut down as more debate takes place. Laws are
38WH
in place; projects are considered; and there are Home Office visits. Indeed, if one starts to conduct an experiment in a university laboratory as much as one minute before the time specified on the Home Office certificate, the lab can be closed down by the Home Office. I was the boss of such a department and had to monitor these matters. Although I was angry when I had to stop people conducting experiments, I made it clear that the rules were firm and that they had to be obeyed.
The public need information, and explanation of these issues. Many scientists spend much of their time talking to various groups. For example, the Women's Institute has strong views about animal experiments and is often visited by scientists. Major funding bodies, such as the Medical Research Council, devote copious sums of money to the investigation and justification of alternatives to replace the use of animals in experiments.
Animal experiments will have to continue for the foreseeable future for one major reason: the human genome project will necessitate an understanding through the use of transgenic mice of the genes that cause cystic fibrosis and many of the problems that afflict humanity. There may be a small increase in the use of mice for the best medical reasons—to develop new cures. There is interaction between Government, industry and the scientists who are absolutely committed to that work. The loyalty of those scientists under pressure demands full Government support.
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I join hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate; the way in which he made his case does him great credit.
The use of animals for medical research will always give rise to strong feelings. I am grateful to hon. Members who spoke in the debate for their reasoned contributions on what can sometimes be a difficult and emotive subject.
I condemn without reservation the violent and intimidatory behaviour of so-called animal rights campaigners. They do no good to the cause of animal welfare, whereas more reputable organisations such as the RSPCA have achieved change through argument and debate. On the other hand, by the use of violence, the extremists have prevented change that might have taken place—for example, on freedom of information. When there is a clear threat of violence, it is difficult to agree to greater freedom of information if it might result in intimidation of and violence towards individuals who work in animal research.
The extremists have damaged their own cause, whereas those who try, by argument through the proper democratic process, to set out how change can be achieved have brought about some progress—as I shall explain. The Government are determined that extremist organisations will be opposed. We are equally determined that organisations undertaking legitimate and valuable work and the individuals who work for them should be protected. That is why we have allocated additional funds of £1 million to the Cambridgeshire police, as extra resources to police the protests against Huntingdon Life Sciences.

39WH
We are conscious of public concern about the use of animals in experiments and in other scientific procedures. We are aware that many people want to stop all such work. Unfortunately, that cannot yet be done without halting important medical and scientific research and without compromising public safety. We need to get that message across to the public loud and clear.
We often see newspaper advertisements with a picture of a monkey with electrodes on its head. That is an extremely emotive image and causes people to wonder whether such experiments are necessary. However, if a photograph of a child suffering from a serious and painful cancer was placed alongside that image, thus confronting us with the question of whether animal experiments are necessary to cure that child, the public would have to consider the serious—yes, emotional—but deep philosophical issues involved.
People feel uncomfortable about the issue. I especially noted the comments made in yesterday's debate on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) who has also spoken today. He said that when he began to conduct experiments on animals, he felt uncomfortable about doing so. As a Minister dealing with such matters, I, too, feel uncomfortable. I feel uncomfortable that animals may be hurt during some experiments, but I should feel much more uncomfortable if I stopped necessary research and people died or suffered as a result. There is thus a clear moral issue for everyone in the country. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggested, a wider debate is needed so that people confront the serious issues involved.
We intend to ensure that animals are used only where fully justified, where no alternative exists and where the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals involved. A total of 2.57 million animals were used in scientific procedures in 1999. With the exception of 1997, that is the lowest figure since 1955. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said, the Government have taken steps since 1997 to ensure that we respond to people's discomfort about animal experiments.
We have announced our intention never to allow the use of great apes. We have secured an end to the testing of cosmetics on animals. We have announced our intention never to allow the testing of alcohol and tobacco products on animals for the use or promotion of those products. We have ended the licensing of the lethal-dose 50 test and tests for skin corrosivity and phototoxic potential. We have started phasing out the use of animals in monoclonal antibody production. We have promoted the principle of data sharing to reduce the duplication of testing on animals. All that shows that we have done everything that we reasonably can to ensure that animals are used only where absolutely necessary, and that where animal testing takes place, it is carefully monitored and controlled.
The Government have brought about those changes as a result of discussions with the scientific community and several animal welfare groups. We have considered the issues very carefully. Those discussions have produced changes, but no change in our legislation or
40WH
procedures has resulted from intimidation or violence. I give a commitment that we will not allow those who promote violence and intimidation to change our laws or procedures.
The research needs to be carefully monitored. The system has operated for several years and imposes strict regulations on animal welfare during research. However, it is essential that that research is carried out. Medical research saves lives. It improves incomparably the quality of life and life expectancy of people who have debilitating diseases, but it is also important because it enables veterinary science to improve. However, some animal welfare organisations ignore the fact that some of the research benefits animals in the long term.
Medicine has made enormous strides during the past century, but that progress can be maintained only if we have strong, active pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. We all want breakthroughs to be made in the treatment of diseases, such as Alzheimer's, leukaemia, arthritis and multiple sclerosis—the list goes on—but the animal rights extremists threaten those breakthroughs. They want to destroy an industry that saves lives.
As we have heard this morning, animal rights protesters are not warm, sentimental people who love animals; they are not prepared to use democratic processes and peaceful protests to present their opinions. They are aggressive terrorists who are happy to use violence against anyone with whom they disagree. They pursue ugly campaigns of intimidation and harassment. They are indiscriminate about harming the innocent friends and families of those whom they target.
I understand that people are concerned about animal research, and the Government are actively engaged with the groups that are prepared to use peaceful means to present their views, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the National Antivivisection Society and the RSPCA. It is harder for them to press the points that they want to make when they have to dissociate themselves from the illegal and extreme behaviour of other groups. Those actions have only hardened the resolve of the Government, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical research organisations to resist the pressure from extremists.
The Government welcome the fact that Huntingdon Life Sciences has successfully found new long-term financial backing. If, as the result of animal rights extremists' actions, such industries were driven out of this country, we would all be the losers—patients, the national health service, employees and the United Kingdom economy—but the irony is that the animals would be worse off. In this country, the use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures is strictly regulated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—the most rigorous legislation of its kind anywhere in the world. Nowhere else is animal welfare so carefully controlled.
The 1986 Act operates on the principle of the three Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement. The principle involves the replacement of animals by non-animal methods wherever possible; the reduction of numbers to the minimum necessary to obtain valid results where replacement is not possible; and the refinement of all procedures to minimise suffering and

41WH
harmful effects. A series of special licences must be obtained before a researcher can use an animal. Researchers must have the necessary skills, training and experience. The establishments must have facilities to care for the animals properly and are subject to regular inspection, often without notice, by a team of Home Office inspectors. I cannot guarantee that a mistake will never be made in any research establishment, but their regulation is as rigorous as possible to minimise the problems that may arise.
We are considering how to give more protection to those who have been targeted by extremists. Tough laws already exist to protect individuals and businesses from violence and threatening or intimidatory behaviour, but we are keen to find out whether more can be done. We are urgently considering the scope for strengthening the law to prevent extremists from intimidating people by protesting outside their homes or sending them threatening letters. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has said, the extremists sometimes target their victims by looking up the names and addresses of company directors and shareholders. We shall examine what can be done in company law to protect directors and shareholders.
At present, directors' names and home addresses must be filed at Companies House, and shareholders must also provide a contact address, although it may be a nominee account. That requirement is being reviewed as part of the independent review of company law, which will report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in May this year. I hope that it will provide a means by which we can safeguard not only the proper requirements of company law, but the personal protection of those who work in such companies. The Government therefore share the hon. Gentleman's aims, and we shall consider how to deliver them.
It is particularly unsettling for people to be intimidated by protesters outside their homes, and we are understandably concerned about the safety of their families. We are considering the possibility of creating an offence of demonstrating outside a residence in a way that is likely to cause intimidation or distress. Another favourite ploy of the extremists is to bombard their victims with hate mail. We are considering whether such can be addressed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
I have not been able to deal with all the issues raised during the debate. However, we have had several meetings with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the various other organisations that seek to control the extremists. They are developing not only guidance on how those who may be victims can register their shares and protect themselves, but a much more proactive approach to targeting extremists and ensuring that they are discredited, and we shall prosecute them where possible.
I hope that the concerns expressed today are recognised by the police, but I assure hon. Members that the Government are absolutely determined not to let the extremists succeed. We will not hesitate to do whatever needs to be done to protect the public and support the freedom of a legitimate and important industry to pursue its business. It is right and proper that people express their opinions, but they should do so peacefully under this country's democratic parliamentary system.

Chapel Hill School, Braintree
12.29 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to bring to Members' attention matters concerning Chapel Hill school in Braintree. Two weeks ago, the parents of the children at the school received a letter from Essex county council's education department and they were stunned to read that it was proposed to close the school. That would mean that the children, who, in the main, live nearby, would be scattered to other schools throughout the town and possibly throughout the wider district. The proposal followed from what would be regarded as a less than satisfactory Ofsted report in the spring of last year.
Chapel Hill school was in a different position when it opened in 1929. It was built by a Chelmsford firm of builders and was part of the progressive expansion of Braintree. It was built to serve a developing council house estate that was based on Bartrams avenue and was being built by the then Braintree urban district council. At that time, Braintree was a market and small industrial town. It had a number of large mills and works. Indeed, well-known names such as Courtaulds, Crittall Windows and perhaps the lesser-known Lake and Elliot's had their factories and works there. It was a thriving town that you, Mr. Winterton, might associate more with the north of England, but markets towns are found in the south and East Anglia, too. At that time, people went to school, worked and lived in the same town. It was a closely bonded community.
The school's degree of permanence is shown by the fact that its first headmistress, Miss Austin, was there for 34 years. She started at the school in 1929 and left it in the mid-1960s. She saw enormous changes not only to the school, but to the town in that period. Indeed, the school welcomed wartime evacuees from London. They moved out from the capital because they believed that it would be much safer to live in small towns surrounded by countryside. Generally speaking, that was true. Braintree did not suffer extensive war damage, but some damage occurred close to where the school is situated.
One frequently meets older citizens who not only went to the school themselves, but have children and grandchildren who have been to it. In the main, most of us have fond memories of our school days; we try to blank out those that are not quite so fond. However, the people to whom I have spoken all have memories of a warm, hard-working, community-based school.
I presided at the annual general meeting of the Silver End friendship club last Friday. Silver End is a village near Braintree and, at the meeting, I met a lady who told me that her first day at school was the day that Chapel Hill school opened. She said, "Now I've said that, Mr. Hurst, you'll know how old I am." Even an arithmetic ignoramus such as I could just about calculate that adding five to the number of years from 1929 to now would enable me to work out her age. She spoke very well of the school and was sorry to hear of its proposed closure.
The school has had its ups and downs. At one time, the school had 500 pupils accommodated in demountables or temporary classrooms in its grounds. The school was bursting at the seams. That is not the position now. It has room for 240 pupils—it is like the

43WH
turn of time—and they are accommodated in good, old-fashioned self-contained classrooms with a door, walls and windows. Such classrooms were terribly out of fashion in the 1970s; it was almost an abomination to have such things.
I recollect that my wife taught at a progressive school in that period, and she was told that one could not possibly have a blackboard and easel. If one used a blackboard, one had to prop it up, because using an easel would make it too formal. The world moves on and, just as one can now use the modern version of blackboards—they are probably called overheads—one can have proper classrooms. It is significant that the newest school in Braintree, at Notley Green, has been built with defined classrooms. The design of Chapel Hill school has come back into fashion and modern usage.
In the company of the vice-chairman of the governors, the Rev. Steven Lloyd, I visited the school last Friday afternoon. I had been to the school in the summer, but this visit had not been pre-planned; I went almost without notice. No one had painted the walls bright green, because of my visit, so I hope that I saw the school as it really was.
The first class that Rev. Lloyd took me into was a reading class. A wide selection of books of all kinds—from modern books to classical novels—was available. I spoke to every child in the class and they were able to tell me what the books were about and what their favourite reading was. They had an enthusiasm for reading and for the feel of books. However great advanced technology may be, there is nothing like the feel and smell of a book to encourage the sense of learning, the wish to learn and the excitement about what lies in its pages.
I was particularly impressed by a young girl in that class. She had a book of poetry, which had not been given to her just because a dignitary was coming. She showed me her favourite poems and they were appropriate to a girl of her age. There is place for poetry in the world in which we live and I was pleased that Chapel Hill encourages that as well as other subjects.
The next classroom provided a contrast; it was the computer class. Virtually every child in the school has access to a computer. I am not able to judge whether the children were doing well, but they were at the computer and showing enthusiasm. Each child has had the opportunity to use a computer from a very young age.
Some things in schools do not change very much. As I went along the corridors, I saw the wall displays. Sometimes one thinks that history does not always find its proper place in teaching in schools these days and one can argue that history is an essential subject. If we do not know where we come from, we shall not have the faintest idea of where we may be going. However, I was pleased that the wall displays showed Braintree in history. To link one's town with the course of history is more pertinent than the obscure descriptions of events in classical times. Those events are fascinating for what they teach us, but they are not as relevant to young children as what they see around them.
The displays also showed events from the 20th century. It makes you feel older than you think when you realise that the everyday events of your boyhood are
44WH
now part of historical exhibits. Again, it is important that the children know their parents' and grandparents' background and how they lived in former times.
My close friend Elwyn Bishop is a county councillor and he is taking an active part in the campaign to save the school. It is being well supported by the local newspaper, the Braintree & Witham Times, and a whole range of parents, teachers and governors. The town is becoming unified in its opposition to the closure, and a great well of affection and emotion is coming from people who want to preserve the school that they went to or have known of and have loved.
Elwyn Bishop faces a particular difficulty in the campaign to save the school. It is shortly to play a football match against the school at which he was headmaster. He faces a great dilemma as to which side to support during the match. I advised him to support one school in the first half and the other in the second half, but that might have been too political an answer.
Chapel Hill school has a playing field. When one considers that the school was built in the 1920s in the middle of a then industrial area, the fact that it has a field at its rear and a further one beyond that makes it a fairly unusual school in an urban environment. The playing field at the rear of the school is surplus to its requirements. It might be possible to exchange it for value, as it were. That might lead to further improvements to the school. A nursery school is also on the playing field.
I do not want to suggest that the area is deprived; that would be the wrong word. However, it has been through difficult times and the great factories and works that I described earlier disappeared 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Crittall Windows remains, but it is very much a scaled-down version of what it once was. The life went out of that part of the town, but, as a result of regeneration schemes, between 250 and 500 new properties are planned to be built within the school's catchment area. Although the number of people in the catchment area has decreased, the arc of projection is rising, and more children will be around to attend the school.
The nursery school was not established by chance. The county council's policy was that those areas that were not as advantaged as others should take priority when such schools were established. It is a natural feeder for the main school. More than half the youngsters who attend live locally; the remainder live further afield, within the town itself. The school also provides an opportunity for other people within Braintree. For example, students at Braintree college are gaining valuable experience by acting as nursery assistants.
There is consistent support for the school. When I was there on Friday, I met Mrs. Joy Mills, a teaching assistant. She is an ex-pupil, as are her two children, one of whom is a chartered physiotherapist; the other is studying medicine at Imperial college. I also spoke to Mrs. Abbott, who lives close to the school. She and her children attended it. Generation after generation have gone there, loved it and are united in trying to save it. The community spirit carries on after school with football, netball and choir practice. The area needs that facility as it comes out of the bad times.
The Ofsted visit in April 2000 was a great blow. The school was labouring under a number of disadvantages. The deputy head had been suspended following an

45WH
allegation that was subsequently proven to be groundless, so she was not present during the visit. A senior member of staff was ill and away from the school for some time. The gaps were being filled by temporary and supply teachers, one of whom had been there for only three days when the inspection took place.
During one day of the Ofsted visit, the school was supposed to be going on a trip to the millennium dome—I hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably on that. Therefore, the inspection was squeezed into three days instead of four. The school applied for a deferment, but that was refused and the visit took place. Problems were found within the school, and those have been accepted. As a consequence of the report, the headmaster became ill and resigned. The effect of Ofsted inspections on school staff, teachers, pupils and governors could be the subject of another debate. The stress, illness, resignations and public humiliation that arise from them are pertinent matters.
The headmaster was therefore absent after the report's declarations in May, and the school has been rudderless since then. I do not criticise the people who stepped in on a short-term basis. The deputy was in charge for a little while; a acting head took over for six weeks; and there is another acting head now. However, they could not achieve what the county council could have achieved had it gone all out to find a new head for the school at an early date.
I recently met the school governors. Mr. Dave Rogers, the chairman, the Rev. Lloyd and Mr. Alan Howard said that they wanted to advertise the post of headmaster last September, but were told that it would be better to hold off until this term. During that time, the school drifted.
The inspectors returned in November and found that the school had not improved, but that cannot have been a surprise. It could not have succeeded without a dynamic commitment to make it work. It is almost as if the closure process is being willed, because that is what will happen without dynamic intervention. No one has been in permanent charge of it since May and it does not have the prospect of salvation that would have existed had another course of action been taken. The school has not been given a second chance.
The public reaction to the decision has been overwhelming. The matter has not been before the county council as part of the democratic process, so there has been no democratic input, but it is not a party political issue. Essex county council is finely balanced between the parties and it is hoped that men and women of good will will ensure that the school is turned around. I do not want to use specific phrases, but we want the school to have a new beginning that is based on united hope and confidence. We are imploring the county council to reconsider the matter and are asking for kind words and inspiration from my right hon. Friend.
12.46 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on raising this issue. Although the Government will have little to do with the final outcome, I accept that for his community—and certainly in terms of the Government's priorities for raising standards in every school—it is central to the work of the
46WH
Department for Education and Employment. We have a good opportunity to reflect on national policy and how it works at a local level.
Many people have spent a working lifetime in the school. My hon. Friend painted the picture of a school that started in the 1920s and reached this century with a proud history. It is almost a truism, but, if a school is good, the memory of it stays with former pupils for life. When they consider their life chances, they put down their successes to the fact that they had a good education. It is only as we reach adulthood that we realise the importance of a good education. The school has, without doubt, had that effect on his constituents and others for many decades.
I also want to acknowledge that schools are part of communities. They provide more than teaching; they are focal points and often provide facilities that cannot be found anywhere else. They are crucial to the areas in which they are located. However, in the gentlest of terms—I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate my tone—I must emphasise that no one can live in the past. Although the school may have a proud record and have served many generations well, we need to consider how it is performing for current students and what its prospects are for improving its performance in the next few years.
My hon. Friend rooted the issue and the decisions that will soon face the community in the Ofsted inspection of April last year and the six-monthly inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in November. He said that he was not surprised that, six months, after the first inspection, progress had not been made because the right mechanisms for improvement had not been provided, but six months is a heck of time in the life chances of a small child. If children have spent half a year in a school that is not providing good quality education, those who have a responsibility for making sure that education services are well run must act as quickly as they can.
I accept my hon. Friend's point that the school is not performing as well as he hoped that it would. Although I have not visited the school, obviously in preparing for the debate I have sought information on it, and it seems that my hon. Friend was right to use the term "drift". There has been a lack of continuity of leadership, and we know that leadership is the key. I fervently believe that if a school gets a poor Ofsted report, it must act immediately; otherwise, drift will get worse.
This is a strange case in that it is unlikely that the Government will have any direct involvement in the school's future, and I shall explain why. We want schools that go into special measures to come out again within two years, or we will take measures to shut them. That is right because two years is a long time for a child to spend in a school where the quality of education is not satisfactory. Often what happens in those two years—although I am not saying that it is happening at Chapel Hill school—is that parents vote with their feet and move their children out of a school that Ofsted deems to be weak. Nobody wants schools in special measures to wither on the vine because they are not seen to improve straight away.
Our first involvement, therefore, would be to say to the local authority, "Get your act together and get the school out of special measures within two years. We

47WH
have powers to intervene if you do not." Clearly, we do not want to intervene. Two years is a long time, and the problems are essentially those that must be solved locally.
Our second involvement, therefore, would be to work with the local education authority in monitoring the school's performance. One of the education advisers from our standards and effectiveness unit will have attended a routine meeting with Essex county council to discuss all the schools in the county which are in special measures and have serious weaknesses. "All" sounds bad—there are not many. As we have said many times, if any school in the country is in special measures and is not providing the quality of education that is needed, we want to know why, and we want that school to be carefully monitored. Our second involvement will come about when the school comes up in monitoring conversations with our officials, our advisers and the council.
I suspect that the HMI visit in November, when it was decided that no progress had been made, may have been a factor that persuaded the council to consult on closure. Closure is not usually the end result for schools that go into special measures. Usually, there is new leadership or measures are taken to raise standards, and schools come out of special measures well within two years. To place that in a national context, the good news is that there are now far fewer schools going into special measures than there were two years ago. There are now 373 such schools, compared with about 515 two years ago, and that is good because once a school goes into special measures that is a problem. The challenge is to get schools to a standard at which they do not have to go into special measures.
Schools are turning themselves round more quickly. Three years ago, it was taking 25 months to come out of special measures; now, it is taking 18 months. In the vast majority of cases, the policy of pressure and support, or rapid action, of setting a target and of working with schools and the local authority is successful. Closure is a preferred option for only very few schools. Sometimes closure is not possible because there are not enough places elsewhere in the locality. Sometimes it is an obvious course because there are many surplus places. It will be for Essex to decide, according to the criteria, whether closure is right for this school.
It will be useful if I set out what will happen now, because that is what parents want to know. One of the difficulties for the local authority is that the minute it begins to consult on closing a school, it is assumed that the school will be closed. I want to assure parents, through my hon. Friend, that there is a process in which they, more than anybody, have a right, indeed almost an obligation, to state their views. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the subject has not yet passed through the council's democratic process.
48WH
Consultation is being conducted now. There will be a parents' meeting at the school on, I think, 5 February. That will be reported to the county council's education panel on 26 March, and the panel will make a recommendation to the executive board meeting on 10 April. If the proposals are agreed, it is only at that point that the council will publish a statutory notice. It will then invite comments from anybody in the community. That consultation period will be four weeks, which is shorter than normal, because the school is in special measures. If there are any objections, and I suspect from what my hon. Friend said that there will be, the proposals will have to be referred to the school organisation committee. If the committee cannot agree, the decision will go to the adjudicator.
I know from my hon. Friend's speech that the issue is important locally. It concerns the life chances of his constituents' children and the future of the learning community in the area. It is therefore right that the decisions should be made locally, and I am delighted that there is now a system that makes that possible.
There are counterbalances within that system. If, after the consultation process, there is no agreement, the adjudicator can consider the final decision before it is confirmed. My hon. Friend may know of the list of criteria that the adjudicator will have to take into account when making his decision. If he does not have that list, I will be delighted to send it to him.
The adjudicator will not make his decision on a whim or because he is instructed by the council. He will take into account exactly the factors to which my hon. Friend has referred. Where would the children go? Would the journey be too long? Could they be guaranteed a better standard of education? What would be the effect of the school's closure on neighbouring communities? Would the council have insufficient places? The factor that will drive the decision-making process above all is the standard of education, which is, I know, what motivates parents, the local authority, my hon. Friend, the Government and myself.
The decisions will be painful and will raise questions in people's minds and provoke high emotions. It is right, however, that they face up to the fact that a school with a long tradition of service to the community is not delivering the education that we want for our children. For their sake, the community must face up to those decisions and find a way forward. That should be done in a spirit of openness. However much people disagree, everybody has the same motivation.
I hope that, whatever decision is made, my hon. Friend can at least say that his constituents had every opportunity to express their view and that there was a full and frank exchange of information. I hope also that it will solve the problems facing education in Braintree at the moment. I wish him well, as I do his constituents, including parents and teachers at the school. I hope that all those adults make the right decision for the children of his constituency. We have had this debate because their education is so important and we want it to take place in the best possible circumstances in the best possible school.

Crime Rates (Staffordshire)
12.59 pm
Mr. William Cash: I was due to be in Sweden today with the European Scrutiny Committee. That meeting is important, bearing in mind the fact that Sweden now holds the European Union presidency. However, I was successful in securing this debate on crime rates in Staffordshire. That issue is even more important than the meeting in Sweden, and I am delighted to be here. I am delighted also that the Minister of State, the hon Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), is attending the debate, perhaps in some recognition of the seriousness of the situation in Staffordshire.
Staffordshire crime rates are appalling. The spin and the misleading statistics put out by the Government cannot cover up their failure to provide a truly excellent police force in Staffordshire with the proper resources to carry out its job. My constituents are being put at serious risk, and I insist that the Minister not only explains his position and that of the Government, but tells us that the situation will be remedied, and how. Why should my constituents be subjected to such bad crime rates?
Yesterday, on the Floor of the House, the Home Secretary claimed that last October's British crime survey showed that crime had fallen since the general election by 10 per cent. between 1997 and 1999, and that that included a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime. These figures will astonish my constituents in Staffordshire. However, the Home Secretary conceded that crime rates under the previous Conservative Government had fallen from 1993 to 1997.
I shall present some facts that have been taken from the Library research department, from my researches and from the Staffordshire police. First, the rise in recorded offences in Staffordshire since the general election, under the new method of calculation, is 13 per cent. Even under the old rules, the rise is 4 per cent. Given what the Home Secretary had to say only yesterday—that there had been a recent reduction of 4 per cent. in violent crime and of 10 per cent. in other crime—the Minister has some serious explaining to do. It is the Home Secretary's assertion that crime has fallen by 4 per cent. everywhere else in the country. The figures for the country as a whole bear no relationship to what is happening in Staffordshire.
Secondly, the Home Office's figures show that the largest increase in violent crime, a massive 43.6 per cent.—this is outrageous—is in Staffordshire. Given the figures, it would be little comfort to my constituents to hear that house burglaries this year have fallen by 13 per cent. and that car crime has come down by 11 per cent., welcome as these reductions are.
The Prime Minister's pledge that the Government would deal not only with crime but with the causes of crime has disintegrated in Staffordshire. The causes of crime cannot be dealt with unless the money is on the table, and it is not in Staffordshire. The Government have failed my constituents on crime rates, on the cause of crime, and on the money to solve the problem. The police, including the chief constable, do a great job but the Government have them in financial handcuffs.
50WH
I shall give some simple key figures that prove my point. They have been taken from the police authority and from other sources. Government support for the authority has fallen from 85.13 per cent. in 1995–96 to 75.52 per cent. for 1999–2000. That is a huge drop of 9.6 per cent. In 1997–98, the budgeted spend of £115.25 million was £4 million more than the Government grant plus standard spending assessment. By 2000–01, the budgeted spend had increased to £126.9 million, which was £10 million more than the Government grant plus SSA. The situation is becoming much worse under this Government and the gap has had to be filled by reserves.
That is important because other public services are involved. As for the police, reserves are now below the levels recommended by the Audit Commission. I understand that they may be nil. On the figures that I have been given, there will still be a shortfall even after the use of reserves. Therefore, the balance will have to be filled by council tax proceeds. The council tax payers of my constituency will need to know why their bills have increased. They have been described recently as the third highest demand on the police precept in the country. My constituents will also want to know why crime rates have increased by so much. They will be interested in the correlation between the vast increase in crime and crime rates, which is dramatic and contradicts what the Home Secretary said yesterday, and in the lack of resources made available by the Government.
The Government have betrayed my constituents. They have broken their promises and they have let down the police. They have exposed my constituents to grave risk from criminals and criminal behaviour. Even with the announcement yesterday of a Government grant plus SSA for Staffordshire of £121.7 million on last year's figure of a budgeted spend of £127 million—I trust that the Minister will take this in good part—pressures such as this debate and the prospect of a general election, which no doubt are concentrating the mind marvellously, a huge shortfall of about £5 million will still have to be met by council tax payers. Even assuming that the budgeted spend does not increase from last year—I regard that as highly improbable, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that—yesterday's announcement will still leave that shortfall.
Part of this bad situation stems from the Government's failure to give a fair deal to my constituents in relation to the standard spending assessment. I have campaigned vigorously about the matter over the years, but the Government have failed to meet the problem. As a result, my constituents suffer across the board. Education and other services are affected, and damage is done to the police service. Some of the problems come from pension costs, but the Government are not measuring up to the crisis. I have drawn attention to the issue in the local press and on local radio many times over recent years.
What does all this mean? Crime has increased above the national average in Staffordshire. The required money is not there, and police and police support numbers have been cut by as many as 245, including the mounted branch. The prediction—that is all it is at present—is that 85 new police officers will be recruited. I think that I am right in saying that the Home Secretary said yesterday—he has certainly said this on other occasions—that there will be an increase in police

51WH
recruitment. That does not make any difference comparatively if we have disproportionate cuts in manpower as a result of the Government's failure to provide the necessary resources.
That applies to resources for what is happening on the ground and to those that are needed to deal with problems arising from the police pension. I understand that the amount of money that is currently required to deal with those problems will involve an increase of about 54 per cent. in current funding. We are talking about substantial sums of money and a matter that the Government are obliged to redress. It is not simply a matter of doing that for the sake and benefit of the statistics. We are not talking about statistics, but, as I said, about a 43.6 per cent. increase in violent crime, which is the highest increase in the country. There is a direct relationship between the increase in violent crime and crime generally and the lack of resources being made available by the Government.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Most statistical analyses would contest that assertion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give me the academic sources from which he drew the correlation that he has just cited.
Mr. Cash: First, it is based on common sense. However, the figures that I gave are also based on those from the research department of the House of Commons Library and from the police authority itself. I will not impute to those sources the opinions that I am happy to express myself, but, for practical purposes, I believe that there is a relationship between money and crime rates; anybody who looked at the matter objectively would draw that conclusion. Indeed, in the past, members of the Labour party and those of their persuasion have often argued that there is a direct correlation between prosperity levels in inner cities and crime rates.
That was one of the things that the Prime Minister was clearly referring to when he said that the Government would deal not only with crime but with the causes of crime. If I may, I will call the Prime Minister in aid of my argument that there is a relationship between money, resources and crime rates. Perhaps the Minister would like to take that up with the Prime Minister. That direct relationship is also reflected in the manner in which the SSA is calculated. In my meetings with Ministers on matters relating to other public services, that has been acknowledged. Indeed, a Minister admitted at a fairly recent meeting that the Government had not done enough. However, she added that that was the fault not of her Department, but of the Treasury, which would not grapple with the SSA problem. The Minister will know perfectly well that the SSA is based on a relationship between need, resources and population. It is for that reason that I complain bitterly on behalf of my constituents about crime rates, which have damaged them severely.
Against that appalling background, the police, to whom I pay tribute throughout my constituency, are making serious efforts—no thanks to the Government—to open new village police stations. Five have been opened, including one which has been
52WH
reopened in Eccleshall in my constituency. We need more of them, not remote-controlled, pass-you-on systems. We need more police visibility and accessibility. We need more permanent bobbies, and regular bobbies on the beat in every part of my constituency. I am glad that they have come back to Gnosall and Eccleshall, as they make a big difference. In Stone and Cheadle, which have significant populations, we need more permanent bobbies on the beat. There is vandalism in Walton and in Stone, and there are problems in Hixon, where there have been difficulties with juvenile groups. In sum, we need to address the question of resources and we need a greater police presence on the street and on the beat, not only in Stone and Cheadle, but in Madeley and elsewhere.
A police presence is a great deterrent to criminals; a juvenile offender does not dare tangle with a policeman. The Audit Commission has recently revealed that only 5 per cent. of police strength is displayed on the streets around the clock. That is not good enough; in fact, it is an unbelievably low proportion. Rural crime sometimes increases through the theft of garden equipment and so on when there are unsupervised car boot sales in the vicinity. At Staffordshire meetings convened by "Save the Rural Crime Unit", I have strongly urged the police to improve their performance in rural areas of my constituency, some parts of which are invaded by criminals who come down the motorways from Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham.
A new system of rural crime detection has been introduced by the police authority and the chief constable. However, the meagre reference to rural crime in the rural White Paper will not be sufficient. Neighbourhood watch, house watch and farm watch need money, and the Government are simply failing the police service on that. For example, from time to time, serious issues have been raised by my constituents in and around Cheadle concerning attacks on horses. That problem is of great concern to the rural community.
All in all, the Government stand condemned for their failure to provide adequate resources to solve the problems of crime in Staffordshire. Whatever the Minister says about the question of the causes of crime, the statistics speak for themselves and come from unimpeachable authorities. My constituents and I look to the Minister to say now that the Government will change their policy and provide the money that is needed to protect my constituents from crime.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am grateful for the opportunity to address these issues in debate. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) knows, I regularly meet with Staffordshire Members of Parliament on an all-party basis to discuss this kind of issue. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has attended some of those meetings. I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is not here today. He raises these matters with me, and I am a little surprised that he has not taken the opportunity to ventilate them fully here.
I want to address a couple of points at the outset. First, the hon. Member for Stone was right to raise the crime level in Staffordshire. The statistics that the Government published a few weeks ago on total

53WH
recorded crime made it clear that crime in Staffordshire, which had increased by 13.4 per cent., was the worst of any police authority area in the country. The only authority that had an increase in crime of more than 10 per cent. during the same period was Suffolk, which had a 10.8 per cent. increase. In fact, the majority of police forces saw reductions in crime.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issue in Staffordshire, not only because he is a Staffordshire Member of Parliament, but because performance there was significantly worse than that in comparable police authorities. That was especially true of violent crime, for which the figures are as the hon. Gentleman set them out.
A number of important qualifications must, however, be made. The first relates to the connection that the hon. Gentleman made with resourcing. I am the last person to say that resources have no impact on the situation, but let us take, as a simple measure, the number of forces with a lower number than Staffordshire of constables per 1,000 of population. Table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01 dealing with police service strength shows that 22 forces have a lower number. Staffordshire has 157.7 police constables per 1,000 of population, Avon and Somerset 152, Bedfordshire 139.3, Cambridgeshire 136.5 and so on. About half the forces in the country have a lower number of constables per 1,000 of population than Staffordshire.
I have used the constables per 1,000 measure because, in the regular interchanges that we have in the Chamber on these matters, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) always prefers it, but similar figures apply for officers per 1,000 of the population: 19 forces have a lower number of officers per head than Staffordshire. I cite those figures to demonstrate that the hon. Gentleman's point about the direct link between resources and crime levels is too simple. Important issues involving resources, including reassurance, also need to be addressed. The hon. Gentleman did refer to them, but the simple relationship that he postulated between resources and crime levels is not sustainable.
I shall spend a moment considering resources. The provisional funding settlement for Staffordshire was £121.7 million, as the hon. Gentleman said. The final figures were published yesterday and show an increase of 4.2 per cent. in real terms over this year. In addition to that money, the police authority will receive £1.943 million from the crime fighting fund to recruit extra police officers—a fact mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—and £275,000 from the rural policing fund.
That allocation was made following the submission of a large number of rural police authorities, including Staffordshire, which argued that, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Gentleman, particular costs are involved in rural policing, which the Government should meet. That is why we allocated £15 million in the current year and £30 million a year for each of the next three years. Staffordshire's share of that was, as I said, £275,000 in the current year.
Mr. Cash: I shall not repeat what I have already said, but the Minister would accept, I am sure, that, even with the announcement made yesterday, there will still be a substantial shortfall. Reserves in Staffordshire, if not nil, are certainly well below Audit Commission levels,
54WH
and the burden will therefore fall on my council tax payers. The Government are doing nothing, as far as anyone can see, to sort out the standard spending assessment, which is so unfair to my constituents.
Mr. Clarke: I am not trying to evade the point, but, as the hon. Gentleman should know from his long experience of European and civil matters, the standard spending assessment is a matter not for me, but for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The issues will be debated generally.
In total, Staffordshire has been awarded almost £3 million—£2.914 million—from the crime reduction fund for 16 projects, so there has been a significant resource increase in Staffordshire. It would be wrong if the hon. Gentleman did not have the courtesy to recognise that.
I acknowledge one point that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to resourcing, which I have acknowledged privately to him and his fellow Staffordshire Members of Parliament. The pensions issue has hit Staffordshire particularly hard. All forces are affected by the way in which pensions spending is allocated, and the problems may not be easily resolved, given the various interests involved and the way that pensions have been dealt with over many years.
Staffordshire does have a pensions issue, as I have acknowledged frankly since the first of my meetings with Staffordshire Members. All I can do today is reassert the commitments that I have previously given to the hon. Gentleman. We are considering what can be done to address the matter.
The chief constable has pointed out an additional factor, which I am sure he has also raised with the hon. Gentleman. In the chief constable's remarks to me, he states:
"The main priority in crime has been to make sure that we are properly recording crime reported to us."
That may seem a trivial point, but there have been significant problems in police recording procedures over the years, and chief constables—I pay tribute to Mr. Giffard for his commitment—as well as the police service as a whole and the Home Office are committed to ensuring that the recorded statistics are correct, so that we can establish the true situation.
The chief constable goes on to state:
"Changes in the counting rules and the way in which we have treated violent crime, particularly domestic violence, have led to an increase in the year to September 2000 of 13 per cent. in all recorded crime. In the case of domestic violence as a good example, 90 per cent. of domestic violence incidents produce a crime report."
I do not seek to minimise the issue, but I pay tribute to the chief constable and the force for the way in which they have dealt with domestic violence.
I have spoken to the chief constable about the matter, and his force has committed itself to legal action following reports of incidents of domestic violence, in order to banish the idea that crime in the home is marginal and acceptable, and to assert the idea that crime in the home—domestic violence—is entirely unacceptable.
The police are making every effort to root out this form of crime. That is why the chief constable is able to write to me that

55WH
"90 per cent. of domestic violence incidents produce a crime report."
That is a high figure, for which he deserves credit. It has the knock-on effect—unfortunate, in presentational terms, some might say—of an apparent increase in violent crime, but it has the entirely desirable result of ensuring that people who commit domestic violence are brought to justice.
The chief constable also points out improvements in performance on house burglaries and car crime, which it is important to put in context, and he explains what he is doing in respect of rural police stations, to which the hon. Gentleman generously referred. The chief constable notes that the force has actively used the money from the Government's rural policing initiative, which I mentioned earlier, and has tried to increase visibility in villages. He tells me that there are encouraging signs of the effect that that has had. He reports that most of those officers are deployed on foot, but some on bicycles.
Violent crime is an issue, and the increase is not explained by what is happening with regard to domestic violence. There are real problems of street crime, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred. We are trying to address that, and some elements of the increase are down to a highly desirable increase in the reporting of violent crime. I congratulate the force on its efforts to increase reporting.
I conclude by referring to an important point in the relationship between crime levels in different police areas and parts of the country. We are publishing, for the first time, data on crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which compare partnerships that are
56WH
broadly statistically similar. Table 5 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/01 on crime levels breaks down two crime reduction partnerships, which are statistically comparable on the standard basis that has been established over a long period.
The table shows that East Staffordshire, which is part of a group of about 25 to 30 crime reduction partnership areas including Derbyshire, Kent and Nottinghamshire, has the highest number of crimes in the group, at 17.9 crimes per 1,000 of the population. That endorses the hon. Gentleman's general point that there is a serious issue in relation to violent crime.
Staffordshire Moorlands, another Staffordshire police district in the same police authority, is in the same family of broadly comparable areas. Violence against the person per 1,000 people in Staffordshire Moorlands is 9.8, compared to 17.9 per 1,000 in East Staffordshire. In other words, the figure is about half. I have no immediate explanation for that. We need to understand more about what is happening in particular communities and in particular forces if we are to understand why there are dramatic differences in performances.
I am sure that I can count on the hon. Gentleman's support, and that of his colleagues in Staffordshire, to ensure that when the Government seek to improve police performance and to put more resources into the police—as we are doing in order to drive crime down—no one will seek to make party political capital. I am sure that he will do what he can to help us drive crime levels down.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, which has provided us with a good opportunity to consider some of the issues.

Council Tax Support Grant (Gateshead)
1.30 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for joining me and for their support. Both of them have a significant interest in Gateshead and represent wards in the borough. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge, who is a Whip, is not free to speak this morning. As a former distinguished leader of Gateshead council, he could have informed the debate greatly.
The Government have helped local authorities marvellously during their time in office, which amounts to almost four years, in which time there have been three settlements. They are building up local authorities that were seriously underfunded for many years. Indeed, the history of local government finance in the past 20 years is a sorry one.
A Conservative Government introduced the Local Government Finance Act 1982, which changed significantly the way in which local authorities received grants from central Government. As a matter of party-political policy, they shifted resources from the needy urban areas in north-east England and sent them to less needy areas in the south. They introduced a series of controls and evaluations of expenditure that were designed to have that effect.
The system in place today is essentially the same. It has been modified, but not very much and not by the current Government. I welcome the publication of the Green Paper on local government finance, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions does not think that it will solve the specific problems of Gateshead or similar authorities. It will not do so; it is merely another twist of the same old system.
The basic problem is that the evaluation of appropriate expenditure arises from historic expenditure back in 1982, when civil servants used a statistical technique called regression analysis to project future expenditure. Such a technique cannot, however, be used to predict the future; it can tell one only what happened in the past. I have recently questioned civil servants about the use of that technique in relation to the Green Paper and I have been assured that it will not be used in future.
Education expenditure is a particular problem with regard to the basis provided in 1982. You will recall, Mr. Winterton, from your long years in the House, that 1982 was not long after local government reorganisation. Prior to that reorganisation, my constituency was a part not of Gateshead, but of County Durham.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Hear, hear.
Mr. McWilliam: Before my right hon. Friend gets too carried away, let me point out that there was an historic low spend. Back in 1980, when I was a member of the departmental Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools reported that four local authorities, including Gateshead, were in danger of failing to provide.
58WH
Gateshead has an historical spend that is based on serious underspending in the past, as well as on the difficulties of having to put two completely different educations systems together. For example, County Durham had grammar schools and Gateshead did not.
Over the years, the nonsense aspects of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 have accumulated. The Government have now increased provision above the initial level of £3 billion. There is now a 7.2 per cent. increase, which has been made through the welcome raise in neighbourhood renewal and, for some authorities, in the education grant. However, there is still a shortfall. Of course, I welcome the additional £750,000 for education, but the shortfall in education expenditure in Gateshead was £1.3 million, so more than £500,000 is still needed. In total, despite having to impose £3 million-worth of cuts to meet its targets, Gateshead will also have to raise its council house rents by 9.1 per cent.—a huge increase. Ring fencing and the need to support tenants will mean that an additional sum of only £800,000 is available for the general rate fund.
All those problems result from policies and acts for which my right hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible. Her predecessors in a different party and Government were responsible, so I do not blame her, but huge anomalies remain. Gateshead has a high proportion of elderly people and single parents. It also has a high proportion of council houses and areas of serious deprivation. In spite of those circumstances, the standard spending assessment change for Gateshead was only 2.8 per cent., give or take the additional funds for neighbourhood renewal and education, which mean that it will now be slightly more. That contrasts with increases elsewhere of more than 7 per cent.
The standard spending assessment settlement was poor for Gateshead and means that it has a huge cash problem. The SSA increase of 2.8 per cent.—as opposed to an average national increase of 4.3 per cent—takes resources from deprived urban areas. The updated area cost adjustment has shifted resources to London and the south-east. The settlement will have a significant effect on the council's budget for 2001–02. As I said, the council is seeking to make cuts of £3 million.
The inconsistencies of the system are highlighted by the updating of the area cost adjustment, as council tax valuations have not been updated to reflect the significant increase in house prices that has occurred since 1991, especially in London and the south-east. In effect, those areas are getting the benefit twice. Rate banding is another problem, as the A band in Gateshead is too high. We could do with its being split in two, as it hits a significant proportion of households. On the other hand, the H band stops far too low. Only about 42 houses in the whole borough, most of which are homes for the elderly, fall into the H band. Such problems have a significant impact on resources.
We need a new system that is clear, transparent and fair and which seeks to equalise council tax throughout the country. It must ensure that areas with low resources and high needs are properly looked after and that areas with low needs and high resources can contribute towards their own costs. We have problems and it will not be easy. I look forward to seeing what my right hon. Friend the Minister does about the Green Paper on local government finance when the consultation is complete,

59WH
although it is obvious that she cannot tell us that now. I thank her for all the help that her Department has given. I should also mention her excellent departmental website, although I point out that her photograph is currently displayed as a negative image, rather than a positive one, which is a pity.
1.39 pm
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for allowing me to take part in his debate. I want to mention an anomaly to which my hon. Friend alluded: the disadvantages of Gateshead and other northern authorities compared with those north of the border in Scotland. I refer especially to the Barnett formula, which is known in the northern region as the billion pound divide. If we had such a formula for the north of England, an area such as Tyne and Wear would have approximately an extra billion pounds to spend on local services. Councils such as Gateshead, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Newcastle and North Tyneside could tackle many existing problems and achieve many objectives with that extra money.
We cannot defend the indefensible. We can dress it up and we can claim that there are different systems north of the border. However, we live on the border, and we cannot defend what happens through the Barnett formula. We appreciate that local government receives additional grants and direct grants. The Minister has done a great job in getting those grants. However, the divide is so great that the Barnett system needs a complete overhaul. I do not want Scotland to be brought down to the same level as the north-east, but an equation for need should be included in the formula for the north-east to bring us up to Scottish levels.
The position is exacerbated by tuition fees, teachers' salaries and long-term care north of the border. The differences must be tackled. The system is a mess for those of us on the border. It may not affect people who live 300 miles away in the south of England, but we live next to Scotland and experience the effects of the difference, for example, when kids go to university. We cannot live with that. We are a laughing stock, and we must tackle that.
We need to tackle apathy about voting. Unless we deal with the nitty-gritty of the problem in the north-east, voter apathy will continue.
Mr. McWilliam: Does my hon. Friend agree that, within an hour and a half's drive of Gateshead, there are Scottish secondary schools, both grammar and comprehensive, which are a magnet for fully qualified teachers in our borough?
Mr. Hepburn: I hope that grammar schools are not a magnet because I do not believe in the grammar school system. I am a comprehensive school person. However, teachers' salaries and the way in which the education system is funded in Scotland mean that there are indefensible differences.
1.41 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for giving us a chance to rehearse some of the arguments that we shall present in the Chamber tomorrow on the local government settlement. Clearly, as another north-east Member of Parliament, I want the region not only to get its fair share but to use the money effectively to solve some of the current problems. Many northern authorities' problems with this year's settlement arise because of declining population and school numbers. It is in our interests to ensure that local government and the regional agencies can play their part in turning the region round. We can thus provide more economic stability to families who live in the area and encourage them to stay and to envisage their future there.
The local government finance settlement is currently of great interest to all local authorities. Yesterday, we laid before the House the local government finance report for 2001–02 and special grant No. 72. They set out the total revenue support grant and the basis on which that money will be distributed. Hon. Members will, of course, have the opportunity to discuss those reports tomorrow, but today's debate provides an useful opportunity to consider the issues and the consequences for Gateshead.
The spending review for 2000 provided more increases for local authorities. The first year of the review established the baseline for the approaching financial year and has enabled us to provide an increase in Government grant of £3 billion. In the four settlements since we took office, we have been able to increase the Government grant to local authorities by £8 billion. That is an increase of 14 per cent. in real terms and compares with a 7 per cent. cut in the previous four years before 1997–98.
Of course, we have given priority to education and social services. Provision for spending on education will increase next year by £1.9 billion. An increase of 8.1 per cent. for social services means that they will receive an extra £576 million. We have therefore provided an extra £6.4 billion for education and £2 billion for social services since we took office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is especially worried about Gateshead, which will receive approximately £151 million in general grant next year. That is an increase of 3.2 per cent. or £4.7 million. The standard spending assessment figures that my hon. Friend gave conflict with mine. We need to discuss that later.
Mr. McWilliam: There is a simple explanation for that. I did not include the additional figures for education that were announced yesterday. I deliberately did not include the additional renewal fund figures because I do not believe that they are pertinent to the debate. We are considering the base level.
Ms Armstrong: The figures that my hon. Friend mentioned are not covered by the SSAs, which I was considering. The SSA increase for Gateshead was 3.6 per cent. I acknowledge that all authorities would like more. The Government want to build up investment and to ensure, through local government reform, that

61WH
the money is spent in the most effective way. I acknowledge that Gateshead's settlement increase was below the average for metropolitan districts of 3.5 per cent. There are three main reasons for that.
The latest population statistics that we use show that 800 fewer people live in the area compared with last year. There are also almost 290 fewer pupils. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, the impact of increasing wage pressures in London and the south-east is reflected in the area cost adjustment. That also contributes to the reason for the below-average grant increase in Gateshead.
I sometimes believe that my hon. Friends want all the country's financial problems to be sorted out through the local government settlement. We cannot do that. None the less, we are considering more radical, long-term reforms. Our recent Green Paper makes it clear that we understand that an authority's costs do not always fall immediately and proportionately after a decline in population. However, a declining population must, over time, lead to lower costs.
Mr. McWilliam: As the figures that my right hon. Friend cited show, an authority such as Gateshead has a declining population because economically active people and their families are moving out. Those who are not economically active are left. That proportionally increases costs.
Ms Armstrong: We could have a long debate about that. Those circumstances do not necessarily increase the cost of basic services. However, incredible pressure exists in deprived areas. The Government have introduced the neighbourhood renewal fund so that we can tackle basic services more effectively in the most deprived neighbourhoods and thus improve the economic potential of people who live there and perhaps create a virtuous circle.
The SSAs take account of need, but I do not know of a single authority that believes that the distribution formula properly reflects its absolute level of need. I have come to believe that a formula that everyone feels to be just to their area and about which all agree is a holy grail that cannot be attained. The Government are trying to ensure that we identify deprived areas and grant additional money specifically to tackle deprivation there.
It is also true, as I am sure my hon. Friend would accept, that rapidly expanding authorities also face significant cost pressures. The issue is, therefore, one of striking the right balance between the competing and largely contrasting demands between declining and increasing populations. We introduced the floor and ceiling proposal to take such factors into account. That was because we realised, as soon as we started to consider this year's settlement, that using a purely data-driven formula would have given rise to wild swings in grant increases from this year to next. The updating of the area cost adjustment data contributed to these swings.
We consulted on those issues, but—surprise, surprise—there was no clear consensus from local government about how to proceed. Therefore, bearing in mind our commitment in the 1998 White Paper to continue to update the data on which standard spending
62WH
assessments were based, we concluded that it was right to update the area cost adjustment. However, to provide stability we decided to introduce a floor of 3.2 per cent. and a ceiling of 6.5 per cent. I am aware that Gateshead wanted extra money to be added to the settlement to pay for the floor provision.
My aim is to put as much money as possible into the settlement every year, rather than to leave a pot of money on one side. This year, we concluded that it was right for the measure to be met within the overall totals. However, we have listened to the concerns of authorities during consultation. We are aware of the pressures facing authorities, and I am sure that Gateshead will have been delighted to learn, in the past day or so, of the action that we have taken in three specific areas.
We were concerned at the funding position of authorities in areas with the most serious deprivation problems, partly because they are the areas that are tending to lose rather than gain population. We therefore doubled the provision for the neighbourhood renewal fund in 2001–02 from £100 million to £200 million. Those additional resources will help local authorities to improve mainstream services in the most deprived neighbourhoods, and, consequently, to improve the outcomes achieved in those areas.
One of the specific issues that we want to tackle in the most deprived areas is educational attainment, and I am sure that Gateshead will want to use some of its money to raise standards of educational attainment in such areas. That should also help its education budget. We were able to announce last week that Gateshead will receive an extra £1.161 million from the neighbourhood renewal fund, taking its total next year to £2.322 million.
We were also concerned about the impact of serious floods this year. We therefore announced on Friday that we would provide an extra £11.6 million to pay for the Environment Agency's emergency response and repair costs. That money will mean that the agency will not need to add those costs to its levies on local authorities next year. I know that Gateshead was concerned about the levy when it made its representations on the settlement to the Department. The amount provided to the agency in Northumbria is £450,000, which will allow it to reduce significantly the proposed increase in the levy.
We also announced yesterday a new £52 million grant to help meet education spending pressures in those education authorities with the lowest increases in education funding from other sources. Gateshead was concerned about its low education SSA increase. It was also concerned about the basis on which we transferred money from the settlement to reflect the change in responsibility for adult education from local authorities to the learning and skills councils.
It was right to use the same methodology for making that transfer as for all other changes in which we have transferred provision out of the settlement. However, we recognise the pressures on authorities such as Gateshead and others in the north-east. The extra money will be provided in recognition of those pressures, and Gateshead will receive £750,000 from the grant next year. That is in line with the representations that it made to us on its education spending.
Mr. McWilliam: On education, I welcome the extra £750,000, because we need it. However, my right hon.

63WH
Friend might have gained the wrong impression from what I have said. Although Gateshead was one of the authorities that were in danger of failing to provide in 1982, it now has some very fine schools attaining high achievements in places with particularly difficult catchment areas. I am very proud of the education authority there.
Ms Armstrong: I endorse that entirely. Indeed, a number of my constituents attend schools in Gateshead, and I receive regular reports on that matter.
Gateshead has also benefited from increases in a number of ring-fenced grants, most of which have now been announced. Gateshead's overall increase in grant—including revenue support grant, the other general grants and ring-fenced grants—is more than £9 million. That is an increase of 5.8 per cent.
My hon. Friend also mentioned rents, and I understand his concern. Decisions on setting rent levels are a matter for local housing authorities. However, for subsidy purposes, we have increased allowances by 7.4 per cent. in cash terms since 1997–98. There have also been significant increases in the capital resources that have been made available to Gateshead in the same period. The allocation for 2001–02 will be £17.433 million—a threefold increase in resources in four years, and a 24 per cent. increase over the current financial year.
My hon. Friend raised several issues that are being discussed as part of the consideration of the local government finance Green Paper. That consultation has now finished, and we are drawing together its findings at
64WH
the moment. I have held my first meeting with the Local Government Association to consider how to take the ideas in those findings forward. The Government hope to introduce proposals in the summer in a White Paper.
I assure my hon. Friend that I understand fully the points he has raised today. We have, as he said, provided an excellent settlement overall, but that does not mean that it does not contain real challenges for some authorities. Having said that, the settlement for Gateshead is still a good one. We have also recently introduced measures to assist Gateshead. Those measures, in addition to the settlement and the increases for local government spending announced in the spending review, will mean that local authorities can be confident that they have a good base for investment over the next three years. I hope that they will continue to work with us to obtain changes in the grant distribution system that will enable them to be confident about their future.
I cannot promise that every authority will like every change, because, inevitably, change means that some gain and some do not. However, we are determined to achieve as fair a local government system as possible, and I share my hon. Friend's ambition that such settlements should be open and transparent so that the public will be better able to understand what is going on. I congratulate Gateshead council on the work that it has done to increase turnout through piloting postal voting. Together, we shall ensure that Gateshead and the north-east are confident in moving forward, enabling the authority to build for the future for the citizens of Gateshead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recently published report by the United Nations Environment Programme into the environmental and health impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions by NATO forces during the conflict over Kosovo. [145293]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UN Environment Programme's (UNEP) report has not yet been published, but is expected around March 2001.

  UNEP announced its intention in September 2000 to conduct field studies of sites in Kosovo that were struck by ordnance containing depleted uranium during the Kosovo crisis and undertook a field Mission during November 2000. The Mission to Kosovo took vegetation, soil and water samples and radiological measurements in chosen target sites. The Mission also planned to undertake an analysis of the toxicological situation. The samples have been sent to a number of European laboratories for further analysis. UNEP announced some preliminary findings following this field Mission, by way of press releases. When the final report is published, we will make an assessment of its findings.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it remains his policy to sanction the use of munitions containing depleted uranium in future operations in which the United Kingdom is involved; and if he will make a statement. [144736]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: Depleted uranium (DU) ammunition provides a battle winning military capability. Alternative materials are not as effective. Therefore DU will remain part of our arsenal for the foreseeable future because, when this country commits our forces to conflict, we fight to win. Our troops need the best available equipment to enable them to do this. To deny them a legitimate capability would be quite wrong.

  Defence Feasibility Studies
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Russia will participate in the forthcoming NATO theatre ballistic Missile defence feasibility studies; and if he will make a statement. [146636]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence is not aware of any plans for Russian participation in the forthcoming NATO theatre ballistic Missile defence feasibility studies. There have, however, been discussions between NATO and Russia in recent months on the scope for co-operation on theatre Missile defence and related issues.
  96W

  Anti-tank Weaponry
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the anti-tank weaponry available to his Department for purchase, indicating which of these weapons are in use in NATO forces. [147271]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As part of the acquisition process we publish details of the capability that we need to acquire. We then invite industry to present potential solutions that they believe will meet our requirements. We do not seek to assess every anti-tank weapon available for potential procurement, though we keep major developments under review.

  Interoperability with other NATO forces is an important consideration in deciding which anti-tank equipments to purchase.

  Pilots
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) pilots and (b) fast jet pilots there are in the armed forces; and how many are women. [147695]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of trained pilots currently serving in the armed forces is set out in the table:

  Naval service

  Army1

  RAF2,3

  All aircraft

  461

  761

  2,184

  Of which:

  Female

  1

  12

  34

  Fast jet

  41

  —

  847

  Of which:

  Female

  0

  —

  8

  1 These figures do not include non-army air corps officers and soldiers who may have qualified as army pilots in the past but have since returned to their original army or service and are no longer employed as pilots.

  2 1,492 pilots (including 30 women) currently fill flying posts in the RAF. This figure includes 561 fast jet pilots, five of whom are women. The remaining pilots are employed in ground based posts that require specialist aircraft knowledge and experience.

  3 As at 1 December 2000.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) pilots and (b) fast jet pilots are being trained for the armed forces; and how many are women. [147696]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of pilots being trained for the armed forces is set out in the table.

  Naval Service

  Army1

  RAF2,3

  All aircraft

  220

  97

  552

  Of which:

  Female

  2

  5

  19

  Fast jet

  25

  —

  46

  Of which:

  Female

  0

  —

  2

  1 These figures relate only to those individuals who are in the flying training system and do not include army air corps direct entry officer cadets who are currently under training at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

  2 Includes 458 personnel (15 women) who have yet to be assigned to a particular role, 17 of whom (one female) are officer designates undergoing initial officer training.

  3 As at 1 December 2000.

  97W

  S and T Class Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the planned dates of decommissioning of each of the Royal Navy's S and T class submarines. [147576]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Swiftsure was operationally decommissioned in 1992. The planned operational decommissioning dates for the remainder of the Royal Navy's S class submarines are as follows:

  Swiftsure class SSN

  Planned operational decommissioning date

  HMS Sovereign

  2005

  HMS Superb

  2006

  HMS Sceptre

  2010

  HMS Spartan

  2006

  HMS Splendid

  2003

  The planned operational decommissioning dates for the Royal Navy's Trafalgar class submarines are as follows:

  Trafalgar class SSN

  Planned operational decommissioning date

  HMS Trafalgar

  2007

  HMS Turbulent

  2008

  HMS Tireless

  2011

  HMS Torbay

  2020

  HMS Trenchant

  2022

  HMS Talent

  2015

  HMS Triumph

  2017

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Lynx helicopters the Royal Navy possesses; and how many of these are fully serviceable. [147564]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 26 January 2001, the Royal Navy had a total of 74 Lynx helicopters, of which 48 constituted the Active Fleet. Of these, 33 were fully serviceable. These figures provide a snapshot on a specific date. Numbers can change on a daily basis as aircraft move in and out maintenance.

  Astute Class Submarines
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned date of entry into service is of the first batch of Astute class submarines. [147577]

  Dr. Moonie
  The planned in service date for the first Astute class submarine is June 2005.

  JSF Aircraft
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sums to be paid to the US as part of the British contribution to the EMD phase of the JSF project are already provided for in the defence estimates; and if he will make a statement. [147566]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Future Carrier Borne Aircraft and the new carriers have been a central part of the Government's defence policy since the Strategic Defence Review. The 98W
  necessary financial priority has been given to providing these capabilities, and they are adequately reflected in our forward plans.

  Type 45 Destroyers
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he proposes to place a contract for the first Type 45 destroyers; and if he will make a statement; [147572]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that Type 45 destroyers have their own anti-submarine warfare capability; if this will be available from the outset; and if he will make a statement; [147574]

  (3) what sonar equipment will be carried by the Type 45 destroyers; [147573]

  (4) if he will list the anti-submarine Systems carried by the Type 45 destroyers, and the age of the sonars involved. [147575]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I stated on 21 December 2000,Official Report, columns 248–51W, a contract was placed on 20 December with BAE Systems Electronics (the nominated Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme) for the Demonstration and First-of-Class Manufacture phase covering the completion of the design and build of the first three Type 45 destroyers. Equipped with the Principal Anti-Air Missile System, the primary role of the Type 45 is anti-air warfare, although it will have an anti-submarine capability.

  Following contract signature we have been able to accelerate the fitting of a hull-mounted sonar, the top requirement within the Incremental Acquisition Plan (IAP), so that this is now achievable in all Type 45s as they are built. An Invitation to Tender for the sonar system will be issued by the Prime Contractor in February and we envisage that a new, off-the-shelf system will prove to offer best value for money.

  The Type 45 has been designed with a much lower acoustic signature than the existing Type 42, and this will reduce the likelihood of its detection by submarines. From the outset, in addition to the sonar, the Type 45's anti-submarine warfare capability will be provided by the Lynx HMA Mark 8 helicopter; the ships will also be fully interoperable with the Merlin HM Mark 1 anti-submarine helicopter. These aircraft will carry Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes. The Type 45s will also be equipped, from build, to carry the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence System (SSTD) towed and expendable acoustic decoys. In the longer term, all the Type 45' s will also be fitted to deploy enhanced SSTD countermeasures, and this requirement forms part of the Type 45 IAP.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is a requirement of the ministerial approvals for the current procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer that BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thorneycroft are prepared for effective competition downstream in the programme; [147982]

  (2) pursuant to his written answer of 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 249–50W, in what circumstances the DFM contract allows for his Department to withhold its agreement for a significant

  99W
  sub-contract; how this is affected by the principle of the assumption of risk by the prime contractor; and if he will make a statement; [147984]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 249–50W, what obligations the DFM contract places upon BAE Systems Electronics to prepare BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thorneycroft to compete for later ships of the class; [147983]

  (4) pursuant to his written answer of 21 December 2000, Official Report, columns 249–50W, if acceptance of BAE Systems Marine's unsolicited proposal would require (a) amendment and (b) renegotiation of the DFM contract with BAE Systems Electronics. [147985]

  Dr. Moonie
  In his statement on 11 July 2000,Official Report, columns 701–12, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence advised the House that, under the control of the Prime Contractor (BAE Systems Electronics), a single design definition is being developed involving the two shipbuilders BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thorneycroft. This will mean, that from the outset, we have a design that can be efficiently constructed by either company, and that this will assist competition for follow-on ships. This is the basis of the Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture (DFM) contract which covers the design and build of the first three ships only. Our procurement strategy has not changed.

  The DFM contract requires all sub-contracts with a value in excess of £500,000 to be competed unless agreed otherwise between the Prime Contractor and the MOD. The Prime Contractor is also required to satisfy the MOD that prices of an sub-contracts to be placed non-competitively are fair and reasonable. The MOD is free to decide in what manner it wishes to be associated with the pricing of sub-contracts and, through the mechanisms described above, will have a close oversight of them. The Prime Contractor is responsible for the selection of his sub-contractors and the risk that the Prime Contractor has accepted in the contract will remain unchanged by this oversight.

  The BAE Systems Marine unsolicited proposal is still being assessed but if it is accepted, the DFM contract would need to be re-negotiated.

  Parachuting
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are qualified to make parachute drops. [147760]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: 4,515 armed forces personnel are currently qualified to make operational military parachute descents. This figure comprises:

  Number

  Royal Marines/Royal Navy

  195

  Army1

  3,177

  Royal Air Force

  156

  Territorial Army

  987

  1 Including Special Forces

  100W
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been given parachute training in each of the past five years; and what has been the cost of this training. [147759]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The number of armed forces personnel given parachute training and the cost, in each of the past five years, is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number

  Cost (£)

  1996

  683

  1,832,900

  1997

  796

  2,160,600

  1998

  817

  2,221,500

  1999

  818

  2,224,400

  2000

  822

  2,236,000

  US National Missile Defence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2001,Official Report, column 577W, on US National Missile Defence, if he will make a statement on the content of the discussions between his Department and the previous US Administration. [148022]

  Mr.Hoon
  We held extensive discussions with the previous US Administration on a wide range of issues relating to their National Missile Defence plans, notably the international security implications of their proposals.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Funding (Lancaster)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the extra capital and revenue resources made available to each school in Lancaster and Wyre constituency since May 1997. [145544]

  Ms Estelle Morris:
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies for qualified classroom teachers in maintained secondary schools there are in(a) England, (b) Essex, (c) Southend on Sea, (d) Kensington and Chelsea, (e) Barking, (f) Dagenham, (g) Lambeth, (h) Islington and (i) Enfield. [145632]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The number of vacant, full-time qualified classroom teacher posts in maintained secondary schools in the local authorities specified are shown in the following table.

  Vacancies

  Rate

  Essex

  68

  1.5

  Southend on Sea

  16

  2.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  0.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  1.4

  Lambeth

  9

  2.0

  Islington

  11

  2.3

  Enfield

  12

  1.0

  England

  1,143

  0.7

  101W
  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.

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

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies for teachers in England there are within maintained schools classified by each subject; and what the total shortage in England was in each of the last 10 years. [145633]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Vacant full-time qualified classroom teacher posts in England in the maintained secondary sector in January 2000, by their main teaching subject, are as follows:

  Posts

  Mathematics

  230

  Information technology

  60

  Chemistry

  10

  Physics

  30

  Biology

  20

  Integrated or combined science

  80

  Other science

  20

  French

  40

  German

  10

  French or German

  30

  Spanish

  10

  Other languages

  20

  Welsh

  1—

  English

  130

  Drama

  20

  History

  10

  Social sciences

  10

  Geography

  30

  Religious education

  40

  Design and technology

  110

  Commercial and business studies

  20

  Art, craft or design

  20

  Music

  40

  Physical education

  30

  Special educational needs

  60

  Careers

  1—

  Any other main subjects

  30

  Combined subjects

  40

  England

  1,140

  1 Less than five

  Note:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. The total England figure may not equal the sum of the subject breakdown due to rounding.

  Full-time qualified classroom teacher vacancies in maintained secondary schools in England were as follows:

  Vacancies

  Rate

  19911

  1,870

  1.1

  1992

  870

  0.5

  1993

  560

  0.3

  1994

  560

  0.3

  1995

  460

  0.3

  1996

  510

  0.3

  1997

  650

  0.4

  1998

  860

  0.5

  1999

  840

  0.5

  2000

  1,140

  0.7

  1 Vacancies for 1991 and earlier years used different recording practices and are not directly comparable with later years

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  102W
  All the vacancies figures quoted exclude vacancies for heads and deputy heads.

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

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

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the three education authorities in England with the highest number of vacancies for qualified classroom teachers in maintained secondary schools. [145634]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The three English local authorities with the highest number of qualified classroom teacher vacancies in maintained secondary schools at January 2000 is shown in the following table.

  Vacancies

  Rates

  Essex

  68

  1.5

  Hampshire

  49

  1.3

  Kent

  44

  0.8

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

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

  Oxford and Cambridge Universities
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage share of(a) applicants and (b) successful applicants there were to (i) Oxford and (ii) Cambridge University from (1) fee- paying schools, (2) local authority 11 to 18 year comprehensive schools, (3) Sixth Form Colleges, (4) state grammar schools and (5) tertiary and general further education colleges, together with the equivalent figures for each constituent college of each of the two universities, for the academic year 2000–01. [145739]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 24 January 2001]: The available data for Oxford and Cambridge are shown in the following table. Figures for each constituent college are not available centrally.

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and acceptances to Oxford and Cambridge universities by previous educational establishment— autumn 2000 entry

  Oxford

  Cambridge

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Applicants

  Independent

  3,202

  40

  3,526

  36

  Comprehensive2

  2,665

  33

  3,702

  38

  Sixth Form College

  782

  10

  913

  9

  Grammar

  428

  5

  609

  6

  FE/HE

  497

  6

  526

  5

  Other3

  108

  1

  136

  1

  Not known

  281

  4

  413

  4

  Total

  7,963

  100

  9,825

  100

  103W

  UCAS UK-domiciled applicants and acceptances to Oxford and Cambridge universities by previous educational establishment—autumn 2000 entry

  Oxford

  Cambridge

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Acceptance applicants

  Independent

  1,343

  46

  1,306

  44

  Comprehensive2

  945

  32

  1,002

  33

  Sixth Form College

  269

  9

  251

  8

  Grammar

  162

  6

  210

  7

  FE/HE

  119

  4

  109

  4

  Other3

  27

  1

  28

  1

  Not known

  63

  2

  93

  3

  Total

  2,928

  100

  2,999

  100

  1 Constituent parts may not sum to totals because of rounding

  2 Includes former Grant Maintained schools

  3 Includes Sixth Form Centres, Special schools, Other secondary schools, Other educational establishments (Adult Colleges and City Technology Colleges), and students whose previous establishment was not known

  Awarding Bodies and Examiners
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with awarding bodies and examiners in connection with their setting, marking and grading activities this summer; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the new AS levels will be accommodated within their programme of work and staff availability; and if he will make a statement. [146058]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: A greater number of examiners is needed this summer, not least because we are in transition from the old A level qualifications to our new and widely welcomed reforms. The exact number of examiners needed will not be known until Easter, when entries have been made. The awarding bodies have already begun recruiting examiners. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is working with the awarding bodies to ensure that the system will deliver this summer's results on time. We are monitoring this work closely to confirm that all necessary steps have been taken. The Government are committed to maintaining a robust and effective public examination system.

  Education Spending (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the level of spending was per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in East Sussex for each year from 1990 to the last year for which figures are available, expressed in today's prices. [146701]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 January 2001]: The following table shows the spending per pupil in real terms, separately for primary and secondary pupils, in East Sussex 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 at 2000–01 prices.

  £

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  1990–91

  1,660

  2,650

  1991–92

  1,790

  2,540

  1992–93

  1,900

  2,730

  1993–94

  1,950

  2,700

  1994–95

  1,980

  2,770

  104W

  £

  Pre-Primary and Primary

  Secondary

  1995–96

  1,960

  2,730

  1996–97

  1,900

  2,600

  1997–98

  1,800

  2,530

  1998–99

  1,880

  2,530

  The following table sets out the resources made available to East Sussex local education authority for primary and secondary education since 1997–98, at 2000–01 prices. These figures are not directly comparable with net institutional expenditure set out in the first table, but they do reflect real terms increases in primary and secondary funding per pupil over the last three years of £420 and £370 respectively.

  £ per pupil

  Standard spending assessment

  Special and specific grants

  SSA and special/specific grants

  Primary

  1997–98

  2,250

  30

  2,280

  1998–99

  2,320

  40

  2,370

  1999–2000

  2,380

  130

  2,510

  2000–01

  2,440

  250

  2,700

  Secondary

  1997–98

  2,960

  30

  2,990

  1998–99

  3,040

  40

  3,080

  1999–2000

  3,070

  80

  3,150

  2000–01

  3,170

  190

  3,350

  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.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research projects commissioned by his Department are expected to report(a) within three months, (b) in between three and 12 months and (c) more than 12 months ahead; and what arrangements he is making for their publication. [147155]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The results of research are published in line with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Department aims to publish or release for publication at least 90 per cent. of research reports within 16 weeks of receiving a final draft from its contractors.

  The Department publishes research in its Research Reports series. Copies are also available on the Department's website on the day of publication. Details of the research projects expected to report in the periods requested are contained in the following table. Details of the Department's research and research publications are published every year in the Department's Annual Report on Research.
  105W

  Publication/availability within three months

  How employers and service providers are responding to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995

  Research on Returns to Education and Training

  English language as a barrier to employment, training and education

  Decision-making and provision within the SEN Code of Practice

  Assessing/measuring the Skills Development Fund

  Further investigation of a disadvantaged group on pre-vocational training

  The effect of ethnicity on adult participation in learning

  Recruiting and training young people and adults: research into employers' use of Key Skills and the potential of 'graduation'.

  Evaluation of employment and training based pilots for rough sleepers aged over 25

  Literature review on adult community-based learning

  Integrating self-assessment into inspection procedures: the impact on the quality of group day care provisions

  Quality of Work focus groups

  Baseline Study of Work-Life Balance Practices in Great Britain

  Implementation of the Education Maintenance Allowance Pilots—the first year

  Staying Away or Staying On? A qualitative evaluation of Education Maintenance Allowance scheme

  Education Maintenance Allowance: the first year—a quantitative evaluation

  Final Evaluation of ADAPT and EMPLOYMENT

  Transport Sector Skills Dialogue

  Research on the cost of Investors in People and related activities

  Childcare Quality Improvement and Quality Assurance Practices and Relevant Staff and Parental Attitudes.

  Student Support—Transport Mapping, Options and Guidance Exercise.

  Learning and Work Bank Project: Mapping Work Evaluation of Pilot Summer Activities for 16 Year Olds.

  Adult:Child Ratios for Early Years Settings in the Private and Voluntary Sector

  Learning & Training at Work 2000

  Publication/availability between three and twelve months

  Parents' experiences of the process of choosing a Secondary school

  Barriers to employment for offenders

  Out of school study support: evaluation of Playing for Success— stage 2.

  Career Development Loans defaults

  Employment and the Euro

  Employers awareness and use of Open Learning

  International schools benchmarking study

  Flexible training strategies evaluation

  Participation in higher education by mature students.

  Reasons for younger worker drop-out from NVQ units and full NVQs.

  Research into methods of funding the Community Sector and comparison of Community Champions and the Community Development Learning Fund

  Entry, retention and loss: A study of the childcare workforce

  Research into the outcomes, in Secondary Education, for children excluded from Primary School.

  Identification of strategies to reduce student non-completion in higher education.

  Evaluation of pre-16 work experience

  Continuing Vocational Training Survey (CVTS) 2

  106W

  Enhancing the Internal Verifier and Assessor Roles.

  National Adult Learning Survey 2000

  Research to assess initial response by schools and colleges to Government's "Qualifying for Success" reforms to post-16 qualifications

  Economic impact of the Code of Practice on age diversity in employment

  Evaluation of the University for Industry development projects ESF leavers survey 1999

  Development of a model to estimate the costs to the Exchequer and economy of social exclusion

  Final evaluation of ESF Objective 4

  YCS: methodological review

  The longer-term impact of capacity building in ESF.

  Improving the take-up of free school meals

  Feasibility study for a longitudinal survey of the impact of out-of-school childcare on children

  Nature of training and motivation to train in small firms

  Communal Establishment Survey

  Evaluation of INCLUDE

  Youth Cohort Study: (Cohort 10, Sweep 1)

  Youth Cohort Study: Cohort 9, 18 year olds sweep (Cohort 9,sweep 3)

  Womens Unit research on awareness of and attitudes to
  Government initiatives to help balance work and life outside work

  Educationalising the code of practice for trainers in the use of physical interventions and developing a system for accrediting training

  Ex-ante evaluation of Objective 2, URBAN & LEADER

  Case studies of employer Good Practice in the employment and retention of older workers

  Survey of the use of ICT to support the delivery of careers education in schools and colleges

  Monitoring the Disability Discrimination Act: stage 2

  Research on the relationship between volunteering and employability

  Survey of the delivery of career education & guidance in schools

  International literature review of New Deal for Disabled People target groups

  The gender pay gap—a review of EU literature and secondary analysis

  Barriers to employment for disabled people, the employers' perspective

  The Youth Cohort Study work programme.

  Research to inform the development and implementation of the Connexions service

  Young people—money and risk in early adult life.

  The validity & transferability of NVQs in the workplace: third phase study

  Evaluation of Career Development Loans: Trainee Survey

  Further Research on the Returns to Higher Education in the UK

  Exploring the Participation of Women in ITCE-related Courses and Careers

  Financial Services Skills Dialogue.

  Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Support Fund—STAGE ONE.

  Preliminary Research into the Endorsement of FENTO standards.

  Young People's experiences of the Learning Gateway.

  Evaluation of UK Online Computer Training

  Ageism—The attitudes and experiences of young people

  Beacon Schools—Further external evaluation of the initiative

  Skills Information: Statistical Database & Website Development Independent/State School Partnerships: Sustainability of 1998–99 Funded Projects

  Evaluation of the Wired-Up Communities Initiative

  107W

  EAZ Evaluation

  Research on recent developments in Employee Development Schemes

  A Survey of Former Childminders

  Food and Drink Manufacturing Skills Dialogue

  The Army Training Mapping Project: A Joint Study into Possible Areas for Co-operation DfEE and the Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  Employers Skill Survey 2000

  Associate Professional Skills and Qualifications

  Modelling the potential implications of graduation on 16 year olds in three geographical areas

  The Event Causes and Implications of Skill Deficiencies (ECISD)—IER, Warwick

  Information Technology and Communication Sector Dialogue Childcare Workforce Surveys 2000

  A Research Project to establish the current state of School Leadership in England

  Building Basic Skills in the Workplace: Evaluation Proposal

  Key Issues in Higher Education.

  Evaluation of the Learning and Development Fund

  Evaluation of the learning card demonstration projects.

  Learning package for A Level Geography

  Projections of Occupations and Qualifications

  Evaluation of Business Link Exemplar School Clusters.

  Qualitative Evaluation of Fully-Fledged Employment Zones: A Study of Local Delivery Agents and Area Case Studies

  Evaluation of Millennium Volunteers

  Evaluation of Adult Information, Advice and Guidance Partnerships: Progress Towards a Comprehensive Service (SBU)

  Research Study into the Operation of Appeal Panels, Use of the code of Practice and Training for Panel Members

  International Comparison of Skills, Performance and New Technologies in Matched Engineering Plants

  Publication/availability more than twelve months ahead

  Evaluation of one-stop mentor pilots

  Skills Survey 2

  Improving Speech and Language Development of Children in Sure Start Areas

  Tracking the Progress of Schools in Investors in People

  Monitoring and evaluation of projects funded from the Partners for Study Support: DfEE Grant Scheme

  Evaluation of Learning Partnerships and the Partnership Funds.

  Long-Term Evaluation of Self Employment Assistance Provided by the Princes Trust—Business Under the Youth Enterprise Initiative

  Evaluation of the Progress File Demonstration Projects.

  Employment Zones Cohort and Economic Study

  Dance and Drama Awards

  Evaluation of the Further Education Standards Fund

  Evaluation of the CMF ICT Learning Centres

  Achievement by ethnic minority pupils in isolated communities

  Repeat of "Parents' Demand for Childcare" survey

  Update of the Disability Discrimination Act omnibus survey

  Best Practice in undertaking Teacher Capability procedures

  A longitudinal study of young people with Special Educational Needs

  YCS: cohort 8, sweep at age 21

  Evaluation of Peers Early Education Partnership Programme

  108W

  Entry, retention and loss in the day nursery workforce: Part II

  The fifth annual survey of parents of three and four year olds

  Effective pedagogy in the early years

  Effective provision of pre-school education Administrative support staff—impact on pupil performance

  Disability: attitudes and experiences

  Creating and building valued businesses: an evaluation of DHP Enterprise Business Start-Up programmes.

  Impact of schools transitions and transfer on pupil attainment— Stage II

  OECD International Research Project: Programme for Developing Indicators on Student Achievement on a Regular Basis (PISA)

  Evaluation of new approaches to work experience and the work related curriculum

  Monitoring and evaluation of the Education (National Curriculum) (Exceptions at Key Stage 4) regulations 1998.

  Effectiveness of induction of newly qualified teachers

  British Social Attitudes Survey: 1999–2002

  Working long hours: a review of literature and case studies research

  Early years transitions and Special Educational Needs

  Evaluation of the Literacy and Numeracy strategies

  The contribution of education and training to long-run employability

  Evaluation of CRiSS—Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools and AEIs—Alternative Education Initiatives

  International comparisons of pupil attainment (PISA): OECD International costs (2000–2001 and 2001–2002)

  Analysis of the relationship between training and business performance

  International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) Civic Education Project

  Contribution to an ILO Action Programme entitled "Enterprise Creation by the Unemployed: The Role of Microfinance"

  Refugees: opportunities and barriers to training and employment

  Study of children permanently excluded from school

  National Adult Learning Survey (NALS) 2001

  Time Use survey

  A longitudinal study of the changing role of the Local Education Authority in raising standards

  Research Policy and Practice Forum on young people (00–01).

  A longitudinal study of factors contributing to variation in teacher effectiveness

  Research on boys' underachievement

  Impact of pupil/adult ratios on educational progress over Key Stage 2

  Evaluation of Peers Early Education Partnership Programme for children's development in language and early literacy

  Wraparound Care Pilots

  New Student Support Arrangements for Access Funds Evaluation.

  Evaluation of Educational Maintenance Allowance Pilots.

  Effective Provision of Pre-School Education—Tracking Children 2000–2003-Second Parent Follow up December 2000. 2 Variations

  Evaluation of Excellence in Cities policy

  Sure Start National Evaluation.

  109W

  European Trades Union Confederation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met representatives of the European Trades Union Confederation; and if he will make a statement on the issues discussed. [147520]

  Mr. Wicks
  I have not met with the European Trades Union Confederation. However, during the UK Presidency, the Foreign Secretary chaired a meeting with the European Trades Union Confederation as is customary, followed by a reception; both events were attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the then Minister for Employment.

  New Deal Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the required level of(a) outcome-related funding for New Deal for Disabled People programmes and (b) other New Deal programmes. [147734]

  Ms Hodge
  The central focus of New Deal is to secure jobs for unemployed people. Each New Deal aims to provide effective help in tackling the barriers that people face in getting work. In the New Deal for Disabled People we have given job brokers very wide discretion as to how they help people into jobs. In support of this wide flexibility much of the funding is geared to job entries and sustained employment rather than to stages and processes. The precise funding arrangements for other New Deals vary according to the detailed design and objectives for each programme.

  Table A: New Deal for schools. Allocations to schools in the Hampstead and Highgate constituency

  Year

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1997–98

  Hampstead Secondary School

  Refurbishment of ground floor laboratory and conversion into two smaller units

  1178,000

  Brookfield Primary School Fitzjohn's Primary School

  Creation of additional teaching space as a new classroom Refurbishment/upgrade and enclosure of external toilets

  1998–99

  Christchurch Primary School

  Reconstruction of boundary wall

  10,067

  Parliament Hill School

  Food technology room-full refurbishment

  58,432

  Carlton Primary School

  Refurbishment of lantern lights to main roof

  22,325

  1999–2000

  Gospel Oak Primary School

  Replacement of teaching block

  310,764

  Gospel Oak Primary School

  Structural works repairing foundation and defective windows

  113,405

  2000–01

  Brookfield primary School

  Replacement of temporary classrooms and new library building

  173,875

  Included within a two school package:

  Parliament Hill Secondary School

  Conversion and upgrade of science laboratories

  1147,609

  Included within a six school package:

  New End Primary School

  Replacement of lead supply pipework

  1154,889

  Rosary RC Primary School

  1 Denotes total allocations made to package projects covering more than one school. Camden local education authority will be able to advise the value of projects at schools in the Hampstead and Highgate constituency which benefited from these allocations.

  Table B: All capital allocations to Camden local education authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  216

  36

  284

  579

  845

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  43

  183

  65

  225

  211

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  89

  188

  223

  374

  556

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  178

  621

  761

  1,902

  School Security Grant

  —

  33

  42

  46

  46

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  51

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  110

  —

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  500

  384

  457

  110W

  New Deal for Schools
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding he has given to each school in Hampstead and Highgate under the New Deal for Schools. [147875]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information showing the schools in the Hampstead and Highgate constituency which benefited under the New Deal for Schools is shown in the following Table A. These allocations formed part of the £3.462 million investment made so far in schools in Camden local education authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of under funding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available to Camden local education authority.

  In total, since 1996, Camden local education authority has received some £10.66 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in the following Table B.

  Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 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.
  111W

  Table B: All capital allocations to Camden local education authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Schools Access Initiative Grant

  2

  5

  3

  —

  —

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —,

  120

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,004

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  Total

  350

  623

  1,859

  2,497

  5,331

  Adult Education
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 24 January 2001,Official Report, columns 581–84W, on adult education, how much Standard Spending Assessment was withdrawn from each of the local education authorities listed in respect of the switch of Government resources to the Learning and Skills Councils. [147991]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No Standard Spending Assessment has been withdrawn from local education authorities for 2001–02. My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that he would be making available an extra £52 million in grant to authorities with lower than average increases in their Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) in 2001–02, and which face pressures from the introduction of the Learning and Skills Council, which will have responsibility for adult education from April. Newcastle local education authority's share of the additional grant will be £760,000.

  Pension Liabilities
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the state's total liability at 2001 prices to pay teachers' pensions, assuming that all existing contributors retire and that all pensioners die at the age projected by the scheme's actuaries. [148006]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest actuarial valuation of the Teachers' Pension Scheme (England and Wales), carried out as at 31 March 1996, estimated the total value of the accrued liabilities, including pension increases, to be about £76 billion as at 31 March 1996.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Victims of Crime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action the Government have taken since 2 May 1997 to ensure that victims of crime are kept informed of the progress of cases by the Crown Prosecution Service; and what(a) statutory and (b) non-statutory requirements there are on the service to keep victims so informed. [147445]

  The Solicitor-General
  The 1996 Victim's Charter commits the police to keeping victims informed of significant developments in the case, including any decision to drop or alter charges substantially.
  112W
  There is currently no statutory or non-statutory requirement on the Crown Prosecution Service either to inform victims directly of its casework decisions or to inform them of the progress of the case.

  The CPS has accepted responsibility to pass on information promptly to the police to enable them to fulfil their Charter obligations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions in 2000 the Crown Prosecution Service(a) downgraded and (b) dropped charges; on how many occasions victims were informed of the decision; and what (i) statutory and (ii) non-statutory requirements there are on the service to inform victims in such cases. [147443]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the period January to September 2000 the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued proceedings in respect of 127,078 defendants, amounting to 12.6 per cent. of all cases completed in magistrates' courts. Proceedings were dropped in respect of a further 7,619 defendants in the Crown court, amounting to 11.9 per cent. of cases completed in the Crown court.

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not routinely keep figures for charges downgraded, nor for charges increased in seriousness.

  There is currently no statutory or non-statutory requirement on the Crown Prosecution Service either to inform victims directly of its casework decisions or to inform them of the progress of the case.

  In 1998, Sir Iain Glidewell's independent review of the CPS recommended that the Service should take responsibility for communicating its casework decisions direct to victims rather than via the police. Similar recommendations followed in Sir William Macpherson's report into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

  The CPS has welcomed these recommendations and is currently conducting a study to identify best practice with a view to national roll-out of direct communication with victims, which is due on a phased basis from April 2001.

  The CPS will give as much detail as possible of the reasons for its decisions, bearing in mind that in some cases there may be sensitive and important matters which cannot properly be disclosed.

  Subject to this initiative, the question of keeping victims and witnesses informed of the progress of the case will remain a matter for the police.

  Sentencing Reviews
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions the Attorney General's power to appeal
  113W
  against unduly lenient sentences has been exercised in respect of the offences listed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 1924); what the outcome was in each completed case; how many cases are pending; and if he will make a statement. [147446]

  The Solicitor-General
  With effect from 21 August 2000 the Attorney-General was given the power to refer sentences passed in the Crown court for drugs trafficking offences. These include offences of production or supply of controlled drugs contrary to ss.4 (2) and (3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cultivation of cannabis contrary to s6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and offences contrary to the Customs and Management Act 1979 in connection with a prohibition or restriction on importation or exportation of a controlled drug within section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. One offender has been referred to the Court of Appeal since August. The case has not yet been heard. There are no other pending cases.

WALES

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the provision of(a) specialist facilities in north-east Wales for young people, (b) more time for physical education in the school curriculum, (c) more playing fields in urban areas of Wales and (d) more grass roots football in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [147261]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the promotion of good health and well-being for people in Wales and the role that sport and physical education can play in this.

  In May 2000, the National Assembly established a task force to look at ways of improving the effectiveness of PE and sport in schools. The Assembly will shortly be considering the group's recommendations. The National Assembly also works closely with other organisations including the Sports Council for Wales, the Football Association of Wales and local authorities to help promote sport and physical education for people of all ages.

  Redundancies (Llanwern)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from Corus regarding the possible redundancies at the Llanwern plant in south Wales; and if he will make a statement. [147526]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had a number of meetings with executives of Corus including two meetings with the Chairman, Sir Brian Moffat. In my discussions I have impressed on the company the importance of steel-making in Wales, related employment issues, the dramatic improvements that have been made in productivity, the continued strengthening of the euro and other significant factors which the Government believe underpin the case for the continuation of steel production in the UK.
  114W
  To date, however, the company has not revealed to the Government its plans for steel plants in Wales.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many credit unions there are in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [147260]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are 47 credit unions in Wales, serving a membership of 12,000. The National Assembly has made a commitment to developing a more effective credit union movement. Their aim, in partnership with the Wales Co-operative Centre and the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd., is to treble credit union membership within the next three years.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the introduction of more uniformed police officers in the North Wales Police Authority; and if he will make a statement. [147262]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet regularly with the First Secretary to discuss a range of matters, including policing in Wales. Between March 1997 and September 2000, the total strength of north Wales police increased from 1,369 to 1,393.

  Following its enhancement as part of the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review, the Crime Fighting Fund will fund the recruitment, training and salaries of 9,000 extra police officers in England and Wales, over and above the numbers which would otherwise have been recruited, during the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03. More than 100 of these officer recruits are expected to be employed in north Wales.

  North Wales Police Authority has also benefited from the extra provision, announced in June last year, to enhance the policing of rural areas. It will receive £0.77 million in the current financial year, rising to £1.53 million in 2001–02. The deployment of officers is an operational matter for the chief constable but these measures provide considerable scope for increasing the number of uniformed officers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Relocation
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have relocated from the north-west of England, to(a) London, (b) the south-east of England, (c) overseas and (d) elsewhere in each year from 1989–90 to 1999–2000. [145207]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not collect information on businesses that relocate from one region to another. An answer would therefore be purely anecdotal and inevitably unrepresentative of the true picture.

  Corus
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions and on what dates
  115W
  during the past two years he has met senior executives of Corus Steel to discuss the future of the steel industry in the UK. [144874]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 January 2001]: I have met with senior executives from the Corus Group on seven occasions in the last two years on the following dates:

  16 March 1999

  8 October 1999

  5 May 2000

  14 June 2000

  8 October 2000

  15 December 2000

  18 January 2001.

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money the Government have(a) become entitled to and (b) taken each year since 1994 from the surpluses of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme. [145691]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the terms of guarantee/surplus sharing arrangements agreed with the Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Schemes (MPS) in 1994, the Government are entitled to receive 50 per cent. of any scheme surpluses. Annual Government entitlements following surpluses at MPS valuations in 1996 and 1999 are as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  113

  1998–99

  113

  1999–2000

  113

  2000–01

  196

  Corresponding Government receipts over the same period were:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  113

  1998–99

  113

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  1257

  1 The timing and size of receipts in these years has been affected by ongoing uncertainty over the tax status of certain MPS sub-funds

  Ofgem
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the next draft of his social and environmental guidance to Ofgem. [146382]

  Mr. Hain
  We propose to undertake a public consultation on draft Social and Environmental Guidance in February.

  Electricity
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will continue to set price expectations in the competitive electricity markets once the new electricity trading arrangements have been introduced. [146743]
  116W
  Mr. Hain
  The increased competition as a result of the impending replacement of the electricity pool with the new electricity trading arrangement should put significant downward pressure on electricity prices. However, price levels will be determined solely by the markets.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he plans to make of the implications of the electricity crisis in California for UK energy policy. [146950]

  Mr. Hain
  The underlying cause of the problems in the Californian electricity market appears to be a shortage of generation and transmission capacity. This is not the case in the England and Wales market which currently has a 20 per cent. surplus. In the context of our intention to reform the England and Wales wholesale electricity market we have previously studied the electricity market in California and continue to monitor the situation there closely.

  Staff Secondments
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many oil company employees are seconded to his Department by(a) appointment, (b) grade, (c) length of time in appointment, (d) planned time of secondment and (e) the name of the company from which they are seconded. [146973]

  Mr. Hain
  At present my Department has two oil company employees seconded to us. The first, from Shell UK Oil Products, is seconded to our Oil and Gas Directorate as a DTI Range 10. His secondment started in May 2000 and is expected to continue until May 2002.

  The second from BP Amoco is seconded to our Chemicals and Biotechnology Directorate. He was appointed in January 2001 to a DTI Range 11 post and is expected to serve until March 2002.

  Motor Fuels
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations the EU is carrying out into vertical control in the motor fuel industry. [146976]

  Mr. Hain
  The EU is not currently carrying out any investigations into vertical control in the motor fuel industry. However, the European Commission has said that, if it came across any evidence of anti-competitive practice within its sphere of competence, it would not hesitate to take immediate action and impose the appropriate sanctions.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what investigations he is conducting into the delivery by motor fuel wholesalers to retailers of fuel at temperatures in excess of 15 degrees centigrade. [146968]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 26 June 2000,Official Report, columns 353–54W.

  Miners Compensation
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Amber Valley have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for vibration white finger. [147390]
  117W
  Mr.Hain
  The Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, have registered 1,410 claims in respect of vibration white finger from claimants in Amber Valley. As at 24 January the Department had settled 162 claims in full, and made a further 265 interim settlements. In total the Department has paid out £2.3 million in respect of vibration related compensation in Amber Valley.

  Communications
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the remaining proposals from the EU and European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations identified in the Communications White Paper. [147612]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's assessment of the proposals from the European Commission identified in the Communications White Paper was set out in the following explanatory memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry:EM 10962/00 of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services;
  EM 10960/00 of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities;
  EM 10979/00 of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services;
  EM 10963/00 of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services;
  EM 10961/00 of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector;
  unnumbered EM of 10 October 2000 on a proposal for a Directive of the European Commission on competition in markets for electronic communications services; and
  EM 11117/00 of 2 October 2000 on a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community.

  No proposals from the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations are identified in the Communications White Paper.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which proposals from(a) the European Union and (b) the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations to liberalise the licensing regime for communications networks have been (i) assessed, (ii) accepted and (iii) rejected. [147614]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's assessment of a proposal from the European Commission for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services was set out in explanatory memorandum 118W
  10979/00 submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 10 October 2000. The proposed Directive is currently being considered by both the European Parliament and the Council.

  A Recommendation from CEPT implementing a "one-stop shop" for licences for satellite Systems and services was adopted in October 1999. The procedure allows undertakings seeking licences in more than one country to apply via the internet using a single common application form, greatly reducing red tape within the legal framework established for European Community member states by the Licensing Directive 97/13/EC. Four countries have implemented the Recommendation to date, while several more, including the UK, expect to implement as soon as satisfactory testing of the software is achieved.

  A second Recommendation from CEPT adopted in 1999 contained a subset of conditions drawn from the Licensing Directive relevant to the telecommunications satellite environment. The Recommendation encourages CEPT administrations to draw only from the reduced list when attaching conditions to satellite licences. The Recommendation also contains a list of guidelines designed to promote a harmonised understanding of each condition throughout CEPT.

  Respiratory Disease and Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the locations and(a) dates and (b) proposed dates of opening are of centres for medical assessment of claims for (i) vibration white finger and (ii) respiratory disease. [147802]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department currently has 14 vibration white finger assessment centres in operation, with a further centre to open in March, broken down as follows:

  Vibration white finger assessment centers

  Centre

  Date opened

  Barnsley1

  November 1999

  Birmingham

  February 2000

  Cardiff2

  September 2000

  Derby

  September 2000

  Doncaster

  To open in March 2001

  Edinburgh

  October 19993

  Glasgow

  September 1999

  Manchester

  January 2000

  Mansfield 12

  September 1999

  Mansfield 2

  July 2000

  Newcastle1

  August 1999

  Nottingham 1

  January 2000

  Nottingham 21

  May 2000

  Sheffield

  August 1999

  Stoke

  March 20011

  Swansea

  March 2000

  Wakefield

  December 1999

  1 Three sets of equipment

  2 Two sets of equipment

  3 Mothballed in September 2000

  The centres in Edinburgh and Stoke have been mothballed and will re-open when there is a sufficient pool of claimants ready for their medical assessment.

  With regard to respiratory disease Medical Assessment Process centres, the Department currently has 27 centres in operation, with a further two centres to open later this year, broken down as follows.
  119W

  Respiratory disease medical assessment process centers

  Centre

  Date opened

  Ammanford

  To open in March 2001

  Ayr

  April 2000

  Barnsley 1

  March 2000

  Barnsley 2

  January 2001

  Bristol

  May 20001

  Cannock

  April 2000

  Chesterfield

  February 2000

  Coventry

  January 2000

  Deal

  May 2000

  Durham

  March 2000

  Edinburgh

  March 2000

  Glasgow

  March 2000

  Huddersfield

  February 2000

  Leeds

  May 2000

  Lochore

  January 2000

  Manchester

  February 2000

  Mansfield

  February 2000

  Mexborough

  February 2000

  Mountain Ash 1

  January 2000

  Mountain Ash 2

  January 2000

  Newcastle

  January 2000

  Newport

  January 2000

  Nottingham

  January 2000

  Pontefract

  February 2000

  Sheffield

  January 2000

  Sterling

  December 2000

  Stoke

  April 2000

  Swansea

  January 2000

  Wigan

  June 2000

  Wrexham

  March 2000

  Ystrad Mynach

  To open in February 2001

  1 Mothballed in June 2000, re-opened in January 2001

  Respiratory Disease

  Interim payments

  Expedited payments

  Total amount paid

  Postal region

  Total claims

  Number of claims

  £

  Number of claims

  £

  £

  Wales

  South Wales

  26,579

  5,819

  20,237,171.00

  753

  3,747,038.00

  23,984,209.00

  Other

  1,126

  273

  931,169.00

  4

  23,014.00

  954,183.00

  Scotland

  Fife

  2,219

  555

  1,489,648.00

  140

  438,057.00

  1,927,705.00

  Other

  8,288

  1,565

  4,562,413.00

  364

  1,247,977.00

  5,810,390,00

  England

  Nottinghamshire

  15,651

  2,762

  9,187,601.00

  632

  2,927,839.00

  12,115,440.00

  Yorkshire

  35,212

  6,185

  21,101,636.00

  1,986

  9,168,084.00

  30,269,720.00

  North East

  18,924

  3,352

  12,700,838.00

  526

  2,705,057.00

  15,405,895.00

  North West

  7,624

  1,275

  4,290,278.00

  278

  1,474,621.00

  5,764,899.00

  Midlands

  13,689

  2,893

  9,167,806.00

  505

  2,545,070.00

  11,712,876.00

  South

  3,440

  554

  1,833,875.00

  87

  465,380.00

  2,299,255.00

  Other

  777

  21

  69,508.00

  3

  11,194.00

  80,702.00

  Total

  133,529

  25,254

  85,571,943.00

  5,278

  24,753,331.00

  110,325,274.00

  Vibration White Finger

  Interim payments

  Final payments

  Total amount paid

  Postal region

  Total claims

  Number of claims

  £

  Number of claims

  £

  £

  Wales

  South Wales

  15,389

  2,377

  11,141,344.00

  2,603

  16,471,143.00

  27,612,487.00

  Other

  411

  66

  261,730.00

  35

  194,511.00

  456,241.00

  Scotland

  Fife

  1,485

  327

  1,353,546.00

  187

  1,103,196.00

  2,456,742.00

  Other

  6,124

  1,393

  5,712,138.00

  1,605

  7,135,020.00

  12,847,158.00

  England

  Nottinghamshire

  18,798

  3,473

  16,272,636.00

  2,040

  13,935,572.00

  30,208,208.00

  Yorkshire

  37,857

  7,322

  38,156,122.00

  3,965

  28,543,021.00

  66,699,143.00

  North East

  19,279

  5,090

  28,123,557.00

  3,433

  26,534,030.00

  54,657,586.00

  120W
  The centre in Bristol was mothballed and the equipment was transferred to Mountain Ash to cover a shortfall in South Wales. The Bristol centre reopened when a sufficient pool of claimants were ready for their medical assessment.

  The MAP centres are also equipped to carry out spirometry assessment.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims his Department has received in respect of respiratory disease; and in respect of how many claims spirometry has been completed. [147803]

  Mr. Hain
  As at 14 January the Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, had registered 130,869 claims in respect of respiratory disease. As at the same date 65,556 of the 86,458 live claimants had undergone spirometry testing, with a further 14,055 being invited to make appointments. Together these total some 92 per cent. of live claimants.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by region of residence the numbers of(a) claims received in respect of respiratory disease, (b) interim and expedited awards in respect of respiratory disease by (i) number and (ii) value, (c) claims in respect of vibration white finger and (d) interim and general damage awards in respect of vibration white finger by (i) number and (ii) value. [147805]

  Mr. Hain
  The information is as follow:
  121W

  Vibration White Finger

  Interim payments

  Final payments

  Total amount paid

  Postal region

  Total claims

  Number of claims

  £

  Number of claims

  £

  £

  North West

  3,762

  867

  3,505,691.00

  433

  2,523,166.00

  6,028,857.00

  Midlands

  10,956

  1,861

  8,491,824.00

  821

  4,675,198.00

  13,167,023.00

  South

  1,785

  297

  1,509,194.00

  146

  765,367.00

  2,247,562.00

  Other

  268

  10

  46,979.00

  5

  40,553.00

  87,532.00

  Total

  116,114

  23,083

  114,574,762.00

  15,086

  101,920,778.00

  216,495,540.00

  Total payment made relating to both compensation for respiratory and vibration White Finger

  Postal region

  £million

  Wales

  South Wales

  51.6

  Other

  1.4

  Scotland

  Fife

  4.4

  Other

  18.7

  England

  Nottinghamshire

  42.3

  Yorkshire

  97

  North East

  70.1

  North West

  11.8

  Midlands

  24.9

  South

  4.6

  Other

  0.2

  Total

  327

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the current estimated annual capacity is of the Sellafield MOX plant; what proportion of this capacity is currently contracted for; and what proportion of these contracts is(a) Japanese and (b) European. [146305]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 25 January 2001: These are commercially confidential matters.

  Coal Consumption
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK(a) consumption of coal and (b) extra tonnes of carbon dioxide burned between August and October was in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [147815]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: DTI provisional estimates of extra tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions arising from coal consumption between August and October in 1999 and in 2000 are:

  1999

  2000

  Coal consumed (million tonnes)

  13.0

  14.5

  Carbon dioxide emissions arising from coal consumption (million tonnes of carbon)

  8.3

  9.3

  It is therefore estimated that an extra 1.0 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in terms of carbon attributable to coal consumption were emitted between these periods due to an increase of about 3 million tonnes in the amount of coal consumed in the UK in 2000 compared with 1999.
  122W

  Employment Tribunals (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister has responsibility for the procedure for appointment of chairmen of employment tribunals in Scotland. [147475]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1993 make provision for the appointment of Chairmen by the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Ministerial responsibility for these rules rests with myself as the Minister for Competitiveness.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Policies (Slough)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [146930]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Slough constituency has benefited from a range of Government initiatives since 2 May 1997 including:

  Capital allocations for housing

  Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  1.140

  1999–2000

  1.536

  2000–01

  4.634

  2001–02

  16.435

  1 Includes £4.713 million major repairs allowance

  The capital allocations for housing were made following assessments under the housing investment programme. Slough borough council was assessed as being "above average" in comparison with other south-east local authorities in the 2001–02 housing investment programme. Similarly, in 2000–01 the council was assessed as "above average", and in 1999–2000 and 1998–99 as "well above average".

  Single Regeneration Budget

  SRB Round 4 (1998–99) "People at the Centre of Slough"

  £2 million awarded covering a wide range of projects to tackle social exclusion in the wards of Central, Chalvey and Bayliss.

  SRB Round 5—{1999–2000) "Simply Stoke"

  £1.6 million towards tackling social exclusion issues in two deprived estates in the Stoke ward in Slough.
  123W
  SRB Round 6 (2000–01) "PRREDASI"

  A bid of £100,000, led by Slough's Racial Equality Council, was successful for funding research and action planning to promote racial equality.

  SRB Round 6—Thames Valley Enterprise

  Slough in partnership with Oxford, Reading and High Wycombe were awarded £1.7 million towards social enterprise work.

  Local Transport Plans

  £million

  1998–99

  0.2615

  1999–2000

  0.863

  2000–01

  0.884

  2001–02

  1.312

  Local Government Finance Settlement

  The following figures show the Government grant to Slough as part of the local Government Finance Settlement.

  Total external support1

  £ million

  Date

  1998–99

  85.105

  1999–2000

  88.324

  2000–01

  91.955

  2001–02

  296.036

  1 Revenue Support Grant, National Non Domestic Rates and damping grants

  2 Provisional settlement under "floor" and "ceiling" option

  Eurostar
  Miss Mclntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on Eurostar train services from York directly to Brussels, Paris and Frankfurt; and if he will make a statement. [147081]

  Mr. Hill
  There has been considerable interest in Eurostar services to the regions but I am not aware that we have received any representations in the last three years referring specifically to the running of Regional Eurostar trains services to York other than from the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss Mclntosh).

  The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 placed a duty on the British Railways Board to prepare and publish a plan for the provision of regional Eurostars. Their original plan was published in 1989 and they have just published a revised plan based on a review. This concludes that regional Eurostar services would be heavily loss making and that there are no economic, environmental or social grounds for providing a subsidy. Copies of their report are available on their website at www.brb.gov.uk. In future the Strategic Rail Authority will have a duty to provide a plan for passenger services through the Channel tunnel.

  South West Water
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent communications he has received from Torbay council regarding South West Water's compulsory purchase order of land at Ilsham Valley, Torquay. [147407]
  124W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Torbay council has written to my Department as a consequence of being served with notice by South West Water of the making of this compulsory purchase order. The council's letter did not object to the order but raised a number of detailed points about the various parcels of land subject to the order.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued about the preferred temperature at which municipal solid waste incinerators are recommended to burn to minimise the harm associated with emissions from such incinerators; and if he will make a statement. [147508]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following guidance has been issued:

  Local Authorities

  Processes authorised by Local Authority Environmental Health Departments are regulated by reference to Secretary of State's Process Guidance Note PG 5/4(95) entitled "General Waste Incineration Processes under 1 tonne per hour". It requires that combustion gases shall be maintained at a temperature of 850& C in the presence of 6 per cent. oxygen, for a period of two seconds after the last injection of combustion air

  The Environment Agency

  The Environment Agency has issued a Technical Guidance Note (S2 5.01) for municipal solid waste incinerators regulated under Part A of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1991/SI No. 472. This guidance summarises the statutory requirements of the EU directives on municipal waste incineration and the techniques available for incineration. It requires that combustion gases shall be maintained at a temperature of 850& C in the presence of 6 per cent. oxygen, for a period of two seconds after the last injection of combustion air.

  It should be noted that these recommendations are linked also to the residence time of exhaust gases within the secondary combustion zone and sufficient turbulence to circulate the gases.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) under what powers a county council can take a decision about a major waste disposal development before it has completed its public consultation on its overall plan for disposing of waste; [147502]

  (2) what guidance he has given to local planning authorities about the extent of consultation a local planning authority is required to undertake in considering the development of municipal solid waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement. [147503]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 requires a local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations can include national and regional planning policy guidance and policies in emerging development plans.
  125W
  The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 sets out the requirements placed on local planning authorities to consult on planning applications, although the extent of the consultation will depend on the particular circumstances of each case. Guidance on the publicity to be given to planning applications is contained in the Department's Circular 15/92, "Publicity for Planning Applications". This advises that major developments must be publicised through newspaper advertisement and either site notices or neighbour notification. General guidance for waste planning authorities on the consideration of proposals for waste management facilities, including incinerators, is set out in the Department's Planning Policy Guidance Note 10 [PPG10], "Planning and Waste Management".

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment Worcestershire county council is required to carry out before reaching a decision on the development of a municipal solid waste incinerator. [147504]

  Mr. Meacher
  A planning application will need to be considered on its merits in the light of all material considerations. The principal guidance for planning applications of this kind is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 10: Planning and Waste Management (September 1999). Another important consideration is the requirements relating to environmental statements as set out in The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the research carried out concerning the incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators of soft-tissue sarcoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma clusters, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in July 2000; and if he will make a statement. [147511]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The paper by Viel and colleagues examined the spatial distribution of some types of cancer around a French municipal solid waste incinerator from 1980–95. For parts of that period, more soft-tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas than expected were found in areas close to the incinerator. The emissions from the incinerator were known to contain far higher concentrations of dioxins, dust and hydrogen chloride than are permitted now, and in 1998 the incinerator was therefore partly closed and partly upgraded. The authors advised that:
  caution should be exercised before [these cancer] clusters … are ascribed to dioxin released by the … incinerator.

  In May 1998, the expert advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concluded that:
  there are insufficient epidemiological and toxicological data on TCDD [regarded as the most potent dioxin] to conclude a causal link with cancer in humans, but it would be prudent to consider TCDD as a "probable weak human carcinogen".

  The Committee's statement "2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Consideration of 1997 IARC monograph" COC/99/S1 may be found on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/ coc.htm.
  126W
  The Committee is commencing a review of the implications of the more recent scientific literature on dioxins, including the Viel study, at its meeting in March.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the research carried out concerning the reported incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain of cancer cases, published in the British Journal of Cancer in March 1996; and if he will make a statement. [147510]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Government-funded study, undertaken by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, found a small excess of primary liver cancer near the older generation of municipal solid waste incinerators. The expert advisory Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment considered this and follow-up studies and concluded in March 2000 that any potential risk of cancer due to residency near to municipal solid waste incinerators was exceedingly low and probably not measurable by the most modern epidemiological techniques. The Committee agreed that, at the present time, there was no need for any further epidemiological investigations of cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators. The Committee's statement "Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain" COC/00/S1 may be found on the internet at www.doh.gov.uk/coc.htm.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were housed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Eastbourne in each of the last three years. [147421]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Information reported by Eastbourne district council is given as follows:

  At 30 September

  Homeless households resident in bed and breakfast accommodation1 in Eastbourne

  1998

  0

  1999

  6

  2000

  38

  1 Includes households being accommodated pending completion of inquiries by the local authority.

  Source:

  DETR P1(E) housing return (quarterly)

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 527W, if he will list the statutory provisions which prevent local authorities from operating stakeholder pensions. [147385]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities have no powers under which they can offer stakeholder pensions, therefore it follows that there are no statutory provisions to list as preventing them from operating stakeholder pensions.
  127W

  Public Footpaths
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make regulations under Part 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for the closure of public footpaths in urban areas for crime prevention purposes. [147558]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The provisions in Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 enabling local highway authorities to make orders to extinguish or divert public rights of way in designated areas for crime prevention purposes will be brought into force by commencement order. Secondary legislation is required before these, and other provisions relating to the extinguishment and diversion of public rights of way, can operate properly. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment stated on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 886, we expect most of the rights of way provisions in the Act to be implemented in 2002–03.

  A66
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries arose from accidents on the A66 in each of the last three years. [147544]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Casualties in accidents on the A66: 1997–99

  Fatal

  Serious

  1997

  5

  35

  1998

  14

  64

  1999

  13

  60

  Total

  32

  159

  UK Ports
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the proposed designations for the approach channels and ports in the UK under the European Habitats and Birds Directives will not adversely affect the competitive position of the UK ports industry, relative to ports on the European mainland and in Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [147791]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Ports serve the national interest, supporting the competitiveness of national and regional economies. It is in the national interest that our ports remain able to handle current UK trade and its potential development efficiently and sustainably. Government will seek to ensure that all member states' sites, including those in close proximity to ports, put forward as eligible to be designated as special areas of conservation (SACs) have been selected on their scientific merit in accordance with selection criteria at Article 4 and Annex III to the Habitats Directive.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the designation of approach channels and ports in the UK under the European Habitats and Birds Directives is consistent with the approach being taken by all other European member states. [147789]
  128W
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  It is for the European Commission and member states collectively to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted by all member states in the selection and designation of sites under both the Habitats and Birds Directives. If approach channels and ports merit selection on scientific grounds, member states are obliged to put forward these areas.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will delay confirming designations of approach channels and ports in the Severn and Humber estuaries, under the European Habitats and Birds Directives, until a common approach to such designations has been agreed with all European member states; and if he will make a statement. [147790]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  If sites merit selection on scientific grounds, member states are obliged to transmit them to the Commission (in the case of Special Areas of Conservation) or designate them (in the case of Special Protection Areas). Consultations are continuing on the Humber and Severn and I cannot comment, therefore, on the areas included or the merits of these particular proposals.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential benefit to high flood risk areas of restoring drained wetlands and allowing them to flood. [147978]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  No specific assessment has been made but current flood management practices provide a measure of flood relief to urban properties in high-risk areas by allowing undeveloped land to flood. The benefits of managed retreat in coastal and estuarial situations have been recognised for some time and this is one of the options identified for assessment through shoreline management plans.

  MAFF and the Environment Agency are currently developing guidance on river catchment assessments that will lead to catchment flood management plans. The restoration of flood-plain functions and washlands is likely to be one of the management options that will be considered in such plans. The revised draft PPG 25, on which we will be consulting shortly, will emphasise the need to consider flooding issues at the river catchment level. It will specifically advise that local plans should identify sites where managed realignment of coastal defences or restoration of functions to flood plains, could contribute to more sustainable flood management, as well as to amenity, landscape and biodiversity objectives.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue interim planning guidance to local authorities with regard to mobile telephone masts. [147881]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction wrote to all Council Leaders in England, copied to all Chief Planning Officers, on 29 June 2000. His letter set out what we were doing to take forward the land-use planning recommendations in the Stewart report and indicated that in advance of any possible changes to the planning regime local planning
  129W
  authorities should treat applications for mobile phone development on the basis of the current legislative arrangements and policy guidance. A similar letter was sent to all hon. Members for constituencies in England on the same day.

  On 31 July 2000, we issued a consultation paper to seek views on possible changes to the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. In particular, the consultation paper sought views on how to improve public consultation in the planning process. The consultation paper included a draft revised planning policy guidance note (PPG8—Telecommunications). The consultation period ended on 31 October. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as practicable.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has assessed on the environmental impact of mobile telephone masts. [147973]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has not assessed any research on the environmental impact of mobile phone masts.

  Council Tenants
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the right to manage for leaseholders proposed in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill will be extended to council tenants. [147880]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  There is already a range of options open to all local authority tenants, including leaseholders, who wish to influence or take control of the management of their homes. The Government are working to extend the opportunities for participation in such schemes. We have introduced best value and tenant participation compacts to help improve housing management and tenant participation. We have also broadened the Government's tenant empowerment grants programme to help leaseholders and other tenants look at the options and to help support tenants' groups set up under the existing local authority right to manage.

  Winter Road Maintenance
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to highway authorities emphasising the importance of salting and clearing snow from roads following the ruling of the House of Lords. [147829]

  Mr. Hill
  Guidance already exists in the local authority Code of Good Practice for Highway Maintenance.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will bring forward legislation to amend the Highways Act 1980 to require highway authorities to produce winter road maintenance plans for salting and snow clearance. [147828]

  Mr. Hill
  No. Local highway authorities are already strongly recommended to prepare comprehensive detailed plans for winter maintenance in the Local Authority Code of Good Practice for Highway Maintenance, which has been in place since 1989.
  130W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he is giving to highway authorities regarding salting and clearance of snow from roads following the recent House of Lords ruling. [147831]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr.Dismore) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 18–19W.

  Private Landlords (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy with respect to the licensing of private landlords in deprived areas. [147021]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our proposals for selective licensing of private landlords are aimed at areas of low housing demand, which are being further destabilised by the unscrupulous and sometimes criminal activities of certain landlords. As we indicated in our Housing Policy Statement, we aim to consult on detailed proposals in the spring.

  Millennium Dome (Sale)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the offer document for the millennium dome issued to potential bidders between March and December 1998. [147778]

  Ms Armstrong
  No documents were issued to bidders during the months in question.

  Between March 1999 and December 1999 two documents were issued to potential bidders in the competition to find a sustainable long-term use for the dome. These were the Preliminary Information Memorandum and the Information Memorandum. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy on the appointment of members to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [147883]

  Mr. Meacher
  Members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) are appointed in accordance with the "Guidance on appointments to public bodies" from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. A copy of this Guidance may be found in the House Library.

  ACRE is a statutory advisory committee under section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The main remit of the committee is to advise Ministers, including the devolved Administrations, on the risks to human health and the environment from the release of genetically modified organisms. ACRE members are appointed purely for their science and technical expertise and do not represent particular stakeholder groups.
  131W
  ACRE was last appointed in June 1999, when approximately half of the members were appointed for three years and the remainder for four years. The next appointments to the committee will therefore be in June 2002. Further details about ACRE and the current members can be found in the committee's annual report, a copy of which is available in the House Library. The report includes the committee's full terms of reference, pen pictures of all members and their declared interests.

  GM Seeds
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 528W, if consignments of imported crop seeds have been tested for the adventitious presence of GM varieties by the officials of a UK statutory body during 2000. [147976]

  Mr. Meacher
  Further to my previous reply of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 528W, the GM inspectorate at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) conducted audits of seed importing companies to confirm whether they were operating proper checks and procedures to ensure that no unauthorised GM material was being imported. Under section 115 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, inspectors may carry out tests and take samples from premises but the inspectors must have reason to believe that unauthorised GMOs are being kept or had escaped. The evidence that the GM inspectorate examined satisfied them that no unauthorised GM material was present, and so no additional tests for GM presence needed to be undertaken.

  I am not aware that the officials of any other UK statutory body have tested imported seeds for the adventitious presence of GM varieties during 2000.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the percentage of top slicing is of the education SSA of each local education authority. [147169]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  A table showing the percentage of the Local Schools Budget delegated to schools (and hence the percentage retained centrally) by each LEA was published on 29 June 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and has been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  DAB System
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what radio services are available on the DAB system; and how many regular listeners there are to those services. [147447]

  Janet Anderson:
  National digital radio services are provided on the BBC multiplex and on Digital One's commercial multiplex. In addition, nine local multiplexes are now on air, carrying commercial and BBC programme services. A further three local multiplexes are soon due to launch and are presently conducting test transmissions.
  132W
  Estimates of regular listeners are not available, but more than 20,000 digital radio receivers have been delivered to the UK market to date.

  Evening News Bulletins
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with broadcasters on the scheduling of evening news bulletins. [147420]

  Janet Anderson
  The scheduling of news bulletins is a matter for the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has expressed his misgivings to the broadcasters about the main evening news bulletins on the BBC and ITV going head to head. His main concern is that this could lead to a decline in the quality of the news programmes.

  Culture Online
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking in his proposals for Culture Online to ensure compliance with copyrights and royalties. [147618]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The need to protect content providers' intellectual property rights will be a key component of the business model for Culture Online, which is currently under development.

  Radio Licensing
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much revenue has been raised through the control of radio licensing by each of the regulatory bodies which are to be replaced by the proposed Ofcom in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what percentage of this income in each year has been raised through auctions. [147613]

  Janet Anderson
  Certain radio and television licences are awarded after a process of competitive tender under the Broadcasting Act 1990, but not by auction. Revenue is raised through additional payments in respect of cash bids and qualifying revenue and through any receipts in respect of financial penalties,

  The payments to the Exchequer from these sources for each of the last three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Radio Authority Licensees

  10.5

  8.9

  8.1

  Independent Television Commission Licensees

  419.9

  479.0

  439.1

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what powers the regulatory bodies which will be succeeded by the proposed Ofcom will issue general authorisations for communications operators. [147616]

  Janet Anderson
  We shall at the earliest opportunity bring forward legislation to establish Ofcom with the powers necessary to implement the proposals in our White Paper, "A New Future for Communications", including powers necessary to authorise and license providers of communications services.
  133W
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the regulatory burdens on communications operators caused by individual licensing; and if he will make a statement. [147611]

  Janet Anderson
  The policies set out in our White Paper, "A New Future for Communications" include proposals for reducing the regulatory burden upon communications operators by using general authorisations rather than individual licences wherever possible. Details of the new Systems are being developed and the benefits will be quantified and made available in due course as part of the regulatory impact assessment.

  Concessionary Television Licence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received calling for an extension to the concessionary television licence; and what would be the annual cost if it were extended to those aged(a) 65 to 69 and (b) 70 to 74 years. [147532]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from members of the public suggesting extensions to the current concession. The estimated additional cost of extending free television licences to people aged 70 to 74 is £185 million a year with a further £185 million a year for people aged 65 to 69.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his latest estimate is of the(a) number and (b) percentage of households in (i) Northern Ireland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) England that are evading payment of the television licence fee. [147825]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The BBC, as Licensing Authority, estimates evasion principally on a United Kingdom-wide basis and estimates of evasion by country cannot be produced on the same basis or to the same level of accuracy. All estimates relate to licensable premises rather than households. As at 31 March 2001, the latest date for which figures are available in the form requested, the estimated evasion figures were:

  (a)Estimated evasion(number of licensable premises)1

  (b)Estimated evasion (percentage)

  Northern Ireland

  112,000

  18.2

  Wales

  74,000

  6.1

  Scotland

  172,000

  7.8

  England

  923,000

  4.8

  1 Estimates calculated by applying the estimated percentage evasion rate to the estimated number of licensable premises

  The statistical model used to estimate the evasion rate for the UK as a whole is currently under review and the Government aim to adopt the revised model in the near future.
  134W

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when he first was informed of Mr. Robert Bourne's interest in acquiring the Millennium Dome; [147720]

  (2) what representations he received prior to 15 December 1999 from Mr. Robert Bourne regarding the future use of the Millennium Dome. [147722]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: The competition for the sale of the Dome was launched on 4 March 1999 with an initial deadline of 26 March 1999 for submitting expressions of interest. On 18 March 1999 I met Robert Bourne and he outlined his initial ideas for the future use of the Dome. On 31 March 1999,1 and other Ministers were informed by officials of the names of those 54 organisations, including Legacy plc, who had expressed an interest in bidding for the future use of the Dome. I met Robert Bourne again on 14 June 1999 but the meeting was entirely about the future of theatre in London, and the Dome was not discussed.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money is owed to the Millennium Commission out of the sale proceeds of the millennium dome; and if interest will be paid on this sum. [147777]

  Janet Anderson
  Under the terms of the revised Grant Memorandum, which came into effect on 30 November 2000, issued by the Millennium Commission to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC)Any surplus achieved by the company from operating revenues, asset disposals or other activities, after the settlement of other liabilities, shall be repaid to the Commission, up to a maximum of the amount of grant previously paid, in cash terms.

  Any amount repayable under this grant condition will be calculated following the completion of all that is necessary to achieve the solvent liquidation of NMEC. Additionally, under the terms of the agreement between NMEC and English Partnerships, details of which were reported to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions on 17 January 2001, Official Report, column 258W,
  Once NMEC has been wound up, it is intended that any remaining share of the proceeds from the sale of the dome will pass to the Millennium Commission.

  Interest will not be paid as the Commission will receive all of any surplus funds available and the moneys received from the Commission have been grants, not loans.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Local Elections
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to ensure that the local council elections in Northern Ireland are able to take place on 16 May. [148032]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is a statutory requirement, as set down in my answer of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 679W, for local council elections to take place in Northern Ireland on 16 May.
  135W
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has requested(a) the chief executive of any district council in Northern Ireland and (b) the Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland to make provision for local elections to be held on 16 May. [148033]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 25 January 2001,Official Report, column 679W, which set down the statutory provision for the timing of local government elections in Northern Ireland. It is the responsibility of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to set in hand provisions to meet those statutory requirements.

  James Alfred Cornhill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the outcome of the investigation into the shooting of James Alfred Cornhill on 19 April; and what views were expressed by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints. [142332]

  Mr. Ingram
  The police inquiries are now complete and a full investigation file will be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions during January 2001. The investigation was supervised by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints until the Commission was superseded by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, whose views will not be available until some time after the investigation file is submitted.

  David McCombe and Padraig McCracken
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of complaints filed against the RUC concerning the arrest of David McCombe and Padraig McCracken in the Glen Road area in December 2000; what action has been taken against the officers concerned; and what guidance is given to the police for the handling of minors. [146772]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Ombudsman's Office is investigating a complaint lodged on 9 January on behalf of David McCombe and Padraig McCracken. The investigation is at an early stage.

  Police have at their disposal a number of regulations and forms of guidance when dealing with minors, but the exact form used would depend upon the pertaining circumstances.

  Terrorism
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 519W, by what means the police in each district keep records of individuals who have been warned that their personal details, as compiled by security forces, have been found in possession of persons suspected of having been engaged in the preparation, instigation or Commission of acts of terrorism; and what statistical information he collates on the number of individuals who are, and who have been, put at risk. [146516]

  Mr. Ingram
  The police keep manual records at sub-divisional level on each occasion when an individual is informed that he/she is considered to be the subject of a threat regardless of the origins of the information. A136W
  nominal record is created for each person and subsequent threats recorded. Following notification of the individual and the updating of local records, details are passed to RUC Headquarters to be collated centrally. This is a manual system based on the individual. Statistics are not maintained and to create such statistics would incur a disproportionate cost.

  Police Duties
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers are specifically trained and exclusively employed for(a) motorway patrol duties and for (b) anti-racketeering duties in Northern Ireland. [144686]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary does not have a dedicated motorway patrol unit, however, there are currently 184 constables within RUC Traffic Branch who are trained to perform these duties.

  There is no dedicated RUC Anti-Racketeering Unit although there are a number of officers and civilian support staff from a number of branches including the Economic Crime Bureau and the Analysis Centre whose duties include investigating racketeering. Personnel from the Regional Crime Squads, CID and local uniform police also provide support as necessary.

  Police Station, Downpatrick
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he will take to replace the police station in Downpatrick; and if he will make a statement. [145930]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the Royal Ulster Constabulary intend to build a new police station at Downpatrick commencing financial year 2006–07. Progress will be determined by the availability of an appropriate site and adequate funding.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the quota settlement for 2001 agreed between EU Fisheries Ministers in December, upon(a) each fish stock, (b) the overall economic future of the UK fishing industry and (c) the economic future for members of each UK producer organisation. [144271]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Most of the total allowable catches agreed by the Fisheries Ministers on December 15 last year reflect closely the advice from scientists. We would therefore expect these stocks to move towards or remain inside safe biological limits over the period to which the advice refers.

  The immediate economic effect of the quota reductions will vary according to the extent to which fishermen are able to catch their quota allocations. In some cases the quotas for 2001 are higher than catches in 2000. The purpose of the quota cuts and other measures being adopted is to conserve stocks in the longer term and so protect the economic future of the industry.
  137W
  We are discussing the implications of the situation with the industry.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding the Government have provided as state aid support to the United Kingdom fishing industry in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [146273]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures shown include expenditure on national schemes and the national element of payments under EU schemes.

  They include funding by the four Fisheries Departments, both before and after devolution. The largest element of the expenditure has been the scheme for decommissioning fishing vessels, which ended in 1997–98.

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  12.75

  1996–97

  10.75

  1997–98

  13.78

  1998–99

  6.14

  1999–2000

  3.85

  Farming (State Aid)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding the Government will provide to the United Kingdom farming industry as state aid support in the 2000–01 financial year. [146268]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are required to provide this information to the European Commission as part of an annual report on state aids. This is an extensive exercise which will be completed at the end of June. The work could be brought forward only at disproportionate cost. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures are available.

  Farmers (Compensation)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement a compensation package for farmers whose harvests have been destroyed by recent severe weather conditions; and if he will make a statement. [146235]

  Ms Quin
  We are helping farmers who have lost harvests as a result of recent severe weather through measures agreed with the European Commission to protect payments under the Arable Area Payments Scheme, to which the answer given to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 24 January 2001,Official Report, columns 594–95W refers. No separate compensation package is envisaged at this time.

  Agricultural Holdings Act
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the occasions he has granted permission under section 2(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and what the nature of the permission granted was. [147862]
  138W
  Mr. Morley
  Between 1985 and 1995 a total of 12,742 approvals were granted under section 2(1). No such approvals could be made after 31 August 1995. The terms of each approval were unique to the individual case.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of recipients of Income Support or its equivalent among(a) pensioners, (b) non-pensioners with children and (c) non-pensioners without children for each of the past 30 years. [146009]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The information available has been placed in the Library.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, columns 76–77W, on the winter fuel allowance, on what basis the figure for the number of people entitled to backdated Winter Fuel Payments is estimated to be 1.7 million. [146340]

  Mr. Rooker
  We estimate there may be up to 1.7 million eligible men aged 60 to 64 and these are estimated to sub-divide into the following categories: 1.2 million aged 60 to 64 during the qualifying week for the winter of 1997–98; 0.25 million aged 60 during the qualifying week for the winter of 1998–99; and 0.25 million aged 60 during the qualifying week for the winter of 1999–2000. All payments for past winters have to be claimed.

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey.

  2. The estimates do not include men aged 60 to 64 who were getting Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance as this group would have already been entitled to a Winter Fuel Payment.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households have been paid the winter fuel allowance in the London borough of Wandsworth to date. [147243]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available by household. The latest information on Winter Fuel Payments made to individuals in the three constituencies within the London borough of Wandsworth is set out in the table.

  Constituency

  Winter fuel payments made this winter

  Battersea

  around 10,000

  Putney

  around 12,000

  Tooting

  around 11,000

  Uprated Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the net cost is of(a) the increase in the basic state pension from April 2001, including the inflation element, and (b) the increase in the Minimum Income Guarantee from April 2001. [146352]
  139W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated net costs of uprating selected benefits,2001–02

  £ million

  Benefit

  Net costs

  Basic State Pension

  2,450

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  650

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefits for those aged 60 and over

  150

  Total cost

  3,250

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  2. Estimates relate to Great Britain.

  3. Costs include both costs of uprating in line with inflation and costs of discretionary policy measures.

  4. Basic State Pension costs include costs of dependency increases and basic pension increments.

  5. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for those aged 60 and over are included as the applicable amounts for these benefits are the same as those in the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  Pensioner Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) male and (b) female pensioners living in households with income below half the national average there were, broken down by five year age group, in the latest year for which figures are available. [147807]

  Mr. Rooker
  Such information as is available is in the table.

  The proportion of male and female pensioners living in households below 50 per cent mean income broken down by five year age bands

  Pensioner sex and age

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Male pensioners

  Number of male pensioners below 50 per cent, mean

  0.9 million

  1.0 million

  Of which:

  Aged 65 to 70

  29%

  30%

  Aged 71 to 75

  30%

  30%

  Aged over 75

  42%

  41%

  Female pensioners

  Number of female pensioners below 50 per cent. mean

  1.5 million

  1.9 million

  Of which:

  Aged 60 to 65

  9%

  9%

  Aged 66 to 70

  20%

  20%

  Aged 71 to 75

  27%

  27%

  Aged 76 to 80

  23%

  24%

  Aged over 80

  21%

  21%

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBA) data set which is derived from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland, and 1998–99 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. Due to small sample sizes, reliable estimates of male pensioners aged 75 and over and female pensioners aged 80 and over, broken down by five year age bands do not exist.

  3. The estimates are sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for region, council tax band and a number of other demographic variables. However, they do not control for the population by five year age bands. Estimates are subject to both sampling error and to variability in non-response. All proportions are rounded to the nearest per cent. and numbers to the nearest 100,000.

  4. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect
  140W
  the composition of the household). The figures may be sensitive to the choice of equivalisation scale used.

  5. The estimates are presented on both a Before Housing Costs (BHC) and an After Housing Costs (AHC) basis in line with HBAI conventions.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99.

  Benefit Fraud (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London borough of Wandsworth. [148159]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the London borough of Wandsworth and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors consider that Wandsworth has a strong management structure including comprehensive documentation specifying its relationships with its in-house provider which exhibits good practice and experienced, knowledgeable staff, supported by guidance and procedures on an intra-net. The report notes overall significant improvements have been made to the Revenues and Benefits Service since its transfer in-house in November 1998, but there are still further improvements to be made. Wandsworth has implemented the Verification Framework and inspectors generally found a commendable level of verification but improvements are needed on the level of verification of residency.

  The council has tight and well documented reconciliation procedures to help keep claims right, although inspectors consider they need to develop a risk analysis to focus counter fraud work.

  The BFI reports that Wandsworth has a strong corporate commitment to counter fraud work and has successfully applied prosecutions and other sanctions. However, inspectors consider the council needs to improve arrangements for the management of overpayment identification, classification and recovery and maximising use of its powers to recover overpayments. Work also needs to be done to strengthen the quality of fraud investigations.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Industrial Injuries Benefits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost was to his Department of benefits relating to industrial injuries; and what the cost was of such benefits paid to individuals living in the Lewes constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [148017]

  Mr. Bayley
  Expenditure on industrial injuries benefits in 1999–2000 was £756 million. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this figure by constituency.

  Source:

  Pre-Budget report, HM Treasury, November 2000.
  141W

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimate is of the amount of unclaimed(a) Child Benefit, (b) Council Tax Benefit, (c) Housing Benefit, (d) Income Support, (e) Invalid Care Allowance, (f) Incapacity Benefit, (g) Jobseeker's Allowance, (h) Retirement Pension, (i) Severe Disablement Allowance and (j) Disability Living Allowance in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the Yeovil constituency, for the latest year for which each figure is available; and if he will make a statement. [146617]

  Mr. Rooker
  Estimates of the amount of unclaimed income-related benefits in Great Britain (Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit, Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance) can be found in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up 1998–99", a copy of which is in the Library.

  There are no comparable estimates available of the amount of unclaimed Invalid Care Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance or Disability Living Allowance.

  No precise estimates are available of the amount of retirement pension left unclaimed, although take-up is thought to be between 95 per cent. and 100 per cent. On average around 98 per cent. of families take up their entitlement to Child Benefit. No estimates are available for different parts of Great Britain.

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the impact of changes made to the administration of Housing Benefit upon registered social landlords. [147874]

  Angela Eagle
  We published in December 2000 our response to consultation on the Housing Green Paper. This set out radical measures to bring about improvement to the administration of Housing Benefit. These measures will help us to bring improvements to the performance of struggling councils to raise standards across the board and to streamline Housing Benefit to make it easier for councils to administer and simpler for individuals to claim.

  As part of the drive to ease the burden on local authorities the Department is also discussing with representatives of registered social landlords proposals they have volunteered for assisting with elements of Housing Benefit administration.

  We have also taken account of representations received from registered social landlords, and others about the appeal rights of third parties against the recovery of overpayments of housing benefit. Our decisions on this were set out in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on 10 January 2001, Official Report, column 575W.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of 142W
  unclaimed Working Families Tax Credit in 2000–01 to date; and if he will make a statement. [146616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate is available.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what period it is permissible to continue receiving Working Families Tax Credit while outside the UK. [147228]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 January 2001]: As set out in the Inland Revenue leaflet WFTC/BK1 "Your guide to Working Families Tax Credit" an award of Working Families Tax Credit will normally last for 26 weeks.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what dates the applications for banking licences were made by the Hinduja brothers; what advice he received on these applications; and if he will make a statement. [148020]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 42W.

  Publicly Owned Assets
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the impact on Government revenues of the sale of publicly owned assets in the last 20 years. [147312]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on receipts of asset sales is published annually in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA). Estimates for receipts from general government sales of fixed assets and debt sales from 1994–95 to 1999–2000 were published in PESA 2000–01 (Cm 4601), Table 4.8. Estimates of general government sales of land and existing buildings back to 1982–83 were published in PESA 1998–99 (Cm 3901), Table 3.8; figures for earlier years are available from the equivalent table in earlier editions of PESA. A detailed analysis of privatisation proceeds from 1979–80 to 1996–97 was published in PESA 1997–98 (Cm 3601), Table 3.13.

  Departmental Cost Savings
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings have been made across Government Departments through cost-saving measures over the last 20 years, based on current prices, expressed(a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of expenditure. [147313]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This question can be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Tonnage Tax
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to review the provisions of the tonnage tax. [147706]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that red diesel is not
  143W
  misused; how many prosecutions there have been for misuse in each of the last five years; how many prosecutions were successful; what penalties were levied in each case; and if he will make a statement. [146739]

  Mr. Timms
  Customs have a network of road fuel testing teams located regionally throughout the UK to ensure that rebated heavy oils, including red diesel, are not misused as fuel by road vehicles. These teams run testing vehicles in the UK which operate as mobile laboratories able to test for the chemical markers present in rebated oil.

  Since 1996–97, Customs, excluding Northern Ireland, have prosecuted 20 cases of road fuel offences, involving red diesel, and have been successful in all cases. As a result of these prosecutions a total of £10,850 in penalties and 12 custodial sentences have been imposed. The figures for Northern Ireland are not currently available.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the reduced duty on red diesel affects the uptake of liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. [147980]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last reviewed the criteria for determining(a) who is eligible to use red diesel and (b) the purposes for which red diesel may be used. [147981]

  Mr. Timms
  The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 defines the circumstances in which rebated heavy oil can be used. This legislation is regularly reviewed to ensure its application remains relevant.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate the average annual financial value of using red diesel to users of(a) standard diesel and (b) ultra low sulphur diesel, broken down by economic sector. [147990]

  Mr. Timms
  The use of rebated gas oil (red diesel) is restricted by Schedule 1 to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 which defines categories of vehicles allowed to use this fuel. Users of standard diesel and ultra low sulphur diesel do not have the option to use red diesel.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the factors affecting the price charged by oil companies for(a) ultra low sulphur diesel and (b) unleaded petrol. [147830]

  Mr. Timms
  The price charged by oil companies reflects the influence of a number of variable commercial and economic factors, including production and distribution costs, supply and demand on world oil markets, conversion rates against the US dollar, and taxation. The Government do not intervene in commercial price-setting.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to ensure that fuel duty reductions on ultra low sulphur petrol, announced in the pre-Budget Statement, will be passed on to motorists. [147832]
  144W
  Mr. Timms
  The Government do not intervene in commercial price-setting. The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) has stated that it anticipates that the 2 pence per litre duty cut will be passed on to the consumer.

  Euro (Price Fixing)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards EU-level investigations into price-fixing in currency transactions within the eurozone; and what estimate he has made of the level of mark up which has occurred. [147529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government welcome all efforts to enhance competition and deliver better value for consumers.

CABINET OFFICE

  Right hon. Member for Hartlepool
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much severance pay the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), will receive; and if she will make a statement. [148030]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Under the terms of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, all Ministers (except the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor) are entitled to a severance payment equal to one quarter of their final ministerial salary on leaving office, provided that the individual has not attained the age of 65 or been appointed to another paid office within a period of three weeks.

  Secondments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for each year between 1992 and 2000, how many(a) people were seconded to the senior civil service from the private sector and (b) senior civil servants were seconded to the private and voluntary sectors; what the average length of their secondment was in each case; and how many (i) senior civil servants and (ii) permanent secretaries were on performance related pay. [145187]

  Mr. Stringer
  Information on secondments of senior civil servants by sector is not held centrally. Information held by the Cabinet Office Interchange Unit relates to overall instances of Interchange activity across Departments. The Interchange Unit does not hold information on the length of individual secondments.

  In 1998–99 there were 343 instances of Interchange (with all sectors) at senior civil service level. In this period there were (at all grades) 905 instances of Interchange between the civil service and the private sector, and 278 instances of Interchange between civil service and the voluntary sector.

  In 1999–2000 these figures rose to 354 instances of Interchange at senior civil service level, 981 instances of Interchange with the private sector and 525 instances of Interchange with the voluntary sector.

  All senior civil servants are on performance-related pay.
  145W

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much for each financial year from 1998–99 until the latest date for which sums have been allocated his Department has spent and expects to spend on the implementation of the Modernising Government White Paper. [143701]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 21 December 2000, Official Report, column 245–46W.

  Classified Material (Leak)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the report on the leak to Russian agents of EU classified material in Helsinki of September 1998; and if he will make a statement. [147521]

  Mr. Vaz
  This was dealt with primarily as a national matter by the Finns. We are not aware of any publishable Official Report into it.

  The Moluccas
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Moluccas regarding(a) security and (b) religious freedom. [147380]

  Mr. Battle
  The second anniversary of the outbreak of unrest in the Moluccas on 19 January was marked by renewed violence in Ambon. At least 14 people were killed in clashes between Moslems and security forces. This latest break-down illustrates the fragility of the security situation and has cast a shadow over recent improvements in Ambon, including the calm period over the Moslem and Christian holidays. We remain deeply concerned by reports of attempts to force Christians to convert to Islam in Kesuiu and Tior. The Governor of Maluku led a second mixed-faith Mission to the islands on 23 January. If necessary, the Miss ion will arrange to evacuate all those wishing to leave the islands. We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to exercise tolerance and restraint, and remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order and take immediate steps to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice. I did so most recently with Foreign Minister Shihab on 12 December.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long a person who applied for settlement at(a) each post in the Asian sub-continent, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Aluja, (e) Manila, (f) Bangkok, (g) Moscow and (h) Kingston in December 2000 can expect to wait for interview; and for how long the last people interviewed in each of these posts in December 2000 had waited. [147749]
  146W
  Mr. Vaz
  The settlement queue lengths (in weeks) at the end of December 2000 were:

  Sub-continent

  Post

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Dhaka

  14

  21

  14

  35

  Islamabad

  4

  17

  20

  28

  Bombay

  0

  6

  6

  6

  New Delhi

  0

  10

  10

  10

  The queue groupings are:

  Queue 1—Right of abode cases and Dependent Relatives over 65;

  Queue 2—Spouses and Children under 18;

  Queue 3—Fiance(e)s and Other First Time Applicants;

  Queue 4—Re-applicants.

  Other visa sections in the sub-continent have one queue for all settlement applications.

  Calcutta—0

  Colombo—9

  Karachi—11

  Madras—

  Other Posts

  Accra—27 (latest available information: October 2000)

  Lagos—9

  Abuja—5

  Manila—20

  Bangkok—6

  Moscow—4

  Kingston—2.

  We are obtaining from the Posts the answer to the second part of the question. When the information is available, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Iran
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent authorisations for the issue of export licences for Iran as exceptions to the national arms embargo there have been. [147699]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have recently issued a licence for the export of industrial gas turbine parts to Iran for civil end use. This particular industrial engine has been developed from a military engine and is commonly used to drive pumps and electric generators. The engine is not subject to export control when it is exported as a complete unit. However, when it is broken down into component form, a very small percentage of its parts are unchanged from their original form and, as military components, come within the scope of the UK's arms embargo and are controlled under Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  The Government are satisfied that Iran does not possess any aircraft powered by the original military engine, and that the risk of the components being diverted for use by the Iranian military is minimal.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral
  147W
  statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), of 9 January 2001, Official Report, column 194WH, what is the timetable of his feasibility study relating to environmental problems of BIOT. [146303]

  Mr. Battle
  We estimate that it will take at least a year to plan, undertake the complete scientific research and report on the work recommended as necessary by the independent consultants who conducted the preliminary study in 2000.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), of 9 January 2001,Official Report, column 194WH, what analysis he has made of who wants to return from (a) Mauritius and (b) the Seychelles to Diego Garcia and other atolls. [146304]

  Mr. Battle
  Our intention is to consult the Ilois during the further phases of the feasibility studies we are undertaking in order to establish how many Ilois, be they based in Mauritius or the Seychelles, may want to return either to visit or to settle in the Territory.

  China
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners were last raised with the Chinese Government; and what actions Her Majesty's Government plan to continue to make in this matter. [147977]

  Mr. Battle
  We have serious concerns about the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners in China and take every appropriate opportunity to raise these directly with the Chinese authorities. A list of individual cases of concern, including Falun Gong practitioners, was passed to the Chinese authorities during a call by the British Ambassador on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 January. Falun Gong was also discussed in detail during the last round of the UK/China human rights dialogue in London between 16–18 October. I personally raised Falun Gong with Chinese Ambassador Ma Zhengang on 20 June and 30 November 2000.

  We intend to raise the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners during the forthcoming sixth round of the UK/China human rights dialogue in Beijing between 12–14 February.

  Colombia
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in Colombia and on the support that Her Majesty's Government are making available to(a) the Colombian and (b) non-governmental organisations. [147023]

  Mr. Battle
  We fully support the efforts being made for peace and the protection of human rights and democracy in Colombia. The recent announcement of a preliminary agreement between the Colombian Government and the ELN is a welcome development. But we are concerned that peace talks between the Government and the FARC are at a standstill. In a statement issued on 19 January, we and our EU partners 148W
  urged the FARC to immediately resume negotiations and, to facilitate the peace talks, appealed for the demilitarised zone to be extended beyond the current deadline of 31 January.

  EU assistance for the peace process of 105 million euro over the period 2000–06 will support human rights, long-term economic and social development and an end to violence. The UK has played a leading role in helping to ensure that NGOs and civil society groups are fully involved. NGOs and civil society groups made a valuable contribution to meetings attended by the Colombian Government in Costa Rica on 17 October and Bogota on 24 October 2000. We shall continue to encourage this dialogue.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of plans for the international community to engage in efforts to aid the Colombian military with respect to combating drug trafficking. [147024]

  Mr. Battle
  Peace in Colombia will remain elusive until a concerted effort is made to tackle violence, inequality, poverty and social injustice and illegal drugs cultivation and trafficking. We and our EU partners place particular importance on the defence of human rights and international humanitarian law; assistance for victims of violence and the need to uphold the rule of law; protection of biodiversity and the environment; and support for regional co-operation. The EU package for Colombia of 105 million euro announced in October 2000 will focus on these areas. Our policy also stresses alternative development and voluntary eradication. US support for Colombia places a high priority on an anti-narcotics strategy, although a significant proportion of the US$1.3 billion package will also contribute to institutional-building, human rights and strengthening access to justice.

  We will continue to work with the Colombian authorities and local communities for long-term solutions.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with parties to the military conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [147019]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to his question on 24 January 2001,Official Report, column 594W.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Danish Presidency of the EU has placed on the agenda for its next meeting proposals for parliamentary oversight of the ESDP. [146458]

  Mr. Vaz
  The next Danish Presidency of the EU will not begin until the second half of 2002.

  The current Swedish Presidency have no plans for such a debate. The Prime Minister's Warsaw speech proposed a second chamber of the European Parliament, involving

  149W
  representatives of national Parliaments, which could provide democratic oversight at European level of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  The Nice Declaration on the Future of the Union agreed another IGC, to be convened in 2004, that would address, among other issues, the role of national Parliaments in the European architecture.

HEALTH

  French Beef
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Government have given to schools on the safety of French beef. [144310]

  Ms Stuart
  No specific advice has been issued to schools on this subject. The Government are advised on food safety issues by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA has assessed the safety of French beef, and has advised that there is virtually no risk from legally sold imported French beef—ie. beef from animals under the age of 30 months at time of slaughter.

  Information on the FSA's assessment is available on the agency's website and has been made available through news releases. Its advice to any consumer who may be concerned is to buy meat from reputable sources, and to ask the supplier for details of the origin of the meat.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations the Government have made to the European Commission concerning the safety of French beef. [144315]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Government discussed questions on the safety of French beef with the European Commission on several occasions during November and December 2000. These included the meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on November 20 and 21 and December 4, a telephone discussion between Sir John Krebs, Chairman of the Food Standards Agency, and Commissioner Byrne in December and meetings of the Standing Veterinary Committee and of the Beef Management Committee. The meetings discussed not only French beef but the safety of beef in the European Union generally.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Government provide to consumers regarding consumption of French beef included in products that are not labelled with the country of origin of their ingredients. [144393]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: Responsibility for the provision of advice on food safety matters rests with the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

  The FSA's advice to consumers is that legally sold imported beef from France poses no greater risk than United Kingdom beef. Imported processed meat products from countries with a record of BSE may pose a slightly higher risk than legally sold carcase meat, but that level of risk is considered to be within an acceptable range. The FSA has advised consumers who may remain concerned to buy meat or meat products only from reputable sources, and to ask their supplier about the country of origin of the product and the beef it contains.
  150W
  The FSA's advice on imported French beef is available on its website, and has been provided in press statements.

  BSE (Ireland)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision of the Food Standards Agency to Commission research by Dr. Christl Donnelly on the number of cases of BSE in the Republic of Ireland. [144326]

  Ms. Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: We welcome the decision by the Food Standards Agency to seek advice from Dr. Donnelly on BSE incidence in the Republic of Ireland. We expect the agency to make assessments of any possible risks on imported foods as well as domestic production, in order properly to advise the Government. Dr. Donnelly is a respected scientist in her field.

  In the view of the FSA, the best protection of the United Kingdom consumer continues to be the vigorous enforcement of the controls on specified risk material and of the prohibition on the sale for human consumption of beef from animals aged over 30 months at time of slaughter.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the HIV prevention moneys allocated to health authorities in 1998–99 was used for targeted prevention work with(a) people with family links or travelling to sub-Saharan Africa, (b) injecting drug users, (c) women having sex with people in at risk groups and (d) gay and bisexual men, based on AIDS Control Act reports submitted by his Department. [146571]

  Yvette Cooper
  £53.4 million was allocated to health authorities in 1998–99 for HIV prevention. Approximately 24 per cent. was targeted at gay and bisexual men, 13 per cent. at injecting drug users, 6 per cent. at people with links to sub-Saharan Africa and 4 per cent. at women partners of men in high risk groups.

  Vaccinations
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school children(a) nationally and (b) in Dorset have received BCG vaccinations during the 2000–01 academic year; and if he will make a statement. [147035]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information about BCG vaccinations is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1999–2000". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0026.htm.

  BCG vaccine is recommended for people at higher risk of exposure to tuberculosis (infants from certain ethnic groups at increased risk, those at occupational risk, and new immigrants from, and those travelling to, high risk areas for tuberculosis) and for previously unimmunised schoolchildren at the age of 10–14 years.

  In September 1999, the schools part of this programme was suspended following interruption of supply of vaccine due to problems in the manufacture of the only product licensed for use in the United Kingdom. Vaccine has

  151W
  remained available for all high risk groups throughout this time, and in July 2000 the schools programme in London was reinstated.

  Restoration of the remaining part of the schools programme will be announced in due course when supplies of vaccine allow.

  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to offer parents the choice of having their children vaccinated with individual inoculations for mumps, measles and rubella. [147451]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 430W.

  Alcohol Strategy
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on a national alcohol strategy; and if he will make a statement. [147879]

  Ms Stuart
  We remain committed to the publication of a cross Government strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, and we are working with key stakeholders across Government, the alcohol field and the alcohol industry to ensure that this commitment is delivered.

  Child Migrants (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the situation of former child migrants in Zimbabwe; [142820]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding former child migrants in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [142821]

  Mr. Hutton
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 December 2000, c.142W]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. I received representations from one former child migrant in Zimbabwe, in May last year, which were also passed on to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in July. I also understand that the British High Commission in Harare, Zimbabwe has recently received another.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Televised Trials
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to allow for the televising of trials. [146211]

  Mr. Lock
  No. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has made clear his view that court proceedings should not be televised.

  Court Security
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the adequacy of security measures during court hearings. [146212]
  152W
  Jane Kennedy
  The security of prisoners in custody (or in the dock) is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Prison Service.

  Risk in relation to physical security of Crown, county and combined courts is regularly assessed against an agreed set of minimum security standards. Each court is assessed at least every three years but more if circumstances dictate.

  Indeed, as a result of the recent incident involving Judge Goddard at the central criminal court, the Lord Chancellor has instituted a departmental security inquiry which will be looking at the reasons behind the incident, including the adequacy of communication and the security measures within the courtrooms themselves.

  Responsibility for security in magistrates courts rests with magistrates courts committees (MCCs) and it is expected that every MCC should conduct regular security risk assessments.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she last discussed the level of policing in the courts with chief constables; and if she will make a statement. [146216]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor has never discussed the level of policing in courts with chief constables. This is, however, something that is regularly undertaken by senior officials from his Department and which Presiding and Resident Judges have discussed with chief constables in the past.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations she has received regarding the closure of Crown courts; and if she will make a statement. [146213]

  Jane Kennedy
  None.

  Circuit Judges
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the number of(a) women circuit judges and (b) ethnic minority circuit judges. [146214]

  Mr. Lock
  On 1 January this year there were 574 circuit judges; 44 were women, an increase of 52 per cent. since May 1997; six circuit judges were of ethnic minority origin—this figure has remained static since May 1997. The Lord Chancellor is well aware that progress needs to be made so that the judiciary better reflects the society it serves and he is working hard to achieve that. This can only happen progressively as the pool of suitable candidates grows.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on his guidelines for funding rural magistrates courts. [146215]

  Jane Kennedy
  Each magistrates courts committee decides the number and location of courthouses in its area and how it spends the money it has been given.
  153W

  Family Graduated Fees Scheme
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress is being made on the new family graduated fees scheme; and if he will make a statement. [146217]

  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I have considered all the views and suggestions received from respondents to the consultation and have made final decisions on the structure of the scheme and the rates to be paid. A letter was sent on 29 January to the Chairman of the Bar Council and the President of the Law Society setting out our final proposals. A copy of the final structure document and the draft regulations which include a schedule of the fees have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Lay Magistracy
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on the relationship between lay magistrates and district judges. [R] [146218]

  Jane Kennedy
  We believe that there is bound to be a continuing and major role for the foreseeable future for both lay and professional judges in the criminal courts. Each brings a different approach and a different range of experience to the court; making effective use of that experience can only be to the benefit of the community.

  Judges (Training)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last reviewed the procedure for the training of judges. [146219]

  Mr. Lock
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, an independent body, chaired by Lord Justice Waller (a Lord Justice of Appeal). The Judicial Studies Board keeps the training it provides under constant review.

  Human Rights Act
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the resource implications for the work of his Department on the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [146220]

  Mr. Lock
  The Government have set aside £21 million for additional court sittings if they are required and £39 million for legal aid if it is required. For further detail, I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 21W, and 26 June 2000, Official Report, column 430W. In addition to this, training for staff in my Department was met within existing resources.

  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the judiciary have undergone training on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. [147450]

  Mr. Lock
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. In preparation for the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the Judicial Studies Board held a series of one-day training events to which every full-time and part-time judge in England and 154W
  Wales was invited. 3,491 members of the judiciary (including 67 chairmen and members of tribunals) attended these seminars.

  County Courts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on proposed closures of county courts. [146221]

  Mr. Lock
  The Court Service constantly reviews its estates in the light of workload trends, the state of the available facilities and the local court users' needs.

  On 15 February I published a consultation paper, "Modernising the Civil Courts". I hope the hon. Gentleman has read it and will take the time to respond.

  Robert Schuman Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which UK bodies receive moneys under the Robert Schuman Project on improving the awareness of community law within the legal professions. [147515]

  Mr. Lock
  Information concerning UK beneficiaries in the years 1997 and 1998 was contained in my written answer of 3 March 2000,Official Report, column 420W. There were no UK beneficiaries in 1999.

  In 2000, the following were selected for assistance: The General Council of the Bar of England and Wales, University College Northampton.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date the Lord Chancellor was guest of honour at a party at 80 Haymarket given by Mr. Srichand Hinduja and Mr. Gopichand Hinduja; and at whose instigation the party was arranged. [148002]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 29 January 2001,Official Report, column 71W.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he was first informed that Mr. Srichand Hinduja had submitted an application for citizenship to the Home Office. [148001]

  Mr. Lock
  Neither I nor the Lord Chancellor were informed at any time, or took any part in the application.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if Lucy Crone, part-time chairman of an employment tribunal, is a member of the Law Society of Scotland; and if he will make a statement on her credentials with respect to practising in Scottish law and holding the post of chairman of an employment tribunal. [147534]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I have been asked to reply.
  155W
  Part-time chairmen of employment tribunals in Scotland are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session in accordance with Section 5a of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1993.

  It would not be proper for me to comment on the credentials of a chairman with respect to practising Scottish law or holding office. However, I understand that Lucy Crone is a lawyer of many years standing who effectively carried out the role of a chairman in Scotland. She was not reappointed after 31 December 2000 and, although she is not a member of the Law Society of Scotland, I understand that she has practised in Scotland as a representative in front of employment tribunals for a period in excess of seven years.

SCOTLAND

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister concerning the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [146183]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Secretary of State and I have already met with the First Minister and discussed a range of topics and will meet with him regularly in the future, starting on Thursday.

  Employment (West Dumbartonshire)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on the Employment Service initiative 'Action for Jobs' in the West Dumbartonshire council area. [146184]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Early indications are that Action Teams are proving a success in helping unemployed people back to work. The Action Team in West Dumbartonshire has helped 60 long-term unemployed people find work since it started in October 2000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the trend in the level of unemployment in Scotland since May 1997. [146185]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest level since February 1976 and has fallen by 46,900 since spring 1997.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Glasgow, Baillieston are in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit. [146186]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In August 2000, there were about 2,000 families receiving Working Families Tax Credit in Glasgow, Baillieston.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact the national minimum wage has had on wage rates in Scotland. [146187]
  156W
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the effect of the national minimum wage on wage rates in Scotland. [146202]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Office for National Statistics' latest estimate of low pay shows that the national minimum wage is having a direct and beneficial impact on the pay of the lowest paid workers in Scotland. The latest data also show that it has helped close the gap between the highest and lowest earners and helped reduce the differential between men's and women's pay. This has been achieved without any discernible adverse impact on the economy. The minimum wage has benefited at least 110,000 workers in Scotland.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will hold local consultations on the UK Atomic Energy Authority's site restoration plan for Dounreay which was published on 9 October 2000. [146188]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK Atomic Energy Authority has initiated a series of consultation meetings on its proposals with the local and community councils and with other local interests. The authority has also indicated its intention to consult on key elements of the plan as and when individual projects are being considered.

  UKAEA's Site Restoration Plan for Dounreay will be subject to approval by the Nuclear Industries Inspectorate, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over the coming months.

  Gaelic Broadcasting
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has made to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the future of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. [146189]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our predecessors made a number of representations to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the future of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland. The Communications White Paper published on 12 December set out the Government's commitment to considering the recommendations of the Gaelic Broadcasting Taskforce Report and we will announce our response in due course.

  Highlands and Islands Economy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of the level of fuel prices on the economy of the highlands and islands. [146190]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The level of fuel prices is only one of a number of factors, which impact upon the highlands and islands economy, and needs to be seen in the context of overall UK fiscal policy.

  The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report will bring significant benefits to the highland and islands economy. Notably, the extension of the lower rate of vehicle excise duty to include cars up to 1500cc will benefit over 40,000 motorists in the highlands and islands.
  157W
  Fuel duty will be frozen for two years and reduced for cleaner fuels. Hauliers will benefit from the proposed reform of vehicle excise duty and the freeze in duty on "red" diesel. The abolition of Vehicle Excise Duty on tractors and other agricultural vehicles will benefit around 9,000 agricultural producers in the highlands and islands.

  Civil Service Transfers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation she has had with the First Minister on arrangements made between the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive regarding Civil Service transfers. [146191]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is a member of the Scottish Administration Employment Network, which brings together the various departments and agencies with common employment interests, and of the Scottish Interchange Network, which promotes staff loans among Government Departments in Scotland.

  New Deal
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the New Deal 50 plus in Scotland. [146192]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The introduction of New Deal 50 plus has proved an effective means of helping people over 50 return to work. 3,061 people aged 50 and over have entered work and benefited from the programme in the form of employment credits of up to £60 per week which guarantee a minimum full-time wage of £9,000 per annum.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have secured jobs in Scotland as a result of the New Deal; and if she will make a statement. [146193]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The New Deal has been a tremendous success in Scotland with nearly 45,000 people going into jobs as a result of their participation in the New Deal for Young People, New Deal 25 plus, New Deal for Lone Parents and New Deal 50 plus.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost of the New Deal Scotland was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 and the budgeted cost for (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [145651]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure for all New Deals in Scotland is: 1997–98 £1.3 million; 1998–99 £21.0 million; 1999–2000 £48.0 million and anticipated expenditure for 2000–01 £53.5 million. The estimated budget allocation for 2001–02 is £63.6 million. It is not possible to provide an estimate of Scotland's New Deal budget for 2002–03 because this information about future years funding is available only at GB level.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average cost has been of the New Deal scheme per number of jobs created in Scotland. [145652]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  New Deal is not a job creation scheme. By the end of October 2000 the cost per person moving into work has been on average approximately £4,000.
  158W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the average cost has been for an individual to complete the New Deal scheme. [145653]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  To the end of October 2000 the New Deal for Young People (NDYP) has cost on average approximately £2,000 for each participant who has started the programme.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice she received from the Treasury on the implications of the Scottish teachers' pay settlement. [146194]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None. This is a devolved matter.

  EU Councils
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what European Union Councils and other multilateral intervention meetings(a) she and (b) the Minister of State have attended since 1 July 1999. [146195]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. Scottish interests are fully considered in the formulation of the Government's position at such meetings through the normal processes of Cabinet Government in which we play a full part.

  Textiles Industry
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she has taken to safeguard the future of the textiles industry in Scotland. [146196]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I shall be working very closely with the Scottish Executive and with the Scottish textile industry to ensure that the industry achieves the necessary level of competitiveness to succeed in both domestic and world markets.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the implications of the trade dispute between the United States of America and the European Union on the Scottish textile industry. [146201]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have not yet had any indication of how the new US regime will address this dispute.

  However, we will continue to work with the Commission and other member states to achieve a solution to the dispute with the US and to reduce the risk of further retaliatory action by the US authorities which could be particularly damaging to the cashmere industry as well as to other businesses in Scotland.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the representation of Scottish fishing interests in the Council of Ministers. [146197]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have had no recent meetings with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry. Fisheries are devolved. Representation of Scottish fishing interests in the Council of Ministers falls to Scottish Executive
  159W
  Ministers as part of the UK team. Scottish Executive Ministers have attended all Fisheries Council meetings since 1 July 1999.

  Devolution Costs
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate she has made of the additional public expenditure on institutions and administration in consequence of devolution in Scotland. [146198]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The costs of bodies funded from the Scottish Assigned Budget and of the Scotland Office have been met from within the resources made available under the Barnett Formula.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many asylum seekers were residing in Scotland in(a) May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available. [146199]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Figures for the number of asylum seekers residing in Scotland in May 1997 are not available.

  610 principal asylum seekers were being supported by local authorities in Scotland prior to 3 April 2000, when the National Asylum Support Service assumed responsibility for all new asylum seekers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This figure is calculated annually, in February, and I understand that there has been no substantial change since then.

  In addition, under separate arrangements with London boroughs, before the 1999 Act came into effect, Glasgow placed in accommodation in the region of 140 principal asylum seekers (570 individuals). Such placements ceased in June 2000. As at 16 January 2001, 560 individuals were being accommodated under the London borough arrangements.

  Glasgow City is currently the only local authority in Scotland providing services for asylum claimants under the 1999 Act. At 16 January 2001 it was accommodating 785 principal asylum seekers (2,350 individuals) under the new arrangements.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many asylum seekers have been placed in Scotland under the dispersal scheme. [146203]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At 16 January 2001, 785 principal asylum seekers (2,350 individuals) were being accommodated in Scotland under the dispersal scheme implemented by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the future of oil and gas industry businesses in Scotland. [146200]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government and industry are working together through PILOT, of which I am a member, to ensure that Scotland and the UK remain a centre of profitable activity well into the new century.
  160W
  There is confidence in the UK Continental Shelf as a place to do business, with increased investment intentions, more development projects being brought forward and renewed interest in previously undeveloped fields and the commercial co-operation needed to access them.

  Defence Procurement
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the First Minister to discuss the impact of defence procurement on levels of employment in Scotland. [146180]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Secretary of State and I have already met with the First Minister and discussed a range of issues. Defence procurement is significant for employment in Scotland. The Defence Analytical Services Agency estimates 6,000 jobs in Scotland directly resultant from Ministry of Defence equipment expenditure.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Road Traffic Offences
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland what advice she has given on the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right of the accused to remain silent on the prosecution of road traffic offences; and if she will make a statement. [146205]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I give advice to Departments on various matters. In November last year I made submissions in the Privy Council about this topic in the "Brown" case to the effect that the current legislation was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Privy Council decision is now publicly available. No incompatibility was found by the Court.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Advocate-General for Scotland if she will make a statement about the implications of the MacIntosh case in relation to the confiscation of criminal assets of convicted offenders. [146206]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, their Lordships in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council heard this case over two days last week. I appeared in person to present arguments which reflected the position of the UK Government. A decision is awaited, and when it is made the implications will be fully assessed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will come into force. [148156]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A number of the provisions came into force on Royal Assent or on dates fixed by the Act. I have today made a commencement order bringing into force the majority of the remaining provisions of the Act.
  161W
  The controls on donations to political parties and on election campaign expenditure by political parties and third parties will be among those that come into force on 16 February 2001. A registered political party will be required to submit its first quarterly donations report (detailing donations above £5,000 accepted by the party's central organisation and donations above £1,000 accepted at local level) to the Electoral Commission by 30 April 2001, whereupon it will be published. Similar controls on donations will apply to right hon. and hon. Members and

  Section/Schedule of Act

  Timing of commencement

  Part I (The Electoral Commission)

  Sections 1 to 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 (The Electoral Commission and Speaker's Committee)

  On Royal Assent (ie on 30 November 2000)

  Sections 4 (Parliamentary Parties Panel); five (Reports on elections and referendums); six [except subsection (l)(c)-(d)] (Reviews of electoral and political matters); seven (Commission to be consulted on changes to electoral law); eight (Powers with respect to elections exercisable only on Commission recommendation); 10 (Giving advice and assistance); eleven (Broadcasters to have regard to Commission's views in party political broadcasts); 12 (Policy development grants); and 21 (Interpretation of Part I).

  16 February 2001

  Sections 9 (Involvement of Commission in changes in electoral procedures); and 13 (Education about electoral and democratic systems)

  1 July 2001

  Part II (Registration of Political Parties)

  Sections 22 (Parties to be registered in order to field candidates); 23 (The new registers); 24 to 27 (Preliminary requirements); 28 to 35 (Registration) and 37 to 40 (Supplemental) and Schedule 4 (Applications under Part II).

  16 February 2001

  Section 36 (Assistance by the Commission for existing registered parties)

  Two weeks after Royal Assent (ie on 14 December 2000)

  Part IV (Control of donations to registered parties and their members etc.)—Sections 50 to 71 and Schedules 6 and 7

  16 February 2001

  Part V (Control of campaign expenditure)—Sections 72 to 84 and Schedules 8 and 9

  16 February 2001

  Part VI (Controls relating to third party national election campaigns)—Sections 85 to 100 and Schedules 10 and 11

  16 February 2001

  Part VII (Referendums)—Sections 101 to 129 and Schedules 12 to 15

  16 February 2001

  Part VIII (Election campaigns and proceedings) Section 130 and Schedule 16 (Control of donations to candidates), Section 132(2) to (4) and (6) (Financial limits applying to candidates' election expenses); Section 134 (Meaning of "election expenses"); 135 (Meaning of "candidate"); and paragraphs 3 to 5, 7, 10, ll(a), (b)& (d), 15 & 16 of Schedule 18.

  1 July 2001

  Sections 131 (Election expenses incurred otherwise than by candidate); 132(1) & (5) (Financial limits applying to candidates' election expenses); 133 (Power to vary provisions about election expenses); 136 (Corrupt and illegal practices: consequences for persons convicted of such practices); 137 and Schedule 17 (Corrupt and illegal practices: election petitions etc.); and 138 and paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 1 l(c), 12 to 14, and 17 to 19 of Schedule 18 (Election campaigns and proceedings: miscellaneous amendments)

  16 February 2001

  Part IX (Political donations and expenditure by companies)—Sections 139 and 140 and Schedule 19

  16 February 2001

  Part X (Miscellaneous and General) Sections 142 (Pre—consolidation amendments); 143 (Details to appear on election material); 145 to 148 (Enforcement of Act); 149 (Inspection of Commission's registers etc.); 150 to 154 and Schedule 20 (Provisions relating to offences); 155 (Power to vary specified sums); 157 (Documents for purposes of the Act); 158 (Minor and consequential amendments and repeals); 161 (Interpretation: donations); and 162 (Interpretation: exempt trust donations).

  16 February 2001

  Section 144 (Broadcasting of local items during election period)

  16 March 2001

  Sections 156 (Orders and regulations); 159 (Financial provisions); 160 (General interpretation) and 163 (Short title, commencement, transitional provisions and extent) and Part II of Schedule 23 (Other transitional provisions)

  On Royal Assent (ie on 30 November 2000)

  162W
  other holders of elective office. Returns as to election spending will normally need to be submitted to the Commission within three months of the date of an election, or within six months where the return is required to be audited (because the expenditure exceeds £250,000). Other provisions of the Act will come into force on 16 March and 1 July 2001.

  The commencement dates for the provisions covered by the order, or which are already in force, are set out in the table:
  163W

  Section/Schedule of Act

  Timing of commencement

  Schedule 21 (Minor and consequential amendments)

  Paragraphs: 1 to 5; 6(1), (5), (6), (7)(b) amp; (c), (8) amp; (9); 8 to 11, 12(2) amp; (3); and 13 to 15

  16 February 2001

  Paragraphs: 6(2) amp; (7)(d) and 16 to 18

  1.July 2001

  Paragraphs: 12(2) (3)

  On Royal Assent (ie on 30 November 2000)

  Schedule 22 (Repeals)

  As with corresponding provisions

  Part I of Schedule 23 (Transfer of Registration of existing registered parties).

  Two weeks after Royal Assent (ie on 14 December 2000)

  Those provisions of the Act not listed in the table will be brought into force by means of one or more subsequent commencement orders at a date or dates to be announced.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limits will be in place on election expenditure by political parties and third parties for the next general election. [148157]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 imposes limits on campaign expenditure by registered political parties in the 365 days prior to the date of a parliamentary general election. The maximum amount a party may spend is determined by the number of constituencies contested. A party receives an allowance of £30,000 for each constituency contested, subject to a minimum threshold. A party contesting every constituency in the United Kingdom would therefore be subject to a limit on campaign expenditure of £19.77 million during the normal 365 day period.

  I have today made a commencement order bringing Schedule 9 into force on 16 February 2001. As provided for, in section 163(6) of the Act, the order includes transitional provisions specifying a lower limit on campaign expenditure that will apply if the next general election is held less than 365 days after 16 February. In such circumstances, the allowance per constituency contested will be as follows:

  Period before date of election

  Revised allowance Per constituency contested (£)

  Limit on party of contesting all 659 seats (£)

  0–3 months

  22,500

  14.8275

  3–4 months

  24,000

  15.816

  4–5 months

  25,500

  16.8045

  5–6 months

  27,000

  17.793

  6–9 months

  28,500

  18.7815

  9–12 months

  30,000

  19.77

  Paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to the Act imposes separate limits on controlled expenditure by recognised third parties in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again these limits would normally apply in the period of 365 days before the date of a parliamentary general election. If the next election is held less than 365 days after 16 February, however, the following revised limits will apply.
  164W

  £

  Limit on controlled expenditure in

  Period before date of election

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  0–3 months

  595,125

  81,000

  45,000

  20,250

  741,375

  3–4 months

  634,800

  86,400

  48,000

  21,600

  790,800

  4–5 months

  674,475

  91,800

  51,000

  22,950

  840,225

  5–6 months

  714,150

  97,200

  54,000

  24,300

  889,650

  6–9 months

  753,825

  102,600

  57,000

  25,650

  939,075

  9–12 months

  793,500

  108,000

  60,000

  27,000

  988,500

  The limits on national campaign expenditure by political parties and third parties complement rather than replace the long-standing local limits on candidates' and third party expenses provided for in the Representation of the People Act 1983.

  Police Officers (Working Hours)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average working hours of police officers in inspecting ranks in each of the last five years. [147069]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data on the working hours of police officers in inspecting ranks are not held centrally.

  Eurojust
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the judicial co-operation unit of the EU, to be known as Eurojust, to be established. [147164]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The decision to establish Eurojust was taken at the special European Council meeting held at Tampere, Finland in October 1999. The Justice and Home Affairs Council was requested to adopt the necessary legal instrument by the end of 2001.

  The objective of Eurojust will be to improve co-ordination and co-operation among national prosecuting authorities, supporting, but not directing, their investigations and prosecutions of serious crime affecting two or more member states.

  Negotiations on the draft Council Decision establishing Eurojust are under way. The Government are a full and active participant in these negotiations, supporting the effort to meet the deadline laid down at Tampere.

  A Council Decision to establish a Provisional Judicial Co-operation Unit, or "provisional Eurojust", was adopted in December last year. The Provisional Unit will act as a

  165W
  forerunner to Eurojust, and the experience gained through its activities will be used to inform the negotiations on Eurojust. The Provisional Unit will begin its activities early in March 2001.

  European Police College
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the proposed European Police College to be established. [147165]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The European Police College came into operation on 1 January 2001, in accordance with the Council Decision which was adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 30 November 2000.

  The decision about the location of a permanent Secretariat and the appointment of an Administrative Director will be taken under the Swedish Presidency. The United Kingdom intends to submit a bid to host the Secretariat based on National Police Training premises.

  Noise Act
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful(a) private and (b) local authority prosecutions have been brought under the Noise Act 1996 in each year since its enactment.[147208]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Limited information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Noise Act 1996, is given in the table.

  Number of defendants prosecuted for offences under the Noise Act 1996 by type of proceedings and result, 1997–99

  Type of proceedings

  Summons by Police

  Summons other police than by police 1

  Total

  1997

  Prosecuted

  1

  4

  2

  Convicted

  —

  2

  2

  1998

  Prosecuted

  —

  2

  2

  Convicted

  —

  2

  2

  1999

  Prosecuted

  —

  2

  2

  Convicted

  —

  1

  1

  1 Limited data and information are held centrally on the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database for summary offences. For these offences, it is not possible to identify further who issued the summons.

  Information Technology Projects
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the information technology projects undertaken by his Department, including the date each project started, the planned date for completion, the current expected date of completion, the planned cost of the project and the current estimate of total cost; and if he will make a statement. [145696]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The current major Information Technology (IT) projects within my Department and its agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies) are listed in a table that
  166W
  has been placed in the Library. The information in the table covers those IT projects where (a) the cost or value of the project exceeds £5 million or (b) the project is essential for delivery of core objectives or services.

  In addition to the projects listed in the table, the National Probation Service Information and Technology Programme also falls within the definition given. It aims to meet the short, medium and long-term needs of the new National Probation Service, including addressing the shortcomings of the existing software applications available to Probation Service areas under the National Probation Service Information Systems Strategy (NPSISS) programme, which was initiated in 1993, and is now drawing to a close. Implementation of NPSISS is under review by the National Audit Office.

  The immediate needs are being addressed through a Service Management Plan, and a project has been initiated to procure a service provider from late 2001–02 as an interim step while strategic arrangements are put in place for the longer term. The programme has not yet been fully costed. The two main procurement projects within it will be subject to review under the Gateway procedures by the Office for Government Commerce.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since he became Home Secretary he has met(a) Mr. Srichand Hinduja and (b) Mr. Gopichand Hinduja; and what was discussed. [148000]

  Mr. Straw
  I may have been present at functions which were also attended by Mr. Srichand Hinduja and Mr. Gopichand Hinduja but to the best of my recollection I have not met either Mr. Srichand Hinduja or Mr. Gopichand Hinduja, nor have I had any official meetings with them.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which dates since he became Home Secretary he has visited the Hindu Temple in Neasden; at whose instigation the visits were organised; and on how many occasions(a) Mr. Srichand Hinduja and (b) Mr. Gopichand Hinduja were present. [148003]

  Mr. Straw
  I have visited the Hindu Temple in Neasden once, on 31 August last year as part of preparations for my official visit to India in September. The suggestion came from my officials, as my itinerary in India included a visit to the Akshadham Swaminarayan Temple in Ahmedabad, a sister temple to the Hindu Temple in Neasden. I do not know whether Mr. Srichand Hinduja or Mr. Gopichand Hinduja were at the temple in Neasden when I visited, but to the best of my recollection I met neither of them there.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received, on what dates, from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), concerning the applications for naturalisation from(a) Mr. Srichand Hinduja and (b) Mr. G. P. Hinduja; and if he will make a statement. [147884]
  167W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Lord Levy has(a) made inquiries, (b) made representations and (c) submitted material in connection with applications for citizenship made by (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja. [147988]

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations were made to him in relation to the application by Mr. G. P. Hinduja for British citizenship; and if he will make a statement; [147994]

  (2) what contact was made with the Indian authorities about Mr. S. P. Hinduja's business dealings before his application for British citizenship was considered; and if he will make a statement; [147993]

  (3) when he was first informed of Mr. S. P. Hinduja's application for citizenship; and if he will make a statement. [147992]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 24 January that he had asked former Treasury Solicitor, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, to review the full circumstances surrounding approaches to the Home Office in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. Sir Anthony started his review on Thursday 25 January. After an initial reading of the papers, Sir Anthony has decided that, in order to fulfil the terms of reference of his review of the application for naturalisation of S. P. Hinduja, it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances of the granting of naturalisation in respect of G. P. Hinduja because the circumstances of both applications are closely related. For the same reason, he has also decided that it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances surrounding the inquiries about naturalisation in respect of Prakesh Hinduja.

  Sir Anthony aims to complete his review as quickly as possible, consistently with the need to conduct a thorough investigation. I understand that on the information currently available to Sir Anthony, he hopes to complete the review by the end of February. The report will be published and copies will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the applications for naturalisation from(a) Mr. Srichand Hinduja and (b) Mr. G. P. Hinduja were processed and determined other than by routine date order of application; and if he will make a statement. [147602]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library the note of his Minister's conversation with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) concerning Mr. S. Hinduja's qualification for British citizenship; [147794]

  (2) who made the decision to grant naturalisation to Mr. S. Hinduja; [147808]

  (3) if the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) contacted (a) Ministers and (b) officials at the Home Office concerning the Hinduja case. [147793]
  168W
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1997 Ministers have made representations to the Home Office on behalf of the Hindujas. [147727]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister announced on 24 January that he had asked former Treasury Solicitor, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, to review the full circumstances surrounding approaches to the Home Office in connection with the possibility of an application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. Sir Anthony started his review on Thursday 25 January. After an initial reading of the papers, Sir Anthony has decided that, in order to fulfil the terms of reference of his review of the application for naturalisation of S. P. Hinduja, it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances of the granting of naturalisation in respect of G. P. Hinduja because the circumstances of both applications are closely related. For the same reason, he has also decided that it is appropriate for him to look at the circumstances surrounding the inquiries about naturalisation in respect of Prakesh Hinduja.

  Sir Anthony aims to complete his review as quickly as possible, consistently with the need to conduct a thorough investigation. I understand that on the information currently available to Sir Anthony, he hopes to complete the review by the end of February. The report will be published and copies will be placed in the Vote Office and the Library. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of this review.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees were held in prison establishments(a) in January 2000, (b) in January 1997 and (c) on the last date for which figures are available; what entitlements detainees have while held in prison; and if he will make a statement. [148010]

  Mrs. Roche
  We differentiate between those Prison Service establishments where immigration detainees have separate facilities from the rest of the establishment, where it is possible to provide a regime that reflects more closely that which operates inside an Immigration Detention Centre, and mainstream prisons where detainees are afforded the same conditions as remand prisoners. Separate facilities have been provided at Her Majesty's Prison Rochester, Her Majesty's Prison Haslar for some time and since July 2000 at Her Majesty's Prison Lindholme.

  Figures relating to the number of immigration detainees in prisons in January 1997 are not available in the same detail as those for 2000. At that time details were recorded of the number of persons detained in prisons who had sought asylum at some stage. I have included these in the table, marked with an asterix.

  January 1997

  January 2000

  December 2000

  Haslar

  *92

  156

  120

  Rochester

  *139

  193

  177

  Lindholme

  *0

  0

  105

  Mainstream prisons

  *93

  167

  387

  Total

  *324

  516

  789

  169W
  The higher use of prisons in December 2000 is a reflection of the temporary use of 500 Prison Service places, for about 12 months, to support the removals programme.

  Within a local prison immigration detainees are entitled to the same rights and privileges, and are managed in the same manner, as unconvicted prisoners. Detainees have access to books, newspapers, writing materials and other means of occupation of their choice and at their own expense. They are permitted to wear their own clothing. They are entitled to an unlimited number of visits, within the capacity of the establishment, and there is no restriction on the number of letters they may receive or send. They have access to legal and consular representatives and are afforded full use of Prison Service medical services. The Immigration Service ensures that Immigration Officers regularly visit prisons to provide information to detainees about the progress of their case.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the NASS has been notified, following an inspection by a local environmental health officer, that NASS-contracted accommodation is of an unacceptable standard; if he will provide details in respect of each case of notification; and if he will make a statement. [148024]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have received one formal notice that a property is not in compliance with the local authority regulations. This is a preliminary notification received from Liverpool city council of an intention to issue an enforcement notice regarding overcrowding.

  The National Asylum Support Service has also been made aware of 17 cases contained in a report received from Manchester city council where the local authority was proposing to issue notices should remedial work not be carried out by the landlord.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the units of accommodation inspected directly by the NASS were found to be(a) of an acceptable standard and (b) of an unacceptable standard; and if he will make a statement. [148025]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of the properties inspected 18 have been found to be unacceptable and removed from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) database until brought up to a standard acceptable to NASS.

  2,290 properties have been inspected and found to be either acceptable or requiring remedial works that are not such to render the property unacceptable.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what enforcement action the NASS has taken to ensure that its contractors comply with statutory and contractual standards of accommodation and management; and if he will make a statement. [148026]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has a dedicated team of contract managers to ensure that all providers of accommodation meet their statutory and contractual obligations. A Performance Monitoring Inspections team, which monitors housing management procedures, supplements the work of these officials. NASS has also engaged the services of Property 170W
  Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) to provide professional property advice and support. Where necessary NASS commissions surveys and inspections from third-party building surveyors.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the units of accommodation procured by the NASS have been inspected since 1 April 2000 by(a) the NASS performance monitoring inspection teams, (b) the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate and (c) local environmental health officers; and if he will make a statement. [148023]

  Mrs. Roche
  (a) 445 properties have been inspected by the Performance Monitoring Teams since going live on 1 October 2000.

  (b) As of 26 January 2001, 3,308 properties have been inspected by the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) which represent 100 per cent. of the private sector contracts that were on the database on 1 October 2000 and 5 per cent. of the public sector provided property.

  Of the property that has been added to the database since 1 October, 55 per cent. has been inspected in the private sector and 5 per cent. of the public sector properties.

  (c) We are unable to give information on how many properties have been inspected by the local authority environmental health officers since their findings are sent to the landlords and not the National Asylum Support Service.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by the NASS about the standards of accommodation, management or support provided by the NASS accommodation providers; if he will provide details of each complaint; and if he will make a statement. [148027]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Performance Monitoring Inspections (PMI) Team of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has received 196 complaints about standards of accommodation, housing management or support services. Information on the details of individual complaints could be provided only at disproportionate cost but typical complaints include: quantity/quality/type of food, problems with heating/hot water systems, general condition of accommodation or furnishings and problems accessing local health/education services. NASS has worked with refugee organisations to develop a referral process and form to assist supported persons with raising accommodation related issues with NASS.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate are asked to use when inspecting the standards of accommodation procured by the NASS; if they are asked to take into account the standard of accommodation in relation to the needs of the occupants; and if he will make a statement. [148028]

  Mrs. Roche
  The criteria used is that contained in the Contract Specification and the requirement of the provider to comply with all Acts of Parliament and regulations made by local authorities. The standard applied is the higher of the two.
  171W
  There is no brief to take into account the specific needs of individual occupants, the accommodation being general housing provision and not special needs housing.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated net changes in police recruitment are in each force and in total in(a) the current year and (b) the next two years based on information given by forces in bids for the Crime Fighting Fund and funding allocations made under the fund; and if he will make a statement. [148014]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In their bids for a share of the recruitment scheme of the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF), made in January 2000, forces provided information on their projected recruitment in each of the years 2000–01 to 2002–03.

  Net changes to that previously planned recruitment by forces will result from the allocation of extra recruits from the CFF. The net change is expected to total 9,000 recruits over the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03. The table shows the current force allocations from the CFF for each year.

  Some forces have asked to defer part of their CFF allocation into the next financial year and other forces have asked to bring forward CFF recruitment from next financial year into this year. In total, forces have been given authority for a net deferral of up to 250 CFF recruits from 2000–01 to 2001–02.

  The current allocations for each force vary, however, with changes to the forces' recruitment plans. The latest estimates, shown in the table, include an expected net deferral of 210 CFF recruits from 2000–01 to 2001–02.

  CFF Allocation 2000–01

  CFF Allocation 2001–02

  CFF Allocation 2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  67

  51

  77

  Bedfordshire

  28

  31

  31

  Cambridgeshire

  26

  34

  24

  Cheshire

  28

  69

  50

  City of London

  0

  23

  15

  Cleveland

  20

  27

  27

  Cumbria

  25

  23

  26

  Derbyshire

  65

  39

  54

  Devon and Cornwall

  77

  79

  79

  Dorset

  46

  9

  30

  Durham

  32

  27

  38

  Dyfed-Powys

  25

  38

  16

  Essex

  0

  132

  65

  Gloucestershire

  29

  35

  22

  Greater Manchester

  131

  256

  201

  Gwent

  46

  3

  32

  Hampshire

  20

  139

  84

  Hertfordshire

  0

  70

  37

  Humberside

  47

  41

  49

  Kent

  112

  62

  76

  Lancashire

  83

  69

  74

  Leicestershire

  46

  56

  38

  Lincolnshire

  29

  18

  29

  Merseyside

  125

  93

  114

  Metropolitan

  548

  814

  682

  Norfolk

  41

  41

  31

  North Wales

  34

  32

  38

  North Yorkshire

  20

  23

  25

  Northamptonshire

  64

  0

  26

  Northumbria

  71

  101

  82

  Nottinghamshire

  52

  53

  52

  172W

  CFF Allocation 2000–01

  CFF Allocation 2001–02

  CFF Allocation 2002–03

  South Wales

  59

  49

  50

  South Yorkshire

  67

  61

  69

  Staffordshire

  49

  51

  46

  Suffolk

  31

  21

  31

  Surrey

  94

  0

  40

  Sussex

  51

  82

  73

  Thames Valley

  42

  177

  106

  Warwickshire

  35

  0

  24

  West Mercia

  70

  39

  43

  West Midlands

  222

  130

  171

  West Yorkshire

  107

  91

  94

  Wiltshire

  26

  21

  29

  Total

  2,790

  3,210

  3,000

  Note

  Allocations may differ from previously published figures, as they include agreed acceleration or deferral of CFF recruits between 2000–01 and 2001–02. In the case of the Metropolitan police agreement has been given to defer up to 155 CFF recruits from 2000–01 into 2001–02, but the force now expects to defer only 115.

  Licensing Laws
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his response to the consultation document on modernising licensing laws. [147876]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are grateful to all those who commented on the White Paper, 'Time for Reform", which we published last year; and have been considering them with care. We intend to announce within the next few weeks how we propose to proceed.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he will take of local authority administrative costs when formulating new regulations for the proposed new licensing regime. [147877]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the proposals for reform of the licensing laws set out in our White Paper, 'Time for Reform", the costs of administering the new licensing system would be recovered in full through fees from licensees. We shall continue to discuss fee structures with the Local Government Association and other interested bodies.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public interest immunity certificates(a) he, (b) Ministers of State, (c) junior Ministers and (d) civil servants in his Department have signed in each calendar year from 30 May 1997. [147730]

  Mr. Straw
  In the calendar year from 30 May 1997, I signed seven public interest immunity certificates. In addition, one certificate was signed by a Minister of State at the Home Office.

  In the calendar year from 30 May 1998, I signed six such certificates.

  In the calendar year from 30 May 1999, I signed seven such certificates.

  In the calendar year from 30 May 2000, I have signed four such certificates.
  173W
  No such certificates have been signed by junior Ministers or civil servants in this period nor, with the exception of one such certificate signed in the calendar year from 30 May 1997, by a Minister of State.

  These figures do not include certificates which may, exceptionally, have been issued and considered by the court without notice of their existence being given to the other parties in the case.

  Police Volunteers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken on supporting volunteers who work for the police, with special reference to staffing police stations. [147979]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No central support has been provided specifically for volunteers who staff police stations. The staffing of police stations by civilian volunteers is a result of local community initiatives between the police, the civilian volunteers, and civilian volunteer organisations.

  The use of such volunteers by the police is an operational issue to be decided by the Chief Officer of a police force. The matter is most effectively addressed at a local rather than national level, as it is local needs that are being served. Many forces make use of civilian volunteers although the work they undertake varies.

  I appreciate the work volunteers undertake to support the police. Such work is an excellent example of the community and the police working together.

  Fire Service (Communications Systems)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of digital trunked radio technologies for the Fire Service as a replacement radio system developed specifically to cater for voice communications and data message transfer. [147627]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office has procured specialist consultancy advice on how fire authorities can best meet their future mobile communications and control room requirements. Guidance to fire authorities on control room requirements has already been published; further guidance on radio bearer Systems will be published shortly.

  Digital trunked solutions to the fire service's requirements have been considered as have other options. Future procurements by authorities are expected to be undertaken on the basis of competition against an output-based specification related to performance.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approach will be used in the procurement process for future radio Systems for the fire service; and what assistance will be offered to the Fire Service to meet best value targets. [147628]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have recently consulted representatives of the Local Government Association and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association about how to ensure that fire authorities secure value for 174W
  money in procuring their future communications systems, particularly replacement radio bearer systems. I have since written to those representatives and am now seeking the agreement of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its meeting on 6 February to the strategy that has been proposed. I am sending a copy of that letter, which sets out the intended strategy, to my hon. Friend and am also placing copies in the Library.

  Ministers of Religion (House of Commons)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the categories of ministers of religion who are barred from becoming hon. Members, indicating the statutory basis for their debarment; what plans he has to review the laws to revoke their prohibition; and if he will make a statement. [147703]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The statutory provisions which bar ministers of religion from becoming hon. Members are set out in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and section 9 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. The clergy referred to in these two enactments are"person(s) having been ordained to the officer of priest or deacon, or being a minister of the Church of Scotland"
  and
  "person(s) in holy orders in the Church of Rome."

  The House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill was introduced in the House on 25 January. It removes disqualification from membership of the House of Commons that arises by reason of a person having been ordained or being a minister of religious denomination, but continues the disqualification of Lords Spiritual.

  Public Disorder (Fixed Penalty Notices)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place the responses to 'Reducing Public Disorder-The Role of Fixed Penalty Notices', in the Library. [147399]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: I am making arrangements for copies of the responses to the consultation paper to be placed in the Library shortly. The responses will be held in the Library for six months.

  Criminal Justice and Police Bill
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in(a) 1999 and (b) the most recent period for which figures are available (i) how many persons aged over 18 years were (1) charged and (2) convicted of each of the offences listed in Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, (ii) how many persons aged under 18 years were so (1) charged and (2) convicted, and (iii) what was the average age of those so (1) charged and (2) convicted. [147476]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 26 January 2001]: Information on the number of persons charged is not available centrally.

  However, available information taken from the Home Office court proceedings database on the number of persons prosecuted or convicted is given in the tables.
  175W
  The 'average' age of defendants prosecuted or offenders convicted cannot be determined for summary offences because unreported ages or dates of birth, or incompatible ages for sentences given, are converted to

  Table A: Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences as listed in Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill by age, England and Wales, 1999

  Age and offence description

  Total proceeded against

  Total convicted

  Aged under 181

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  71

  52

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  15

  9

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  19

  16

  Sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act-not available separately

  243

  178

  Section 169c(3) of the Licensing Act 1964

  1

  —

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  2,473

  1,698

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

  4

  4

  Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-summary only

  9,323

  6,092

  Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984-subsection l.b not available separately

  123

  75

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986-excludes offence of racially aggravated (this section as. amended by Crime and Disorder Act)

  4,047

  2,500

  Aged 18 and over1

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  3,442

  3,082

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  26

  17

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  57

  47

  Sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act-not available separately

  1,664

  1,327

  Section 169c(3) of the Licensing Act 1964

  5

  3

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  28,579

  23,174

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal law Act 1967,

  69

  49

  Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-summary only

  31,297

  21,796

  Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984-subsection l.b not available separately

  1,110

  645

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986-excludes offence of racially aggravated (this section as amended by Crime and Disorder Act)

  20,851

  14,452

  1 Information received concerning summary offences does not always record the age or date of birth of the defendant. As such, these data are estimated to be aged 25 on the Home Office court proceedings database.

  Table B: Number of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences as listed in Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill by age, England and Wales, Ql 20001

  Age and offence description

  Total proceeded against

  Total convicted

  Aged under 181

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  13

  13

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  9

  6

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  3

  2

  Sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act-not available separately

  46

  34

  Section 169c(3) of the Licensing Act 1964

  —

  —

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  563

  431

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

  2

  1

  Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-summary only

  2,529

  1,734

  Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984-subsection l.b not available separately

  28

  23

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986-excludes offence of racially aggravated (this section as amended by Crime and Disorder Act)

  1,023

  691

  Aged 18 and over1

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  629

  563

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  19

  14

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  17

  13

  Sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act-not available separately

  359

  283

  Section 169c(3) of the Licensing Act 1964

  1

  1

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  6,446

  5,083

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal law Act 1967

  29

  24

  Section 191) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-summary only

  8,036

  5,682

  Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984-subsection l.b not available separately

  226

  137

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986-excludes offence of racially aggravated (this section as amended by Crime and Disorder Act)

  5,657

  3,416

  1 Provisional

  2 Information received concerning summary offences does not always record the age or date of birth of the defendant. As such, these data are estimated to be aged 25 on the Home Office court proceedings database.

  176W
  age 25 on the court proceedings database. However, it is possible to make approximate calculations of the 'median' age from the figures available (Where an age has been given).These are shown in Table C.
  177W

  Table C: Median age1 of defendants proceeded against at the magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences as listed in Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill by age, England and Wales, 1999 and Q1 20002

  1999

  Ql 20002

  Age and offence description

  Prosecution

  Conviction

  Prosecution

  Conviction

  Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872

  39

  39

  390

  39

  Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875

  19

  18

  18

  18

  Section 31 of the Fire Services Act 1947

  23

  22

  28

  28

  Sections 55 and 56 of the British Transport Commission Act-not available separately

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Section 169c(3) of the Licensing Act 1964

  18

  18

  35

  35

  Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967

  26

  26

  26

  26

  Section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967

  29

  29

  29

  29

  Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-summary only

  23

  23

  22

  22

  Section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984-subsection l.b not available separately

  31

  30

  31

  28

  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986-excludes offence of racially aggravated (this section as amended by Crime and Disorder Act)

  24

  24

  22

  22

  1 Information received concerning summary offences does not always record the age or date of birth of the defendant. As such, these data are estimated to be aged 25 on the Home Office court proceedings database

  2 Provisional

  Refugee Status (EU Council Directive)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Article 41 of the proposed Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status, with particular reference to(a) rights granted to applicants in the context of (i) fundamentalism, (ii) hostile aliens, (iii) questionable social or political views or morals and (iv) use of the NHS and (b) contradiction of that article and Article 30 of same directive. [147452]

  Mrs. Roche
  Article 41 of the proposed Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status is based on Article 3 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and Article 13 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.

  Negotiation between member states of the proposed Commission text has recently begun. To date there has been no discussion of Article 41.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on planned information campaigns on the euro for the UK police forces to combat forgery. [147462]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the European Commission, Europol and others are jointly considering the possibility of training programmes for the police services of member states on the counterfeiting of the Euro.

  Organised Crime Forum
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the planned(a) budget and (b) activities of the European Forum for the Prevention of Organised Crime. [147453]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commission's proposal for a Council Decision, which includes establishing a European Forum on the Prevention of Organised Crime, has been deposited with the Parliamentary scrutiny committees.
  178W
  The Forum would include officials from the member states and experts from academic institutions and other bodies. It would discuss and advise on crime prevention trends and policies. We support the purposes of the Forum, but attach importance to ensuring that it should not duplicate activities in other European Union fora. We are also seeking information on the likely costs of the Forum and how these would be financed.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [147617]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 294W.

  Voluntary Organisations (Security Checks)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will provide funds to help voluntary organisations pay the proposed fee for security checks on volunteers. [147372]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Criminal Records Bureau will issue certificates, on application, to individuals. An announcement about the fees that the bureau will charge will be made as soon as possible. It will be a matter for employers (or others, including voluntary organisations) to decide whether to reimburse the cost incurred by individuals. Waiving charges in respect of some or all of those in the voluntary sector would inevitably impose an additional burden on the Exchequer or result in a higher charge for others using the bureau, who may be no less deserving than those in the voluntary sector. But we have made clear our determination to keep the level of fees to a minimum.

  Prison and Probation Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change in expenditure was on(a) the Prison Service and (b) probation (i) in total and (ii) in real terms in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [145697]
  179W
  Mr. Boateng
  The tables set out the total expenditure (revenue and capital) for the Prison Service and probation services for the 10 financial years 1991–92 to 2000–01. The figures for the financial years 1991–92 to 1999–2000 represent expenditure outturn, while the figures for 2000–01 reflect expenditure plans. The tables also show the change in expenditure from one financial year to the next in both cash and real terms.

  Prison Service

  Percentage change over previous year

  Financial year

  Total net expenditure (£ million)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1991–92

  1,462

  —

  —

  1992–93

  1,470

  0.56

  -2.62

  1993–94

  1,509

  2.62

  -0.03

  1994–95

  1,598

  5.91

  4.44

  1995–96

  1,667

  4.32

  1.40

  1996–97

  1,609

  -3.50

  -6.50

  1997–98

  1,741

  8.22

  5.23

  1998–99

  1,812

  4.10

  1.21

  1999–2000

  1,846

  1.89

  -0.45

  2000–011

  1,783

  -3.54

  -5.32

  1 Plans

  Notes:

  1. The fall in expenditure in 1996–97 of 3.5 per cent. due to the reduction in capital spend following completion of major capital works in 1995–96. Capital spend in recent years is lower due to the introduction of Private Finance Initiative funding for new prisons.

  2. The fall in forecast spend this year (2000–01) due to the transfer to the Youth Justice Board. Adjusting for this factor reveals an increase in cash terms in 2000–01 of 2.9 per cent.

  Probation service

  Percentage change over previous year

  Financial year

  Total net expenditure(£ million)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1991–92

  335

  —

  —

  1992–93

  365

  8.96

  5.51

  1993–94

  393

  7.67

  4.89

  1994–95

  406

  3.31

  1.87

  1995–96

  416

  2.46

  -0.40

  1996–97

  468

  12.50

  8.99

  1997–98

  481

  2.78

  -0.06

  1998–99

  475

  -1.25

  -3.99

  1999–2000

  491

  3.37

  0.99

  2000–011

  524

  6.72

  4.63

  1 Plans

  Note:

  1. Total expenditure figures do not include capital expenditure on probation/bail hostels nor direct Home Office central expenditure

House of Commons

  Travel Allowance
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members have used their travel allowance to visit Europe this Session; and if she will make a statement. [146226]

  Mr. Tipping
  Ninety one Members used the scheme last Session; six Members have used the scheme so far this Session, and a number of visits have been approved, but claims have not yet emerged.
  180W

  House of Commons Commission
  Angela Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made regarding informing hon. Members about the deliberations of the House of Commons Commission on a regular basis. [146227]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Further measures, including the setting up of a website on the Parliamentary Intranet have been approved by the Commission since my answer to the hon. Lady on 14 November 2000;Official Report, column 588W.

  Parliamentary Estate
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 22 January,Official Report, column 413W, regarding the security of the Parliamentary Estate, what assessment he has made of the (a) savings to be derived from and (b) the operational possibility of replacing police officers with civilian staff. [148015]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  A recent survey on this aspect of the security operation within the Parliamentary Estate has taken place leading to a decision not to replace police officers with civilian staff.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council how many and what percentage of written parliamentary questions asked in Session 1998–99 received a holding answer, broken down by Department. [142190]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested, provided by the House of Commons Library (POLIS database'), is provided in the table.

  Department

  Questions tabled

  Holding reply

  Percentage

  Accommodation and Works Committee

  13

  4

  30.77

  Attorney-General

  111

  1

  0.9

  Cabinet Office

  479

  28

  5.85

  Catering Select Committee

  6

  1

  16.67

  DCMS

  1,048

  316

  30.15

  DFEE

  2,061

  251

  12.18

  DFID

  770

  18

  2.34

  DH

  2,428

  253

  10.42

  DSS

  1,647

  70

  4.25

  DETR

  3,978

  447

  11.24

  DTI

  2,353

  591

  25.12

  Deputy Prime Minister

  131

  20

  15.27

  FCO

  2,191

  236

  10.77

  HO

  3,310

  84

  2.54

  HoC Commission

  26

  6

  23.08

  LCD

  630

  17

  2.70

  MAFF

  1,697

  440

  25.93

  MOD

  2,358

  440

  18.66

  NIO

  1,081

  184

  17.02

  PCO

  158

  2

  1.27

  Prime Minister

  712

  154

  21.63

  SO

  1,206

  307

  25.46

  HMT

  2,083

  544

  26.12

  WO

  1,073

  29

  2.70

  1 A note provided by the House of Commons POLIS Section on how these figures should be interpreted has been placed in the Library.

  181W

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Council what support the House offers to hon. Members to learn foreign languages; and if he will make a statement. [146729]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Members may fund appropriate language teaching for their staff through the office costs allowance; however, at present the House can offer no such support to Members who wish to learn foreign languages themselves.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) in the period 1997–98 in relation to the applications for citizenship by Mr. G. P. and Mr. S. P. Hinduja; if he will place in the Library copies of relevant documentation; and if he will make a statement. [147995]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer she received from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what representations he has had from Lord Levy regarding applications for citizenship by(a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja; and if Lord Levy informed him of involvement on his part in such applications; [147986]

  (2) what representations Lord Levy has had from (a) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (b) Mr. S. P. Hinduja regarding applications for citizenship; and what involvement Lord Levy had in such applications. [147987]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  182W
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the inquiry he has established into naturalisation applications by S. P. Hinduja will be published before the next General Election. [148016]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Anthony Hammond QC started his review on 25 January. His aim is to complete his review as quickly as possible, consistently with the need to conduct a thorough investigation. I understand that Sir Anthony has informed the Cabinet Secretary that on the information currently available to him he would hope to complete the review by the end of February. It is my intention to publish Sir Anthony's report.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many invitations Lord Levy has accepted, and from whom, in 2000, for Diwali celebrations. [147989]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for Lord Levy.

  Former Ministers (Severance Payments)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no severance payments are made available to former Ministers where loss of office has been mainly or wholly caused by personal misconduct. [148021]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to change entitlement to severance pay, which is set out in the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991.

  Ministerial Telephone Calls
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister in which Ministers' offices telephone conversations between Ministers are tape recorded. [148100]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware no Ministers' offices make a practice of tape recording conversations between Ministers.

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.

The Steel Industry
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any recent discussions with Corus on the future of the British steel industry.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have held discussions with Corus at the highest level and will continue to do so. It would not however be appropriate to disclose the details of commercially confidential discussions between Ministers and private companies. The Government will continue to take all the steps they can to try to secure jobs in the steel industry.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the steel industry is of basic importance to the nation? Does he further recognise that at Llanwern there is a highly trained, skilled and adaptable work force which is being treated badly? For months the future of those jobs has been hanging like a gossamer thread, with no consultation whatever. As the Government are so enamoured with Europe, why have they not signed up to the directive on information and consultation? Further, what are they doing about the large quantities of dumped steel which are arriving from Russia and the eastern bloc? America and China have taken action. Must we go cap in hand to Brussels before we can take action?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am more than happy to agree that the steel industry is a key part of the British economy and that it is extremely efficient. Between 1998 and 1999 alone, it increased productivity from 533 to 571 tonnes per person, which is well above the levels in Germany and France.
As regards the directive, we believe that we should not accept it while there are procedures for consultation. We also believe that we should maintain the flexibility which exists in this country. Furthermore, if there is any, the Government would be only too keen to see any evidence of dumping and charges so that they can take appropriate action.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the noble Lord take on board the fact that Corus shed some 2,000 jobs in Wales last year and that thousands more
554
job losses are expected? What plans do the Government have to replace those jobs or are they at a loss on this?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am well aware of the significant redundancies which have taken place in the steel industry in the past months. It is a bitter blow for people in that industry. If further job redundancies are announced shortly, we shall take the action that we have taken in similar cases to ensure that we create jobs in the area and enable people to search for new jobs.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the steel industry is more efficient and competitive than it was two or three years ago it is faced with bankruptcy? Given those circumstances and the fact that the Government recognise that the principal problem is the misalignment of the euro and the pound—indeed, the whole international community recognises that the euro is undervalued—cannot the Government think of short-term ways of compensating Corus so that its long-term capacity and presence will remain and be secured? That would help to meet a relatively short-term difficulty.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I know, Corus is not faced with bankruptcy, although it is having to take serious action. We have spoken to it about the amount of action that we can take commensurate with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, but it has made it clear that that will not affect its position on saving plants or jobs. We are taking all the action we can to help, but longer-term problems exist.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I recognise that it is mainly for Corus to solve its own problems, but there are issues which the Government can take up and I hope that they are doing so in their discussions. First, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, can the Government persuade the company to take a long-term, strategic view? Circumstances vary from time to time and it would be harmful if we now disposed of steel capacity which we could need in the future. Secondly, in view of the forthcoming climate change levy, which will have a major impact on the steel industry as an intensive user of energy, cannot the Government seek to postpone its effect on that industry or modify it in other ways?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we hope that Corus will take a long-term view of the matter because, undoubtedly, the major issue is the exchange rate. A movement of 10 pfennigs in the exchange rate has an impact of some £80 million on the company's profitability, which is substantial. Since last December, when the two chief executives left the company, there has been a movement of about 10 pfennigs in the exchange rate; so considerable movement is already taking place. We very much hope that the company will take a long-term, not short-term, view of the situation. As to the climate change

555
levy, in terms of the overall picture and particularly the exchange rate, the levy is a comparatively small amount and is the sort of issue that could be considered in any kind of small package.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the noble Lord give the House an indication of how many tens of billions of pounds have been put into the coal, car and steel industries in recent years? Does the Minister agree that none of that money has been successful in reversing the trend?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that I can give the figure that the noble Lord requests. I agree that as a long-term solution such subsidies do not rectify situations which are due to an uncompetitive position. As I hope I made clear, Corus has had an amazing record in increasing productivity. We very much hope that short-term considerations will not play an overwhelming part in this particular situation.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the substance and outcome of discussions between the Government and Corus which are important? Can the Minister tell the House about the company's response to the package put together by the National Assembly for Wales, which I believe is supported by the Government, to maintain the current plant configuration? Does the Minister also have a view as to the recent announcement by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to set up a consortium to purchase the plant at Llanwern if the worst comes to the worst?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that I can go into the details of discussions. However, as I hope that I made clear, there was a package which was subject at least to preliminary consideration. It was made clear by the company that that would not affect the situation that it faced in relation either to plants or jobs and, therefore, that it could not correct that situation.

Farm Incomes
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
How soon they expect the extra public funds being made available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to lead to positive improvement in the financial position of farmers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, while farm incomes in the United Kingdom have been severely depressed by global factors such as world commodity prices and exchange rates, and the aftermath of BSE, the Government have taken a variety of measures to assist farmers financially. Since
556
1997 we have injected some £1.2 billion into the sector to provide agrimonetary compensation, assistance to hill farmers and offset SRM inspection and cattle passport charges. This supplements the £3 billion paid annually in direct CAP payments.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I declare an interest as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Does the Minister agree that despite all of that there is still no sign of a "positive improvement in the financial position of farmers"? Does the noble Baroness recall the observation of the chairman of the Hills Task Force last week in the West Country that there remain a number of barriers to farmers who cannot find their way through the system? Is not the first task of MAFF to try to make all the new green schemes (for want of a better expression) more easily comprehensible to the ordinary farmer and see the money allocated to them more quickly?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have sympathy with the point raised by the noble Lord, although there are some sectors of the industry, particularly pigs and to a lesser extent poultry, where there are signs of an upturn. Overall, the industry has had a terrible time over the past few years. However, the very substantial individual grants and assistance provided by the Government, particularly agrimonetary compensation, have helped the financial position of individual farmers. As to the availability of straightforward information about schemes under the rural development plan, for example, assistance to those who seek to diversify, or advice to small farmers, all those matters are in hand and we shall continue to take them forward.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister do her best to ensure that there is an end to stop and go in the assistance given to farmers who convert to organic methods? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that more than half the organic food consumed in this country is imported and that conversion normally means a reduction in total production?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have put a considerable sum of money into support for organic farming in recognition of its environmental benefits to the country. That sector has expanded. For example, in 1996–97 support for organic farming amounted to about £374,000 a year. This year we plan to spend £18 million on organic farming, which is 50 times as much as before. That steady expansion will continue under the ERDP.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend say more about the Government's rural development programme and the likely future financial benefits which will flow to farmers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we put great emphasis on the rural development programme. We have an ambitious programme that involves

557
expenditure of £1.6 billion over the next seven years. That allows us significantly to expand existing schemes and introduce new measures to aid rural enterprise, vocational training, processing and marketing, and energy crops. All of that allows the industry to be sustainably redirected in future. One of the sadnesses is that the historic underspend on agri-environmental and rural development measures is responsible for the very low allocation of EU funds to this particular budget.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that pig farmers are likely to lose £26 million unless it is claimed under the outgoers and ongoers scheme by the end of March? Further, will the Government ensure that the necessary legislation is passed in time to claim that sum and that it is used in advance of the pig levy scheme to compensate pig farmers whose livelihoods have been affected by swine fever or related restrictions?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, two different issues have to be separated. One is the implementation of the levy that will add 25 per cent, 25 pence in every pound—the industry levy—for those who are affected by swine fever. The MLC has finished its consultation. We have every intention of taking that matter forward quickly. The other is the pig industry restructuring scheme, announced in the action plans for farming. It has taken much longer than we wanted to get EU approval. However, the outgoers element was open for applications on 4th December last year and the ongoers element was opened on 22nd January 2001. We have £40 million available for the scheme in the next two financial years. We are determined to ensure that the scheme achieves its objective.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government considering a pension scheme for the many small farmers who will go out of business? I have in mind a bond scheme—a bond issued for a certain number of years which can be cashed by the farmer. And what are the Government prepared to do to help the marketing organisations improve their position against the buying power of the supermarkets and others? It is important that the marketing position is improved to the level of, say, that in Denmark.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, there is a difference between bond schemes for people who are going out of an industry and pension schemes per se and, indeed, the outgoers scheme in the pig industry restructuring scheme where, obviously, the financial consequences have to be considered. As to marketing, one of the main thrusts of policy with Nick Brown as Minister of Agriculture has been to try to join up the food chain in particular sectors and to recognise the impact on producers right through the chain to retailers. As the noble Lord will be well aware, because I know of the close interest he takes in milk-related issues, we have set up the Milk Task Force as part of the
558
Government's action plan, which includes representatives of producers, purchasers, processors and retailers. That will report at the end of March.

Commonwealth Scholarship Commission
2.53 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they are having with the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom about planning future developments of the scheme.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the commission has now submitted to the Secretary of State for International Development its report which she requested, which is a review of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan and its contribution to international development. This makes a number of recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the CSFP and enhancing its contribution to development. The Secretary of State will be meeting shortly with the chairman of the CSC to discuss these findings and their implementation.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent report of the United Kingdom Scholarship Commission, which was submitted to the Commonwealth Education Ministers in Canada, provides dramatic factual evidence of how many of those who received United Kingdom Commonwealth scholarships have gone on to take up leading positions in their own countries? To use the department's phrase, "Many of them have become trainers of trainers in their own country". Will the Government therefore explore positively how we can build on this British success story and adapt the scholarship scheme to meet the needs of the modern Commonwealth?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a report on the CSFP was discussed by Commonwealth Education Ministers at their triennial conference in Halifax. They made a number of proposals to change the administration of the scheme which were designed, for example, to raise the profile of the plan to increase the number of participating countries; to expand its flexibility; to improve communication and overall co-ordination; and, in particular, to strengthen partnerships in the nomination and selection of candidates. The DfID's review of the scheme has come up with a number of recommendations which dovetail with that. We shall be looking at those recommendations. Obviously the Secretary of State's meeting with the chairman of CSC will be important in that respect. We will then come forward with recommendations as to how we can ensure that the scheme dovetails with our development objective.

559
I agree with the noble Lord as regards the substantial impact that the scholarships have had. It is pleasing to know that 95 per cent of participants from developing countries continue to work in those countries after the scholarship has been completed.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the steps taken by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in recent years to promote genuinely shared provision between UK universities and those from developing countries. Does she agree that measures such as split-site qualifications have immense potential to raise long-term capacity in recipient countries as well as benefiting the individual scholars?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we agree that some of the developments—for example, split-site qualifications—have been very successful. Some of the review's recommendations will go further down that road. We are looking to develop the long-term capacity and skills of students from developing countries so that they can make a contribution to the development of their own countries, either when they return to those countries or through the process of split-site education.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister think of any way of assisting potential scholars in countries where there is no freedom of expression, bearing in mind that in the past the CSFP was based on the principle that nominations come only from governments? Will the Government consider the possibility that nominations could be made by qualified NGOs of suitable recipients in countries such as Zimbabwe where there is a lack of freedom of expression?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised with me in November last year. It is true that at present national agencies in each Commonwealth country are responsible for submitting nominations. So candidates who are, for example, persona non grata in their own country are unlikely to be nominated. In the review of the scheme we are considering, in consultation with the Hugh Pilkington Charitable Trust, whether changes should be made to address that problem.
The noble Lord talked in particular about NGOs. A limited number of applications from DfID local offices, local NGOs and agencies working with groups such as refugees could possibly be submitted directly to the CSC in London. We are currently looking at that possibility.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that education and learning are the hoops which bind our commonwealth together and give it more power and influence in the global context? Does she recall that when her government came to office one of the big upgrades in the Foreign and Commonwealth Mission Statement was that the
560
Commonwealth would have much more prominence? Yet it seems that the numbers in the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan are shrinking. Can she tell us when, in line with government rhetoric and declarations, that will be reversed and we shall see more people involved under the scheme?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord is not aware that the UK is the largest contributor to CSFP. We have provided two-thirds of total awards under the scheme over the past three years. The noble Lord will recall that DfID has prioritised the whole area of basic education because of our commitment to meeting the universal primary education target. In the past three years we have spent £500 million in developing countries on promoting universal primary education. So the Government have certainly put their money where their mouth is.

Emergency Contraception for Girls Under 16
3 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a parent has the right to know if and when a daughter aged 16 or below has been given the "morning-after-pill" by her school.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, where a school nurse provides emergency contraception she works within the same legal framework and government guidance as other health professionals providing contraception to under-16s. They must always encourage the young person to involve her parents, but the nurses' professional code states that, if the girl refuses, confidentiality must be maintained unless there are serious child protection issues.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister say how many school nurses are available to the 4,000 secondary schools on a daily basis? Does he not agree that parents can be made responsible for misdemeanours of their children in school and yet do not have the right—I believe that is the import of the Minister's answer—to know when medication is being given to their children aged between 11 and 15 years. Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have figures for the number of school nurses. I will find out if they are available and let the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, know. Certainly, nurses play a very important role. I believe that in relation to sex education they can play an invaluable role in advising young people.
No school would introduce such a scheme without full consultation with the parents. Existing government guidance to schools makes this clear. The guidance for health professionals issuing contraception to girls under 16 makes clear that they

561
must, first, encourage the young person to involve her parents. At the end of the day, if that young person is not willing for the matter to be discussed with her parents then the health professional has to use his or her own judgment. Surely, that is the most appropriate way forward if young girls are to be encouraged to come forward to speak to nurses about these issues.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Family Law Reform Act states very clearly that consent given by a young person of 16 is as valid as if given by an individual of full age? Further, does he agree that during my term of office on the General Medical Council in the 1980s that council agonised over this issue following the Gillick judgment? Eventually the council came to the conclusion that if a doctor were consulted by a young person under 16 about issues relating to contraception then it was the doctor's duty to try to persuade—particularly a young girl—to consult her parents about that matter. If that young girl adamantly refused to do so it was the doctor's duty to preserve her confidentiality even if he did then prescribe for her. Does the noble Lord agree that that applies equally to school nurses?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, puts the matter accurately and effectively. The point I make is that the advice that school nurses and other health professionals can give to young people can often encourage the young people to have the confidence to go and talk to their parents. That is what we would all wish to happen. If that young person is not prepared to do so the school nurse and other health professionals cannot turn that person away. They have to use their professional judgment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. Can the Minister confirm that the guidance issued to schools is entirely in line with the Gillick case decided in 1985, that the Government see good sense in that case and have no intention to change it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The circumstances that he mentions go back to the Gillick judgment and the Fraser guidelines, as they have been called. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Government have no intention of making any changes.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, did the Minister in his speech winding up the debate last night imply—when suggesting it did not matter whether chemists could judge accurately whether a girl asking for the pill was 16 or not because doctors gave contraceptive devices to girls under that age—that the Government intend shortly to abolish the age of consent or lower the age of 16?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is some hours since we had that debate. I do not recall making any such remarks. I made it clear that the minimum
562
guidelines laid down by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society have to be followed by pharmacists in exercising their judgment in relation to the sale of emergency contraceptives to women of the age of 16 and over. Pharmacists who are in breach of those guidelines are subject to the disciplinary procedures of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. I fail to see how the noble Baroness could possibly take from what I said any intent to change the law on the age of consent.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Alder Hey inquiry report.
I take this opportunity to confirm that this evening's Unstarred Question will take place during the dinner break. I understand that the white edition of the Notices and Orders of the Day contains a printing error that may have led some noble Lords to believe that it would be taken at the end of business. It will be taken in the dinner break in the usual way.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 29th January be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Irvine of Lairg.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Security Industry Authority]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 7, leave out ("Industry") and insert ("Activities").
The noble Lord said: For the reassurance of the noble Lords who are leaving the Chamber, this is a modest amendment that probably will not lead to a

563
clash of intellects across the Floor of the Committee. Unless noble Lords have a serious interest in the Bill, they are wise to leave.
The Bill sets up a new regulatory authority to be called the security industry authority. The amendment suggests that it should be called the security activities authority. The point being made is that this authority will regulate a good many activities that are not generally considered part of the security industry. So far "the security industry" has not been a very carefully defined and understood term and many people would not know what the definition covers.
The British Security Industry Association has a number of large and small firms in its membership. It covers many of the activities that are to be regulated by the Bill. One of the activities is wheelclamping. As the Bill stands, it will cover wheelclamping by private individuals who are not any part of what one might think of as the security industry. It covers private detectives. In some senses they belong to the security industry, but one has to define it very widely to include them. It covers keyholders. Those often are some of the large and well-known firms in the industry. But it also concerns door supervisors—"bouncers", as some people call them—who frequently are not part of the security industry as such. "Bouncers" and wheelclampers are covered whether or not they are under contract to a large firm. In-house door supervisors and in-house wheelclampers are covered. So the Bill is extremely wide in terms of the coverage of the new authority.
It seems to me that it might be sensible to think of a different name which indicates that the authority will not only regulate the security industry itself but also these extraneous activities. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may add a few brief words of encouragement to my noble friend in respect of his incisive amendment. Clearly, this is a way to illustrate the fact that the Bill has a wider application than merely to those who work full-time in the private security business. A number of other people will be affected. The arguments put forward so convincingly by my noble friend also apply to a later amendment relating to the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title states:
"Make provision for the regulation of the private security industry".
However, the Bill goes wider than that. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to my noble friend's suggestion on that issue.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the clarity of his explanation of what he described as a very modest amendment and one which he thought would not be too intellectually taxing. That probably means that I can cope with it.
The noble Lord is right to say that a diverse range of security activities are undertaken by the private sector, some of which are regulated under the provisions of the Bill. But the umbrella term "industry" is well-used
564
and widely accepted and is probably the term that is best understood. For example, it is used by both the main trade associations—the British Security Industry Association and the Joint Security Industry Council. It is also the case that during the consideration of the Bill and in the discussions that have taken place inside and outside the House the notion of it being called the security industry authority has become widely known and probably widely accepted as the most likely and perhaps most useful title for that agency.
I do not believe that we should accept the amendment, although I can see that there might be a desire to try to think up another term. What we have proposed satisfies most people. It is certainly the clearest and most easily understood term. Therefore, at this stage, I do not think there is any useful purpose to be served by accepting the amendment. I certainly did not find anything particularly persuasive in what he said, although I thought that it was an interesting set of observations.
I have another concern about the noble Lord's suggestion. The insertion of the word "activities" may give a false impression that the regulatory body will cover something wider than the private security industry. Some might even see it as covering the Security Services. That would give a very false and misleading impression.
For all those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment. I urge the noble Lord to reconsider his position and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I certainly would not wish to give a false impression, particularly not with regard to the Security Services. At the same time, it seemed to me that the Title of the Bill gives a false impression in another direction. However, I do not think that it is a significant enough matter to pursue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I, line 12, after ("of') insert ("people employed wholly or predominately as").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 46. The amendments are concerned with narrowing the definition of who will come under the Bill. Although the Minister was reasonably clear at Second Reading, there is certainly some confusion about whether a person's job is full-time in security or part-time. The Minister said that in-house providers are not subject to regulation in general. However, since then we have had rather confusing messages. My amendments seek to define who will come under the Bill and to get the Government's thinking on this issue.
It is important that the new authority should be responsible for those who are full-time or predominantly employed as security operatives. What is the position with a barman in a pub? Frequently, barmen exclude people from pubs. Some pubs have people who look after security but many pubs do not.

565
In that instance, they should obviously not be covered. At Second Reading the Minister said that to some extent the Bill will catch publicans. We need to know to what extent and how that will work.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to add the words,
"people employed wholly or predominantly as",
security operatives. Amendments No. 9 seeks to include the words,
"as a principal part of his employment".
Amendment No. 10 is very similar. Amendment No. 12 refers to Schedule 2 to the Bill. Amendment No. 46 narrows the definition in Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2, which also allows ticket collectors as well as firemen to maintain discipline.
There has been a great deal of correspondence from various sections of the industry. I am sure that the Minister will have received it. There are those who wish to extend the provisions as wide as possible. Some wish to do so for no doubt thoroughly proper motives while others see it as a wonderful business opportunity. There are also those who seek to ensure that industry is not faced with costly over-regulation as a result of this worthwhile Bill. We support the aims of the Bill, but we want something that will work. This has to be handled with a reasonably light touch. Too heavy-handed an approach will not work.
I am sure that the Minister will respond by saying that much will depend on how the new authority conducts its business; namely, that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I agree that that is the case and, of course, we shall be addressing the point in later amendments. However, the authority will need to take careful account of what is laid down in the Bill because the provisions of Clauses 1 and 3 will form the basis of the authority's guidelines.
We feel that these are important issues. It is necessary to define exactly who will be included in the definitions so as to ensure that those for whom the provisions of the Bill will be unnecessary and for whom the Bill would become merely a "burden on industry" are not affected. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My noble friend has tabled a bevy of amendments, all of which are designed to achieve much the same aim. A great deal of harmony exists between the parties on this Bill. At Second Reading, the Minister went to some lengths to reassure the House that that he, too, did not wish to see the legislation and, to an extent, the authority brought into disrepute by having to impose considerable burdens on those for whom security duties were merely incidental to their primary activity. We have taken careful note of those assurances.
Given that, the Minister will need to put forward a strong and convincing case to explain why such groups will not be affected by the Bill. The amendments tabled by my noble friend seek to make the position much clearer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to both noble Viscounts for their contributions to these amendments and for the clarity with which the noble
566
Viscount, Lord Astor, moved his amendment. His concluding comments summarised his position; namely, that we need to strike a balance between proper regulation and the need to avoid over-regulation. That probably forms the parameter of this debate and I accept the point. I hope that I cart offer the reassurances sought by the noble Viscount. Perhaps I may address each of the amendments in turn.
As regards Amendment No. 2, we feel that other relevant provisions already contained in the Bill as currently drafted already take into account the level of activity which a security operative would have to undertake before a licence was required. Definitions of the activities which will require a licence are carefully listed in Schedule 2. They provide for the exemption of a number of different employment categories. Exemptions are also provided for those who carry out security activities incidentally to their main employment. There is no question that the authority would wish to impose the licensing regime on individuals who do not have significant security-related duties. We believe that the Bill as drafted will work effectively to cover that point.
I turn now to Amendment No. 9. Here again the Bill already takes account of the aim of this amendment, which seeks to exclude from regulation those individuals whose security-related activities are incidental to their main employment. Again, those are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. We have no desire to make the regime inflexible and unworkable and to that end we believe that the current drafting works well.
As regards Amendment No. 10, we believe that the Bill already takes into account the main objective of the amendment and that we are on common ground here. We feel that a significant measure of flexibility has already been built in to respond to this point.
A similar argument could be put forward as regards Amendment No. 11. For regulation to be effective, we think that it is important that those who own or operate companies need to be held accountable. If this amendment were to be pressed, it would exclude directors and partners who do not themselves directly carry out the designated activities. We think that that would shoot a hole through the import of the Bill. Evidence has been gathered of companies which have been established by individuals who have criminal records, some with convictions for violence and drugs offences. Although they themselves may not be directly involved in the provision of security services, I cannot believe that the noble Viscount would wish to exclude such people from the remit of the Bill. It is vital that these individuals should be weeded out of the industry and prevented from establishing themselves in it in the future.
We consider that the licensing of directors and partners will form a fundamental part of the effective regulation of the industry. Licensing will apply to directors and partners not directly engaged in the activities of a security operative but who are directly responsible for the company or those carrying out such activities.

567
As the Bill stands, the security industry authority will be able to identify and remove criminality at any level within an organisation. This will be a major benefit both for the industry as a whole and for the public. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords opposite will be aware that the licensing proposals have been welcomed by the industry. For those reasons, I shall not be able to accept Amendment No. 11.
I turn now to Amendment No. 12. Schedule 2 defines the activities of security operatives which are subject to regulation by the Bill. Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule makes it clear that the activities referred to are those undertaken by "a security operative". The relationship between Clause 3 and Schedule 2 is made explicit by Clause 3(4). That subsection confirms that Schedule 2 defines the activities that are also to be treated as security operations for the purposes of the Bill. Thus the addition of a further reference to Schedule 2 within the text of Clause 3, as proposed in this amendment, is entirely unnecessary. I hope that, with this explanation being put on to the record, noble Lords will feel able to agree to withdraw the amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 46. Paragraph 2(5) provides an important clarificatory exemption from the need for a licence as a manned guard. Similarly, important exemptions are made in paragraphs 2(4) and (6). These provisions are designed to ensure that the definition of "manned guarding" used in paragraph 2(1) does not inadvertently take into regulation activities which have nothing to do with the private security industry.
An example of where the exemption in paragraph 2(5) would apply is the teaching profession. Teachers maintain order and discipline but clearly are not part of the private security industry. Without the text which this amendment seeks to delete, it will be less unambiguously clear that teachers—and perhaps people leading holiday expeditions—are not covered by the provisions of Schedule 2. It is important that readers of the Bill should have the minimum possible doubts as regards which activities are included within its scope. I am afraid that this amendment would increase uncertainty and for that reason I am not able to accept it.
I hope that these explanations will persuade the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I should like to return to Clause 3(2)(f) which Amendment No. 11 seeks to delete. This states that,
"a director of any body corporate … engages in licensable conduct",
if any of his fellow directors do so under the provisions of paragraphs (a) to (e). A large engineering firm, for example, may hire a private security firm to man the gates and to provide manned guarding at night. That activity is covered by the Bill and would require a licence. Given that, the personnel director or manager in charge of security for the engineering firm as a whole
568
would also require a licence. Under paragraph (d), he will be acting as the supervisor to those engaged in a relevant activity. The guard may belong to Securicor, but the manager is responsible for him as regards his work at the engineering company. For that reason, the manager or the personnel director would also require a licence simply because he is responsible for making sure that the security industry firm does its job. That means that, under paragraph (f), every director of the engineering firm must have a licence.
This appears to apply to just about every company quoted on the stock exchange, and many that are not, because there is a kind of escalation. The guards may be employed by Securicor, Group 4, Reliance, any one of the large firms. The engineering firm—though it could be anything: a chemical firm or whatever—supervising those people is definitely caught under paragraph (d). Therefore, under paragraph (f) every other director of virtually every firm will require a licence. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but it seems to me, reading these paragraphs together, that that is how everybody will be caught.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: This matter has caused concern in industries across a wide range of activities. For example, the cinema industry has expressed concerns very similar to those expressed by my noble friend, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in connection with paragraph (d). I understand—the noble Lord the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the industry is exempt from some other provisions of the Bill in the day-to-day conduct of its business. But if a cinema company brings in security guards for a premiere, or some other special event, there will be a burden on the person within that cinema company who contracts with the security company in that that person will need to be licensed. This would be a very good opportunity for the Minister to clarify his understanding of the implication of paragraph (d). Basically, the question is this: does it mean that any company that hires a security company must itself be licensed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords for their further clarification of the amendment. Perhaps to say that we are at cross-purposes would be to use the wrong term, but there may well be a misreading of the clause, because it is certainly not our intention that the personnel director of the engineering company in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, would have management responsibility for the security staff at the gates of the company's premises, nor that that director would need to be licensed. We are talking about the management of the security company itself, not of the engineering company that is contracting those working for that company.

569
I hope that that clarifies the point. I shall be more than happy to provide further chapter and verse in correspondence if noble Lords wish, but I hope that I have dealt with the point clearly.
Viscount Astor: The Minister has dealt with Amendment No. 11 to a degree. What he is saying, as I understand it, is that anybody who uses a firm will not be covered by the provision; it is only in the firm doing the security work that the director is covered. That is fine as far as it goes, but some very large companies contain individual companies—wholly owned, associated or whatever—that have contracts between themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for there to be large organisations that in certain circumstances carry out security work in a plant that they perhaps do not wholly own. Whatever the reason, it seems in principle that if they could be covered it must make sense for liability to attach only to those who are, as it were, licensed people themselves. Paragraph (f) seems to extend the responsibility to those who will not be licensed by the new authority. That seems wrong in principle.
I accept the principle that if one is involved in the security industry and is a licensed person, whether an individual, a partner or a director of a company, one should be responsible, and that that licensed person must be the responsible person. But it seems wrong to extend that responsibility perhaps even to a non-executive director of a security firm and make him or her responsible for the activities of the managing director or someone else in charge. That is in fact what the Bill does, and it is a step too far.
I hope that the Minister will consider the matter, because we shall want to return to it at a later stage. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention to extend that responsibility further than necessary, bringing in a whole class of people. I am all for making those who come within the orbit of the security industry authority become licensed, making them responsible in a corporate, individual and partnership way, but there must be some ring-fencing or the matter will become very difficult.
I do not find much on which to disagree with the Minister as regards my earlier amendments. As he said, it is very much a matter of how the new authority will work. The more I listened to what he said—and I shall read it carefully in Hansard—the more I realised that we shall have to examine Schedule 2 more carefully, and perhaps look to add detail there. The schedule can be changed by the Secretary of State by order. Therefore, it can be changed in any direction, in effect depending on the Secretary of State of the day. We shall want to make sure that Clause 1 says what it means to say and what the Government mean it to say. There is a tendency in the passage of legislation for the Government to say "This is what we think the Bill says. If we have got it wrong, we shall change it by order later". We should like to try to avoid that and get Clauses 1 and 3 right before the Bill leaves the House.
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. We shall return to this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, after ("engaged") insert ("or suspected of being engaged").
The noble Lord said: We now come to the question of inspections. We propose adding the words in the amendment because the first point on inspections is that the inspectors employed by the authority will presumably not only inspect those who have licences, or are clearly engaged in activity which requires a licence, but will also, at the margin, look to see whether some people who do not have licences, and are not necessarily clearly engaged in licensable conduct, are engaged in conduct for which they should have a licence. Therefore, the inspectors will be able to check up on them and fine them if necessary, or ensure that they obtain a licence. If the inspectors find themselves rejected, as it were, by a firm that they think may require a licence but does not have one, they may have difficulty.
This question also raises more general points as to who and what the inspectors will inspect. Some in the industry have called for what they describe as mandatory inspections, which I take to mean that there would be a regular inspection once a year, or at some such period, of everybody with a licence. But that would be enormously expensive and not necessarily essential. We are all keen—I know that the Government are, as we are—to keep the regulations in proportion to the difficulties in this field.
The question of who and what will be inspected makes a difference to the number of inspections required. We know that several hundred thousand people will require licences. There are various estimates, but 300,000 is widely suggested. To have any reasonable inspection, even ongoing, of 300,000 people and the companies they work for, spread around the whole country, will take quite a large force of inspectors. That in itself will be reflected in the cost of the whole regime, which will fall on the industry. It would be helpful to know what kind of inspection is envisaged by the clause giving this duty to the authority. Flowing from that, how large a team of inspectors, roughly speaking, do the Government anticipate will be required to carry out this duty? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I understand it, the amendment seeks to extend the authority's inspection function to those suspected of being engaged in licensable conduct. It seems to me to be a novel device for expanding the remit of the security industry authority.
We take the view that the security industry authority already has more than enough powers and teeth to enable it to carry out its inspection function using the provisions contained in Clause 18. After all, these powers would allow a person authorised by the authority to enter premises and to carry out inspections of the documents of any person appearing to be a regulated person. I suppose that "appearing" in these terms could be construed as being in some way similar to "suspected". This refers, broadly, to someone who has, or the authority believes ought to have, a licence. We

571
consider the powers to be sufficient for the effective enforcement of the licensing system. For those reasons we do not think that the amendment is needed.
The White Paper looked at this question and suggested a low estimate in terms of numbers. We do not want to see a massive inspectorate but one which is proportionate to the size of the problem. In constructing the inspectorate we shall, of course, talk very carefully with the private security industry. If we were to expand the remit of the authority in the way suggested by the noble Lord's amendment, we would push those numbers up. As the authority will be financed through fees collected, that would tend to lead to an excessive burden on the industry. That is not what we want. We need to keep the numbers in proportion.
We expect the number of inspectors to be at the lower end of the range. I cannot be precise on numbers today. However, I undertake to take the matter away and do more research. Obviously, in constructing the size of the inspectorate, we shall consult carefully with the industry. In the light of those reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am not sure whether the Minister was hinting that if my amendment was rewritten to say something like "persons appearing to be engaged in licensable conduct" it would be more acceptable. I am not trying to hold out any particular credit for the drafting used in my amendment as opposed to other drafting, but the Minister's words seem to indicate the difference between Clause 18, which allows powers of entry to premises owned or occupied by any person appearing to be a regulated person, and Clause 1 where it is only persons engaged in licensable conduct who are to be inspected. There appears to be a difference between the two clauses, the difference hinted at in my amendment. We may try again with different drafting to see if we can bring this matter into line. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burlison: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Alder Hey Inquiry Report
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a statement about the inquiry into events at Alder Hey Hospital, Liverpool.
572
"I am today publishing the report of the inquiry into the Royal Liverpool Childrens NHS Trust, known as the Alder Hey Hospital. I am publishing alongside it two further documents: first, the Chief Medical Officer's census into the extent of organ retention in the NHS in England; secondly, the Chief Medical Officer's recommendations for reform of organ retention procedures. All three documents are now available in the Vote Office.
"I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents affected at Alder Hey should also have access to copies of the report.
"I should like to record my thanks to the chairman of the Alder Hey inquiry, Mr Michael Redfern, QC, and his fellow panel members, Dr Jean Keeling and Mrs Elizabeth Powell, for conducting this difficult inquiry.
"The inquiry was established in December 1999 following evidence to the Bristol inquiry that a large number of hearts from deceased children had been retained at hospitals in the NHS.
"Alder Hey was one such hospital. It is a world-renowned hospital, treating 200,000 children a year. For many years, the hospital has made use of human hearts for research and teaching. The Redfern report says that,
'there are now more than 1,600 living children who would have died in infancy or childhood without the improvements in surgical techniques and care which were pioneered in Liverpool'.
"But as the inquiry report makes perfectly clear, many of these hearts were obtained without consent. According to the report, in addition to over 2,000 children's hearts, there are large numbers of brain parts, eyes taken from foetuses, over 1,500 stillbirths or foetuses and, perhaps most disturbingly of all, a number of children's heads and bodies.
"The Redfern report reveals,
'a lack of respect and a failure to appreciate the circumstances which led to the taking of human material'.
For example, the report cites entries about foetal material labelled with the words:'neck deeply lacerated. Pull it to pieces sometime and reject'.
"Some of these entries date back many years. The number of organs retained by Alder Hey increased dramatically in the seven years following the appointment by the hospital and the University of Liverpool of Professor van Velzen in 1988. He was appointed as chair of foetal and infant pathology in the department of pathology.
"During van Velzen's time at Alder Hey between 1988 and 1995, he systematically ordered the unethical and illegal stripping of every organ from every child who had had a post-mortem. He ignored parents' wishes, even when they told him explicitly that they did not want a full post-mortem, let alone the retention of any of their child's organs.
"According to the report, van Velzen lied to parents; he lied to other doctors; he lied to hospital managers; he stole medical records; he falsified statistics and reports; and he encouraged other staff to do the same.

573
"For any parent the death of their child is a tragedy. To bury that child, to grieve, to hold precious their memory over the years is how many families gradually come to terms with their loss. It is hard to imagine the trauma and anguish which each of the Alder Hey parents faced when, many years later, they discovered that their child's body had not been buried intact as they believed but had been stripped of its entire internal organs, leaving the body as a shell.
"This happened not to one set of parents in Liverpool but to several hundred. The hospital and the university now admit that they will never be able accurately to tell parents what happened to every organ of every child between 1988 and 1995.
"What we do now know is that the vast majority of organs which were taken were never used for medical research. Parents cannot even take comfort in the knowledge that their children's organs were used to help other children. It is clear from the report that the understanding of cot death—for which Professor van Velzen was funded—was not advanced one iota by his practice of stripping of organs from children.
"The question in the minds of parents and of others is how van Velzen got away with it for so long. The answer is that the hospital authorities and the University of Liverpool failed to monitor his practices and failed to take action to stop them. Numerous complaints were made. Problems were not properly investigated. Action was not taken.
"These failures were compounded by the incompetence and insensitivity of both the hospital and university authorities once the truth did begin to emerge. The hospital seemed overwhelmed by events; the university simply turned its back on parents. Some parents faced up to four funerals as different organs from their children were returned to them at different times. The pain caused to the parents by this dreadful sequence of events is unforgivable. I am deeply sorry for the wrong that was done to them, their families and their children. Those who did wrong will now be held to account.
"The inquiry report says that Professor van Velzen must never be allowed to practise again in this country. I can tell the House today that he has been referred to the General Medical Council for disciplinary action. I understand that he has been summoned to appear before the GMC later this week. I can also tell the House that the inquiry report has been referred to the Merseyside police and passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. They will determine whether criminal prosecutions should now proceed.
"Four NHS staff—including the current chief executive of the trust—have today been suspended. Their employers will now consider appropriate disciplinary action. The role of other NHS staff will be examined by their employers. The doctors criticised in the report have been referred to the General Medical Council. Other staff have been referred to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.
574
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the president of the council of the University of Liverpool to review the evidence in the report and to take appropriate disciplinary action. The current acting chair of the trust board is today leaving the trust, along with two non-executive directors whose resignations I have today accepted. I have today appointed Angela Jones as the new chair. It is right that the trust should have a fresh start.
"Alder Hey Hospital relies on its dedicated staff. They have been as shocked, as we all are, by these events. I want to thank those staff today who, through these difficult times, have continued to provide treatment and care for children from Liverpool and elsewhere. The action I have taken today should assist those staff to re-establish the hospital's relationship with the community it serves. I am confident that Alder Hey can recover and rebuild its reputation as a leading national and international centre for specialist paediatric care.
"What the report describes as 'the exceptional practice of van Velzen' between 1988 and 1995 made Alder Hey unique. But elsewhere in the NHS it is clear that organ retention without relatives' full knowledge and agreement was widespread. The recent national summit on organ retention organised by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, confirmed that this was also the experience of parents in many other parts of the country.
"professor Donaldson's census shows that 105,000 organs are retained across the country. Poor standards of cataloguing and record-keeping mean that these figures may not be wholly accurate. Twenty-five thousand hospitals account for 88 per cent of the organs. At least 16,500 of these organs and tissues have been retained in apparent contravention of the law because they came about as a result of coroners' post-mortems where the organs should not have been kept beyond the time needed to establish cause of death. As at Alder Hey and Bristol, the coroner's system across the country has proved ineffective in this respect. The current law and post-mortem consent forms are both ambiguous. They talk of taking tissues when in fact they often mean taking organs. They record 'lack of objection' rather than positive consent.
"In the last four years the Government have made an unprecedented effort to better protect patients. The changes we have already introduced and the reforms that are still to come enjoy widespread support among both patients and doctors. The NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones. Our reforms are aimed at supporting them to become even better: a new statutory duty of quality on every NHS trust; independent inspection through the Commission for Health Improvement; annual appraisal of doctors linked to period revalidation; reform to self-regulation to make it faster, more open and more accountable.

575
"Now we need to go further. The CMO census, the consultation we have had with parents and the medical profession and the reports from Bristol and Alder Hey have formed the basis for Professor Donaldson's recommendations for reform. I am accepting them in full. The major proposals are as follows.
"First, I am establishing a special commission under the chairmanship of Margot Brazier, Professor of Law at Manchester University, to oversee the return of organs and tissues from around the country to their families should they wish to have them. We have made sure that parents seeking more information today can obtain it by contacting the NHS Direct telephone helpline.
"Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has set in train a review of the coroner's system so that we can learn the lessons of what went wrong at Alder Hey and elsewhere.
"Thirdly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will establish a review of the accountability and management arrangements between NHS trusts and universities where senior staff are employed on joint contracts.
"Fourthly, we will ensure that all NHS trusts provide support and advice to families at the time of bereavement. I expect this to be in place throughout the NHS later this year.
"Finally, the law will be changed to enshrine the concept of informed consent. The existing law in this area has become outdated. The 1961 Human Tissue Act does not even contain penalties for breaches of its provisions. The law has ill served bereaved parents in our country. It causes confusion for staff. It must now be changed.
"I will bring forward measures urgently to amend the Act to clarify that informed consent must be given, that organs and tissues must be specified and to make it a criminal offence to ignore informed consent. We will also undertake a wider review of existing laws on all aspects of taking, storing and using tissue and organs from both the living and the dead. When the review is completed we will seek to legislate to bring in the necessary changes.
"These changes in the law will be supported by a new statutory code of practice which will be issued to the NHS. It will cover the issue of organs being used by the pharmaceutical industry. The code of practice will be accompanied by a new standardised consent form which will be introduced throughout the NHS.
"There is one other important point. Informed consent need not be at the expense of medical research. Proper post-mortem procedures and archived tissues and organs hold the key to much medical advance—discovering the effects and causes of disease, finding cures for illnesses that disable or kill. But retaining public confidence in these procedures requires public consent. Members
576
of the medical profession share this view. Indeed, it is reflected in recent guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists. When I met families from Alder Hey, from Bristol and elsewhere, many told me that had they been asked properly, they would have been only too willing to allow their child's death to help another child live.
"Doctors and pathologists have an incredibly difficult job to do. They have usually acted with the best of intentions: to bring about greater understanding of disease and to improve standards of care—and to do so in a way that avoids causing further anguish to grieving families.
"These are laudable aims. They are honourable intentions. But as the events at Alder Hey have proven, modern patient expectations and traditional clinical practices have grown apart. The NHS can no longer assume that the benefits of science, medicine or research are somehow self-evident regardless of the wishes of patients or their families. The relationship between patients and the service today has to be based on informed consent. That will require changes in practice and changes in policy. It will require changes in medical education. As I have made clear today, it will also require changes to the law.
"The parents I have met from Alder Hey and elsewhere have acted with great dignity and purpose. I pay tribute to them today. I hope that the reforms we will now make will provide some comfort for the pain they have endured. I commend the reforms to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. We on these Benches accept that this is a balanced Statement which accurately and broadly covers the issues raised by the inquiry, even though it does make for very harrowing reading. We further agree that the NHS is staffed primarily by good doctors, rather than the type of bad doctor exemplified in this Statement.
The situation at Alder Hey and elsewhere is troublesome. We on these Benches extend our deepest sympathy to the families involved. People will be rightly shocked by the revelations emanating from Alder Hey that the NHS has sold retained body parts without the knowledge and consent of parents or families. It is a disgraceful situation and one that rides roughshod over the dignity and respect that should be accorded to families in extremely distressing personal situations. However, we must keep the matter in perspective and resist the temptation to over-react.
There are two clear issues. The first concerns the activities of one specific professor who consistently lied and broke the law in an otherwise outstanding hospital. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether Professor van Velzen is being investigated elsewhere, or indeed in another country. The second issue is a more general one—that of how to approach the

577
retention and use of tissue and organs. The retention of certain body tissue is critical to medical research and must continue. Other patients can and do benefit from the use of otherwise discarded tissue. To ensure the continuance of medical research, we need adequate mechanisms for the giving of consent.
The Statement by the Secretary of State mentioned that the law will be changed to enshrine the principle of informed consent. We on these Benches have offered to incorporate that principle into the Health and Social Care Bill, currently being debated in the other place. From a personal point of view—and I can speak from the heart on this, as I have suffered the terrible tragedy of losing a very young baby—I would have been prepared to allow tissue to be used for medical purposes in order to help others, provided that the pros and cons were properly and sympathetically explained. However, that would require us to ensure that parents and families were informed by carefully trained staff, who will hold these discussions in what are certain to be very trying circumstances. The Statement mentioned that all NHS trusts will have in place support mechanisms for families at the time of bereavement. Will the Minister tell the House what those mechanisms will be, what guidelines will be put in place, and when?
We feel that there is a need for the special commission under Professor Margot Brazier to be particularly sensitive when dealing with the return of organs. Some families undoubtedly will wish to have them returned. For others, that would simply reopen painful memories. We ask the Government to pay particular attention to this matter and to ensure that, if multiple organs are to be returned, they are returned at one and the same time, thus avoiding repeated suffering for the families involved.
In conclusion, we welcome the broad thrust of the Statement. It is vital that the Government act to respond to the real concerns raised by the Alder Hey inquiry.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, join the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches also very much welcome the Statement. It is a truly appalling story, which seems to illustrate practices of the 18th century taking place in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The Chief Medical Officer's report is, if anything, more shocking than the Redfern report, because it demonstrates that the culture is at fault. The findings in relation to Alder Hey are particularly shocking because of the activities of one man. However, the CMO's survey appears to indicate that the failure to obtain informed consent was part of the culture of organ retention in many hospitals. Alder Hey is not a completely isolated example of the culture. We therefore need a complete culture change in addition to any legislative change. The problem concerns not only the law but also the language.
578
I was interested to note that in his Statement the Secretary of State illustrated that the word "tissue" is a euphemism. "Tissue" also covers organs. While welcoming the Secretary of State's commitment to changing the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 1961, we hope that any change to the law will explicitly make it clear for what informed consent is being obtained. That is absolutely vital.
Like the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, we agree that research is important. In the wake of this extremely harrowing report and the CMO's findings, it is important that the Department of Health should carefully consider what steps can be taken to restore public confidence in scientific research. As we have heard, much of the Alder Hey research into heart surgery was extremely important for some of the children involved. I commend the Secretary of State's speech made yesterday to the King's Fund. The benefits of scientific or medical research are not self-evident, but we should not stifle the benefits of scientific inquiry. I do not believe that the public will recognise the benefit of scientific research unless it is clearly seen to be useful. It is therefore for the scientific and medical community to persuade the public of the benefit of that research; and they must be quite open about the nature of the research.
I greatly welcome the indication in the Statement that other steps are planned by the department. I welcome the setting up of the special commission to oversee the return of organs and tissue, and I add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, about the process by which that is to be done. It is quite unacceptable that Alder Hey parents had to hold several funerals for organs returned at different times. A review of the coroner system is well overdue. In view of the joint tenure of many doctors clinically active in hospitals and engaged in university research, accountability and management arrangements between NHS trusts and universities is also an extremely important issue. We welcome the proposal for a statutory code of practice governing the retention of organs. In view of the recent case revealed at Alder Hey, and only today at Great Ormond Street, it is important that the passing over of organs in return for an administration fee (or whatever euphemism may be used) should be covered by such a code.
I have a few questions for the future. The Statement makes it clear that Professor van Velzen will be pursued under the criminal law and by the GMC in relation to his professional practice. However, other clinicians are also involved. A Dr Bouton practised in the same hospital prior to Professor van Velzen. I have no doubt that clinicians in other hospitals have breached the Human Tissue Act and have, to say the least, been cavalier in their treatment of consent. I hope the Minister can assure us that hospital trusts will be encouraged to ensure that those doctors are brought before the GMC to have their records examined.
The requirement for legislative change is all very well, but the key issues concern monitoring, how consents are obtained and how storage is effected. It is extraordinary that the hospital authorities did not

579
raise their eyebrows in relation to the practice of storing these organs. Can the Minister say what arrangements will be made to ensure that such practices are properly organised in future? What compensation will now be offered to some of the affected parents?
Further, will the General Medical Council be drawing up guidelines to ensure that such issues are properly tackled from now on? In particular, what is to become of these collections? As can be observed from the CMO's report, we are talking about major collections. Can we start afresh with some of these issues? For example, even if such organs cannot be identified, do we need to keep such macabre collections of organs in hospitals and universities throughout the country?
Finally, will the Polkinghorne code of 1989, which related to foetal material, now be revamped and incorporated in the guidance on tissues and organs? After all, one of the most scandalous issues relates precisely to foetuses at Alder Hey, which, in a sense—again, it is a use of language—might be excluded from examination if we were purely talking about individual organs.
I accept the statement made by the British Medical Association that it wants to work in partnership with patients in discussing acceptable ways in which organs are used for scientific and medical research. As a result of the appalling events at Alder Hey, and the unacceptable practices discovered in NHS hospitals and universities, I hope that we can use today to make a fresh start.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking both the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their measured response to the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said, the report comprises over 500 pages and makes harrowing reading. He is right: it was a disgraceful situation. Our sympathies are very much with all the parents involved.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said—indeed, this was mentioned in the Statement—that, overall, we have very dedicated doctors and other staff within the National Health Service. We need to reflect on that fact when considering the action that now needs to be taken. However, there is no doubt that there has been a significant cultural change in our society over the past 20 or 30 years. What may once have been acceptable practice is no longer so. I believe that many people working in the NHS have failed to realise that that change has taken place. If we are to see good coming out of this report, it will be by way of a change in the overall culture of the health service. We must also strive to make sure that it helps us to change our practices. In turn, that will ensure that the public, parents and relatives are fully aware of what is happening to their loved ones, so that when they are asked to give consent they will do so in the full knowledge of what they are being asked to do.
580
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me what action is being taken against Professor van Velzen in other countries. My understanding is that there has been an investigation by the Canadian police, but I have no knowledge of the outcome. As I said when repeating the Statement, the GMC has called a hearing for Friday of this week. In addition, the Redfern report has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, who talked about the benefit of organ retention for research purposes. It is absolutely essential. However, as I said, it can be done only on the basis of informed consent and a proper process whereby parents and relatives can be properly counselled and advised. They must have a full understanding of what it is that they are being asked to do. If we can do that and change the culture of the NHS, I also believe that parents would, if they so wished, give their consent on that basis.
I took note of the offer from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, of the Opposition's help in regard to legislation. No doubt that will have to be discussed in other places. I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. I can tell him that we shall seek to introduce legislation as soon as possible. That is certainly so in relation to the Human Tissue Act 1961, the core issue of consent, and the issue of sanctions against doctors who do not carry out the provisions of that legislation. One of the problems with the Act at present is the fact that there are no sanctions. As well as the immediate issue of the Human Tissue Act, we shall need to look at legislation in the long term to ascertain whether the whole area of regulation in relation to organs needs to be tightened and considered afresh.
Both noble Lords referred to the position of families as regards the support to be given to them. In particular, they asked what arrangements will be put in place for counselling generally throughout the National Health Service. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that, in terms of compensation, it is up to individual families to decide whether they wish to take legal action. In that event, they would have to establish legal liability. I cannot comment any further in that respect.
I can tell noble Lords that we expect effective counselling and support to be available, both in relation to parents affected by what has happened at Alder Hey Hospital, and in relation to the many other hospitals throughout the NHS with retained organs which are likely to receive inquiries from parents regarding whether any of their children's organs have been retained.
We accept that bereavement advisers should be available in all trusts to explain and/or arrange full clinical explanation of the circumstances of death, the reasons for post-mortem examination and the need for consent to hospital post-mortem and retention of organs. In the interim guidance issued by the Chief Medical Officer in March 1999, we called for a designated person to fulfil that role. I have no doubt that the new commission on organ and tissue retention will follow that through, as will the department, to

581
ensure that that happens. In addition to overseeing the return of tissues and organs from collections around the country, it is worth pointing out that the role of the organ retention commission will be to ensure that suitable counselling is available for families. More importantly, it will act as an advocate for parents if problems arise. Given the sensitive nature of this issue, parents need someone to turn to for help and advice. Above all, while acting as an advocate for parents and handling inquiries from families and the public, the special health authority will have a crucial role to play in that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the culture change needed in the NHS. I agree with him and, indeed, have already spoken on that issue. The noble Lord asked how that would be effected. The outcome of the Alder Hey report and the census by the Chief Medical Officer, together with his recommendations, will be very powerful accelerators to that culture change. But the code of practice that will be issued, the change in the law and, I believe, the work of the newly established commission will all have a part to play in that development. I certainly accept the point that the noble Lord made; namely, that we also need effective performance management within the NHS to ensure that that change takes place. In that way we shall restore public confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is also right to say that we need to do more in the area of public education in terms of research—and not just as a result of what has happened at Alder Hey. More generally, we must encourage greater public confidence in what we seek to do by way of research. Again, the report of the Chief Medical Officer touches on that point.
The noble Lord also referred to the issue of university/trust relationships. One of the most important points in the Redfern report is that Professor van Velzen was not dealt with effectively, despite the fact that poor practices were known about, because of the difficult relationship between the university and the trust concerned. We therefore asked the DfEE to review the issues that arise in relation, in particular, to doctors who have joint contracts with a university and a trust, and it agreed to take the lead in that process. I hope that that review will also examine some wider issues. At the end of the day, we need good, robust relationships between universities and university trusts with regard to teaching, research and further education.
As to disciplinary action, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we have indeed referred several of the doctors who are mentioned in the report to the General Medical Council. We have also referred two medical laboratory scientists to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine. Several other people who are named in the report have been referred to their employer's authorities for the consideration of disciplinary action.
We have identified a problem with NHS mangers who move from one trust to another and for whom there is currently no professional regulation. We shall institute discussions with the NHS Confederation, the
582
British Association of Medical Managers and the Institute of Health Services Management to establish whether it is possible to develop codes of practice and of conduct for those managers.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we need to consider the future of collections that are put together by universities and hospitals. We look to the commission on organ and tissue retention to advise us on that matter.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, for two years from 1990 my then two-year-old daughter was operated on and treated at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool. I put on record my admiration for and gratitude to the staff—the nurses and doctors—for the extraordinary love, care and professionalism they showed during that period. I do not believe that I am alone in saying that; I do so on behalf of the many parents whose children have been treated there over the years. We have watched this unfolding scandal become a tragedy for that fine hospital. It is a tragedy that the actions of predominantly one man have brought the hospital into such disrepute. His actions destroyed the reputation of a fine hospital and caused immense grief to parents who had already suffered the pain of bereavement.
I want to put four brief points to the Minister whose Statement to the House this afternoon I welcome. The first concerns the legislative changes that he announced today. Will the Government make it a criminal offence to possess and use any or all human material without consent? Secondly, will he reiterate the importance of the family and its protection, especially at times of sorrow and bereavement?
Thirdly, I turn to the desirability that the Minister and others rightly expressed about the use of organs in circumstances in which consent has been gained. Does he agree that even when written consent was obtained at Alder Hey Hospital, in most if not all cases the retention of tissues and organs was not fully and properly explained? Parents were not told what material would be retained; in particular, as the Minister said, they were not told that whole organs would be kept by the hospital. The word "tissue" was not explained, so that even those who read the consent form would not know that "tissue" could comprise major organs. Parents were not told how retained material would be used or for how long it would be retained.
Finally, following the revelation of the sale of glands of living children, which has already been referred to, will the Minister review the way in which commercial arrangements are entered into and the possibility that such considerations have been allowed to overshadow the high sense of idealism, ethics and humanity that should characterise the medical profession?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for making those important points. Yes, the problems at Alder Hey Hospital are very much focused on one man. Although the system

583
clearly had several failings, which added to the awful impact of what Professor van Velzen did, there is no doubting the fact that he is, by a very long way, the most culpable person in this sorry affair.
I agree with the noble Lord that Alder Hey Hospital has for many years had a wonderful reputation, not just in this country but throughout the world. Although it is suffering at the moment from enormous criticism and adverse publicity, I still say that its work is first class. It is important for people who work in the hospital to have confidence in it and to believe that it is a fine hospital, as should people from Liverpool and others who come to it from all over the country because it is of such repute and quality. The appointment of a new chair today allows a fresh start to be made. The hospital's reputation must be treasured and supported, and improved in future.
In response to the various questions that the noble Lord asked, the answer is, I think, yes to all of them. We want to ensure that, with regard to legislative changes, a criminal offence will apply to those who break the law. As I explained, the current problem, apart from the obscurity of the Human Tissue Act 1961, is that there are no sanctions against a doctor who breaks the law.
I agree with the noble Lord's comments on the family. The report of the Chief Medical Officer is strong in that regard. If there is to be proper and informed consent, parents and relatives need fully to understand what has happened to their loved ones—they should be told in as sympathetic and supportive a way as possible—why a post-mortem is necessary, and why it may be helpful if certain organs or tissues are retained to help with research and education. If we can do that properly, I am convinced that many parents will give their consent.
The noble Lord was absolutely right to say that that approach was not adopted at Alder Hey Hospital. Even when parents signed a consent form, they did not know what they were signing. The word "tissue" does not convey to many people the concept of an organ of the body. Indeed, until I became involved in this issue, I thought that "tissue" meant a bit of skin and that it could not refer to the heart or another organ of the body. Parents did not understand what they were signing. In addition, it is clear that parents were asked to sign a form without any explanation. That is the key lesson that we need to learn.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great triumphs in the field of public health in this country in the 20th century was the massive drop in infant and child mortality rates? The earlier higher rate was caused by disease and defects. The horrific report and the work carried out at Alder Hey Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital have to be seen against that background.
I return to the question that my noble friend asked about culture. The general public are concerned not so much about one doctor as about the desensitising of medicine, especially among senior researchers. What
584
plans does the Minister have to ensure that what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to as the proper respect for human dignity is part of the culture of medical and nursing training? That is an important part of putting right the problem.
The Minister referred to the fact that a number of firmer codes of practice are being put in place. However, the medical profession is notoriously hierarchical. Can the noble Lord assure the House that within the health service protection exists for whistle-blowers? That protection is also a guarantee against mavericks who try to ignore codes of practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising those points. I accept the point that he made about the importance of research. Indeed, in the Statement I referred to the enormous impact which the research at Alder Hey Hospital has had on the saving of many lives. We need to reflect on that.
However, the extraordinary and disturbing point about the Redfern report is that, although the practice during the van Velzen years was to retain organs from every child after a post-mortem, virtually no research of any value was carried out during that period. Therefore, parents and relatives did not even have the comfort of believing that at least the organ retention served some purpose. That is a stark and disturbing fact.
The noble Lord then went on to ask how we change the culture and ensure that the code of practice and other initiatives are ingrained in the National Health Service. I am convinced that the medical profession wishes the culture to change. I believe that the Alder Hey case and, indeed, a number of other disturbing cases which have taken place over the past two or three years have come as a profound shock to the profession. From meetings which I have held locally and with the leaders of the profession, I am convinced that the great mass of doctors recognise that they must change. Equally, I recognise that procedures and processes must be put in place to encourage that to happen, and I believe that change will occur in a number of ways.
First, the code of practice will need to be implemented in full by every NHS trust in the country. We shall use our power of direction to ensure that that is the case. That will be backed up by the clinical governance process which will ensure that, just as in the past the boards of trusts have been concerned with financial issues, they must now ascertain corporately that the proper procedures are in place so that clinical decisions are carried out in a framework which ensures effective governance. That process has not been in place before and it is already beginning to bite. Already doctors are approaching trust boards to say that current practices in certain hospitals must change because they are no longer acceptable in safety terms.
In addition, through the new assessment centres which we are setting up, I believe that we have developed a much more robust way of dealing with poorly performing doctors. In the past, culturally the health service has had great difficulty in tackling

585
poorly performing doctors. The new mechanisms that we have established enable us to deal with such a situation in a less confrontational way than in the past and at an earlier stage so that problems can be nipped in the bud. Taking all that into account, I am confident that we can effect the type of change the noble Lord asks for.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Statement and the report sound more like a Frankenstein novel than an actual situation. Our sympathy must go out to the parents who are suffering gravely as a result of the actions at Alder Hey Hospital and elsewhere.
I very much welcome the Government's Statement and the actions that they are to take. Although I understand that they have received criticism, I also welcome some of the statements made by the Secretary of State, particularly in relation to his desire that patients should be treated with respect and consideration. I believe that he is on to a very good point. All too often in the National Health Service patients are treated as supplicants rather than paying patients who, on average, pay £40 per week per family for that service.
We have heard of many scandals in the health service. I have been involved in one or two cases which have occurred, for example, in mixed-sex wards. Such incidents horrify people in all parts of the country. I welcome the new approach of the Secretary of State towards not only this but other matters, too. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that this inquiry will not simply be a flash in the pan but an ongoing examination of how people are treated in the National Health Service and whether they are treated as individuals and not as a mass. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me that assurance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising those apposite points. I believe that circumstances have arisen in which patients and members of the public have not been shown the proper respect and consideration which are due. My noble friend mentioned mixed-sex wards. I know how much concern that matter has brought to patients—particularly older patients. He will know that we are determined to phase out mixed-sex wards. We have made considerable progress but there is more to do.
I also believe that the National Service Framework for Older People will reflect many of the points that my noble friend has raised. After all, older people are the biggest users of the National Health Service, and it is they who sometimes find that they do not receive the respect and consideration that they deserve. I know that your Lordships have raised the issue of mixed-sex wards and the question of how people should be addressed when they are in hospital. The assumption that people always want to be called by their first name is not necessarily correct. We need to respect how people wish to be treated and addressed.
My noble friend also raised a fundamental question which goes to the heart of the culture and philosophy under which people in the National Health Service work—how the service is led and how people are
586
trained. I believe that we have a massive job to do in turning around that situation. I agree with my noble friend that it cannot be dealt with in a flash-in-the-pan manner. We must ingrain it within everything that we do. I believe that some of the changes announced in the National Plan will be important in that regard—for example, the appointment of modern matrons with more authority at ward level, and changes in the curriculum which affect nurses in particular.
Many mistakes were made in Project 2000. Training was taken away too far from wards and into universities. I am sure that it was right to link training to academic ability and to ensure that universities were involved in the training process, but not at the expense of practical skills and work. I, for one, regret what happened to enrolled nurses. I believe that through phasing them out we lost a huge raft of people who knew how to talk to and treat people with respect.
I turn to the question raised by the noble Lord in relation to whistle-blowing. We issue guidance and advice to all NHS organisations on that matter in line with the requirements of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We also encourage staff to raise concerns about standards of patient care.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for all that he said about the intention to make respect for persons and informed consent by patients and families central in this area. I first became aware of the legal vacuum some six years ago when, as a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, I worked on our report on the medical and scientific uses of human tissues: tissues being by us well understood to be diverse in their significance and sometimes to include organs.
We were, curiously, least aware of how difficult things might be in the case of tissues removed under coroner's authority. Can the Minister reassure the House that in reviewing the matter, account will be taken of the two other contexts in which tissues are removed and retained for a range of purposes? I refer first to the process of treatment where tissues may be removed for the benefit of patients but may be retained for pathological examination to the benefit of that patient, other patients, medical education, medical audit and, indeed, research. The other context—here, I believe consents are generally much better—is in the case of human subjects of research where a greater degree of understanding of the particular research project has been required. In all of this one has to see that pathologists deal with a large range of tissues procured in different circumstances and for a large range of purposes. It would be a pity to lose the opportunity by looking too closely at the specific events that have caused these particularly sad and appalling outcomes.
I have one further point. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether particular care will be taken in the review to consider the question of the financial transactions that may or may not be involved. I, am sure that I am not alone in noticing the "scare quotes" around the word "sell" in virtually all the newspaper reports. People are not sure whether things are being

587
sold to someone's benefit or whether all that is going on is a handling charge. I believe that steps have already been taken in the case of blood—that, too, is tissue—to clarify these issues. I hope that we shall see them clarified with respect to other tissues. I hope also that we shall take account of the strong differences in practice in different parts of the world; the fact that this is much closer to being a commercial culture in the United States, and that in some parts of the world there is no regulation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are considering the legislation in two phases. We want to deal immediately with the issue of consent and sanctions as regards the Human Tissue Act. Equally, I accept the point raised by the noble Baroness. We need to look at a number of wider questions, which may require legislative change. I can assure the noble Baroness—indeed, I should be interested if she wanted to talk to the department—that we shall also consider those wider issues.
As regards the commercial uses of tissue, thymuses were collected at Alder Hey between 1991 and 1993. I understand that an annual handling fee was paid by the company to hospitals collecting thymus fragments. We understand that a number of hospitals had similar practices up until 1995. There is clearly an issue of consent, which appears not to have been sought in those cases. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the code of practice—which, as I stated, will have the backing of statutory direction to NHS organisations—will also lay down that explicit consent must be obtained before tissue can be provided for use in products, product development or research by commercial companies.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
4.44 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page I, line 22, leave out ("training") and insert ("skill").
The noble Lord said: The first and most obvious point made by the amendment is that expertise in all the various fields covered by the Bill, as well as much more widely, is acquired by both training and experience. It seems to me that the wider word "skill" would reflect that fact. It would make the authority and everybody else conscious of the fact that they are not thinking just in terms of training but of the skills acquired by the individual.
This clause is separate from those which deal with licensing. It gives the authority the function of setting and approving standards of conduct for adoption by the people involved. The authority can make other requirements under the criteria for issuing a licence. The fact that its only concern here is training does not necessarily mean that the criteria for a licence might not include an element of experience or probationary conduct.
A number of British standards in this area will no doubt assist the authority when it comes to carry out its functions under this subsection. Some are set out in the White Paper. As they stand, they are not onerous. I refer, for example, to two days' initial training. Nevertheless, they have been set out and agreed. Since the British standards listed in the White Paper, BS7960 of 1999 takes the matter further.
I realise that the authority will not have legal permission to run training courses. That is not provided for in the Bill; quite rightly. I do not believe that that is its function. I am unclear as to whether approving the standards of training in the way suggested will give the authority permission to run examinations, for example, and whether the Government envisage that happening. A large number of training courses are already organised in the industry, notably by the Security Industry Training Organisation, which is a joint body set up by the industry. That organisation, and others, are capable of running the training, so I do not think the authority needs to do that. Whether it should consider examinations is a different question. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 4 would mean that the security industry authority was required to set and approve standards of skill instead of standards of training. The Government agree that it is important for the security industry authority to have the ability to incorporate references to skills into the standards which it sets. We believe, however, that subsection (2) as drafted already allows the authority to achieve that. The subsection also requires the authority to set standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision. The provision would therefore allow the authority to incorporate relevant skill levels into the standards it sets for conduct and training. It already achieves the objective of the amendment.
In addition, I believe that it is widely acknowledged that the private security industry is acutely aware of the importance of training and attaches considerable importance to the authority being proactive in setting standards in that area. We believe that to delete the word "training" from the statement of the authority's functions would be undesirable. It would shift the area of responsibility, which we do not think would be wise.
As we envisage the SIA, it will not run examinations itself. However, we do recognise that there is a need to consider how examinations might contribute to its standard setting and delivering role. The authority will have an interest in this aspect, but will not run it. The examinations will be set and run by others. The authority may well monitor this and report on it, and obviously it will have a carefully thought-through role in the examination process.

589
If we were to accept the amendment it would rather change the nature of the SIA's role, and that would not be wise. Obviously we shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said because these matters will need to be studied carefully within the industry itself.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his undertaking to ponder the matter between now and the later stages of the Bill. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2. line 4, after ("anything") insert (", except borrow money,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, with which it is suggested that we should discuss Amendment No. 43. Both are about the power of the authority to borrow money. The Bill provides in paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 that the authority can borrow money with the permission of the Secretary of State. The amendment suggests that it should not be able to borrow at all. It is a probing amendment. I do not intend that it should never be allowed to borrow in any circumstances, but I should like to know how borrowing by the authority will be dealt with in the Home Office's accounts, particularly now that we are on resource accounting. Will it show up as government borrowing? I suspect that it will not, and that is because permission of the Treasury is not required. Generally speaking, in matters of borrowing or expenditure the Treasury is careful to make sure that this is written into every Bill. As far as I can see, permission of the Treasury is not going to be specifically required although it may have have sufficient control over the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to deal with it.
I hope that the authority will not be borrowing large sums of money, although it may not be able to function entirely without borrowing. Any well conducted business should certainly consider doing that and indeed may have to borrow considerable amounts. I do not see why the authority should be different in that respect. However, because it is a public institution dealing with public money, it should obviously be carefully supervised in this respect.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain lines of accountability. The SIA will be established as a self-financing non-departmental public body. The bulk of its income will be derived from fees charged for individual licence applications and inspections under the approved contractor scheme and will be used to fund these processes. However, we believe there is a case—I think the noble Lord accepts this—for the authority to have limited ability to borrow money. I emphasise the word "limited". This would allow it some flexibility in conducting its business. It is not an open-ended guarantee. Any wish to borrow money will require the consent of the Secretary of State. So there will be parliamentary accountability and he will expect to see a proper business case made out.
590
The authority will also be subject to external controls. It will be required to keep proper accounts and to prepare a statement of those accounts annually. These will be laid before Parliament and will also be subject to audit by the auditor general. So although we understand the nature of the amendment, we think it would unnecessarily constrain the operation of the authority—a point which I believe the noble Lord accepts. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Will any borrowing show up as government borrowing in the main government accounts?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that this body, as a non-departmental public body, will operate like all other such bodies. Borrowing by the SIA will be reported within the accounts; it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to approve it, and he will consult with Cabinet colleagues as appropriate. This would allow an opportunity for the Treasury to give its 'view. Borrowings would therefore be clearly shown in Home Office accounts and properly fed through to Parliament and there would be all the other checks and balances which operate throughout Whitehall.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Directions etc. by the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any such direction before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment relates to directions given by the Secretary of State. The Explanatory Notes say clearly that the authority must comply with directions given to it by the Secretary of State and must provide any information requested by him. Also, the Secretary of State must consult the authority before giving any directions.
My first question is a general one. I should like to ask the Minister what kind of directions the Secretary of State might give. What area might be covered that is not in the Bill and cannot be done by either an order under Schedule 2 or in some other way? Can it relate to costs, for example—either the annual running costs of the authority or indeed the costs or charges that the authority might impose on the industry? The Minister will realise that there are many order-making powers within the Bill, giving the Secretary of State the chance to do lots of things in Clause 2 and Clause 3(3) about designated activities. What kind of things have the Government in mind under these rather broad and sweeping powers?
Also, it is not guidance; it is a direction. The Bill says that the authority will comply with any general or specific directions. What is the difference between a general direction and a specific one? Presumably any

591
direction would have to be specific if the authority was to comply with it. I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "general direction". Surely, the general directions are largely contained in Clauses 1 to 3. Indeed, if it is a specific direction, will it not be included in the general powers in Schedule 2?
My last question is: how will the Secretary of State give these directions? Will they be laid before Parliament, enabling Parliament to see the nature of the extraordinarily wide power that the Home Secretary is giving himself in relation to the authority? These are important questions and I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There will probably be a wider variety of possibilities, from requesting special reports about incidents of concern to the addition of reports if need be. I believe that the standard arrangement is for the Secretary of State to be able to give directions to non-departmental public bodies. If necessary, that could include the placing of a cap on fees. Therefore, they are general reserve powers. I understand that they will be subject to the usual statutory instruments procedure.
I hope that that reply is helpful to the noble Viscount. I do not believe that the consideration is as sinister as he suggested. We believe that it is a helpful way of assisting the Secretary of State to conduct business flexibly.
Viscount Goschen: Before my noble friend responds, will the Minister explain the position a little further? He said that directions would comply with the normal statutory instrument procedure but I wonder whether he is sure about that. If so, would they be affirmative or negative instruments?
Viscount Astor: In giving the Minister time to consider his answer perhaps I may turn to Clause 22, which defines orders and regulations and their use. I have studied the clause with some care. I may have missed something, but I cannot find anything relating to the directions which may be given out by the Secretary of State under Clause 2. Therefore, I do not believe that the directions are given by any form of statutory instrument, whether negative or affirmative. It is important that we have a clear answer from the Minister on this.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: On this occasion, the noble Viscount is right and I am wrong. I apologise to the Committee for that. Directions are not statutory instruments; they are merely a mechanism for a more informal way of establishing priorities and registering concerns. I hope that that clarifies the matter and I apologise to the Committee for having misled it earlier.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. Will the directions be published?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If the noble Viscount will bear with me, no doubt I shall be able to give him an
592
answer. I would hope that such directions would be a matter of public record because they would be helpful to all concerned. It is important that we are clear about what we are trying to do with orders and directions.
Viscount Astor: I rise in anticipation of the Minister's reply. We should be extremely unhappy if the directions were not a matter of public record and all those licensed and involved in the industry were not clearly able to see directions made by the Secretary of State.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is no absolute obligation to make them public. However, having heard what the noble Viscount said, I am prepared to reflect on the matter. In some situations, there may be an advantage in clearer communication and there may be benefit in that communication being in the public domain. I shall reflect on the point and happily write to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Goschen: Will the Minister also agree that there could be circumstances in which the authority would want to see publication of the directions? It could then make clear to those being regulated why it had taken a certain action.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As always, the noble Viscount makes a sensible and telling point and I shall reflect on it. He is probably right.
Viscount Astor: The Minister's final words in reply to my question went to the heart of my amendment. It is important that the Home Secretary cannot impose secret directions on the authority, leaving those licensed or affected by the authority unaware of them.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect on the matter because if he had not done so I should have been forced to take it further and test the opinion of the Committee. However, I am grateful for the Minister's constructive attitude and I shall return to the matter on Report. By then the Minister will have had an opportunity to reflect on what has been said. It is important, not only in safeguarding the industry but also the authority and the role of the Secretary of State in giving such directions. I am sure that the Minister believes in open government. We must try to make these provisions as open and clear as possible. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Conduct prohibited without a licence]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("it shall be an offence for a person to") and insert ("a person shall not").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 because of the most useful meeting that the Minister arranged for me with some of his officials.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 11 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("; or
(k) he is required in the course of his employment to engage in licensable conduct falling within paragraph (b)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 11A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 52A. They have only one thing in common; they deal with issues in respect of which the Government have completely reversed their thinking.
As regards Amendment No. 11A, the Government stated in their White Paper that the provisions of the Bill are to include in-house directly employed security personnel. They added that:
"The Government believes that to exclude in-house security personnel from the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system".
I took up that matter during the Second Reading debate. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, stated that the Government had changed their thinking since publication of the White Paper, further stating:
"In-house guards are vetted by employers and we see no need to add a further layer of bureaucracy".—[Official Report, 18/1/01; col. 600.]
Therefore, the reason for changing from an unacceptable loophole reducing confidence in the system to the Government's present position was simply because employers vet their employees.
That misses the point entirely. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that those who engage in security work are properly vetted and trained and have the necessary skills and ability to deal with the public which will enable them to carry out their tasks properly.
If people are simply vetted and then engaged by an employer, who may or may not know anything about the provisions of this Bill or check the skills and training of those individuals, almost certainly a loophole will be created. Through that loophole can creep undesirable people. Firms will believe that they have engaged individuals who can carry out the functions of security guards but they will be deceived. In the end, what is achieved is a two-tier system whereby those who are employed by security firms are properly trained and have the necessary skills, and those who manage to creep into jobs with employers are not. I agree with the Government's original view that that is unacceptable and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
I turn to Amendment No. 52A which deals with installers and so on. In paragraph 5.12 of the White Paper the Government state:
"The lower end of the domestic market does not tend to be covered by these arrangements and although reputable companies do exist, it is likely to be those that are most vulnerable who will be most at risk from unscrupulous operators".
594
The White Paper goes on to make the very good point that,
"Those who install or maintain alarms and CCTV systems have a unique opportunity to gain inside knowledge of the systems which could be used to facilitate or commit crimes".
I also raised that matter at Second Reading on the 18th December, and at col. 600 the Minister responded:
"[The Government] take the view that that sector is already well regulated. It already has to meet high police and insurance standards and purposes. Also, it consists of many small businesses".
I cannot over-emphasise the current role of CCTV systems in dealing with crime. They have a central role in dealing with major criminal activity in this country. For much of the evidence adduced in court the role of CCTV is crucial in relation not merely to burglaries and break-ins but to violent scenes and so on. If a criminal gang infiltrates a CCTV managing system so that it controls what pictures are taken, retained and so on, big criminals, not small ones, will have an important opportunity to commit serious crime. As the White Paper originally suggested, I believe it is sensible that unscrupulous operators should be kept out of this field entirely. Those who are unlicensed and without the necessary skills, training, vetting and so on provided for by the Bill should not be allowed to offer their services to the general public. I look forward again to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the Government have made an about-turn between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill. However, unlike the noble Lord I believe that the Government are right to do so. Within the industry many large firms, trade associations and so on are keen that in this field both in-house operatives and those who fit alarms and deal with CCTV should be covered by the licensing system. The Bill, however, provides that only in-house door supervisors and wheelclampers, if a release fee is required, should be included, not those concerned with either alarms or CCTV.
I refer first to other in-house guards. One of the matters to be considered is what I term the "receptionist problem". Almost every business, professional firm or doctor's surgery has a receptionist of some kind at the front door who deals with visitors. From time to time, the receptionist, commissionaire or whoever it is, may have to deal with someone whose presence in the building is not welcome and fulfil guard-type duties. That may involve sending for others to assist in the process. We have heard a good deal recently about violence in hospitals, but it also occurs in health centres and doctors' premises. One of the difficulties is where one draws the line in relation to a person in that position who provides an element of guarding. That will vary from one doctor's practice to another. Some practices will be in inner-city areas where there are drug problems to which they will be much more susceptible. An individual who does that

595
job will spend much more time engaged in that kind of activity, whereas in another area no such trouble may arise from one year's end to the next.
Where does one draw the line between the two? However, there must be a clear line because a licence is required. A person can be fined or sent to prison if he does not have a licence. The public and individuals are entitled to know whether or not a licence is required. Therefore, there is great difficulty in definition. In any case, I am temperamentally against regulation unless it is absolutely necessary. An enormous amount of legislation already affects firms of all sizes and to extend it further is something of which we should be very leery. I made that point at Second Reading and shall not labour it.
I do not believe that there is much difference between alarm companies and locksmiths. In each case someone comes to one's house or business premises and fits the necessary equipment, whether it be an alarm or lock of some kind, and leaves knowing the security precautions that have been taken. To a degree one needs to trust that those people will not misuse the information that they have gained. One can extend that to others who are not locksmiths but fit items that are to do with the security of premises. They may do the job incorrectly or pass on information. There is also a problem as to where one draws the line.
The position in relation to CCTV is a little clearer. We all know what we mean by it. However, I am not in favour of including something unless it is absolutely necessary. A firm or individual who hires a specialist organisation needs to be able to rely on the fact that it is up to the job and has proper standards. The Bill will provide that safeguard statutorily as opposed to the voluntary standards that apply now. I am not in favour of extending it further than is needed. Therefore, on this particular matter I prefer the Bill as drafted.
Lord Lane of Horsell: I declare an interest as a director of Reliance Security. Conceptually, I am very much in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but I believe that this is a matter of definition. If a suitable form of definition can be found to cover in-house security men—I slightly question whether it can—it should be explored very carefully.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling these amendments. It gives the Government the opportunity to explain why we have taken a different view, although some of these arguments were rehearsed at Second Reading. As the noble Lord said, in our White Paper we propose to regulate the whole of the manned guarding sector, including in-house staff.
However, we are a government who listen. We gave the matter further consideration. We concluded that to require all in-house staff to undergo what would effectively be two vetting processes by the employer and by the authority would add a largely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy on to business. Having heard
596
comments today in your Lordships' House, it is plain that there is a fair measure of support for not going along that route.
In general, we believe that we can rely on companies satisfying themselves about the probity of their own, or potential, employees. However, it is also the case that the Bill seeks to regulate some in-house staff. Door supervisors and wheelclampers are sources of particular public concern. These operatives are in a different category. Door supervisors are in a position of authority, often with young people, and wheelclampers are in a position of considerable power over the owner of the vehicles they have immobilised and which only they can release. We therefore believe it is right to extend regulation to all those working in these sectors, the in-house employees as well as those supplying services under contract.
The noble Lord asked, why exclude the locksmiths and the alarm installers? He rightly said that in the White Paper we suggested they would be subject to regulation. We recognise that these industries wish to be included in our regulatory proposals. But we have decided not to include them for a number of reasons: first, there is no evident high level of criminality in either of these sectors. That is a widely accepted point.
Secondly, and this touches on what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, self-regulation has worked particularly well in the alarm installation sector due to the influence of the insurance industry and the police; for example, the police will not guarantee an immediate response to an alarm unless it has been fitted by a company approved by an ACPO recognised inspectorate. That makes a big difference.
Thirdly, there is a significant number of small businesses in this sector. We are conscious of the regulatory burden this might place on them and of the barrier to them expanding and developing their business.
Fourthly, the main focus of the Bill relates to those sectors of the industry where there is the biggest problem, particularly door supervisors and wheelclampers. Could the locksmiths and alarm installers be included later? We have established a flexible framework within which Parliament can include or exclude particular sectors of the industry according to perceived need.
We would prefer to get the SIA, the authority, up and running with the significant body of work the Bill already gives it and then make an assessment as to whether other categories, such as locksmiths and alarm installers, might be a priority for legislation. We are prepared to look at these matters at a later stage. We do not think that at this stage they are a priority. Therefore, we do not believe that they should be brought into the remit of the Bill. It is about getting the balance of regulation right. The Government do not want excessive regulation or to overly burden business. We believe that we have the balance right in this case.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps I may ask a question which has arisen from what the Minister has just said. An in-house security person on licensed premises need

597
not be licensed unless he is the door supervisor. From what the Minister said, he becomes a door supervisor if he steps outside the premises. I am not sure if we have understood the Minister correctly, but can the definition of a door supervisor depend in any circumstances on whether he is inside or outside the premises? If so, is that what determines whether he is subject to the additional controls?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not entirely certain that I have the matter right, but I suspect that one is a door supervisor if one undertakes specific functions and activities. Door supervisors work at licensed premises. They are fairly carefully described in the Bill. We need to rely on the Bill's definition. If further clarification is needed, I am happy to try to provide it at a later stage. But it very much relates to what they are licensed to do rather than necessarily where they are undertaking the activity.
Viscount Astor: I should like to ask the Minister a question. I declared my interest in the bars business in London at Second Reading. As far as I understand the matter, in-house security personnel who remain in-house looking after the security of the premises are not covered by the licence. But someone supervising the door, out on the street, is covered and has to be a licensed person. But if there is a fracas on the street and someone who is an in-house person steps out into the street and, say, gives them a hand, is he not allowed to do that because he is not licensed for it? I am sure the noble Lord has seen door supervisors in his trawl of the pubs and clubs. Most of them stand on the pavement with a rope, sometimes looking friendly and sometimes looking menacing, saying, "You can come in and he cannot". Do they need to be on the street? What happens to door supervisors who are inside? Are they covered by the Bill? If they are employed by, for example, the club they are in, are they in effect in-house if they are inside? Where is the demarcation line?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We could get into some frightfully complex discussions as to whether, when and how one becomes a door supervisor and someone controlling entry. By the nature of the business, their duties are at the licensed premises. I shall go away and seek further clarification as to in what circumstances they become responsible for particular actions. But they have to be licensed. They have to be licensed for a specific purpose. It is that licence that enables them to carry out particular functions and work. That is how I understand the matter. I am happy further to pursue the detailed points that the noble Lord wishes me to. I shall provide him with further detail on that matter perhaps between now and Report stage.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: One of the problems that seems to have arisen is whether there should be door supervisors at the door and a second row inside who are under no control, have no training, skill or whatever and who have not been vetted for violence at all, who simply parcel up a person who attends one of the noble Viscount's establishments and hands him to the door supervisor to throw down the stairs. I do not
598
think that we should leave these definitions up in the air. When one looks at the paragraph it says "Door supervisors etc". It does not say what "etc" is at paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, the matter should be clarified considerably.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I should hate for someone to have the impression that any person coming to the bars with which I am involved is ever thrown down the stairs. If someone is asked to leave, that person is escorted to the door with great care and respect. We do not operate in Wales, and I have no idea what happens to people who get into trouble there.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have no personal experience of the noble Viscount's door supervisors or of being escorted to the door at his bars or in Wales.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his considered response. He referred to the flexibility of the Bill in bringing in other people. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the position of a receptionist as opposed to a hospital guard. Reference has also been made to the need for definition. Paragraph (2)(5) of Schedule 2, which deals with manned guarding, states that the licensable conduct,
"does not apply to the activities of a person who, incidentally to the carrying out of any activities in relation to a group of individuals which … are neither … the activities of a security operative, nor … activities comprising the exercise of any such control as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4), maintains order or discipline amongst those individuals".
The concept of someone doing something incidentally to their main employment does come out in that sub-paragraph as it does in sub-paragraph (6). Although it is fuzzy, it might cover the position of the receptionist to whom the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. Hospital guards have a very clear main activity of manned guarding; that is why they are there. It would be very unfortunate if the manned guarding among hospital staff, which is obviously in-house, should be carried out by people not properly qualified, skilled or vetted to perform that function.
I turn to CCTV. The operator at a bank of screens inside a factory or hospital is governing the way in which that building is being operated. They can stop people coming in; they can issue alarms; they can warn the police if something undesirable is happening. My point is that to permit an in-house CCTV operator such access leaves it open for an unscrupulous criminal to get control of an entire factory or hospital. All kinds of problems could then arise. The Government should have a further look at this point. I hope to come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 50, at end insert—

599
("() An order under subsection (3) shall not include any activities other than those set out in Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment it is suggested that we discuss Amendments Nos. 14, 35, 36 and 37. Amendment No. 13 is very similar to Amendment No. 12 and others that we discussed earlier. It seeks to ensure that the Home Secretary does not designate activities that are not within Schedule 2, bringing them within the licensing regime. The Minister sought to reassure us that this could not happen because of the way the Bill is worded. No doubt he will say that again.
Amendment No. 14 is of a slightly different character. It suggests that when the Secretary of State designates various activities as requiring a licence he should do so by means of an affirmative order. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are consequential on Amendment No. 14.
The designation of activities brings into play the whole licensing regime. From that point on it will affect a person's employment and ability to obtain a job or to retain the job that he has at the moment. It will affect the ability of firms to stay in business. A series of other things flow from the licensing regime. That is what one would expect. It is important that Parliament should not leave this matter to the Secretary of State entirely but should be able to control—at least to the degree of an affirmative order—what the Secretary of State is doing.
I assume that one of the purposes of this provision will be to introduce the licensing regime by stages. That would be sensible from the mechanical point of view of the authority widening its responsibilities as it gets going.
There is considerable concern that the authority should not immediately start to do everything it can and bring in the licensing regime too quickly. Many people and firms are engaged in these various activities. There is a very large turnover, particularly in some of the categories of employment involved. The business of vetting people will be a very considerable operation. Parliament ought to keep an eye on the setting up of the authority and on the gradual extension of the licensing regime to different categories in order to make sure that it is being done within the capacity of the authority to do it sensibly. It should not over-extend itself or be pushed into over-extending itself by the Secretary of State.
I am aware of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It looked at all the possibilities for statutory instruments and the various parliamentary procedures to be gone through and did not especially recommend. Nevertheless, I felt that it was worth suggesting it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is important that the legislative framework underpinning the licensing regime is flexible enough to take account of future developments in the industry and concomitant future decisions about the application of the licensing regime. Accordingly, paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 2
600
enables the Secretary of State to amend the activities which designated the licensing purposes. Any such orders proposed would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, orders made under Clause 3(3) are designation orders activating the licensing requirements for those security services which have been or will be designated in Schedule 2. Sectors of the industry that may fall to be regulated in future—such as perhaps alarm installers—will first need to be added by order to Schedule 2. Such an order is to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There would then need to be a practical lead-in time to enable advance preparations to be made before licensing was activated by an order under Clause 3(3).
The scope or orders made under Clause 3(3) is limited to the activities that have already been defined through legislation as the activities of a security operative which are subject to regulation. Those are the activities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 2. Amendment No. 13 would not therefore have any additional effect. I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
I turn to Amendment No. 14. We believe that this amendment stems from a misinterpretation of what Clause 3(3) does. The number of employees in the private security industry who are brought within the regulatory framework of the Bill is, as the noble Lord recognised, probably around 300,000. That is clearly a considerable undertaking and will need to be achieved by means of a phased programme of implementation.
This programme will be activated by means of a series of designation orders, one the security industry authority and the Secretary of State have agreed an implementation strategy. Orders made under Clause 3(3) are designation orders activating the licensing requirements for those security services designated in Schedule 2. Such orders are not normally subject to the degree of scrutiny proposed by the amendment. Orders adding activities to Schedule 2 are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 3(3) orders only "switch on", as it were, the activities listed in Schedule 2. I hope that my explanation will persuade the noble Lord not to press the amendment. The arguments I advanced a moment ago apply also to Amendment No. 35.
I turn to Amendment No. 36. We do not believe that there is any need for the amendment. Clause 22(4) requires the Secretary of State to consult the security industry authority before bringing forward any regulations, orders or draft orders. We intend there to be an open channel of communication between the Secretary of State and the authority and full consultations will, as a matter of good business, be essential if the authority is to do its job properly. As well as the good business sense of this consultation, Clause 22(4) already requires it to take place. I hope that the noble Lord will see that adequate provision is already made to secure the objectives that he seeks. The same factors apply to Amendment No. 37. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The interesting point about the Minister's response to the amendments was the

601
hint that she gave, presumably to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the Government might extend the order-making power in Schedule 2 to cover alarm installers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: To be fair, and to have placed it on the record, I think I indicated that there is the facility for so doing under the terms of the Bill. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, allowed us to make that clear.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As a matter of fact, it was relevant to the previous amendment. But that later intervention of the noble Baroness has poured cold water on the idea that the Government will extend the provision in the near future. She drew back from saying that it does anything more than provide the facility for them to do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and also for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, it is important that I place on record that I was neither indicating a willingness or desire to do so immediately nor any rejection of that course of action. Perhaps I should place on record my interest in this subject. On the night before a rugby match I was refused entry to a public house in Wales by a bouncer. Members of the Committee will not be surprised to learn that all I wanted to do was buy a packet of cigarettes. He said that no one who was a stranger would be allowed across the threshold in case they started a fight.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Baroness appeals to our sympathy with her account of that unfortunate experience. We know that in matters of cigarettes it is sometimes important that supplies are available to people. However, I shall draw a veil over that. I thank the noble Baroness for making clear—or clearer—the Government's intentions with regard to alarm companies and others. In view of the substance of her remarks on the various amendments, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 13.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 14A:
Page 4, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("A person is guilty of an offence if he wilfully contravenes subsection (1) of this section and").
The noble Lord said: I am sure that had the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, been wearing a red jersey and a red and white bobble hat on that occasion she would have had no trouble in getting her cigarettes.
With this amendment I seek to raise the question of absolute offences. As the Bill is drafted, Clause 3(1) states:
"Subject to the following provisions of this Act, it shall be an offence for a person to engage in any licensable conduct except under and in accordance with a licence".
602
I approve of the proposed amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to remove the words,
"it shall be an offence for a person",
and have a simple prohibition that a person shall not engage in any licensable conduct. But I have not been party to his discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and so I do not know what has emerged from them.
The purpose of my amendment is to introduce into the concept of an offence which carries a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months the idea of knowledge or intention. The word "wilfully" is appropriate in such circumstances. In order to make it absolutely clear that a person is not committing an absolute offence to which he has no defence, Amendment No. 14A introduces the words,
"wilfully contravenes subsection (1) of this section".
Amendment No. 23B is linked to Amendment No. 14A and refers to Clause 8. In Clause 8 we have something rather worse. One has a reverse burden of proof. It is clear from Clause 8 that an absolute offence is set out in subsection (4). It states:
"Any person who contravenes the conditions of any licence granted to him shall be guilty of an offence and liable … to a term of imprisonment".
There is a statutory defence in subsection (5) that,
"it shall be a defence for that person to show that he exercised all due diligence to avoid a contravention of the conditions of the licence".
Reverse burdens of proof of this kind are reasonably frequent in the criminal law but they do cause problems. Instead of the prosecution having to prove the case, it is for the defendant to prove his innocence. That is what it amounts to. Human rights considerations do arise. Amendment No. 2313 seeks to insert the word "wilfully" into subsection (4) and Amendment No. 23C seeks to omit the statutory defence for the purposes of clarifying that mens rea—intention and knowledge—must be proved before people can be sent to prison for up to six months for a breach of the legislation. Heaven knows, the legislation that goes through the House introduces so many new offences. It should be government policy to ensure that in all those cases absolute offences are not created and that mens rea is a necessary ingredient. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I should like to support in particular Amendment No. 23B, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, when he moved Amendment No. 14A. He referred in particular to the absolute offence which has been created here.
The Bill will confer substantial powers on the Secretary of State through various order-making procedures and, indeed, by in effect issuing directions to the authority. The security industry is large and complicated. Given that, orders will be introduced over a comparatively long period and the transition period will be lengthy. I believe that it will be extremely difficult for everyone to remain absolutely innocent all of the time. No doubt some corners will be cut and grey areas encountered. The authority needs to be given time to work out those problems.

603
It seems to me that, without incorporating a defence of some kind, we shall run the risk of convicting a person because there will be no choice but to convict him, simply because that is what is stated in the law. However, that person may have a perfectly valid and reasonable explanation that should, under normal circumstances, be taken into account in any court of law.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government consider that, for regulation to be effective and for the authority to have teeth, it is important that the licensing provisions are supported by criminal offences. I would hope that all of your Lordships involved in these discussions and debates would support that principle. However, it is important that the offences created are appropriate for the type of conduct they have been designed to prohibit and that they can be clearly understood.
Clause 3 as drafted creates a strict liability offence of engaging in licensable activity without a licence and no proof of intent is necessary. The penalty for this offence is set out in Clause 5. The purpose of the offence is to put the burden on operatives within the industry to ensure that they are properly licensed for the activities which they perform. To accept this amendment would be to add a requirement that a prosecution of an unlicensed person must also prove that they "wilfully" or intentionally failed to have a licence. In our view that would draw the teeth of the offence. It would be difficult to show that a failure to have a licence was "wilful". A defendant could easily show that, far from being wilful, he had been simply negligent or had made a mistake. As it stands, the clause properly puts the burden on the operative.
Clause 8(4) creates a strict liability offence of contravening the conditions of a licence. The purpose of this offence is to put the burden on operatives within the industry to ensure that they do not breach their licence conditions. To accept the amendment would mean that the prosecution would again have to prove that the person wilfully or intentionally breached their licence conditions. That would effectively shift the burden of proof away from the defendant.
We want to give defendants adequate protection where there is no intention to subvert the licensing system. We also want to put the onus on them to ensure that they hold the appropriate licence for the work that they are performing. That is an important point. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments and I hope that the noble Lord will now consider withdrawing them.
Viscount Astor: The Minister pointed out that a person must take steps to have the appropriate licence for the job that he is performing. Perhaps I may cite the example of a person employed by one of the large security firms. That person will hold a licence. Does that mean that many different types of licensing will be necessary for someone undertaking many different tasks? What will be the appropriate licence in each case? Will one person hold a licence for guarding and another
604
person hold a licence for a different duty? If an employee of a large firm is licensed and his firm says, "Tomorrow you are going to do this", is the onus then put on the employee to check whether his individual licence covers that duty, or will the licence be a corporate entity?
I might have misunderstood the noble Lord when he referred to "appropriate licences". I was not entirely clear about what he had in mind.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount will appreciate that licences will relate to individuals. In other words, the individual must hold an appropriate licence to enable him to carry out the duties included in his job. It is the licence which needs to be "appropriate". I hope that that explanation is of help to the noble Viscount.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I believe that an important matter of principle has arisen in relation to these amendments. The Government are not being consistent here. On reading Clause 18(3), which deals with entry, inspection and information, a person is guilty of an offence under that clause if he "intentionally obstructs any person" or,
"fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any requirement".
Furthermore, Clause 20(1) states that,
"A person is guilty of an offence if for any purposes connected with the carrying out by the Authority of any of its functions under this Act—

(a) he makes any statement to the Authority which he knows to be false in a material particular; or

(b) he recklessly makes any statement to the Authority which is false in a material particular".

It appears that some of the offences which can be committed under the provisions of the Bill will be absolute—if you are found guilty you are liable to be sent to prison, even if you were acting with a completely innocent mind and had no idea that a licence was required for what you are doing. That is wrong.
There is no consistency in the Bill because mens rea is required for other offences. The problem is therefore highlighted. I would ask the Government to think again on this point because I shall certainly return to it at a later stage. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemptions from licensing requirement]:
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 17:
Clause 4, page 4, line 47, at end insert—
("() A person shall not be guilty of an offence if he—

(a) carries out any of the activities prescribed by Schedule 2 to this Act without financial or other reward and he does so where he, and those for whom he so acts, perform such activities on a non commercial basis;

(b) is not ordinarily employed as a security operative or required, in the course of his employment, so to act; or

605

(c) is employed (whether remunerated or not) by a school, church or a registered charity.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 seeks to insert into Clause 4 the words as set out in the Marshalled List. In a moment we shall discuss with it Amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 17 comprises a new subsection of three paragraphs, each of which excuses people from committing offences under the Act. Paragraph (a) would excuse those carrying out activities on a non-commercial basis. Paragraph (c) covers those,
"employed … by a school, church or a registered charity.
They are similar, although not identical. Paragraph (b) has in effect already been covered. It refers to a person,
"not ordinarily employed as a security operative".
although he may act as such from time to time. As I have said, we have already discussed the matter of security activities being "incidental" to the main activities. For that reason, I shall not press new paragraph (b) of the amendment.
However, as regards paragraphs (a) and (c), I think that it is important that the regulations and licensing system should not cover innocent people who would be criminalised by the Bill if it was strictly interpreted. One can cite all kinds of activities where people take on the role of temporary door supervisors. I have in mind several jumble sales that I have attended in Chipping Sodbury town hall. Sometimes a considerable press of people wishing to get into the jumble sale first to secure the best bargains may be encountered at opening time. The same can happen in commercial premises, but when the jumble sale is run, as such sales habitually are, by a charity or some other deserving cause, this can occur. On a strict reading of the Bill, someone acting as a door supervisor for that purpose might be held to require a licence. If so, the organisers of the event would also require a licence, because they would be taking on people to act in that capacity, even if there was no remuneration.
It is also regrettably the case that occasionally a church service is disrupted for one reason or another. We all know that there was an interruption in Canterbury cathedral in the middle of a sermon by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury not so long ago. I am thinking particularly also of midnight masses at Christmas and Easter, which sometimes coincide with the pubs turning out. That can lead to unfortunate incidents, one of which I witnessed a few years ago. In such cases, people have to act as door supervisors, sometimes for an extended period. I want to be sure that that kind of activity is not covered and that there is no requirement for a licence. Another example is a school caretaker who provides security services occasionally, but he is probably covered by the "incidental" words we discussed earlier.
Amendment No. 18 provides that one can go to the local magistrates' court to apply for a temporary licence. This is intended to cover a one-off event, where the organisers may wish to take people on to act as door supervisors and so on. There are some large one-off events in our part of the country. One thinks of the Glastonbury festival. I have never been to it, but a large
606
number of people do go, and the organisers have a great deal of trouble controlling the entrance, to such an extent that they are not holding the festival this year. Such events can be policed—if that is the right word—by one of the large security firms, but also by people employed by the organisations running the events.
No doubt under the Bill, although there is no special provision for this, organisers could ask for a temporary licence from the security industry authority. However, it would be more sensible for them to be able to go to the magistrates, although the magistrates should use the same criteria as the authority would. We have made it clear in the amendment that the licence would exist for only one month and would not be renewable, so this is not a way of opening up a separate channel for acquiring a licence.
The magistrates' court is probably a good place to go for a temporary licence, particularly as the magistrates will be likely to be issuing a temporary licence for the sale of alcohol, for example, and perhaps for dancing or public entertainment; they are likely to be in the business of licensing the particular event that is being organised. Rather than having to apply separately to the security industry authority, a person should be able to apply to the magistrates for the necessary security licence as well.
The provision would also cover urgent cases in which something was being set up quickly. The national authority may be very slick in its operations and its issuing of licences to individuals and firms, but not all such authorities have proved very slick in the past, whereas the magistrates' court is up and running and one can go to it any day to apply for licences and get going. Once again, the licence would run for only one month. If it was a permanent activity starting urgently, one would still need to go to the authority to obtain the proper licence to proceed.
I expressed on Second Reading my concern that the Bill, which we support in principle, should not catch unnecessarily activities outside the main stream of the security industry, and these two amendments are designed to try to bring this matter into focus and to make sure that the Bill does not apply to people to whom the Committee—and, I feel sure, the Government—would not wish it to apply. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on these two amendments. With the jumble of images that he has given us—the bursting open of the door at jumble sales, the vergers at risk on Christmas Eve and so on—he has painted a picture of the kind of situation in which people become involved in performing, on a temporary basis, some of the activities described in Schedule 2, and those people should not be caught by the provisions of the Bill.
I also agree with the noble Lord that the swift procedure of obtaining an order from the magistrates' court would be of great value. If the application could be heard together with the applications for the temporary liquor licence and the temporary dancing licence, that would be a very easy way of having some

607
control over the kind of things that go on at special events. I am sure that the authority itself would welcome the use of the magistrates' court, rather than having to set aside part of its operations to deal with urgent and temporary applications.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I ever have to attend a jumble sale in Chipping Sodbury I shall now feel much more secure in the knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, is likely to be on the door taking my 10p, or whatever the entry fee is.
It is not our intention to be excessive in the way in which we apply this part of the legislation. No person falling into the categories which are the subject of Amendment No. 17 will be taken into the regulatory regime established by the Bill as currently drafted. The Bill is directed to those who provide services under contract, or, in the case of door supervisors and wheelclampers, those also employed in-house, as I clarified earlier. These are covered by the provisions of Clause 3 and Part II of Schedule 2. The licensing arrangements do not apply to those who undertake the activities of a security operative on a non-contract or reward-free basis, nor to those who carry out security-related activities which are incidental to their main employment, a matter that we have already discussed.
If a school, church or registered charity hires security operatives under contract, we still take the view that it is right that those organisations should expect them to have been vetted to a national standard and licensed. If the security operatives that they use are employed in-house, they will be exempted from the licensing requirement; in those circumstances it will be the responsibility of the organisation to vet its own staff.
The Bill already takes account of the issues which the noble Lord has suggested as the basis of the amendment, and we think that for that reason the amendment is unnecessary.
Perhaps I might add that it is not our intention to cover innocent people inadvertently, and I hope that the clarification I have given will help in that regard. Regulations may specify in greater detail by description who is excluded. Further than that, the security industry authority itself will be able to make it clear that groups such as those mentioned in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 17 are not covered. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Turning to Amendment No. 18, we do not believe that a temporary exemption from the need for a licence is necessary or desirable. It would potentially introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into the licensing process. It could also lead to different standards being temporarily applied across the country. That would be a recipe for confusion and would lead to the development of a rather uneven package. That is not something we should encourage. We want a level playing field.
Provisions already exist in Clause 4 for exemptions from the need for a licence. Clause 4 permits exemptions where the authority is satisfied that a valid alternative to its own vetting procedures exists. It also
608
allows firms which have received approved contractor status under Clause 13 temporarily to engage unlicensed persons who have none the less applied for a licence.
The security industry authority will be a one-stop shop arrangement. To establish a separate exemption scheme through the courts would again lead to confusion. It would weaken the licensing regime rather than strengthen it and add to the work of magistrates.
The noble Lord suggested that one-off events could be approved by magistrates' courts in the same way as a temporary licence. We would argue that one-off events needing door supervision on a licensed basis should be staffed by properly licensed people, particularly an event such as a pop concert. It is appropriate that such events continue to be covered. In some respects, urgent cases may be an ideal opportunity for criminals to offer their services. Where the need arises rather rapidly is exactly the kind of situation where people with a dodgy background may seek to become engaged.
For those reasons—to ensure probity and evenness of application—we do not think that the amendment should be supported. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: So far as concerns Amendment No. 17, can I take it from what the Minister said that the Government do not wish to catch people working for charities and so on, even if they are lowly paid or volunteers? The suggestion seemed to be that if they were paid they were covered. Sometimes people who undertake these duties get a small remuneration.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: If it helps the noble Lord, that is exactly the case. I completely concur with the extra elucidation given by the noble Lord and with his interpretation.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He also said that regulations could vary. I am not sure which regulations he had in mind.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The point I was trying to make was that in the description of regulations we will be much more forthcoming in setting out how they might work and how the exemptions might work. There will be further clarification then.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: We shall look forward to that. So far as concerns Amendment No. 18, I am not really persuaded by what the Minister said. He talked of marginally differing standards. The Bill provides subsequently for local authorities to have powers of licensing. Presumably that will lead to marginally different decisions being made by local authorities. So the Government are already providing for that on a permanent basis. Under the amendment there may be slightly different standards between magistrates'

609
courts—although they are supposed to apply the same rules as the security authority—but, by definition, they will apply only temporarily, for not more than one month. I do not think the Minister has a powerful argument in these circumstances. A licensing system whereby a temporary licence can be granted by a magistrates' court—particularly in combination with an application for a licence to sell alcohol or for dancing and so on, as I described—could be extremely helpful.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can see the parallel and the comparison, but, of course, singing, dancing and entertainment licences are taken through the local authority process. It is our long-term intention to bring liquor licensing into the local authority orbit as well. The noble Lord's argument—certainly in the medium to longer term—does not hold quite as much water as he would have us believe.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It may be the intention of the noble Lord and his colleagues in government to bring licensing into the local authority's purview instead of the magistrates' court, but it is certainly not Parliament's intention—not yet, at any rate. I am not inclined to think that that is a good idea. But that is not an argument for today.
I do not share the view which seems to be taken by the Government that magistrates' courts are something basically to be got rid of—at least that the lay magistrates' courts are something to be got rid of. The Government seem to want to stick pins in them all the way round. However, that is a much larger argument. We should not involve ourselves too much with it today.
Magistrates' courts will be very good places to go for licences as long as they are responsible for alcohol licensing, dancing, entertainment and so on. If at some future stage the Government lay a Bill before the House to remove that power from magistrates and give it to local authorities in respect of alcohol sales and other matters, no doubt the power to license in this case would be removed at the same time. That would be logical.
But that is a different argument from the one that applies today. We have to proceed on the basis of the law as it is. And the law states that alcohol licensing and so on is carried out by the magistrates' courts. That is why it is a sensible arrangement to have the temporary licence provision arranged in the way I suggest.
From the nature of his reply, it seems to me that the Minister does not want to give this matter further consideration. I am encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the Liberal Democrats to seek the opinion of the Committee.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 47, at end insert—
("(6) A person may apply, on notice to the Security Industry Authority, to the magistrates' court having jurisdiction over the area affected by the designated activities, for an exemption from the requirements to apply for a licence and the Lord Chancellor may make an order as to the procedure to be followed on such an application, including on urgent applications; and the test to be applied by the court is the same as that which would have been applied had an application been made to the Security Industry Authority.
(7) A licence under subsection (6) shall not be granted for a period exceeding one month and shall not be renewable.")
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
6.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 98.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Luke, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Maddock, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mancroft, L.

Attlee, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Barker, B.

Marlesford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Blaker, L.

Montrose, D.

Blatch, B.

Moynihan, L.

Boardman, L.

Newby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Northbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham. L. [Teller]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Byford, B.

Peel, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Chadlington, L.

Plumb, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rees, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Russell, E.

Flather, B.

Sandberg, L.

Fookes, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glentoran, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Greaves, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Haslam, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.[TeIler]

Swinfen, L.

Higgins, L.

Taverne, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Howe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Jopling, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Walmsley, B.

Liverpool, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lucas, L.

Young, B.

611

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Ahmed, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jeger, B.

Alli, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amos, B.

Judd, L.

Andrews, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L

Bach, L.

Lipsey, L

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Billingham, B.

[Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Borrie, L.

Mackenzie of Culkein, L.

Bragg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brookman, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Marsh, L.

Burlison, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe. L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Crawley, B.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Dixon, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn L

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel. L.

Filkin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Uddin, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Whitty, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.29 p.m.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
LIABILITY FOR SECURITY OPERATIVES
(" .—(1) An individual, partnership or company which employs security operatives to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies (door supervisors, etc. for public houses and clubs and comparable venues) shall be liable (in contract and in tort) for the acts and omissions of those individuals.
(2) It shall be the duty of any such individual, partnership or company, to maintain, for public inspection, upon reasonable notice and upon the payment of such fee as the Secretary of State
612
may from time to time prescribe, a list of the individuals and their addresses, to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to this Act applies and the dates upon which they worked, and their hours of work.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an individual, partnership or company employs a security operative if he has security operatives on his premises, notwithstanding the fact that those security operatives may be employed or remunerated by another individual, partnership or company.").
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause provides a liability for the acts, or omissions, of door supervisors when they do the wrong thing. In order to police the liability, the amendment goes on to provide that those who employ door supervisors must keep a record of those whom they employ in that capacity and their times of employment. As subsection (3) makes clear, that applies even if the security operative—in this case the door supervisor—is the employee of another company but is merely working in that club or public house at the time.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide a remedy to a problem which I am told is quite common; namely, the trouble that may arise between a door supervisor and some of the guests or customers of an establishment. If there is an argument that the door supervisor has assaulted a customer, it is often not possible for that customer to pursue a civil action against that individual because the door supervisor will almost certainly lack the means to pay any necessary damages. It appears that employers are unlikely to be found liable in such cases because the victim (the customer) is likely to be met with the defence that the employee was acting on his own behalf, that he was on a frolic of his own and was, therefore, outside the course of his employment.
I express myself in those terms in the light of conversations that I have had with a barrister who has experience of these matters. As the law stands, if a night club reasonably contracts out its security functions to another company, an action against the venue could not succeed. This amendment seeks to ensure that if an altercation takes place, during which a customer feels he has been unfairly set upon by a door supervisor, it will be possible for him to bring a successful action for damages against the company that owns the club or public house in question. That may not occur in the best conducted establishments, but it may and apparently does occur in some.
In my view, it is the duty of a club to keep control over its employees. If those employees behave improperly and, for example, throw somebody down a flight of stairs, the company, as well as the individual security operatives, should be liable. I should add that that concept will not necessarily always involve a flight of stairs. The altercation may take place on the pavement outside the premises, which would make it all the more difficult, as the law stands at the moment, to pursue the club itself. The purpose of the amendment is that one should be able to pursue the club as well as the individual door supervisor. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If this amendment is intended to cover a security operative who acts on a frolic of his own, it is a startling extension of liability

613
in contract and in tort. It has wide insurance implications. For example, if a door supervisor produced a knife, which the owner of the club had no reason to suspect he had on his person, and used it, the club would be liable for the injury that was occasioned. As I understand the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, puts the case, it may or may not be desirable from a public point of view, but it does have very wide implications.
With regard to subsection (2) of this new clause, anyone with experience of the Crown Courts of this country will understand precisely the problem to which the noble Lord referred; namely, that security operatives who cause trouble disappear or cannot be identified, either in respect of their criminal liability or their liability in tort. It is a very good idea to have a register of club or public house door supervisors. Whether it should encompass the whole of this clause, with its wide extension of liability, is a different matter.
Viscount Goschen: I support the intent behind my noble friend's amendment. There clearly is an issue to be considered with regard to the relationship between the management of clubs and the actions of door supervisors. I have listened with care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the various legal difficulties with this approach. There is perhaps another approach that the Minister or another Member of the Committee might volunteer. However, it would be extremely regrettable if the management of a club could say, "We have moved from the previous position of employing any old gaoler on the door. We have now employed a licensed doorkeeper, who has committed an act for which we have no responsibility whatever".
One of my concerns relates to drug dealing by doormen and the control of drug dealing in night-clubs. Responsible night-club owners will want to ensure that drugs are not used in their night-clubs. However, there are rogue night-club owners as well as rogue doormen. In the circumstances that I have described, how does the Minister suggest the relationship between club management and doorkeepers should work? In the example of a doorkeeper throwing someone down a flight of stairs or on to the pavement, the management may say to a doorkeeper, "We employ tough doormen who will throw people out. We do not want any bother. We want to see these guys out on the pavement and treated harshly". The doorkeeper may do exactly that, and the customer may try to pursue a claim against that doorkeeper. However, the fault could well lie with the management of the club for encouraging their doormen to exercise undue violence, or because of concerns relating to dealing in drugs.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have some sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. However, I am not sure that this amendment deals with it in the right way. I prefer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendment would place additional requirements on employers of door supervisors and those who may use
614
door supervisors. I also argue that it places a vicarious liability on those employers or other users for the actions of their door supervisors.
We believe that the duty that would be placed on employers to keep publicly available records of door supervisors' names, addresses, dates and hours of work would impose an additional burden on employers for very little public benefit. Any member of the public who has a complaint against a door supervisor should already be able to ascertain the relevant details from his employers, and, if necessary, the police may be called upon to assist.
We believe that this additional burden would go too far in the direction of a regulatory burden on companies. We take the view that reputable companies should already be able to do what the amendment seeks to impose. Although I am not at present in favour of such a requirement, if a problem should arise and it became apparent that it was larger than at first thought, there would be nothing to stop the security industry authority from making it a condition of the approved contractors scheme under Clause 14—a scheme that we expect the majority of reputable companies to join.
The issue of vicarious liability raises further questions. Vicarious liability is firmly established at common law as a principle that will make employers liable for the acts and omissions of employees who are acting,
"in the course of their employment",
rather than, as has been said, going off on a frolic of their own. The amendment would extend the vicarious liability principle substantially. A bouncer's employer would be liable in contract and in tort for all actions and omissions of his employee. Theoretically, a situation could arise where a pedestrian, knocked down by a motorist who happens to be an off duty bouncer, would be able to claim against the bouncer's employer. More practically, if a bouncer decided to stab someone while carrying out bouncer duties, it means that the employer would be liable to pay compensation for the actions, even if the bouncer were acting independently out of anger or revenge.
Subsection (3) of the amendment considers that an employer employs a bouncer if he has bouncers on the premises, even if that person is supplied under a contract of services. So a landlord may go to the trouble of employing a reputable company and yet still be liable for misdeeds on the part of the bouncer.
The proposed extension of the vicarious liability principle goes far beyond the needs of common law. We believe that it would impose an unfair and unjust system on those who retain door supervisory staff. Therefore, in good conscience, I am afraid that we cannot support such a measure. In view of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. For my part, I shall certainly reflect on the issue raised. However, I cannot recommend the proposed new clause as a solution to the Committee.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thank my noble friend for his support for my proposed new clause. I believe that

615
there is a problem in this respect. Indeed, the Minister has agreed to reflect further on the matter. As regards subsection (1) of the amendment, I realise that this proposes a very considerable extension of the liability involved. If there is an easier way out of the dilemma that occurs from time to time, we should obviously choose it.
Notwithstanding the support that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I am also very susceptible to the argument that subsection (2) would, as the Minister said, place an "additional burden" on companies. In the circumstances, I believe that we should all reflect further on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Licensing criteria]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Viscount said: The two amendments in this group are probing amendments that are designed to highlight a range of issues that arise as a result of Clause 6 and subsection (3) in particular. We seek clarification on how the authority will be able to gauge "the skills" and the "criteria" when deciding whether to issue licences. If Members of the Committee look at Clause 6(3)(a), they will see that it refers to,
"such criteria as the Authority considers appropriate for securing that the persons who engage in licensable conduct are fit and proper persons to engage in that conduct".
That seems to be perfectly reasonable. It is normal duty that is often imposed upon such bodies.
However, subsection (3)(b) extends the criteria, in that the authority will have to consider whether such persons,
"have the skills necessary to engage in the conduct for which they are licensed".
What do the Government mean by "skills"; for example, what skills are these people supposed to have? I can only assume that they mean "training" in some way. If that is the case, the legislation ought to say so. Will training schemes be set up for the purpose? Will the authority demand that people undertake some training before they can be considered for a licence? If so, will that training form part of an educational system like NVQs? What form will such training take? I do not understand the position. Such a requirement seems to me to be unnecessary. "Skills" seems to be a rather meaningless word in this context.
Can the Minister say what kind of skills applicants will be required to have? Either those concerned will be fit and proper persons or they will not be. I do not understand the meaning of the word "skills" in this provision. It seems to me to be both confusing and unnecessary. If the Government really mean to impose a serious regime of training for the industry, they should say so. They should come clean and state their position clearly on the matter.
I turn now to subsection (3)(c), which seems to me to be an extraordinary belt and braces clause. It appears to say, "If we haven't covered anything
616
further than the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) which relate to someone being a fit and proper person and having the necessary skills, we can consider anything else that we want, no matter what it is"—in other words, the authority will have a totally undefined power that will enable it to say, "Whatever we think, we can say no".
I should like to know why the Government consider such a provision to be necessary. If the authority is to be responsible for people's livelihoods, it seems to me that a clear duty should be placed upon it to state what it regards as being "fit and proper" and what is not; and what it regards as appropriate training. As it stands, this is an incredibly wide provision, especially when one considers the extraordinarily wide powers that the Secretary of State will have to add further provisions to various parts of the legislation.
The Minister may correct me if I am wrong in this respect, but it seems to me the current licensing functions will be sub-contracted out to local authorities. Therefore, the powers under Clause 6(3)(a)(b) and (c) will also be sub-contracted to local authorities; in other words, local authorities will have a whole series of rather vague rules by which they will have to decide such matters.
When we discussed a previous amendment, the Minister said that the one thing we do not want is different rules applying to different areas. So how will these provisions work? Before the authority contracts out to the local authority, will it stipulate "the skills" required? Further, will it state what training will be required and then outline all the different conditions that are to be attached to the licence application? When one looks at the Bill, one sees that the authority has the power to add conditions once a licence has been issued. How will that work in practice? Like the Minister, I am concerned that there should not be different rules for different parts of the country.
I should like to hear more from the Minister about how the proposed system will work with local authorities. The Government must define what they mean in subsection (3). Indeed, the Minister must explain why it is necessary to have paragraph (c) in the clause. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My noble friend has highlighted an interesting inconsistency. I recall that we argued a similar point a short time ago. At that stage, my noble friend Lord Cope sought to have the word "skill" inserted into the Bill in place of the word "training" in Clause 1(2)(e). However, we have a direct reference to "skills" in Clause 6. The Minister put forward a convincing argument against the word "skill" at that time. He said that it was much better to have the word "training" in that clause. Nevertheless, a few pages further on in the Bill, the Minister had changed his mind by the time that we reached Clause 5, where we have the word "skills" instead of the word "training". It seems to me that both words should be used. We could then sleep carefully and safely at night.

617
As Amendment No. 21 has been included in this group, perhaps I make take this opportunity to raise a rather wider point that I trust the Minister can answer at this stage. However, if he cannot, perhaps he will be able to respond in relation to another clause of the Bill. Although the issue is relevant to Clause 6 and Amendment No. 21, the point goes a little further and relates to the issue of revocation. Criticism has been made of the Bill that it will target individuals and that the licensing system is based around the activities and licence ability, if you will, of the individual concerned, not of the firm for which he works. I understand that criticism and to some extent support it. There will be individual licensing of all individual security operatives rather than one overall licence for a firm and the imposition of duties on that firm, which would ensure that the people who worked for it were the right sort of people. There is a difficulty concerning bad firms.
What happens when firms go wrong? One knows that the dodgier elements, to use the Minister's expression, of the security business have in some unfortunate episodes overlapped with some elements of the criminal fraternity and that criminals have been involved with the provision of security services. That is why the Bill is felt to be necessary. I am concerned that licences may be given to firms that are substandard and, perhaps, run by criminal elements.
Amendment No. 21 relates to Clause 6(3)(c), which states that the authority,
"may also include criteria relating to such other matters as the Authority thinks fit".
It would assist the Committee if the Minister said whether the type of employer will be taken into consideration when a licence is issued. In other words, a firm may be known to be dubious—it may be infiltrated, owned or run by criminal elements—and someone in it, perhaps a new recruit, may apply for a licence. That person may be perfectly acceptable, apart from the fact that he works for a dubious firm. Will that be taken into account in an application or would that discriminate against the individual, who may be a perfectly decent person? There may be a failure to impose sanctions on a substandard firm.
My point boils down to this. How can substandard firms—by "substandard" I mean those about which the police and the licensing authority have strong suspicions that criminal activities are going on—be effectively put out of business? As I interpret the Bill, various individuals can have their licences suspended or revoked, or they may not be issued in the first place, but that does not appear to be the case with a firm as a whole.
I do not think that I should prejudge the Minister too much if I guess that his answer will involve a
618
reference to the approval scheme. Some of my remarks definitely relate to it. At Second Reading, he said:
"But we do not believe that the threat of withdrawal of approval will necessarily be a deterrent if companies feel that illegal activities are the way to gain their business objectives".—[Official Report, 18/12/00; col. 600.]
That explanation did not involve the approval process.
That argument, which is relevant to Amendment No. 21, involves the type of criteria that the authority can take into account when deciding whether to issue a licence. However, that argument is also part of a much wider question. I should appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that wider question, but if he cannot at this stage perhaps he would discuss the narrower question of the issuing of licences in connection with an employer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had a useful debate on the two amendments. It is important for the authority to have the flexibility to decide on the licensing criteria that should be applied. Each sector of the industry has different requirements, and the authority may decide, following consultation with the industry, police, local authorities and other interested organisations, that to obtain a licence in order to undertake a particular type of recruitment activity, a particular skill or standard would need to be achieved. That is an important tool, which the authority will use to drive up standards across the industry. The Bill is therefore designed to give the authority flexibility in determining the criteria that will best ensure that standards are raised in an appropriately targeted way, where necessary, and that regulation is overall more effective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, raised the prospect of the relevant criteria perhaps being skills and/or training.
Viscount Goschen: And training.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes. I am attracted to that proposition and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making it. It may help us to clarify the word "skills" in line 43 on page 5. I shall take the suggestion away without commitment, although I am interested in it. It may help us in relation to the clause and with our earlier debate—it may be relevant in both instances. I hope that we can be helpful in this regard.
When the authority sets out criteria against which it will judge licence applications, subsection (3) will require it to include criteria to establish whether applicants are "fit and proper persons". That subsection will also allow the authority to include criteria relating to necessary skills. Amendment No. 21 would remove the authority's ability to include a third set of criteria relating to,
"such other matters as the Authority thinks fit".
From our perspective, that amendment would reduce the authority's flexibility. It is important for the authority to have the flexibility to decide on the licensing criteria to be applied. Each sector of the industry will have different requirements, and the authority may decide, following consultation—this is

619
important—with the industry, the police, local authorities and others, that to obtain a licence for a particular kind of security work a particular skill standard should be required. That is an important tool, which the authority will use to drive up standards across the industry. That is why we want it. It would be wrong to remove the authority's room for manoeuvre when it responds to particular demands. It goes without saying, of course, that it will not use that flexibility capriciously or without good purpose. It is important to remember that the criteria will continue to be published, so that applicants for licences will know what is expected of them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked why paragraph (c) was so open ended. The relevant conditions will be published by the security industry authority as part of its public statement on standards. It would need the flexibility to review old conditions as circumstances demand. The relevant conditions will all be published, so people will know what is required.
The noble Viscount also asked about how skills will work when contracting out to local authorities. Local authorities will need to give effect to the authority's standards and published criteria; they will not be able to introduce their own criteria.
In a helpful contribution, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked whether the type of employer would be taken into account when a licence was applied for. Personal licences do not necessarily relate to the individual's employer—such licences are, after all, personal. There is a common understanding in that regard. If the security industry authority knew that a substandard firm was seeking involvement, it might add—I argue that it should add—conditions to a personal licence, which would ensure that the threshold would be raised. Clearly, that would create the necessary difficulties.
Perhaps I may refer to our earlier debate about the need to license directors or those with management responsibility. That would provide another safeguard and check. I believe that I made the point that we need to regulate properly the owners or directors of a company precisely to see off the type of difficulty which the noble Viscount mentioned in his contribution to the debate on this amendment. I hope that I have answered most of the points raised.
7 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for his helpfulness in covering my wider points. I give notice that I should like to return to this point on Report.
Given the Minister's explanation of where the matter now lies within the context of the Bill, I am not sure that sufficient leverage can be applied to a rogue firm. I understand his point with regard to the licensing of directors. However, as we know, the nominal directors of an unscrupulous company may not reflect who controls and, indeed, owns the benefits from the company. I believe that such information would be more difficult to tie down. If an individual is
620
not overly concerned about having people "roughed up" or if he deals in drugs, and so on, he will probably not be too concerned about the provisions of the Companies Act or shadow directorships. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is not yet sufficiently tight in that regard. However, I appreciate the Minister's explanation thus far.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the issue that the noble Viscount raises. He is trying to get to grips with the character of a company and the company which its owners or directors might keep. I shall reflect further on that matter but I do not believe that there is an easy solution. We may well get to the root of it by taking the approach which we suggest in relation to setting standards and criteria. I am prepared to give the problem further consideration. If the noble Viscount is able to put forward any ideas in the interim, I shall happily pursue those, too. In the meantime, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that he withdraws his amendment.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goschen for putting forward the argument about skills and training. The words in the Bill are almost contradictory in that Clause 1 refers to training and Clause 6 refers to skills. The Minister kindly said that he would address that issue.
I want to put three questions to the Minister. First, I believe that the criteria will be crucial to the successful running of the authority. I should like to receive a commitment from the Government that they will publish draft criteria for consultation. Secondly, the security industry training organisation has been established. Can the Minister tell me whether that will be used in assessing the criteria for training?
My third question is a request for confirmation of what the Minister said. I believe he said that if anything were contracted out to a local authority, that authority would have to take note of the criteria. In order to clarify my understanding of the situation, am I right in believing that he is saying that the security authority would not contract out to a local authority unless that local authority, in effect, signed up to the criteria and that, therefore, there would be no question of a local authority using criteria which were different to the criteria decided by the authority?
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and, of course, shall withdraw Amendment No. 20. With regard to Amendment No. 21, I note his reply and am somewhat delighted by it because I feel that it will provide me with a far more powerful argument when I come to deal with my Amendment No. 23. In the meantime, I give the Minister the opportunity to respond to those questions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to the noble Viscount's points are: yes, no and yes. That is as brief and as complex a reply as I would wish to give at the moment. However, I believe that we do meet the points that he raises. First, yes, the draft criteria will be published for consultation. Secondly, no; possibly

621
they will be used to examine training criteria, but we do not want the SIA's hands tied at this point. Thirdly, yes, the local authority will not be able to introduce its own criteria; we believe that that would be quite wrong.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister for being clear. With regard to my second point, the security industry training organisation has been in place since 1991 and has a number of years' experience. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider how that industry organisation, which is well respected, will be brought into discussions about the authority. Obviously, I shall let the Minister consider that point and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 14, at end insert—("() In determining whether or not a person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence, the Authority shall have regard to any representations made to it, whether in orally or in writing, and it shall in any event seek such representations in advance of refusing to grant a licence, giving the applicant an opportunity to respond to any grounds upon which it proposes to refuse a licence.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 22, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 23. I do not believe that I need to say a great deal about them because the Minister will see that we have been somewhat verbose in our drafting, perhaps in order to make our views clear.
I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 22. It is important that the authority has regard to the representations that are made to it. It will have the opportunity to be as open as possible with those who apply for a licence. That will be a complicated process and there will be various transitional provisions. A huge number of individuals—as we have heard, more than 300,000—within the industry, not including new entrants, will have to apply. It will be easy for people to fall through the gaps and not be given a licence, but they will not know why. The process will be difficult.
The Government are trying to raise standards in the industry. We do not want people to have to wait or to remain unpaid because they cannot obtain a licence. We want people to have confidence that when they apply for a licence they will have a reasonable chance of obtaining one. If they are not to be granted a licence, they should be told the reason why. We have all had experience of records kept by government organisations or large bodies being wrong. In fact, they are more often wrong than right. I believe that an applicant should have the opportunity to make his case and find out what happened.
That leads me to Amendment No. 23. As we heard, the authority will have extraordinarily wide powers to say "yes", "no" or "maybe" to an applicant. I believe that any quango with that type of power over people's lives should be mindful of the consequences. One way to make government organisations mindful of the consequences is to include a process whereby, if an
622
applicant has been treated badly and claims to have suffered damage, under reasonable terms as set out in Amendment No. 23 the authority would have to pay compensation. I do not believe that such a situation would arise often. However, it would be in the minds of those who run the authority that they must operate with care and in a proper manner.
The Minister may reply that recourse may be made to judicial review. That response is often given by governments; we have heard it time and time again. However, we all know that judicial review is enormously cumbersome and incredibly expensive. Anyone who applies for a job for the first time does not have a hope in hell of going down that path. 'Therefore, that is not a good argument and I hope that i t will not even be considered by the Government.
I accept that perhaps these two amendments are not drafted as well as they might be. However, I hope that the Government will consider the principle behind them and be able to give the Committee some reassurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 22, moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would oblige the security industry authority to have regard to any representations made to it and require it to seek such representations before it refuses to grant a licence. The Bill already provides for a transparent system of licensing. The criteria upon which the authority will reach its decisions will be published. The authority will wish to ensure that applicants are given every opportunity in their application forms to provide the strongest case in support of their applications. Unsuccessful applicants will have rights of appeal against the decision to refuse them a licence.
Therefore, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to add a further requirement for applicants to be afforded an opportunity to comment when the authority is minded to refuse a licence. The noble Viscount recognised that we are already proposing a complicated process. To do what he asks in the amendment would add a disproportionate further layer of bureaucracy and cost in contrast to no real gain in natural justice for the applicants. There is already a duty to make a speedy response so as not to cause applicants to have to wait too long. The SIA's published criteria should include a statement of its turnaround times for applications and targets. Some applications may be more difficult than others. However, applicants are justified in expecting to know when a decision should be available.
I hope that that has reassured the noble Viscount, who we know does not want to see the system become more time-consuming or more cumbersome. There will be a system of appeals against SIA decisions, as the noble Viscount said. Ultimately, there will be the availability of judicial review, but that would be additional to the right of appeal which is set up under the Bill.
I turn to Amendment No. 23. We believe that the duties of the authority and the rights of individuals already exist within the drafting of the Bill or elsewhere

623
in existing statute or common law. Therefore, Amendment No. 23 would not add substantively to either the duties of one or the rights of the other. As the noble Viscount said, the security industry authority will, in common with other public bodies, have a general duty to act reasonably, including with appropriate care and skill.
Similarly, individuals already have the right to take legal action where their rights have been infringed. We believe that individuals who consider themselves adversely affected by the decision not to grant a licence to undertake security activities or to modify or revoke their licences will, in addition to any more general rights of redress, have a specific right of appeal against the authority's decision.
I hope that in the light of those explanations and assurances the noble Viscount will not press his amendments.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those explanations. She referred to a general right of appeal. I presume that she referred to Clause 10. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State has to make an order for the bringing in of appeals. I wonder whether she could answer my question on that. Is there a right of appeal elsewhere in the Bill or is it just in Clause 10 and has to be initiated by an order?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The process of setting up and enacting the Bill on completion of its passage through Parliament is one that has to be phased through a series of orders by the Secretary of State, as we recognised earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, recognised that there needs to be discussions with industry. That is why there is a process. The process of bringing into effect the matters referred to in Clause 10 is the one which I have outlined. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount. If it does not, I shall write to him with further clarification.
Viscount Astor: I think that means that the noble Baroness agrees with me that an appeal system will be brought in by order by the Government under Clause 10. We shall see what that order says. I give the Government due warning that if I am to withdraw my amendment now, we want them to take note of what has been said during this debate so that they may get right the order. Otherwise, we shall have to look at it. I am sure the noble Baroness will consider that.
As regards Amendment No. 22, the comments of the noble Baroness satisfied me to a degree. I am not quite so happy with her reply to Amendment No. 23. It is always difficult for someone to obtain compensation. That is always a good test to put on anybody. Perhaps this should be dealt with by an order. It may not be right for it to be dealt with on the face of the Bill. I shall consider that point and read carefully what the noble Baroness said.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may assist the noble Viscount if I remind him that in responding I also said that the right of appeal is set up by the Bill. The procedures, details and timing are obviously part of the negotiations and discussions with the industry. However, the right of appeal is established.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating her comments. My point is that we shall have to consider the nature and terms of appeal. As regards Amendment No. 23 and compensation, we shall have to consider whether we need to be specific. The noble Baroness said, quite reasonably, that the authority will have to have targets and turnaround times. We all know about government targets and turnaround times. We know how long it takes to reach targets, and about the targets for asylum seekers, which have not yet been met. I think that almost no turnaround time in government has ever been met by anybody. That was the same when we were in power, just as it is now. Perhaps it has become worse; perhaps not. Who knows?
It will be extraordinarily difficult for the authority to keep to its target. The only way it will do so is by having a long transitional period. Otherwise, it will never get through all the people who are to be covered by the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am somewhat satisfied by her reply to Amendment No. 22. I shall consider carefully whether I wish to come back on Amendment No. 23. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences to engage in licensable conduct]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 23A:
Clause 7, page 6, line 41, at end insert—
("() The Authority shall state its reasons in writing, by reference to the criteria, for—

(a) a refusal to grant a licence under subsection (4), and

an imposition of additional conditions under subsection (6).").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23A is linked to Amendment No. 23D. Under Clause 7, Amendment No. 23A is concerned with the refusal of a licence. Amendment No. 23D is concerned with Clause 9 and the revoking or modifying of a licence. All those are decisions which are likely to give rise to an appeal by the applicant—adverse decisions to him.
I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness refer to the intention to create a transparent system here. The purpose of my Amendments Nos. 23A and 23D is to achieve transparency because it is necessary for the authority to state its reasons for a refusal on the one hand and the revocation or modification of an existing licence on the other. Those reasons should be given in

625
writing and they should refer to the criteria which the Government have indicated are considered to be very important so that an appeal can be effective.
A simple blank refusal of a licence without reasons or the modification or revoking of a licence without reasons would clearly be contrary to natural justice and probably to the rules appertaining to tribunals in any event. So those reasons should be given. I hope the noble Baroness considers this a sensible suggestion, and I await her response.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like briefly to say that we support the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his amendments. In these he might have gone a long way to satisfy the concerns which were behind our earlier amendments. Therefore I look forward to the Government's reply.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Baroness replies, I have said nothing about the proposed subsection (5). It seems to me that there is missing from the Bill a duty to notify the authority of matters which may lead to the modification or revocation of a licence. Two bodies are concerned: the police and the public. If the police hear of something adverse to the licence holder there should be an arrangement enabling the police to inform the authority of that so that consideration can be given to the continuation of the licence either as it exists or in some modified form.
As for members of the public, no doubt they will have complaints against licence holders from time to time. How are they to be dealt with? It is no use writing to the authority if its response is, "I am sorry: we have no way in which we can give effect to your complaint." There must be some way in which the authority can respond to the proper concerns raised by members of the public in respect of their particular licence problem.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I think all sides of the Committee share a concern that this system will work. We do not believe there is a need for the requirements to be on the face of the Bill. The establishment of an appeals mechanism against licence decisions by the authority will require the authority to state in all cases the reasons for a decision it has reached—a point which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—and these must be set out very clearly against the criteria which it must also have published. The SIA will need to work closely with the police, as the noble Viscount recognised, and come to an operational understanding with them as to how to pass on relevant information. We believe that precise arrangements are best left to the authority, once established, and the police to decide that they are required to do this. We do not want to shackle the arrangements that will be reached in achieving the objectives we all share by prescribing them in detail on the face of the Bill.
The authority will also wish to establish a complaints procedure against licence holders. In deciding whether to continue, modify or revoke a
626
licence, the views of the public and customers of licence holders will, as your Lordships recognise, be an important factor. Therefore it is important for the authority to establish and publicise a complaints system. Again, we see no need to specify this as a requirement on the face of the Bill.
I hope I have been able to give an assurance that will enable the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw his Amendment No. 23A and not press Amendment No. 23D. I can assure both speakers in this short debate that the Government share their concern that this procedure should be absolutely clear and reassure them that the Bill requires that this process be followed.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, replies may, I say that it seems to me rather a contradiction for the noble Baroness to say, "This is what we are going to do but we don't want to put in the Bill that we are going to do it." If the Government are going to do it, I do not see why it should not be in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will consider that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Viscount sits down, can I make it absolutely plain that the detail of how to achieve the objectives we all share, we believe, should not be on the face of the Bill. The requirement to provide that detail and to work closely with the police to make it work is a duty to be achieved by the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have listened to the very helpful reply of the noble Baroness. I am not seeking for detail on the face of the Bill, as she will observe. So far as subsection (5) of Clause 9 is concerned, I am simply setting out the duty of the authority to do precisely what she says it is going to do. I do not think that that unduly clutters up the Bill. It is not detail, and it is not seeking in any way to impose a straitjacket upon the negotiations with the police or to prescribe precisely how complaints from the public are to be handled.
I should have thought that as a matter of public presentation a duty of this sort should he made absolutely clear because unless it is on the face of the Bill it is impossible for anybody to demand it of the authority, once set up. I shall think very long and hard about what the noble Baroness said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee begins again at 8.30 p.m.
House resumed.

Olympics
7.28 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to ensure sufficient financial support for British competitors at the next Olympics.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology in begging to move the Motion standing in my name some three months after the event. And what an event it was for our men and women, boys and girls, at the Sydney Olympics, the Para Olympics and the World Junior Championships in Santiago.
I know that the whole House will join with me in congratulating all of the team. Our Olympic team surpassed all our expectations and, as we know, they won 22 gold, 10 silver and seven bronze medals, putting the team 10th in the medals table. Whilst we all measure Olympic success by the number of gold medals or the total number of medals won, overall Team GB achieved another 30 performances in the top six, including 12 fourth places. In addition, no fewer than 98 personal bests were set by our athletes.
What is more encouraging is the spread of the 11 medal winning sports compared to previous games. The Sydney Olympics were Team GB's most successful games for 80 years. It is more than obvious that lottery funding played a major part in our success. As Stephanie Cook said—and others too—"There is no way I could have achieved this standard without it.
There is one other vital factor which helped our team and that is the facilities on the Gold Coast and in Brisbane which the British Olympic Association secured, organised, managed and funded. Athletes who used those facilities in 1999 and last year prior to the games indicated that the facilities, management and expertise available were crucial in enabling them to perform at their best.
However, if you consider the population of the UK and compare our results with those of other countries with a similar population, apart from the USA, Russia and China, there are five countries of a similar size which did better, or a lot better, than we did.
In 1960, after the Rome Olympics, Germany, which won precious few medals, set up training facilities up and down the country, as did France, both spending vast amounts on providing the right kind of environment to encourage their sports men and women to train and reach the high standards that they now have. Likewise, Australia, having won no gold medals in the Montreal games, was determined to create a sports institute. It nurtured 16 gold medallists in Sydney some 24 years later, placing Australia fourth on the medals table at the games.
In 1993–94, our lottery was started and by 1996–97 Sports England set up a programme of funding top athletes costing £60 million a year. It was the first World-Class Performance aimed at those who have a realistic chance of a medal. Then there is World-Class Potential for those who can win medals within 10
628
years. Lastly, there is World-Class Start, aimed at the young at school where our medal winners of the future will come from. We need school sport and physical education.
In a recent European survey we came bottom of the league. It showed that five years ago only 33 per cent of our young did two hours of physical education a week. The most recent survey showed that only 11 per cent did any. That has an affect on all our sports. It has been said that in a few years' time there will be no British football players because all the young do is sit in front of the television and eat junk food.
The Government's strategy, "A Sporting Future For All", proposes ensuring that the UK Sports Institute is fully operational by the summer of 2002. The Government also refer to the UKSI acting in partnership with the sports councils in order to co-ordinate the delivery of all these services to elite athletes. Also, my party's paper, A Future for Sports, refers to the UKSI and the need for "well co-ordinated centres of excellence".
The UKSI, if properly funded and strategically organised on a UK basis, if delivering best practice at elite level and if encouraging the strategic development of much needed elite-level facilities, could have a profound and sustained impact on further improving the performance of British athletes for the next games. The Australian model, the Australian Institute for Sport, as I have said, offers an instructive guide.
The UK has 16 50-metre swimming pools but there is no Olympic-size pool in London capable of hosting an international meeting. The UK needs more Olympic-size pools and other elite facilities if British athletes and the country as a whole are to build on our collective success. Any new facilities must be built as part of a UK strategy. That will go some way to ensuring that there is no unnecessary concentration of facilities in any one home county or in any one area.
The policy to develop the UKSI should, however, be driven centrally so as to ensure a co-ordinated and British-driven approach. Devolution must not be allowed to dilute the effectiveness of this excellent initiative if we aspire to future success at the Olympic Games. A British philosophy must drive British sport and investment should reflect this focus.
Facilities should ideally be spread evenly throughout the UK. If athletes from all areas of the country are to be encouraged to participate, lottery funding and government support of elite-level Olympic athletes undoubtedly contributed to the British success in Sydney. However, if we are to build on our achievements at future games, as we must, levels of funding must be increased and not merely maintained.
In September last year, the Government guaranteed that the current level of funding for elite sports of £28 million per annum would be maintained. It remains to be seen whether that guarantee includes an indexation element. I hope that the Minister can give us some news on that in his reply.
The British Olympic Association aspires to build on our success in Sydney at future Olympic Games and aims to be placed even higher on the medal table in Athens. To do so will require not only increased levels of funding but also clear strategic leadership and direction for the distribution and use of those funds.
To improve on Britain's success at future Olympic Games, we must seek to raise the aspiration of school children by committing further funding and resources to developing sports facilities in schools and by offering school children, both male and female, incentives and added encouragement to take part in sport. Let us not only follow Australia's example but let us go one better and get into the top three of the medal table.
Finally, I thank all noble Lords who are taking part in this short debate and I and others outside look forward to the Minister's reply. I would also like to thank Sport England and the British Olympic Association for their help in preparing the debate.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord. Lord Brougham and Vaux, for initiating the debate, not least because it gives the House the first opportunity, although belated, to congratulate Britain's Olympic athletes who performed so spectacularly well in Sydney.
It is also an opportunity for me to say how much I miss Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge. He encouraged me to speak in the debate on school sport soon after I joined the House and he was a model of kindness and courtesy on that occasion. I certainly miss him a great deal and miss his presence in a debate such as this.
I intend to speak mainly about the new elite sports funding review group which the Government have set up under the chairmanship of Dr Jack Cunningham. The establishment of that body is most welcome but I want to hear from the Minister more about what it is doing and hopes to do. It seems to me that there a number of issues which it must address. The noble Lord, Lord Brougham, referred to one of the most important—the devolution issue. We must maintain a United Kingdom approach for as long as there is one team representing Britain at the Olympics rather than separate teams from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The second issue is the quality and availability of world-class facilities for practising and competing. UK Sport needs to take the lead in strategy and planning and ensuring that the facilities are built as part of the same United Kingdom approach. The chief executive of the British Olympic Association, Simon Clegg, spoke to me, and I assume to a number of your Lordships, while I was preparing for the debate. He said:
"Achieving British success at future Olympic Games will depend largely on implementing a successful strategy to increase the funding, available for UK distribution as opposed to home country distribution. This will ensure that smaller home country sports councils do not suffer at the expense of their larger better funded neighbours and that sufficient and appropriate facilities exist across the United Kingdom as a whole. When the country
630
competes as Great Britain the team may as a result be representative not only of the country as a whole, but also be selected from a larger and high quality pool".
The third issue is the need to maintain and sustain funding levels for our elite athletes. Traditionally, they have received financial support from a variety of sources. I briefly mention the Foundation for Sport and the Arts with which I am associated as a trustee. My noble friend Lord Attenborough and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, also sit on that body. When the funding of that foundation was at a higher level than it is today it was able to provide substantial sums to Olympic athletes. Among many grants, it contributed sums of £39,000, £40,000 and £30,000 to individual athletes who competed in 1996 and 2000.
Obviously, today the main source of funding of Olympic athletes is the lottery, but there is some uncertainty about it. The level of funding will depend on the fluctuating sales of lottery tickets, unless it can be underwritten in some way by exchequer funds to guarantee stability. What will happen if lottery sales fall? Is there any possibility that a fixed sum of money rather than a percentage of lottery income can be guaranteed?
The announcement of £750 million of National Lottery money for school community sports facilities was very welcome news. The investment of New Opportunities Fund money will start to provide funding for school sports facilities, which is long overdue, and may allow the Sports Lottery Unit to release additional funds for elite sport. But what will happen when the three-year NOF funding of school sports comes to an end? Is there not a risk that the Sports Lottery Fund will be squeezed and unable to fund elite athletes without having to reduce community sports funding?
It is also important not to lose sight of the role of the 150,000 voluntary sports clubs, for it is as members of those organisations that many of Britain's Olympic medal winners learn to compete and succeed. It is also in those clubs that sports such as sailing, shooting, rowing and cycling are developed. Those sports produced seven of Great Britain's 11 gold medals in Sydney.
Finally, there is the question of whether we should again seek to host the Olympic Games in the United Kingdom. The benefits of doing so are enormous. The Spanish Government calculate that the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 were worth £7 billion to the country. Further, the staging of the games acts as a catalyst in improving a nation's sporting success, in its briefing the BOA refers to how many more medals a nation wins if one of its cities is chosen as host, South Korea and Australia being two particularly good examples.
Tonight I do not have time to enter the debate about the future of Wembley, other than to say that we shall require a first-class venue if we are serious about hosting any great international sporting event. However, it is important that in our pursuit of the long-term dream of staging the Olympics we do not lose sight of the need to ensure that our athletes are fully prepared and financially supported for the games in 2004.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I welcome this debate initiated by my noble friend. Bearing in mind the Olympic motto that the important thing is to take part rather than to win, I cannot resist the temptation to participate. I do so, none the less, with considerable diffidence.
It is almost 50 years since I last took part in an Olympic Games and more than 50 years since I first participated. Matters have changed considerably since then. At that time the maximum prize that an individual could accept was £15. If one exceeded that one was cast into the outer darkness of professionalism. There was nothing by way of sponsorship at that time. The situation today is very different. The other side of the coin is that at that time there was no temptation to take drugs because all one tried to do was prove that one was better than other competitors. Once there is a degree of professionalism the temptation becomes very real. It is important that testing for drug abuse is improved, and I believe that if someone offends the disqualification should be permanent.
I echo my noble friend's congratulations in three categories. First, undoubtedly Sydney hosted quite the best Olympic Games ever. Secondly, congratulations should go to our athletes, who produced the best results for 80 years. Thirdly, we should also congratulate the British Olympic Association, which played such a vital role in ensuring that our athletes had facilities to enable them to compete successfully. Nowadays, one cannot hope to achieve Olympic standards, or to become part of an Olympic team, without the kind of back-up which the BOA provides. Understandably, the association concentrates on the need to ensure that so-called elite athletes manage to achieve the highest level.
However, the BOA also plays an important role as far as concern schools and so on. That raises the difficult question of funding. The Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995, of which I was a co-sponsor, has been of considerable importance in that context. Clearly, we need to ensure that our athletes have the best facilities.
I should like to make just three brief points, the first of which is one of my hobbyhorses. Despite all the excellent coaching and magnificent individual performances by our athletes in Sydney, both the men's and women's 4 x 110 teams were a failure. I believe that the reason for that was twofold. First, one member of the women's team said afterwards that the athletes had not trained together very much. That is of particular importance now that one can substitute another team member at different stages between heat, semi-final and final. Secondly, they continued to use the wrong method of changeover. The hand of the recipient was held up and the baton was held down, instead of the other way round, which would have avoided fumbling it. If one fumbles it one goes over the line.
I take up two important points made by noble Lords. First, I believe that the Olympic team should be a British team and not as some suggest, particularly
632
those in another place, participants from England, Wales and so on. In the Commonwealth Games the teams are from England, Scotland, Wales and so on but the environment is very different from the Olympic Games. If we are to compete successfully at the Olympics it is crucial that we have a British team rather than teams from parts of the United Kingdom.
Finally, 2012 is probably the earliest that we can hope to host the Olympic Games. The last time the games were hosted in the UK was in 1948. Given the post-war environment, we did magnificently. Nowadays, enormous investment is required. The spin-off in terms of encouraging one's own athletes is enormous. I very much hope that that can be achieved. We need to plan now for the future, and it is important that the British Olympic Association is supported in that regard. I look forward to hearing my noble friend on the Front Bench whose father, together with the Marquess of Exeter, was such a tower of strength to the International Olympic Committee over the years. I also look forward to hearing the Minister.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this Question. I declare an interest as both an Olympian and president of a governing body of sport; namely, the British Bobsleigh Association.
The Sydney Olympics were a huge success by British standards, but we should not kid ourselves: we are not yet in the first division of Olympic medal winners. We came below such European countries as France, Germany and Italy. We have a long way to go, although we did extremely well. Congratulations should go to all our wonderful athletes and the BOA led by Simon Clegg.
A successful team needs long-term planning and investment at the right level. For success the elite level in UK sport needs continuous funding. The objective must be to fund a continuous flow of world-class athletes across the board and to plan that flow at three levels: the start, the potential and the elite. This should not be done at the expense of sport in the community and schools. The home country sports councils are responsible for community sport and the first two of those levels.
The Olympic charter requires us to compete as Great Britain and Northern Ireland until, and if, we move from devolution to independence. Success at Olympic level requires sustained focus year in and year out from all concerned. Devolution is the greatest threat to sustained Olympic focus. It will, and indeed has, led to fragmentation and duplication. Other countries are rationalising their structures while we are adding layers of bureaucracy as a result of devolution. It is possible that Ministers of devolved governments will consider success in Commonwealth Games more important for their country than success at the Olympics for the United Kingdom.
The British Academy of Sport, now the UK Sports Institute, set up by the previous government, was intended to be the hub for excellence. Unfortunately, it was recently moved to Sheffield. No one wanted to

633
go there. It has since been downgraded. Therefore, we have a spoke in Sheffield, and I am not sure what we have, other than bureaucrats, in the institute.
To do as well, or better, in Greece than we did in Sydney, the funding for sport as a whole must be increased. In particular, the funding for elite athletes must remain, at a minimum, at the same level that it was for the run-up to Sydney. Under the present funding structure there is a significant gap. This is almost a direct result, I understand, of a reduction in lottery funding for sport from 20 per cent of lottery proceeds to 16.66 per cent. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government propose to fill that gap and create the necessary funding structure, cohesion and focus that is necessary to give our elite athletes a fair chance of winning gold in the next games? The Olympic Games are seriously commercial. They require long-term significant investment to reap the real rewards.
Before I sit down, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, in paying my respects to my late friend Lord Cowdrey. It seems very strange to be speaking in a sporting debate without Colin beside us.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, has initiated this important debate. It gives us an opportunity to celebrate two outstanding successes: first, the success of our British athletes, both in the Olympics and the Paralympics in Sydney last year; and, secondly, that of our Government, whose strategy for sport has helped create such outstanding success, making our athletes the envy of the world.
The Government aim high. In contrast with the past, where success has been achieved despite the systems in place, we are pledged to long-term, all-round support. The benefit of this support is twofold: first, our athletes are now guaranteed a future where funding, facilities and technical support are of the highest quality and firmly in place; and, secondly, and equally important, there is support to inspire young people to take up sport, emulating their sporting heroes.
With a gold medal tally of 11 in Sydney it was the best performance by our athletes since the 1920 Olympics in Antwerp. Our other medals were equally impressive. I do not need to remind noble Lords that our Paralympic athletes did even better—131 medals, including 41 golds. We congratulate all the athletes who brought us such pleasure at the Olympic Games in Sydney.
But how did it happen? What was the magic formula, the magic ingredients? As other noble Lords have said, a major part was probably lottery funding. That was acknowledged by all the competitors. In the three years prior to the Sydney Olympics our athletes received £60 million from the Lottery. The Government are committed to continuing to build upon that success. Support is pledged through world-class programmes. The Sports Cabinet last October
634
agreed to provide the Sports Council with £100 million over the next four years. Thus the long-term support is assured.
A few weeks ago I attended the all-party sports group in this House. We had an excellent presentation by Simon Clegg of the British Olympic Association and by Liz Nichol and Steve Cram. They are delighted with the Government's proactive and positive stance. The most difficult task ahead of them is making decisions on which sports will have what level of funding. Does success demand greater financial reward, or should the weakest be given more? Those are fortunately not questions for us, nor for the Government, but for those who run sport on our behalf. I am confident that their decisions will be wise and fair.
I want to flag up other positive initiatives from the Government aimed at helping sport. The UK Institute will provide expertise and training facilities which are so desperately needed. We are targeting schoolchildren with high-quality teaching and a much welcomed expansion of competitive sports. Yes, competitive sport is back in schools. For the first time we are giving money to build multi-purpose sports halls in primary schools. In short, school sport is being transformed from the miserable legacy of the previous government to one of which we can be quite rightly proud.
In conclusion, as a lifetime sports enthusiast, still playing tennis three times a week, and as a county selector for Oxfordshire, I am delighted to speak in this "good news" debate. I have absolute confidence that the nation's sporting future is perfectly safe in the Government's hands and that many more glittering prizes lie ahead.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am tempted to say "follow that". I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for giving us the opportunity this evening to debate this subject. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, will have noted from the Speakers' List that there are two Olympians on the Benches in your Lordships' House. I can think of only one other Parliament which might have Olympians on its Benches, and that is Switzerland, but the Swiss take part in all kinds of different sports. It might be the same for the United States.
I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Higgins reminded me of his athletic achievements. I had not appreciated that he ran in shorts and singlet in two separate Olympiads. I took very much to heart his motto that taking part is the most important thing. I and many other noble Lords remember that every year when in January Members of the Lords and Commons Ski Club are shot out of a start gate in blinding snow down a slalom course which they cannot see. They are not like the "pussy-cats" in St Anton—or, perhaps as we might see next year in Salt Lake City—they really take part.
There cannot be many other legislatures in the world where one has a gold medallist sitting on its Benches. My noble friend Lord Higgins referred to 50 years ago.

635
Nearly 50 years go I recall my noble friend who then, in Eton-speak, classified himself as "Mr Dixon". He was even then an all-round athlete, but in 1964 I recall with enormous pride and delight watching his efforts with Mr Nash in the bobsleigh in Innsbruck and bringing back gold medals for the United Kingdom. It proves what we see tonight and what we saw then; that it can be done. If an all-round athlete trains and works hard enough, even in the—I hesitate to call it—somewhat esoteric sport of bobsleighing he can reach the elite standard and win a gold medal.
I hope the Minister will take on board the last two words of the Question tonight, the "next Olympics". In case he thinks it is 2004, perhaps I may remind him that next year—2002—it is the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.
I happened to be watching Eurosport in Switzerland. There was a competition in a place called Soldier Hollow in Utah. It was cross-country skiing. I needed rehabilitation having watched these people charging around a 30-kilometre course at speeds that gave me the collywobbles while viewing the television. I hope that the Minister will have something good to say about the Winter Olympics. I hope to have some good news about what the Winter Olympics Association can do for the athletes in bob, luge, alpine skiing, biathlon and ski-jumping and something fascinating called the Nordic combination. One of my noble friends thought it was some form of winter underwear. I am given to understand that it is a group of brave people who go around a 15-kilometre cross-country skiing course and then take off down a 70-metre ski jump. I do not like looking at Olympic ski-jumping on television, let alone putting on cross-country skis.
I hope that the Minister will have good news as to how the British Olympic Association can be given some assistance in terms of government help and, above all, ideas. We have been reminded of the situation by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and, in the past by Lord Cowdrey. I hope that the Minister will tread lightly if he gives any predictions. The Minister may recall that we had a sporting debate in April. On that particular evening my noble friend made a powerful speech. The Minister said that he had news for us. He thought we were all waiting for the result of a mighty football match. He told us Manchester United 3: Real Madrid 2. We went outside to find Black Rod rending his garments, saying that it was the other way round. I hope that the Minister will take immense care when he gives any predictions this evening. I hope that when the figures come out he will be able to give us his ideas on how the British Olympic Association can be given government support both in terms of finance and ideas.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, for initiating this debate.
I have one small caveat. The thought of competition as exemplified by the Olympics might be a better phrase. It is always easy to sit back and say that we did
636
well and we must go forward. One forgets the other games. The Commonwealth Games have been mentioned; there are European Championships and World Championships in which to take part. It is ongoing. The fact that it is on-going and will continue after the next Olympics is probably the most important factor in this debate. We should make sure that athletes for the future, with a life style that is focused and dependent on competing at these events, get through and try to achieve their best. They should be able to get through and be educated to do so.
For the first time we have something that allows that to happen. Someone said to me that it was something that others had been doing for over two decades, and we have been fairly slow. Along with the Australians, who felt that winning nothing was humiliating, finally we seem to have got our act together after a couple of disasters. For far too long we have allowed our sporting pride to be nurtured by the odd burst of brilliance here and there. The brilliant will always emerge. We merely try to give them a few extra hurdles to jump over. At last we are giving these people a chance to compete consistently. The answer is consistency. The National Lottery has been seen as the crock of gold that is allowing this to happen. Unfortunately, since the National Lottery has been in existence the good causes that drink from this bountiful cup have grown. The amount of money available is becoming smaller. Initially, it made far more money than people expected. We said that we should do something else. In the original debates it was said that this was designed not to supplement taxation but to be extra money on top. We have already crossed the line, where certain things we expect the Treasury to have financed out of public taxation have come from the lottery. It was inevitable, but I did not think it would happen this quickly. The slices are becoming awfully thin. If the cake disappears we are in trouble.
I attended a conference about sport and health at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in December 2000. The Secretary of State for Culture and a Minister from the Department of Health attended. They both said that sport is great and that the lottery helps. It reduces the necessity for ideas to limit spending in other departments. It is good in itself. It gives people motivation. Unless we are prepared to guarantee that funding, even if it means funding something out of taxation, some of these good results will disappear: the incentive to do well, the bonus of feeling good about something and of achievement and a healthy life style by playing sport at any level. Let us face it, the designer label Lycra culture does not drag many people to sport long term. Aerobics does not do it, but possibly playing tennis and enjoying it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said, will keep one fitter and healthy for longer. Certainly, it is a better strategy. Is that something that would be helped by these achievements? It is good in itself and it gives society a bonus by having a lower burden on the National Health Service.
We are here to encourage the Government to make sure that we do not drop this ball in our hands. I use an analogy from my sport; the try line is not that far

637
away. The only thing we can do is to fall over our own feet but let us make sure that we do not undo our laces on the way there. We have to make sure that we give it a bonus.
I make a comment about the national dilution from the sports councils. We have to recognise that the culture of sport is very important. If certain people in certain sports regard the fact that they should have Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England represented separately, we have to accept that that will happen. The culture of sport is something one cannot remove. It is ultimately more important that an athlete gets to the Olympics in the best shape to compete rather than whose jersey he is wearing when he takes part. I leave your Lordships with that one thought.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I echo the words of noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Brougham for initiating this short but important debate. I feel daunted by the Olympians behind me. I miss my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.
I have a personal interest to declare. As my noble friend Lord Higgins mentioned, my father was a representative member of the International Olympic Committee in Britain for many years and a member of the Finance Committee of the IOC for much of that time. He would have been immensely proud of the games in Sydney, not only because of the great success of British athletes but also the universal praise the organisation and presentation of the games achieved.
It is now the right time to tap into the interest of the British people, so very well nurtured by the BBC presentation, and to start thinking about four years hence. We must look at where we could do better. The answer is everywhere. Despite our successes in Sydney, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Brougham and Lord Glentoran, our average number of medals compared to population is not very good.
The services have become a great deal better recently but are still lacking. Swimming and diving have been two of our best post-war successes in the Olympics but not at Sydney. We need many more pools. There is no Olympic-sized pool in reach of London. Why not? Surely that is a priority. To compete against the rest of the world, let alone to win against the best in the world, requires continual upgrading of facilities and coaching at all levels, upwards from young children. All these requirements cost, and continue to cost, increasing amounts of money. In my view, the advent of lottery funding, effectively from 1996, under a Conservative Government is the significant factor in our performance in Sydney, as my noble friend Lord Brougham said. Can the Minister clarify for me the press speculation on the amounts available in the next two or three years? Can he also comment on whether the Government agree with Sir Rodney Walker, speaking as chairman of UK Sport, when he said that unless the Government provided more money, funding for sport would decrease from next year?.
Facilities need to be widely and properly spread across the UK. It is essential that Sport England uses this criterion above all in its decisions regarding the
638
distribution of lottery funds. So perhaps I may mention to your Lordships the case of the rowing lake in Bedfordshire of which I spoke briefly in my Second Reading speech on the Culture and Recreation Bill. It has had its request for funding turned down for what seemed to me to be very inadequate reasons. It is really well placed to provide facilities for middle England rowing—not on the Thames—and to provide help for Bedford itself, which is shortly to be joined to the Grand Union canal, thereby making competitive rowing on the Great Ouse almost impossible. The situation is delicate, with a decision on appeal expected very soon. Support for it is right across the hoard. The original application was submitted in April 1997. This initiative fits exactly into the criteria we have been discussing and includes a catchment area of 3.5 million people. I hope that the Government will take due note and employ their influence.
One of the great successes at Sydney was cycling. The main reason for that was the existence of the Manchester velodrome. Are there plans to build any more? Certainly, I suggest, London will not host the 2012 games without one. Indeed, does London have any Olympic-standard facilities at the moment? Getting the games to London in 2012 will do more to focus the attention of aspiring athletes of all ages and to all sports than anything else.
The coming on stream in 2002 of the United Kingdom Sports Institute is very important, as is continuing support for the British Olympic Association. It would also be very helpful if the Government could redress their broken promises to protect playing fields, particularly school playing fields. During the year April 1999 to March 2000 some 646 applications for development on playing field sites were made. Where are the revised planning and policy guidelines on sport and recreation? Money is short, so when will the £20 million paid to help provide athletics facilities at Wembley be returned, or is there another U-turn on this matter?
There were 98 best personal performances a t Sydney by British athletes in many fields. Getting the games to London in 2012 would be wonderful. But when will the Government sort out the Wembley Picketts Lock situation and give urgent priority to the badly needed facilities in London and elsewhere? I look forward, as always, to the noble Lord's reply.
8.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for initiating this debate. I congratulate him on attracting such a distinguished group of speakers, including, as has been said, distinguished players and competitors. We do indeed miss Colin Cowdrey. I assume that Mr Hague needs the noble Lord, Lord Coe, so much these days that he could not spare him for this debate. I personally regret that.
I join other noble Lords in congratulating all our Olympic and Paralympic competitors—the Paralympics were not mentioned in the debate and

639
should have been—with the medal winners deserving particular praise. We look forward not only to the 2004 Olympics in Athens but also—pace the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. I shall not forecast whether we will have any success, but we do have six Winter Olympics competitors in the top world 100 compared with only one a couple of years ago. The British Olympic Association is setting up a training camp in Calgary, Alberta, comparable to the Gold Coast camp which existed before the Sydney Olympics. It can be said, without making any forecasts, that we are taking that seriously.
As will become clear during the course of my remarks, we have high aspirations for sport in this country. We take the view that sporting success is important for the country. It lifts morale and brings the country together. It captivates the imagination of our young people and encourages them to participate and emulate sports people.
In congratulating those who took part in the Sydney Olympics and Paralympics, I can only repeat the highlights of what has already been said. The medal haul of 11 golds was the best performance since 1920. We secured 28 medals in total. We were 10th in the final medals table, the best since Los Angeles in 1984. Of course, it is never good enough and it is true that we are still behind some countries with smaller populations. But this is very considerable progress. The Sydney Paralympics were the best ever games so far. Great Britain and Northern Ireland won 131 medals—41 gold, 43 silver and 47 bronze, and we gained second place in the overall medals table. That is worthy of congratulations. I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others in congratulating the British Olympic and the British Paralympic associations, the coaches, the performance directors, the physios, the doctors and all those who took part. I join the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Luke, in agreeing that Sydney was outstanding as a venue for the games.
What do the Olympics and the Paralympics teach us? They teach us that investment in sport works. I hope to be able to say something helpful about that. It is not simply enough to carry on as before—even with the significant investment we are now making. We need to learn the lessons of Sydney in order to provide the maximum benefit. Kate Hoey has had meetings with the British Olympic Association and the chief executives and performance directors of the Olympic sports to identify the lessons learnt from Sydney and to discuss how the support to our athletes can be improved. She was also at the training camp in the Gold Coast before the Sydney games to hear at first hand from athletes, coaches, sports scientists and others. I am sure that she would have been glad to hear the expert advice of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on the hand-over in the relay, although I do not think that it is quite the job of the Sports Minister to intervene in that way.
My right honourable friend Jack Cunningham is to lead a review of the World Class Programmes structure and funding, to which my noble friend Lord
640
Faulkner referred, and the relationship with the developments taking place with the UK Sports Institute. The review will report back by mid-2001. The terms of reference and membership of the group were published in the Official Report. My noble friend Lord Faulkner would like to hear more on this issue. I could go on about it for a long time but I shall say that the review body met only today. It has been in active contact with the home countries. It has already talked to Sam Galbraith, the Minister with responsibility for sport in Scotland. Tomorrow, it is going to Wales to meet the Sports Council. I hope that that whets my noble friend's appetite.
I acknowledge that devolution and the issue of what national teams are fielded are significant matters. But I do not think that it is a defect. I know that some people call for teams to be either more local or less local. But I do not think that the way we are organising support for sport has been adversely affected by devolution. It is right for the noble Lords, Lord Brougham and Lord Glentoran, to say that we should not let devolution damage our chances. However, I think that the distinction which has been made; namely, of UK responsibility for elite athletes—those who will compete in the Olympics and other international competitions—and most other aspects of sport, including the Commonwealth Games, coming within devolution seems to be working fairly well.
In order to ensure that it does work well, we have set up the Sports Cabinet which brings together the Ministers responsible for sport in the four parts of the United Kingdom under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The chairs of the five Sports Councils may be invited to attend the meeting, as may others. They met for the first time in November 1998. The next meeting is to be held on 16th February. That meeting is succeeding in its efforts to co-ordinate the work of all of the devolved administrations as well as of the Westminster Government.
On the subject of funding, of course the lottery is probably the most significant individual factor. Funding from the lottery has made an enormous difference. In view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I do not think we need fear that the amounts are getting smaller. It is still the case that amounts going to good causes are greater than the £9 billion originally anticipated. Sport is receiving money not only from the original sports scheme; it also receives an enormous amount from the New Opportunities Fund.
In the three years leading up to the Sydney games, more than £60 million of lottery awards was given to the programme for British Olympic and Paralympic sports. Home countries also supported home country-based sports, Sport England world class programmes, Wales Elite Cymru and Scotland and Northern Ireland's talented athletes programmes. In response to those who expressed fears that these initiatives might not continue, last October the Sports Cabinet agreed to continue the World Class Performance Programme at least at its current level of funding. That will provide

641
UK sport with £100 million over the next four years for the UK element of the programme. The record of lottery funding is unassailable.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Luke, will expect me to comment on individual applications such as the rowing lake in Bedfordshire. Indeed, that would breach the arm's length principle which the Opposition have been at pains to defend, with some reason.
I turn now to the UK Sports Institute, referred to and welcomed in particular by my noble friend Lady Billingham. In addition to direct financial support, elite athletes and governing bodies benefit from the facilities and services of the UK Sports Institute, which is not based in Sheffield. It is only one of the centres, contrary to what was originally intended. The institute consists of 10 regional networks in England, along with national network centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will be fully operational by the summer of 2002. A central services team is in place, which provides sports with technical, operational and programme support services. We are investing £120 million in 80 facilities for the English Institute of Sport network. Over £80 million of new lottery funding has so far been committed by Sport England, with most of the remaining lottery applications—over £40 million—to be made over the next six months. Comparable figures are available for Scotland and Wales.
I turn now to what is a proper concern of the debate; namely, Exchequer funding. The spending review announced Exchequer funding for sport effectively to be doubled to £102 million by 2003–04. Of course, the advantage of having three-year expenditure figures is well recognised. Under those circumstances, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, as regards whether this is to be index linked rather takes a back seat. In any case, the expenditure is linked to a review of programme success rather than to any other measure.
Furthermore, I challenge the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that there is a gap in the funding. I have said that we are committed to continuing world-class funding. All these issues are included in the Cunningham review. Our investment will produce a major step-change in children's participation in sport through high quality sports teaching and coaching, as well as the expansion of competitive sports in schools. I address that remark in particular to my noble friend Lady Billingham.
As regards the issue of anti-doping raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the Government are funding the UK sports testing programme and will continue to do so.
The situation on playing fields is simply not true. Under the last government, we were losing 40 playing fields a month. We are now losing three playing fields a month. Those fields are almost all related to schools which no longer exist or which no longer require them.
I should like to have spent more time discussing schools sport and grass-roots support for sports. Although the Question concerns the next Olympics, if
642
we are to look further ahead we must consider not only support for those who are already elite athletes, but also those who will come from our schools and move into sporting excellence over the coming years. As I said, we are committed to strengthening schools sport at every level. We are spending £120 million to set up a network of 1,000 school sports co-ordinators by 2004. The first 145 were appointed in September last year. We aim to designate 150 specialist sports colleges by 2003. Already 83 have been designated in England. We are spending £130 million to develop the new Spaces for Sports and Arts facilities on primary school sites; £580 million from the New Opportunities Fund to strengthen the foundation of sport across England by building and refurbishing PE and sports facilities in over 1500 schools; £50 million from the New Opportunities Fund for outdoor adventure activities; £22 million from the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces initiative—all of these real developments which ought to be recognised.
As regards the national curriculum, to which several noble Lords referred, I must refer to the announcement made on 11th January that there is no longer merely an aspiration but an entitlement to two hours of sport and physical education a week. All that stands apart from what is being done for sport in the New Deal.
If I continue for two minutes, we shall be able to avoid adjourning during pleasure. I hope that that is acceptable to noble Lords. I should like to say a few words about the next Olympic bid, a matter referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Brougham and Vaux, Lord Higgins and Lord Luke. My noble friend Lord Faulkner mentioned his dream of staging the Olympics in Great Britain. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, remembers his participation in the 1948 games held in London. I recall those games as a mere schoolboy spectator. It was enormously exciting and it would be wonderful to see the Olympics held here once again.
So far the department has seen only a draft of the British Olympic Association's report which is to be presented to Ministers in February. It indicates the substantial level of public infrastructure investment—billions of pounds worth—which will be needed to stage an Olympic Games. The association has not yet taken a decision on whether to bid for the Olympics in 2012 or later. The decision rests with the association, which has already stated that any UK bid would have to be based on London. We have not yet taken any decision as regards whether to support such a bid. We have a manifesto commitment which states that we shall continue to work with national and international bodies to try to attract more major events to the UK. We also remain committed to supporting a viable bid for the Olympic Games. However, at the moment the ball is firmly in the court of the British Olympic Association.
We share the great pleasure expressed from all quarters of the House over the success of our athletes and players at Sydney, both in the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. I hope it is clear that we have practical programmes in place for the next Winter

643
Olympics and the next Olympics in Greece and that we have longer-term plans and commitments to substantial increases in expenditure which will fulfil this Government's commitment to the long-term future of sport in this country.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
[Amendment No. 23C not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Revocation and modification of licences]:
[Amendment No. 23D not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
APPEALS
(" .—(1) A person aggrieved by a decision made by the Authority in his case in relation to the granting, refusal, revocation or modification of a licence may appeal, within three months of the date of the decision to the magistrates' court for the area in which he resides, against such grant, refusal, revocation or modification of the licence.
(2) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for the procedure to be followed on any appeal under this section, including concerning the disclosure of documents or evidence, and such an appeal shall be held in public except to the extent that the interests of justice require otherwise.
(3) Magistrates hearing an appeal under this section shall have it in their discretion to make such order as to costs as they see fit, subject to the presumption that the costs of a successful appeal should be paid by the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: It is suggested that with the new clause we should discuss Amendments Nos. 25, 25A, 26, 27, 27A, 29 and 31. This group of amendments is concerned with the appeal system. It is a very important group, not least because people's jobs and businesses are involved and depend on the decisions taken. It is important that there should be an appeal system, not least in connection with human rights and so on, but also it is not a small matter to the individuals involved; it affects their livelihood and their businesses.
The Bill provides in Clause 10 that the Secretary of State "may" provide for an appeal against refusal of a licence. Under Clause 17 he "may" provide for an appeal relating to a Clause 14 application in respect of approvals of businesses. The Bill states both that the Secretary of State "may" provide for an appeal, and that if he decides to do so he "may" do it by setting up a tribunal. I am not sure what other way there is to provide for an appeal, but it is expressed as "may".
That is the first point, which runs through several of the amendments. Our amendments relating to appeals all use the word "shall" instead of "may". So does the Liberal Democrat amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Amendment No. 25A, which is
644
confined to that point. The same point—and a very important one—runs through all our amendments of this character.
It is essential that there should be an appeal. What is more, it is very important that the procedure should be established before the process goes active. People will be applying for licences. No doubt some will be granted them and some will be refused them. Before people are required to have a licence to carry out these activities, they must be able to appeal, if they think they have good grounds, and to have their appeal dealt with, so that either they do or do not have a licence on the day when it becomes statutorily essential to have a licence to carry out their job, whatever activity it is.
Therefore, it is important that there should be an appeal, and also that the procedure should be set up in time, before the Bill takes effect in the various sections of the security industry. To say in the Bill that the Secretary of State "may" set up appeals, if he feels like it, is not sufficient.
The next point to come out of the amendments is this: who is to set up the appeal system in the first place, and who is to supervise it? There are three suggestions in the Bill and these amendments. The first suggestion, in the Bill, is that the Secretary of State should do so. The second, in Amendments Nos. 25 and 31, is that the Lord Chancellor should be responsible for setting up the tribunal; laying down the lines on which it is to operate; how the parties are to be allowed to present their cases; what should happen about costs and disclosure of documents; and all the other matters necessary for ensuring that the appeals tribunal is a fair mechanism for arriving at a decision.
The word "tribunal", which is what the Bill suggests the Secretary of State should set up, has a legal ring to it. We think of a tribunal as being something within a legal framework. Given its important responsibilities, it should be properly set up, with proper rules about who may appear before it and whether they will be represented and what documents various parties should have to disclose in the course of an appeal. We have already discussed whether the authority should give its reasons for decisions to refuse a licence, so that the grounds of appeal are known, but it is also important that documents should be made available so that a proper and fair appeal can take place, since people's jobs and businesses are involved, and that the question of costs be dealt with.
Given this legal tone, it is important that the tribunal is properly set up in legal terms. The right person to do that is really the Lord Chancellor, who would give authority to the tribunal by being involved. His involvement would also make sure that the rules that applied in the conduct of an appeal were in line with those of other tribunals for which he is responsible.
In case that proposal does not take the Government's fancy as an improvement on the Secretary of State's doing it, we have put up another alternative in the new clause set out in Amendment No. 24, which is the lead amendment in the group because it comes first in numerical order. The

645
amendment provides for an appeal not to a separate tribunal, but to an existing tribunal: the magistrates' court. The advantage of the magistrates' court is that its members are knowledgeable about the local scene where the activity is to take place. They are knowledgeable, too, by their nature, about the local characters who will sometimes be involved, particularly characters who have got into trouble. They will have a feel for the situation. They exist, they have rules, they have all the necessary clerks, premises and everything else to hear cases, and they have some very similar responsibilities, as we have already discussed in relation to earlier amendments.
Those are the three basic options before the Committee at the moment: first, that the Secretary of State should set up a tribunal; secondly, that the Lord Chancellor should set up a full legal tribunal; and, thirdly, that a case should go to the existing tribunal, the magistrates' court.
Other amendments in this group also refer to appeals. Amendment No. 26 provides that, whatever kind of appeal tribunal the Committee settles upon—whether it is Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor or magistrates' court—the decisions should be appealable both from the authority itself, which is what the Bill provides, and also from local authority decisions. We know that some decisions to grant licences and so on will be delegated to local authorities. I have no greater faith in local authorities than I have in the new authority. It is important that there should be a right of appeal against decisions made by the local authority in these cases as well as appeals against decisions of the security industry authority. This is a quite separate point from which tribunal is to be given the job. I hope that the amendment is so drafted as to apply to whichever tribunal is in charge of these matters.
Amendment No. 27 again embodies a separate point—whether there is an appeal only if the licence or permission, whatever it is, has been refused; whether there is no appeal if the licence has been granted. In some cases there might be, quite properly, an appeal when a licence is granted. For example, if the police thought that a particular individual was not suitable for a licence but, nevertheless, he was granted one by the security industry authority or by the local authority, as the case may be, the police may wish to appeal against it if they considered it wholly wrong that a licence should be granted. At the moment the appeal procedure is entirely a one-way street. It can only operate if a licence or permission is refused.
In addition, a person who is granted a licence with various conditions may feel that he wants the conditions altered, in which case he may want to appeal even though a licence has been granted. I am not sure, quite frankly, whether he can appeal under the Bill as drafted.
That brings me on to Amendment No. 27A, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendment seeks to make clear that the tribunal—whichever tribunal it is—can change the conditions of a licence as well as uphold a refusal or
646
grant a licence. Again, that is important. It should not be, as it were, a yes or no answer; it may be a slightly more grey answer resulting from a more grey appeal in cases where it is not the granting of the licence that is wrong but the conditions attached to it. Amendment No. 27A is also a different point, but it is important.
Amendment No. 29, on the other hand, is simply consequential. All it seeks to do is to ensure that the words "local authority", which would be inserted by Amendment No. 26, are defined. I am aware that this is, in one sense, in the wrong place. If we were to accept Amendment No. 26, the consequential amendment would move the definition of "local authority" into Clause 22, the main definitions clause, rather than simply altering the wording here. I am against having a definition which applies to more than a section hidden away in the middle of the Bill. It is more convenient if the definitions are all in the definition section at the end. It is very much a subsidiary point. Whether we need to extend the definition depends on whether or not we can persuade the Government to agree to Amendment No. 26 or something like it.
I have made a variety of points, all relating to the very important question of appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, wishes to speak at this point, but it may well help the Committee if I indicate that I intend to make a confession. I am happy to explain now.
Perhaps I may say for the record that I understand the concerns behind the amendments. The noble Lord wants to make explicit on the face of the Bill the fact that an appeals mechanism will be established to deal with a range of SIA activities. This issue is quite complex and there are a number of related matters. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that he was providing us with three options. I am not going to say at the Dispatch Box which option I prefer, although I will say that we are not drawn towards using the magistrates' courts.
I should like to take away the propositions in the amendments and bring back at Report stage something which will certainly satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and, I suspect, of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. We fully recognise that there must be a right of appeal. I intimated that at Second Reading. I said then that we would bring a mechanism forward under Clauses 10 and 17. I should like to consider how best to do that.
We were at one stage, particularly with regard to appeals from local authority decisions, considering having those heard within the security industry authority itself. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I am no longer entirely satisfied that that would be the most appropriate way of dealing with the issue. But I should make the point that I am not convinced that we necessarily would want to set this up within the ambit of the Lord Chancellor; we would prefer to leave it with the Secretary of State.

647
However, I can confirm that we would like to bring forward a proposal for an independent tribunal; I can confirm that we are happy to take on board, in spirit, the points that have been made today; and I can also confirm that, having agreed to go in that direction, we will take into consideration the licensing matters currently in the remit of the local authority decision-making process. That will lead to a consequential amendment, probably with an effect similar to that of Amendment No. 29.
If the Committee is happy to leave it to us to bring forward proposals at Report stage, I shall be happy to consult with noble Lords on the shape of those proposals so that we are very much in spirit with what has been said in the debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. We shall wait to see what he wishes to bring forward.
Perhaps I may make this point for him to consider. When we were debating Amendment No. 22, he will recall that the Government were not anxious to give to the applicant an opportunity to respond to the grounds upon which it was proposed to refuse a licence. The reason given for that was that there was an appeals process. That means that, on the appeals process, for the first time the applicant will have his say on the objections that are being made to his having a licence for whatever activity. This becomes a justiciable question. Points will be put by both sides and a tribunal, however it is constituted, will have to decide precisely between the balancing forces; the objections and the responses to it. It is very much a thing for a tribunal to do.
I noted that the Minister did not consider the Lord Chancellor as appropriate and preferred to rely on the Secretary of State. The machinery for setting up the tribunal is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor anyway. He is the person who keeps the list of people who are suitable for appointment to tribunals of various kinds. It is his department that is concerned with setting up rules that will meet the criteria of the human rights legislation—rules regarding fair hearing and so on. I should have thought that from a practical point of view it would be right for the Lord Chancellor to set up the tribunal and lay down the rules. In that regard I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I make these points in welcoming the Minister's announcement.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister's remarks. I suggest that as an earnest of his good faith and his intention to do this he might accept the Liberal Democrats' Amendment No. 25A—it is the most modest of the amendments in this group; it seeks to substitute "shall" for "may". That does not close off any of the other points.
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Lord Chancellor being responsible for the tribunals. The noble Lord, Lord
648
Thomas of Gresford, set out the reasons in support of my proposals, although with much greater legal knowledge.
I took the Minister to say that the Government were more or less decided that the appeal should apply against local authority decisions. I shall not necessarily hold him to that; however, it is clearly the way that his mind is working, which I very much welcome. Amendment No. 27A ought to commend itself as well—it would allow the tribunal, whichever it is, to make changes in the conditions.
Finally, to make the point clear, it is my belief that the provision regarding the tribunal that is set up ought to apply equally to decisions on licences under Clause 14, as well as to other licensing decisions made under this clause. Clearly, the tribunal will acquire some expertise in the matter and can make decisions on both matters. So two groups of tribunals are covered by this group of amendments and will, I hope, be covered by the noble Lord when he considers these matters.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened carefully to the contributions made and I shall take away the many points raised. I also undertake to consult further with Members of the Committee. Perhaps a further meeting with officials might assist in that general direction. In saying that, I shall not commit the Government to points in the amendments as they stand; however, I hope that we can have further discussions and arrive at a point of agreement. We are at one in wanting to design a simple, effective and cost-effective appeals mechanism that works to the benefit of the industry and satisfies local authority interests as well. That is where matters stand and we shall be in touch.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The noble Lord has accepted Amendment No. 25A in principle, so we shall not press him on it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 24.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Appeals in licensing matters]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27A not moved.]
Clause 11 [Register of licences]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 27B:
Clause 11. page 8, line 27. leave out ("such fee as it considers reasonable") and insert ("a reasonable fee")
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a simple point. At Second Reading, I drew attention to the fact that between the publication of the White Paper and Second Reading, the proposed fees for licences had virtually doubled. Instead of the authority charging,
"such fee as it considers reasonable",
which is how the matter is presently phrased in Clause 11(5), the wording should be "a reasonable fee". That introduces an objective standard in relation to the fee that is being imposed.
One does not want to place too great a burden on the industry by upping the fees until the whole thing is self-financing from the beginning. It may ultimately

649
become self-financing, but I do not think it sensible to start in that way. My Amendment No. 43A to Schedule 1 makes the same point. The amendment seeks to replace the phrase,
"such charges as it considers appropriate",
with "reasonable charges"—again introducing some kind of objective standard into the cost of the whole scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support what the noble Lord has said. Over the past few weeks I have detected rising concern in the industry regarding the potential costs of this provision. Admittedly, that does not always sit well with the industry asking for the powers to be further extended; nevertheless there is concern about the cost, because it will ultimately be borne by the customer. As has been said, the proposed cost has escalated from £23 for a personal licence, as was set out in the White Paper just over 12 months ago, to more than double that—to £50 to £60 per person.
This is not an industry with high profit margins. On the contrary, sections of it, particularly the "guarding" part of it, have low profit margins. They have no alternative but to pass costs on to the customer. That is the danger facing those areas of the industry. That is why the authority should not be the ultimate decision-making body as to what is in all circumstances a "reasonable" fee that people can be expected to bear.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We consider it important that the security industry authority acts responsibly and sets all its fees at a reasonable level. Members of the Committee will have judged from my demeanour and approach during the course of these debates that we seek to introduce a "lean and mean" regulatory machine. We are not keen on extending the weight of regulatory enterprise, nor do we seek to overburden the industry. Therefore, we want the fees to be kept at a necessary minimum—I want that to be clearly understood on the public record. Fees will be kept to a level sufficient to enable the authority to be self-financing as a regulatory body. Therefore, the degree to which we can narrow the need for regulation will enable the SIA to keep its fees to a lower level.
We consider, however, that there are already a number of safeguards against excessive charging built into the Bill. Under the Bill's provision, the SIA is, for example answerable to the Secretary of State; it is required to comply with directions given to it by him. There are also other financial controls. The authority will be required to produce an annual statement of accounts for the Secretary of State and the Auditor General, both of which will have to be laid before Parliament for scrutiny and debate. We believe, therefore, that the Bill already contains adequate mechanisms to prevent any excessive charging.
It is perhaps worth further clarifying how the initial setting up costs of the SIA will be met. It obviously cannot be self-financing from the beginning. The start-up costs will be funded by the Home Office. However, it is our intention to recoup these costs over a longer period of time so that they are spread out. The fee of
650
£35—perhaps as much as £40 on our current estimate—is for a licence usually lasting three years. We therefore feel that the burden is not excessive. Through the reporting and scrutiny process, pressure will be applied to ensure a lean and efficient regulatory body. We undertake at the outset to provide for the start-up costs. Therefore, there will be no pressure initially to increase the licensing fees to a higher level.
I hope that that explanation satisfies the concerns of noble Lords. We are happy with the wording as it stands. In any event, I am not entirely sure that the wordingsuggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, creates the measure of objectivity towards which he seemed to be directing us. I can assure the Committee that it is our intention to ensure that these fees are kept to the necessary minimum—but necessary, nevertheless, to provide for more than adequate financing to make the SIA effective.
9 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I ask for the Committee's indulgence briefly to mention a point that arises indirectly from Amendment No. 27B. The point was mentioned to me by someone involved in the industry but too late for me to table a particular amendment. The fee referred to in Amendment No. 27B is to inspect the register. There is a fear that if people can inspect a register containing the names and addresses of security operatives, that information may be used to blackmail and bring pressure to bear on security operatives involved in carrying cash. I am told that the modern thief does not try to break into cash vans. The modus operandi that has recently been used is to pass a note to a security guard explaining that his wife and children, whose address can easily be discovered from this register, are being held hostage and that unless lie, under their instructions, drives the van to the place in which they choose to deal with it, he will not see his wife and children again, or some similar threat. The names and addresses of the individuals concerned could be sensitive in this respect. I do not wish to press the point. I mention it because I believe it is worthy of consideration. It did not occur to me in time to table an amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have heard the noble Lord's explanation. I accept what he says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Licensing at local authority level]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment. No. 28:
Page 8, line 30, leave out from ("Authority's") to end of line 38 and insert ("functions under this Act (other than section 6) relating to the granting, revocation or modification of licences to carry out activities to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 (door supervisors etc. for public houses, clubs and comparable venues) applies, for purposes and in cases and areas specified or described in the order").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has two purposes. The first is to inquire whether the Minister can tell us what it is proposed should be delegated to local authorities from the authority itself.
Secondly, having struggled to read this Bill, one reached the conclusion that the drafting was unnecessarily obscure. That was the point at which the fuse blew, as it were, and I fell down trying to re-write subsections (1) and (2). As presently drafted, Clause 12(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for local authorities to carry out some or all of the Authority's relevant licensing functions".
Subsection (2) defines the authority's relevant licensing functions. Why not incorporate them into one subsection? I hope that the effect of the words is precisely the same as the wording of the two subsections as they stand at the moment. I also hope that it is marginally clearer. That will be a matter of opinion. As I say, it was the moment at which the fuse blew when I was reading this difficult prose that is favoured by parliamentary draftsmen. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My speaking note begins, in bold,
"RESIST but agree to look again if extra reason given".
The noble Lord has raised a good point about the delegation to local authorities. It is intended to cover the consideration of applications for licences as door supervisors only, not other security activities, and the grant, refusal and modification of these licences. They would not need to inform the SIA of decisions for register purposes. That is what this wording attempts to achieve. My note goes on to be generous to parliamentary counsel by suggesting that we rather prefer the wording as drafted by our experienced parliamentary draftsmen; and, of course, that is the case.
I think I am satisfied with the wording. I hope that I have clarified the point raised by the noble Lord. In any event, I shall consider whether or not our wording can be further simplified, but that is what it aims to achieve.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Register of approved contractors]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 30. at end insert ("; and
(d) the date approval was given and the date it is due for renewal.").
The noble Viscount said: According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, approval under Clause 14,
"will cease after three years or after such a period as the Secretary of State may have specified by order".
This is yet another power for the Secretary of State. This amendment applies to Clause 13(3)(c), which refers to "conditions of approval". We wish to insert thereafter a further paragraph (d) specifying,
"the date approval was given and the date it is due for renewal".
The object of the amendment is very simple: it is designed to enable those inspecting the register to see whether a company continues to remain approved—and, more importantly, to ascertain when that approval might expire. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 13(3) lists the information that will have to appear in the public registers of approved contractors. As identified by the noble Viscount, the information as currently drafted is limited to the name and address of the contractor, the security services for which the approval has been given and the conditions of the approval. The clause is not exclusive in its provisions. There is nothing to stop the SIA from publishing additional information, such as that suggested in the amendment.
However, like the noble Viscount, we recognise that the public will wish to have unambiguous information available in the register and that the amendment would provide a useful improvement to the list of material that must be published. We are not convinced that it will be essential to publish both the date on which an approval has been given and that on which it is due for renewal. The appearance of a company name on the register will, in itself, be evidence that approval is in force. But it will certainly be desirable to publish the due date of renewal.
However, the improvement made by this amendment is equally applicable to the provisions of Clause 11(3), which relate to information that must be published in the register of individual licence holders. If the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw his amendment this evening, I shall give an undertaking that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on Report to require the publication of renewal dates in both the registers established by Clauses 11 and 13—that is, the register of individual licences and that for company approvals.
Viscount Astor: I thank the Minister for her most helpful reply. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the offer that she has made. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14[Arrangements for the grant of approvals]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 10, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: Read with Amendment No. 30C, this amendment is a slightly clumsy way of trying to raise again the question of seeking voluntary approval—or, perhaps "the voluntary seeking of approval" is a better way to put it. The matter was referred to on Second Reading. It seems to us that leaving it simply as a voluntary scheme will not achieve a very satisfactory outcome. We believe that two different types of contractors are likely to emerge under the scheme: those who are approved and those who are not. The latter will apply different standards and will not have been through the same tests. However, both types of contractors will offer their

653
services to the public. No doubt those who have not sought approval will be doing so at a cheaper rate. Therefore, many of the policy points that lie behind the Bill 'will be lost. Again, I shall welcome the Minister's response to the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Although I have seen representations from the industry on the point, I am not persuaded. It seems to me that the way the Government have proposed the scheme in the Bill will prove to be satisfactory. I realise that there will be two classes of company, but both will be employing licensed personnel to undertake the same job. After all, there are advantages to being an approved company; namely, that, under the Bill, you can take people on provisionally.
I believe that there would be advantages in the proposed approved status. Customers will be able to distinguish between those companies with approved status and those who are not so designated. Indeed, most serious customers will want to employ someone with approved status, providing that it does not prove to be vastly more expensive. I do not see why it should be; it is only one extra requirement. The main expense is licensing the individuals who work for such companies.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As drafted, the Bill allows for a voluntary scheme. We consider that this is best at present. It minimises the burden on companies to one that they themselves are willing to bear. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, we expect that the majority of reputable companies will want to seek approval under a voluntary scheme.
We also want to build on the self-regulating mechanisms that are already in place. Companies will be able to volunteer to be inspected to the standards that will be set for their particular sector by the authority.
However, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to turn a voluntary scheme into a compulsory one if he judges it necessary to do so; that is, if the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, prove to be founded. The Secretary of State will be able to invoke provisions in Clause 16, which will make it an offence to provide security services unless approval is obtained under the provisions in Clause 14 via the negative resolution procedure, which will be laid before Parliament.
A decision to turn the voluntary scheme into a compulsory one would be taken only after a recommendation from the authority and after exhaustive and extensive consultation with the industry, police and other interested parties.
I hope that my response has reassured the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We should also bear in mind the words of wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am reassured by the response of the noble Baroness. It is sensible to
654
establish in practice the way in which the authority will work. I am sure that if the matters to which I referred prove to be a problem, proper consultation with the authority and interested parties will bring about a compulsory scheme in accordance with the terms of my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 30B:
Page 11, line 8, at end insert—
("(c) requirements to seek approval of the Authority of the design of any uniforms proposed to be used by the providers of security industry services, so as to ensure that they are distinguishable from the uniforms of police officers").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, I expressed the concern that there should be no confusion between the police and those in the security industry who provide, for example, guarding services. It so happens that yesterday I was in Altcourse prison, which I discovered was in Fazakerley, Liverpool. That prison has the acclamation of the inspector of prisons, which is not easily acquired, and that of my client, which is even more difficult to acquire, for being one of the top prisons in this country. It is also a Group 4 prison.
A noticeable feature of the service provided by that company and by others is that they go out of their way to ensure that their staff do not look like prison officers of old. They do not wear blue serge; they wear green pastoral colours. That reduces the temperature in prisons and helps to distinguish them from authority figures such as policemen.
I am concerned to ensure that security firms are distinct from those who provide security on the streets—police constables. There is no reason why the authority should not have some control over the design of uniforms that are advanced by a company seeking approval for its employees. That would ensure that no confusion occurs. I recommend the amendment for serious consideration.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, wants to set up the authority as a kind of taste police that examines the uniforms, or prospective uniforms, that those providing security services might have to wear. That perhaps goes a little too far.
I seem to recall somewhere in the recesses of my mind—I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm this—that adequate laws already exist in this context. I believe that there is a law that makes it illegal to impersonate a policeman. That includes wearing a uniform that is similar to or that could be mistaken for a policeman's uniform. If that is the case—I believe that it is—the amendment is unnecessary. However, if the amendment is necessary, it would be better to state that people should not wear uniforms that will be confused with those of police officers. We need not set

655
the authority up as a new couture house that decides on the right colour of uniform for those involved in the important task of providing security services.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I had written in my notes, "style council". We need not worry too much about this matter. I do not believe that the security industry authority will set itself up with the proposed function, and I do not think that Versace standards will be applied. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made the point for me. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary or that it is necessary for conditions relating to uniforms to be included as a licence condition in the approved contractors scheme. As the noble Viscount said, under Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 it is already an offence to impersonate a police officer or to wear anything having the appearance of a police uniform in circumstances in which the person wearing it might be mistaken for a police officer. That ensures that those who attempt to pass themselves off as police officers are committing a criminal offence and will be prosecuted. Therefore, although the amendment is well-spirited and good-intentioned, we do not consider it to be necessary.
We want people to respect uniforms because they have an important, authoritative presence which, in certain circumstances, will be of help. I am certainly aware of neighbourhood warden schemes which attempt to achieve that objective without impersonating in any way, shape or form a police uniform or a police presence. Therefore, we are grateful for the notion, but the powers already exist and we do not believe that further powers are required. I hope that, notwithstanding his flattering comments about one of Her Majesty's prisons, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am interested to note that the legislation was passed in 1996. In 1996 this provision formed part of the Liberal Democrat Party policy document. Obviously, the matter was of considerable concern at that time, but I must admit that I am not an expert in the branch of the law which concerns what policemen wear. It seems that my amendment is unnecessary and, accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Imposition of requirements for approval]:
[Amendment No. 30C not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals relating to approval]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 12, line 44, after ("may") insert ("upon the granting of a warrant by a Justice of the Peace").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32A, 33 and 33A, which deal with the same topic. They all refer to the circumstances in which representatives of the authority, authorised in writing—I believe that we could call them "inspectors"—may enter premises owned or occupied by a person appearing to be a regulated person. Later in the clause there is reference to offences of obstructing, and so on.
The permission for an inspector to enter premises is completely unfettered provided that the premises are owned or occupied by a person appearing to him to be a regulated person. That is a very strong power. Rightly, Parliament has been careful about granting powers of access and entry to inspectors and policemen. However, a large number of officials have the right to enter premises. In most cases, such officials, including policemen, need a warrant to enter and search people's homes. Two suggestions for limiting the power of entry are on offer in this group of amendments.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 in my name, I have suggested that under this provision there should be no access to domestic premises. Only business premises should be entered, and only then with a warrant from a magistrate.
I cannot see why an inspector of the security industry authority should want to go into somebody's home. There is not much to be gained by that. An Englishman's home is supposed to be his castle and I believe that it is right to protect access wherever we can rather than facilitate it. Amendments Nos. 32A and 33A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who clearly takes a milder view of such matters than I do, provide that there should be a warrant only in the case of domestic premises. He is happy for people to waltz into business premises without any authorisation other than their ticket.
My understanding of the clause is that the authorisation in writing by the authority will in effect be the appointment of the inspector to that post, whereas when we seek a magistrate's warrant, whether for business or domestic premises, we seek permission for that individual to inspect those particular premises on that occasion. As far as I can see, the authorisation in writing is likely to be a piece of paper or an identity card which lasts for as long as an individual does that job. It is a blanket authorisation to walk into any premises covered by it, or in this case, if the Bill is passed, any home covered by it.
There is, therefore, not only a difference in who it is authorised by; there is also the difference of whether it is authorised on that particular occasion to go into those premises for that purpose, the case having been made out to the magistrate, or whether it is a blanket authorisation to enter at any time. There is more than one layer to the proposals to introduce warrants; whether they are introduced into all premises or just domestic premises.
We should take the matter seriously. The powers of entry and inspection are powerful. Such powers are liked by police states and dictators but countries such as ours should be cautious about granting them to the authorities.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This is the most serious attack on civil liberties in the whole of the Bill. It will create a whole class of persons who may enter premises without any leave. Furthermore, any person who obstructs them or fails to provide documents or other information relating to any connected matter set out in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and could end up in prison.
I ask the Government carefully to consider the provisions. I am sure that there is a point of principle upon which we can all unite on this side of the Committee in considering what should be done. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, mentioned a slight distinction between us. I can see that there might be a reason for business premises to be entered in an ordinary routine inspection by an inspector of the authority in following up his duties of inspecting licence holders, and so forth. However, entering people's homes, demanding papers and information and imposing a sanction of imprisonment if a person fails to co-operate is beyond the spirit in which the law of this country has operated hitherto. One envisages little inspectors in the Russian style in such a situation. I ask the Government to consider the matter again.
Lord Marlesford: There has been a tendency in some parts of the press in recent months to ascribe a rather authoritarian attitude to the Minister's right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I do not share those criticisms. In general I support the Home Secretary in much of what he is trying to do. Indeed, I would sometimes go further than my own party in those respects.
I certainly cannot claim to be a libertarian of the standard that would be required if I were to ask to gain entry to the party on the other end of these Benches. However, I regard this every bit as seriously as my noble friend Lord Cope, and as the Liberal Democratic Party. It is quite extraordinary that these provisions should have been put in, and I doubt very much whether Ministers can really have considered what was involved.
After all, it is not very long ago that we were considering the Bill giving access to the countryside—a Bill which I prefer to describe as the "budgie" Bill. The Minister may not remember it because it was not his Bill, but the noble Baroness will remember because it was partly her Bill. It was a Bill which, partly because of a mistaken transfer of one schedule from one Bill to another, has presented the situation where, if someone keeps a budgerigar and allows it to escape into the wild, he can be sent to prison for two years.
It was the most extraordinary thing. Unfortunately I only discovered it on the day I was asked to speak to an earlier amendment, right at the end just before the Bill needed to become law at the end of the last Session. As a result, the Government were too embarrassed to
658
admit that they had made a mistake and so would have had to change it. So I certainly think of it as the "budgie" Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Cope said, this is a most serious point of principle and I am worried that the Government do not take these things as seriously as they should. On the 28th October 1999 1 put down a Question for Written Answer, which was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The Question was: which statutory instruments giving powers of entry to private premises have come into force since May 1997?
The noble Lord's Answer—I do not blame him: I blame his department—was to the effect that this information could only be collated at disproportionate cost. That I regard as a disgraceful answer. It is not one that I shall be prepared to let go, and at an appropriate moment I shall seek to put down a Starred Question when we shall be able perhaps to discuss this whole subject.
I warn the Government that they must not allow their officials to be so easy-going with the personal liberties about which the people of this country care passionately. I recognise that tonight we will not be able to reach a final solution to this problem —perhaps there are not enough of us here to do that—but I hope that if we do not get a satisfactory result at the next stage of this Bill we shall all unite, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, on this side with many Cross-Benchers. I shall take pleasure in drawing this matter to their attention, and we shall unite in this Chamber to defeat the Government on what is a most extraordinary proposal.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall have to take very seriously the admonition of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but I cannot fall in with his argument. I do not recognise us as a Government who are careless about civil liberties—far from it—particularly in bringing forward human rights legislation and so on. We have an enviable track record and, certainly as someone who may not be an old-style libertarian but who values his civil liberties greatly, I tread very carefully in this particular policy area.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, described this as a strong power and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that it was taking us closer to the sort of approach that might be adopted by a police state. I do not see that in it, but I do see the amendments being fundamental in the attack they would mount against the security industry authority's enforcement powers. They would seriously weaken them. The authority will be an important body discharging significant responsibilities. It is vital that it has sufficient authority and flexibility of operation to allow it adequately to enforce the licensing regime with which it will be charged.
A requirement on the authority's authorised operatives to obtain further approval from a Justice of the Peace would hamper its ability to conduct surprise inspections. It might also compromise the security of an inspection where an element of surprise may be important, thus allowing evidence of offences under

659
the legislation to be destroyed. Similar concerns occur when considering the amendment restricting the exercise of the powers on non-domestic properties.
The entry and inspection powers must extend to domestic premises as many people carrying out regulated security activities will have their headquarters or offices in their own homes. That would include freelance door supervisors who operate from their kitchen table with a mobile phone. It would also include a house owner who clamps a vehicle on his private land and charges a release fee. Dentists who operate from domestic premises and clamp vehicles which are parked on their private land, for which they charge a release fee, would also be covered.
While I am as alive as ever to the human rights and privacy concerns which I am sure lie behind the amendments as much as concerns about civil liberties, the limitation on the authority's powers to enforce its licensing regime which the amendments introduce would weaken the authority's enforcement abilities.
I am not insensitive to some of the points that have been made and I am willing to look at the possibility of excluding from the powers premises used solely for domestic residence purposes. I give that undertaking, but it is as far as I can go in giving assurances. However, as ever, we will read Hansard most carefully and reflect on the points which Members have made in the debate. I hope that with that assurance, and the assurance that excesses and abuses of power would be actionable in the normal way, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Marlesford: The Minister spoke of the need for surprise. Surely there must be many occasions when important raids are made by the police for which they must obtain a warrant. Is he suggesting that in some way the obtaining of a magistrate's warrant makes it impossible to achieve surprise? That is a most astonishing suggestion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord made the point that I want to make. The police and Customs must obtain warrants for cause whenever they engage in serious operations. Surprise is one of the weapons that they employ. The security of the magistrates who grant warrants is complete.
There is a weakness in the Minister's argument. No doubt the authority has wide-ranging responsibilities and will exercise them responsibly and so forth. It can be imagined that every time an inspector wants to invade the premises of a licenceholder he will go to that authority, which presumably will sit fairly regularly. However, I cannot imagine that he will go to the top and ask for permission every time he wants to do so. In other words, the decision will be made by the front-line troops; by the inspectors on the ground.
These provisions put a huge power into the hands of such people. We do not give that power to the police or to Customs officers. There is no reason whatever why a magistrate should not be involved and oversee the proper exercise of the powers of entry and inspection
660
which are contained in the Bill. It is wrong to assume that because the authority is a responsible body these powers will always be exercised responsibly by the troops on the ground.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister has given a disappointing reply. However, I am grateful for the indication that he will consider the matter further, in particular his remarks about premises that are solely domestic. I urge the noble Lord to think very hard not only about that matter but the wider aspects. The points made in the past few minutes by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Marlesford are extremely forceful. The Bill proposes that inspectors of the authority, which I agree has an important job to do but not as important as that performed frequently by the police and Customs, should be given greater powers than those available to police officers and Customs officers to wander into any premises whenever they wish.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I greatly respect the comments made by the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who, as an eminent lawyer, is very experienced in these matters. It is true that the police and Customs require warrants to enter premises, but it is also right that whenever inspection regimes are set up some powers of entry do not depend on warrants. I have in mind environmental health officers and factory inspectors who operate in this way. That said, obviously I am duty bound to listen carefully to what has been said. I am sure that the Committee does not want to impose restrictions that unnecessarily inhibit the effectiveness of this important inspectorate. There will be occasions on which the inspectorate needs to move swiftly and flexibly, particularly where perhaps a corrupt firm or operator is at work and there is a suspicion that it has been involved in serious crime; for example, drugs offences and so on. One needs to take a balanced view of this matter. As ever, I shall pay careful attention to the comments made in Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. However, the noble Lord makes my point. It may be that environmental health officers or factory inspectors enter premises because they are concerned about certain matters. However, if either barged into a person's home and demanded the production of documents and answers to questions, as this Bill permits, there would be a great outcry in this country. Those powers do not exist.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support what has been said and I shall not repeat it. This is a serious matter. I am glad that the Minister is to think about it. I believe that the noble Lord should give this matter serious consideration. We shall also think about it. I am sure that this is a matter to which we shall return at later stages. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 32.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32A to 33A not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
DISCLOSURE OF ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATE
(" .The Authority shall not disclose to any person, other than employees of the Authority involved in deciding on the granting, revocation or renewal of licence applications, any information which comes into their possession under section 19.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 relates to criminal record certificates. The new clause seeks to provide that information from an enhanced criminal record certificate shall not be disclosed unnecessarily but retained within the authority. I support efforts for the rehabilitation of offenders. The way in which convictions are allowed to disappear into the undergrowth after a lapse of time is an important provision with regard to the rehabilitation of offenders. The longer the prison sentence, the longer it remains on the open record. These are powers for access to these criminal records notwithstanding the rehabilitation provisions. We should be careful about those. The authority should have a duty to keep them confidential. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In order to determine properly that only those who are fit and proper persons should have a licence to work in designated sectors of the private security industry, it is important that the authority should have knowledge of the full criminal record of those applying for a licence. In the case of door supervisors alone, we have decided that that knowledge should be to the level of the enhanced criminal record certificate which will contain information about both spent and unspent convictions, minor convictions and local police intelligence. That is provided for in Clause 19.
It is essential that the security industry authority acts responsibly when such handling of sensitive information about individuals takes place. There are, however, already strict rules governing the disclosure of information obtained from the Criminal Records Bureau. These strict rules are contained in Section 124 of the Police Act 1997. That section outlines the limited circumstances under which a person may disclose the information and to whom. Anyone breaching these conditions would be committing a serious criminal offence. The authority will also need to have due regard to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Our argument is that adequate restrictions are already in place. These should meet the noble Lord's concerns. That is certainly their intention, and we do not wish the system to work in any other way.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful for that reply. I shall ponder on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Interpretation]:
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
(""security operative" shall be construed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2;").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 38 seeks to insert into line 42 of Clause 23 a reference to the definition of "security operative". It seemed odd to me that there was not already such a definition in the clause but there is a definition of "activities of a security operative" in line 2 of the clause. Therefore, I thought that perhaps the words "security operative" must always be accompanied by the words "activities of a". I then looked at paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 2 and discovered that "security operative" appears without the words "activities of". It seemed to me that it should be defined and I therefore tabled this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Clause 23 provides interpretation of terms not explained elsewhere in the Bill. The term "security operative" is, by contrast, already defined elsewhere. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to repeat the definition in Clause 23. Schedule 2 defines the activities of security operatives that are subject to regulation by this Bill. Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 2 makes clear the activities of a security operative. The term "security operative" is thus used in Clause 3(3) in such a way as to link firmly the provisions of Clause 3 to the list of designated activities in Schedule 2. With that explanation on record, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It is not quite accurate to say that Clause 23 only defines things that are not defined elsewhere. Activities of a security officer are defined by reference to Part I of Schedule 2. That is not abnormal. Some of the other definitions are done by reference to other Acts of Parliament. I treat definitions seriously. Acts of Parliament or Bills are difficult enough to read as it is. Many years ago my noble friend Lord Renton made some excellent recommendations intended to improve the drafting. One recommendation referred to the way in which definitions should be handled. Successive governments, including those in which I was involved, have largely ignored the excellent recommendations of that committee. Nevertheless, I believe that whenever we can put them into practice we should.
Clearly, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will not agree to the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 38.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Security Industry Authority]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 39:
Schedule I, page 17, line 6, at end insert ("provided that there shall not be a majority of the members who are engaged in activities covered by this Act").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 39, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. These amendments concern the composition of the security industry authority and the appointment of a chief executive. I am sure that the Minister will say that when they come to appoint members of the authority the Secretary of State will use his good judgment and say that it should have a person from here and another from there. This is too important to be left to the Secretary of State. There should be some guidelines by Parliament.
The amendments are quite simple. They seek to improve Schedule 1. The first provides that there should not be a majority of members engaged in activities covered by the Act. That means that lay members should have a majority on the authority, and it ought not to be just the industry. It goes on to say in the next amendment that there should be at least one serving police officer. That means that there should be a representative from the police force on the authority. I am sure that this is something that the Secretary of State would normally consider. However, we think it is important to put it in the Bill. We also felt it important that the chairman should be a lay person who could be independent when looking at the various voting issues.
Finally, I mention Amendment No. 42, which seeks to have an open application procedure determined by the Secretary of State for the appointment of the chief executive. This will be an important role. The appointment must be open and seen to be open. It must follow the principles of open government. I am sure that the Minister would agree with the principle even if he does not agree with the amendment.
It is important that the membership of the authority represents a wide range of interests. It should not be exclusive to anyone. It must have representatives from the industry and the police. The Minister might have other recommendations. We feel that these amendments at least offer suggestions as to what the membership should be. Amendment No. 40A in the name of noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, provides that there should be adequate representation of the security industry, employees' representatives, the police and customers' interests. It is very similar to our amendment but is put in a different way. I support the principles behind both amendments. They both seek the same end. We believe that Schedule 1 should provide reassurance to the industry, the police and all the parties involved that there will be adequate representation on the security industry authority. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 40A, which stands in my name. I am not tied to the number 10; nor do I suggest that the
664
categories I have listed from (a) to (d) are exhaustive. What I am interested in is a response from the Minister which will outline the type of authority and the kind of representation that the Government have in mind. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: These amendments all seek to insert into Schedule 1 specific requirements. I think that I can probably offer the reassurance which Members of the Committee seek.
The authority will need to work closely with the private security industry it is regulating, not least to ensure that its important regulatory regimes are deliverable. For that reason, it is likely that the Secretary of State will wish to see some industry representation among the membership of the authority. More widely, it will be important for authority members to have a proper balance of skills, experiences and interests. The noble Viscount and the noble Lord made exactly that point. We share that objective. I would be the first to agree that the authority must be independent of the private security industry and, more importantly, be seen to be independent. That is of paramount importance. I drew attention to that point during the Second Reading debate.
However, I do not agree that it is necessary to place this concept on the face of the Bill. I am happy to give an assurance that representatives of the private security industry will not be in a majority in the membership of the authority and that I think it highly unlikely that a representative of the security industry will be appointed its chair. That would tend to compromise the independence which the authority will necessarily require. There will be a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers and of other relevant groups. All of those appointments will be made on the basis of fair and open competition.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, specifies the security industry, employees' representatives, the police and customer interests. That is precisely the range that we are looking for and there may well be others that we have not discussed during the debate.
That is our general approach. It is certainly in line with the thinking of the noble Viscount and of the noble Lord. I do not think it is necessary to put on the face of the Bill appointments to a non-departmental public body, but I am happy to reiterate that the main thrust of the concerns behind the amendments will be in the Secretary of State's mind when he considers appointments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the appointment of the chief executive. Nolan principles will apply. It will be a transparent appointment. We need to have that to give a copper bottom to the independence and credibility of the authority.

665
With those assurances, I hope that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press their amendments. I am grateful to them for what they have said, which demonstrates that we are pretty much of one mind on this matter.
Viscount Astor: The Minister made a predictable reply to my first point by saying that the Secretary of State is likely to seek representatives from the industry. He gave an assurance that they would not form a majority on the authority. I take it that they will then form a minority, but that at least one representative will be appointed to the authority.
I know that the Minister spoke with the best of intentions when he said that the Government were likely to take this course. However, one is always a little dubious when it comes to appointments because one has seen how often the system of appointments has been abused. I am afraid that the noble Lord's Government do not have a totally unblemished record in this regard. We have seen in some cases the allocation of "jobs for the boys". We shall need to consider further whether we want to put a form of words on the face of the Bill.
The allocation of appointments is not something which takes place while Bills are passing through this House or another place. It takes place once the measure has been enacted. The Chief Whip of the day has a word with the Home Secretary of the day. At that stage, strange names suddenly come to light and are given appointments to quangos.
However, I recognise that the Minister was trying to be as helpful as he could and I much appreciate that. As regards my final amendment, I am entirely happy with his response. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, intends to do with Amendment No. 40, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 39.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 43A not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("the Secretary of State all") and insert ("each local authority where an order is made under section 12 all sums received by it, in connection with the local authority's area, and shall pay to the Secretary of State all other").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to local authorities and their money. This provision is in itself rather interesting because, without the amendment, it provides for the authority to receive funding from the Home Office, but it is to pay back to the Home Office all moneys it receives in the course of its functions. Every licence fee and so forth is to be paid back in total to the Home Office. The authority will then have doled out to it funds with which to run itself. I do not suppose that that system will encourage the authority to become self-financing. Indeed, we are not clear how the balance of moneys will work out.
In any case, the purity of that system will be somewhat sullied by the fact that some of the activities of the authority are to be delegated to local authorities. I believe that the local authorities will in their turn
666
require a level of funding to carry out their functions. I presume that they will not be allowed to retain any of the moneys they may collect in licence fees because it appears that those funds will need to be sent to the Home Secretary. I am not clear as regards how local authorities are to be reimbursed for carrying out these new activities.
I should point out that I had some difficulty with the drafting of this amendment. Indeed, I am not sure whether it is perfect. It seeks to achieve the effect, if possible, of ensuring that local authorities should at least be allowed to keep the licence fees that they collect in order to reimburse them for their time and trouble.
Incidentally, in issuing these licences, local authorities will be put into the interesting position of issuing licences locally which will then he valid nationally. I cannot think of another example of this. A licence can be acquired in Manchester in order to operate in London, Cardiff or even North Wales. A person will be able to operate in an area on the strength of a licence issued somewhere else entirely. I cannot think of a similar case where such rules apply, but perhaps I have not thought it through carefully enough.
However, the main point of the amendment is to inquire into how local authorities are to be reimbursed if all moneys received for licences must be returned to the Home Office. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it is important that local authorities are properly funded in any transfer of licensing responsibility delegated from the security industry authority.
Clause 12 enables the Secretary of State to make provision by order for local authorities to carry out some or all of the security industry authority's licensing functions. This is in recognition of the Government's desire to build on the arrangements in many local authorities where good registration schemes for door supervisors are already being run.
The noble Lord's amendment seems to assume that fees will continue to be paid to the security industry authority in cases in which the local authority has received delegated powers to conduct appropriate licensing functions. This is not the case. The security industry authority will derive a substantial part of its income from fees paid to it when applications for licences are made. However, Clause 12(3)(d) provides that a local authority may retain licence application fees paid to it where such delegated arrangements exist. I believe, therefore, that what the amendment seeks to do is already done by the provisions of Clause 12(3)(d).
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am glad to hear that the amendment is unnecessary, and I shall look in Hansard at what the noble Baroness has said. We would seem to land up in the extraordinary position that the

667
authority will have to pay over to the Secretary of State all the money it receives for the licences that it issues, while the local authorities can keep the proceeds of the licences that they issue. That is an interesting combination.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may help the noble Lord in considering my reply if I add that paragraph 15(2) of Schedule 1 requires the security industry authority to pay all money to the Secretary of State except where the Secretary of State directs otherwise under paragraph 15(3). He will direct the SIA to keep fee money. Local authorities will keep fees paid to them under Clause 12(3)(d), as I have said.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: That is one way of putting it, but it is not the way the Bill puts it. The Bill says that the authority shall pay all sums received by it other than money given to it by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may say "We won't bother receiving this and giving it back to you", but that is what the Bill says.
However, I shall not fuss about the detail of the wording. I shall look at it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Activities liable to control under the Act]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 22, line 9, after ("property") insert ("including cash and other valuables in transit").
The noble Viscount said: This is a simple probing amendment. There is some confusion about whether those involved in the carrying of cash or valuables in transit are covered in Schedule 2. Therefore, I have put them in, but I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the matter is covered somewhere else. I should be grateful for a simple explanation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Paragraph 2(1) sets out three generic descriptions of the activities undertaken by those providing manned guarding services. The three types of guarding in question are guarding premises, property and people. This approach is a common feature of the drafting of the Bill. For example, we do not attempt to list in detail every type of occupation comprising manned guarding services, since any attempt at such a list would probably be flawed at worst and cumbersome at best. Similarly, we believe that the generic approach taken in paragraph 2(1) is sufficient to cover all relevant manned guarding activities.
However, I am aware of a desire in the private security industry to be reassured that guards under contract who transport cash and other valuables are covered by the provisions of the Bill. I am happy to confirm that this is indeed the case. Cash in transit—the abbreviation used in the industry—is very clearly within the ambit of the Bill, and in particular is covered by the provisions of paragraph 2(1).
668
That should satisfy the noble Viscount, and I trust that he will be able to seek to withdraw his amendment on that basis.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. He said that this is covered by paragraph 2(1): where is it covered? Is it paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) or (c)?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is (b).
Viscount Astor: My amendment, of course, refers to that sub-paragraph, which currently states:
"guarding property against destruction or damage, against being stolen or against being otherwise dishonestly taken or obtained".
Presumably, that means that "property" includes cash in transit. I am grateful to the Minister for nodding in confirmation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 47:
Schedule 2, page 22, line 43, at end insert—
("(2A) This paragraph does not apply to activities carried out to deter parking on private land without permission, which are conducted in accordance with regulations contained in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(2B) Regulations issued under sub-paragraph (2A) shall include—

(a) a maximum permitted charge for release of an immobilised vehicle which may include different maximum charges for different days and times:

(b) a requirement for the display of a notice describing how to obtain the release of an immobilised vehicle and during which hours it can be released;

(c) a requirement that, when a business owns or occupies the land, the vehicle can be released at any time within the normal hours of operation of that business: and

(d) a requirement that, when the land is attached to a dwelling, the vehicle can be released at any time when the premises are occupied.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 47 concerns wheelclamping, a matter to which some attention was given at Second Reading. I think that the Committee is agreed that the activities of rogue wheelclampers should be curtailed—certainly I agree—but I do not think that it should necessarily mean that this enormously elaborate licensing scheme should apply to everyone who might indulge in wheelclamping.
It seems to me that someone who has ground for parking attached to either their house or business premises—particularly in the middle of towns, where parking is very expensive and difficult to find; where it can cost several pounds an hour to park on a parking meter—should be allowed to deter others from parking on it, if necessary by means of wheelclamping.
The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should issue an order under which—provided people remained within the fabric of the regulations contained in the order—there would be a general permission to carry out wheelclamping without the

669
need for a licence. An authority would only be troubled for the issue of a licence if someone wished to go beyond the regulations.
As the Committee will have noticed in the amendment, I envisage, first, that the regulations should include a maximum permitted charge. It may vary according to the circumstances set out in the regulations—the time and date and so on—but there would be a maximum permitted charge.
Secondly, there should be a requirement that a prominent notice is properly displayed, stating "If you park on this private land you may be clamped". It should state "You may obtain release of your vehicle by taking the following action: Ringing the doorbell on the left or dialling this number", whatever it is. It should state the hours during which the vehicle can be released. I should have added also the cost of release, which would be however much is allowed under the first regulation.
There should be a requirement that the vehicle can be released at any time during business hours if it is parked on business land and at any time when the property is occupied if it is parked on domestic land.
I am not wedded to these particular parts of the regulations and I should like to leave the Secretary of State with some flexibility in the design of the regulations. But the principle behind the amendment is that restrictions of this kind would be sufficient to stop the rogue dampers and at the same time would mean that wheelclamping was an option for someone who wished to keep his private land private.
In the middle of large cities it is often extremely difficult to park. There is a great temptation to park on an area of empty land if you are anxious to do some shopping or to visit someone. However, a person or business has the right to keep private land free for their own or customers' parking, whatever they wish, rather than anyone being allowed to park on it. Of course, some land will have a fence around it and a gate that can be locked, but in the nature of things other land will not. Wheelclamping, properly conducted, is not an activity that we should attempt to stop or tie up with a whole lot of bureaucracy. Therefore, I suggest that a provision of this kind is desirable. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment. On the other hand, it seems rather odd that a regulating power should be introduced in the second schedule to the Bill, as opposed to having a specific clause dealing with it.
The various matters that the noble Lord suggests should be contained in the regulations—he does not pretend that this is an exhaustive list—seem very proper. As I say, the sentiment is correct; however, I am slightly unhappy about the way in which the amendment is expressed. I hope that the noble Lord will rethink exactly how to phrase such a provision at some future time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose that in a private moment I might have a great deal of sympathy with
670
this amendment. We have a reasonably sized piece of land in front of our garden. I can envisage circumstances in which I might be hard-up for employment and could do with the extra income, in an unregulated form as well.
We must look closely at the effect of the amendment. As drafted, it would remove wheelclamping on private land from regulation by the SIA and make all disputes in relation to wheelclamping a matter for the courts, as they are now. Were we to accept the amendment, it would mean that the Home Secretary could make regulations governing how wheelclamping should be conducted to avoid the need for regulation by the security industry authority. I shall return to the issue of conditions. First, perhaps I may address the proposed new paragraph 2A to be inserted into Schedule 2.
The objective of the Bill is to regulate various areas of what has become known as the private security industry. We are doing this essentially because, as the law currently stands, it is possible for anyone to seek employment or to act in a self-employed capacity in any area of the industry without any check being carried out on any criminal activity in which he may have been involved in the past.
A key problem arising from the amendment is that it would leave wheelclamping activities, unlike the other security industry activities covered by the Bill open to being carried out by criminals. I do not think that anyone wants that. We think it essential for the security industry authority to have the proper opportunity to refuse a licence for wheelclamping where the person seeking the licence has, say, convictions for crimes of violence. I am sure that Members of the Committee already appreciate the risks attached to allowing someone with a string of convictions for grievous bodily harm to work as a bouncer at a night-club. There have already been cases where bouncers have been, shall we say, too enthusiastic in the execution of their duties.
Wheelclamping on private land is not dissimilar. It is not uncommon, for example, for drivers who get into arguments with dampers over release fees or what they perceive to be unauthorised clamping to be threatened with violence. If anyone could operate as a wheelclamper under the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seeks to amend it, it would be possible for someone newly released from prison one day to be clamping vehicles late the following night and confronting motorists at times when no one else is around. When considered in that light, it is no wonder that motorists are concerned about the problems associated with this practice under the present law. That explains exactly why we have introduced this Bill to tackle the problem.
As the Members of the Committee will have seen today, we are regulating private wheelclampers for three very good reasons. The first is to ensure that, by applying criminal sanctions to unlicensed operatives, anyone who wishes to operate as a wheelclamper will have to apply for a licence. Secondly, when applying for a licence, would-be dampers would be subjected to

671
a check to discover whether they had a criminal record, particularly for offences of violence. If such a record did exist, the authority could refuse a licence, and any attempt to operate as a wheelclamper would then become a criminal offence. Thirdly, the authority would have the power to grant a licence on condition that the licensee adhered to a code of practice that the authority could publish or adopt. To tackle effectively the problems associated with cowboy wheelclampers, it is essential that those three conditions operate alongside each other.
I turn to sub-paragraph (2B), which would be inserted by the amendment. The legislation that we propose would leave to the discretion of the security industry authority the provisions to be contained in a code of conduct. Common sense dictates that such a code would determine a reasonable release fee, and that warning signs should be erected in restricted areas. The draft code of conduct drawn up last year by the British Parking Association is very explicit on those precise points. I do not believe that the security industry authority would need directing in law as to what such a code should contain. I shall not allow their discretion to be fettered in that way. That would be quite wrong.
In conclusion, it is essential that the powers that we introduce to deal with unregulated wheelclamping on private land are as straightforward, clear cut and robust as possible. Under the Bill, it is an offence, with certain common-sense exceptions, to use a wheelclamp without a licence. I would argue that any question about the way in which a licence-holder operates as a wheelclamper is, rightly, a matter for the SIA to take up on behalf of the general public, with the possibility of withdrawal of the licence if necessary.
The proposed amendments make no reference at all to the means of resolving disputes between the driver and the damper about the latter's compliance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. In the absence of such provisions, it is our view that the matter could be decided only by the courts on a case by case basis. That is broadly the position we are now in, and it needs to be improved. The proposals of noble Lords opposite would make it considerably more difficult to impose criminal sanctions on clampers who consistently operate outside the regime set by a code of practice. In my view, those proposals would allow cowboy dampers to continue to operate in the very way that our proposals are designed to tackle.
With vested personal interests on one side and all matters taken into consideration, I find myself unable to accept these amendments. I hope that the noble Lords opposite will very carefully reflect on the points that I have made and will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that this may not be the ideal place in which to insert in the Bill a new power of this character, and that perhaps it should be separate. I am grateful to the Minister for his personal views, which seem to be a little more sympathetic than
672
his ministerial views. The Minister said that the restrictions on wheelclamping should be clear-cut and robust. I believe that under the regulations that I have proposed they would be, provided—and it is rather a large proviso—the Secretary of State and those who assist him could devise clear regulations. The regulations might become a little complicated once they had been past the parliamentary draftsmen; that is where their clarity might be lost.
As far as concerns lack of compliance, if one failed to comply with the regulations and had not obtained a licence that would constitute unlicensed clamping and, therefore, would be an offence. I do not see any particular difficulty in that respect. However, I recognise that this amendment and the thoughts behind it do not have the sympathy of the Minister in his ministerial capacity. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 48:
Schedule 2, page 23, line 3, after ("out") insert ("in the United Kingdom").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment has been tabled in an effort to try to understand the Government's view on those in the industry who are operating outside the United Kingdom but who happen to come to this country. For example, if someone from one of the famous American detective agencies were to come to this country and carry on work that would be covered by the SIA, would that person be obliged to obtain a licence to do so? If not, how long could that person operate without a licence? In short, I should like to know how the system will work in such a situation.
That leads me to another point about which I am more concerned; namely, that if someone from abroad does not need a licence to operate, I am concerned that unscrupulous operators might use non-UK operators in this country in order to avoid using those who are licensed. Can the Minister outline the Government's view on those operators who come from overseas—whether it be America or the European Union—who may or may not be licensed in their own countries? If in the course of a divorce case a private investigator is sent over here from, say, Italy or Hungary, to carry out the sort of work that would currently require a licence in this country, would such a person be able to operate in the UK without a licence? Do the Government intend that to be the case? I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: When we were considering what "skills" were necessary at an earlier stage of our deliberations today, it seemed to me that skills for the immobilisation of vehicles required the ability to use a spanner. When it came to private investigators, I had in mind the ability to be able to climb a ladder, or, perhaps, to use a camera.
The noble Viscount has made a serious point. At present, private investigation companies are international. Some very well-known American firms operate in this country, just as we seem to send private

673
investigators from this country to places like Cuba, curiously enough. I seem to remember that there was something of a problem about that quite recently. Therefore, it is important to know how these international operations will be run. Will an international company that operates in this country be able to seek approval and advertise itself as an approved contractor? Will people so employed in the United States need to apply immediately to the SIA for a licence to work? All these problems arise as a result of the international aspects of private investigations. I am anxious to hear the Minister's response on the subject.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, seems to think that private investigators in what appear to be—as he implied—domestic marital disputes still rely on ladders. From reading the back of various journals, I understand that there are all kinds of other pieces of high-tech equipment that avoid the need for ladders and cameras. However, the noble Lord may be quite right. Indeed, in certain parts of England and Wales, the use of a ladder may still apply.
I am delighted to be able to reassure noble Lords that all those operating in England and Wales, including detectives from the United States or American companies, will be required to have a licence in order to operate. There is a further dimension to this particular amendment which would apply the regulatory framework of the Bill to private investigations carried out anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Sectors of the private security industry that will be regulated under the Bill may have provoked Members of the Committee into believing that private investigations are most likely to take their practitioners outside England and Wales in pursuit of their assignments. However, the Bill will extend to England and Wales only with the sole and specifically limited exceptions that are set out in Clause 24(3). Responsibility for those matters has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. Those bodies are currently considering whether—and if so, how—to regulate private security services in Scotland.
Limited provisions to regulate the private security industry already exist in Northern Ireland as part of the Terrorism Act 2000. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is well versed in legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
The amendment would create a strange anomaly in the Bill, whereby all but one of its regulated sectors would be contained within England and Wales. I am sure that no Member of the Committee would wish to risk the wrath of colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Northern Ireland Office by indicating that they supported the amendment, which would be constitutionally unacceptable.
I hope that Members of the Committee are satisfied with that explanation and the reassurance about people operating from companies that are based
674
outside the UK but which operate in England and Wales. I am not in a position to discuss the issues relating to Cuba, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised—my brief this evening does not cover that issue. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not wish me to go into that subject at this time of night. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will not press the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The noble Baroness said that the amendment would create a strange anomaly in the Bill. However, it is the Government who have gone around creating strange anomalies. If someone wanders into the British Embassy in Washington and says, "I am a private investigator, and I am going to work on a divorce case", he might be asked, "In England, Scotland or Wales?". If the answer was England or Wales, he would be told that he had to get a licence, but if the answer was Scotland, he would be fine, but woe betide him if he went a mile south of Gretna Green—if he did so, he would be in trouble. That is the biggest anomaly.
I take note of the fact that the noble Baroness said that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament were looking into the matter. Those bodies are rather independently minded of the Government at the moment—they reject or accept government policies when they want to. They appear to have a mind of their own.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Viscount provokes me. My colleagues who are benefiting from the advantages of devolution in Scotland accept government policies when they remain to be determined here in Westminster. In other areas, they exercise their right to make their own judgments in matters that have been devolved to them by the will of Parliament.
Viscount Astor: That is a very good defence of devolution but it does not get away from the fact that the colleagues of the noble Baroness over the Border are making decisions that are clearly not always in line with government policy on this side of the Border. We just have to read the newspapers to appreciate that.
I am reasonably satisfied by the reply of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked an important question. If someone came to this country and was asked, "Will you go to work in Cuba, or any other country?", will the relevant bodies be covered if they work abroad? Can people who are not registered to work in other countries be sent to work in other countries? I do not know what the case will be if foreign police arrive in this country. Will it be all right if they clock in officially? What will happen if they arrive unofficially to do their own investigation? Will the provisions apply to them? I do not need an answer now, but I hope that between now and Report the noble Baroness or the Minister will write to me about that.

675
The Minister's response has been helpful and has answered my questions. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 23, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Viscount said: This amendment seeks to remove sub-paragraph (2), which states:
"This paragraph does not apply to activities carried out exclusively for the purposes of market research".
I believe that that point is covered by sub-paragraph (7), which states:
"This paragraph does not apply to activities carried out with the knowledge or consent of … the person about whom",
and so on.
It seems to me that market research cannot be carried out without asking someone a question, unless the research is surreptitious, in which case one is looking at statistics or other published sources. Therefore, if a person approaches someone, tells him that he is conducting market research and asks a question, that is covered by sub-paragraph (7). The person who is asked the question has immediate knowledge of the fact that he is being interviewed.
I believe that that general power, which does not apply exclusively for the purposes of market research, could pave the way for a loophole. It would become too easy for people to say that they were conducting market research, whereas proper market research is carried out by people looking at either published statistics or statistics in the public domain. Market research is also carried out by questioning people about what they think and whether they buy a certain product, or whatever.
If it is the latter, that is covered by sub-paragraph (7). That is why I believe that the words which the amendment seeks to remove are unnecessary for the purposes of the Bill and possibly could be used as a loophole by those who do not wish to be regulated in their various activities. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Viscount knows, the Bill is directed primarily at those who provide services under contract or, in the case of door supervisors and wheelclampers, those who are also employed in-house.
The amendment would remove from exemption from regulation private investigation activities conducted in support of market research. Although a number of people may find it irritating regularly to be stopped in the street by market researchers or to receive their questionnaires, one cannot say that they are conducting activities which are in any way associated with the private security industry. Therefore, we take the view that it would be wrong to give a false impression that their activities might be covered by the provisions of the Bill. The exemption
676
from inadvertent regulation, which is achieved by Schedules 2(4)(2) and 2(4)(9), is an important clarification.
My understanding is that the amendment would take out of exemption and into regulation people who conduct market research activities. Therefore, undoubtedly the amendment would weaken the effective targeting of the regulation introduced by the Bill as it would take in people who should be excluded.
In our view, sub-paragraph (2) is not needed because market researchers would need to ask people questions. Therefore, they would be excluded by sub-paragraph (7). We agree with that point. In any event, market research—that is, asking questions of individuals—may well be excluded by that paragraph. However, other forms of market research exist, such as general surveys and non-personalised research. We believe that the paragraph avoids doubt. I hope that that clarifies the point. Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Viscount that he withdraws the amendment. I believe that we are already well covered.
Viscount Astor: I am somewhat confused by the Minister's reply. I think he would agree that paragraph (7) on page 23 includes activities by market researchers who ask questions. Once they ask a question, it is carried out "with the knowledge or consent". They would have to be quite clever to ask a question and for the person not to know that it was being asked. That form of market research is covered. That is the reason I tabled my amendment. I felt that paragraph (2) is not necessary.
The Minister said that it is necessary because we need what I believe he described as "non-generalised research". I do not have a clue what that means. It would seem to me to be taking information from available public sources, whether that be from universities or wherever. It is not implied in any way that that is covered in the Bill. I cannot see that anybody will get the idea from doing market research that they will suddenly be covered by the Bill. Therefore, I maintain that the paragraph is unnecessary. I do not understand why the Minister needs it.
However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. Perhaps he will consider the issue and write to me between now and the next stage and state why the Government feel that the paragraph is necessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. I suspect that the lateness of the hour has affected my brain. Perhaps I did not explain the issue as carefully as I should. It is "non-personalised" research, in other words not asking people, that needs to be excluded. That is the point on which we may well differ. We cannot agree the amendment. We do not think that it works in the way suggested by the noble Viscount. If in what I said I inadvertently gave the impression that I agreed with him, that was not the

677
case. However, if there is further mystery after this exchange, I am sure that it can be clarified between now and Report.
Viscount Astor: I was not suggesting that the Minister agreed to delete paragraph (2) but that he agreed that paragraph (7) covers asking questions in the guise of market research. However, what he is saying is that he needs paragraph (2) to cover other types of market research. We shall have to study that closely to see what is covered. I shall consider it before the next stage and perhaps I may ask the Minister to do so. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 49A:
Schedule 2, page 23, line 20, at end insert—
("() This paragraph does not apply to any activities of a person who is a member of—

(a) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,

(b) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland,

(c) the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, or

(d) the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, and which are carried out—

(i) by him,

(ii) by any firm of which he is a partner or by which lie is employed, or

(iii) by any body corporate of which he is a director or member or by which he is employed.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 49A inserts a new paragraph, which refers to accountants. I should first declare at least a theoretical interest. I say "theoretical" because I am not a practising accountant. However, I am a qualified chartered accountant and, by that means, licensed to carry out audits, and so forth under various provisions. Nowadays the regulations have been tightened up a good deal, so I do not think that I am licensed to do much.
I also admit at once that the drafting of this paragraph could be improved. However, the point behind it is a real one. The immediately preceding provision rightly provides that lawyers and those employed by them shall be able to carry out investigations for the purpose of their legal practice. A large number of accountants these days, particularly forensic accountants, are engaged in investigating fraud and rackets of one kind and another. On a wider level, auditors are engaged in examining books for, among other things, possible fraud. They also examine the operations of companies to ensure that fraud is not taking place. All these are investigatory activities of the kind otherwise covered. I think it is important that unless the Government want to have this security industry authority license every practising accountant in the country, with a large number of their staffs, some provision of the general character represented by this amendment should be inserted into the Bill.
As I have said, I admit that the drafting may be rather crude but the point behind it is an important one, to which I believe we shall need to return. I hope the Government will take this away, think of better drafting and consult as necessary in order to cover the point properly. I hope that is what the noble Lord the Minister will say in response to the amendment, which I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is not the intention of the Bill to catch groups such as chartered accountants, auditors, insolvency practitioners and all those employed in similar occupations. I think the noble Lord makes a good point.
Primarily of course it is directed at security operatives providing services under contract: door supervisors, wheelclampers and those employed in-house, as we have rehearsed before. Those are covered by the provisions in Schedule 2. This amendment seeks to exempt chartered accountants, and I understand that. However, it is important to place on record that it has never been our intention to license anyone carrying out security activities only incidental to their main employment. Accordingly, the Bill is drafted to allow for their exclusion. Paragraph 4(8) states that the provision does not apply to the activities of any person who carries out inquiries or investigations merely incidentally to the carrying out of activities that are not those of a security operative.
I understand the business of forensic accountants and the important investigative work carried out, but it would be our contention that they would simply stand to be exempted from the effects of the Bill. Chartered accountants would also fall into that category; so we do not think that the amendment is necessary. I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord has had to say about this, and of course I will go away and double-check the point because it is certainly not our intention to snare people inadvertently in the way he suggests. I am grateful to him for having raised the issue in the way he did.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for saying that he will look at this matter. In doing so, I hope he will bear in mind the position not only of forensic accountants but of all investigating accountants. We should bear in mind that without a paragraph of this character, the Bill says that this licensing applies—looking at paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2—to any inquiries or investigations for obtaining information about the circumstances in which or the means by which property has been lost or damaged.
We established earlier in the evening that property includes cash and other valuables, but apart from that, of course, the stock of a business is an essential part of its operations, into which accountants inquire in the ordinary course of their business. It is a perfectly ordinary large part of the activities of auditors to make investigations of the kind which seem to me to be covered by paragraph 4(1) and so in these circumstances, unless there is some sort of exclusion of

679
the kind I am suggesting, we shall find ourselves having to get licences for ordinary practising accountants as well as for forensic accountants, which firmly seem to be covered. Whether or not that is the Government's intention I am not sure. In view of the fact that this will be looked at again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 23, line 22, leave out ("with a view") and insert ("which is likely to lead").
The noble Lord said: We now turn to journalists. Amendment No. 50 is grouped with the Government's Amendment No. 51 which modifies the definition of "journalist" in a way which is agreeable to the Newspaper Society. I support that but my amendment suggests that not everyone who says that he is gathering information in order to have it printed in a book or newspaper is likely to achieve that. Many people believe that they have a good idea and go to a great deal of trouble to carry out investigations which they say will appear in a book. There is a danger that the provision will provide a "get-out" for many people, some of whom will use it as such and some who will be cranks.
I do not believe that the revised wording put forward by the Government in Amendment No. 51 improves the situation. No doubt the definition is better but it does not improve the situation at which Amendment No. 50 is directed. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall deal with both amendments and I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments on both. The definition of "journalism" used in the classificatory exemption in paragraph 4(5) is purpose-based; that is, it exempts activities which are undertaken by a person who intends there to be a journalistic-type publication or disclosure of the direct or indirect results of the research undertaken. The key is that some form of publication, not necessarily immediate or directly related to the precise investigation being undertaken, must be intended.
The amendment would remove that purpose-based concept and substitute one which is apparently more objective but which is, in reality, not helpful. Who, for example, would be the judge of whether publication was "likely"?
The newspaper industry has suggested to us that the drafting of this paragraph could be improved. The Government agree and have tabled an amendment giving substantial effect to the suggestions made to us. We have not been advised by the newspaper industry to move away from a purpose-based definition; indeed, quite the reverse. Our amendment to this paragraph therefore maintains this approach, which we are sure provides greater clarity and is more acceptable to those affected by it.
Our amendment is largely technical and seeks to broaden the scope of the exemption for those who undertake activities related to journalism. It is
680
designed to ensure that those individuals are excluded from the definition of "private investigator". It is not the intention of the Bill to require the licensing of individuals who undertake activities, as defined in paragraph 4(1), where these activities are related to journalism. Paragraph 4(5) therefore provides the exemption for those activities.
It has been suggested to us by the Newspaper Society that the definition in the Bill is narrow and could be improved. We have reflected on that and agree. The amendment to paragraph 4(5) will broaden the scope of the exemption so that it widens the range of activities. The new text explicitly takes into exemption from regulation activities which are related to artistic, literary or reference material.
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from but, on reflection, we believe that we have got it about right. It is right to suggest that the Newspaper Society is happy with our proposals.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I suspect that in future anyone accused of "snooping" investigations who is caught in the act will say that when he collected the information or took the photograph he intended to send it to the local paper. If he says that he is entirely free to carry on with that activity. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 51:
Schedule 2, page 23. line 22, leave out from ("information") to end of line 26 and insert ("exclusively with a view to its use, or the use of information to which it relates, for the purposes of or in connection with the publication to the public or to a section of the public of any journalistic, literary or artistic material or of any work of reference.").
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 52A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 5:
Schedule 2, page 25. line 11, after ("1967") insert ("is for the time being in force:
() any premises in respect of which a licence under paragraph 1 or 4 of Schedule Ito the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 53 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 53 is a technical amendment which seeks to ensure that premises which are licensed outside London under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 are covered by the provisions of the Bill. The amendment is designed to achieve consistency and to cover events such as raves, where alcohol may not be present, which take place in London but not elsewhere. On behalf of the Home Office, I confess that this was a technical oversight as it is described today.
I turn to Amendment No. 54 which is again technical in nature. The amendment seeks to ensure that door supervisors who operate at casinos or bingo clubs are excluded from the provisions of the Bill.

681
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 contains provisions relating to door supervisors. Our policy is to require all door supervisors to be licensed by the new authority, regardless of whether they are employed in-house or supply their services under contract. However, for these purposes we restrict the definition of "door supervisors" to those who provide services at pubs and clubs, which we believe are the source of most public concern. Paragraph 8(2) defines what is meant by "licensed premises" in this context, and paragraph 8(3) provides clarificatory exemptions as to what is not meant by that term.
We do not intend the provisions of the Bill to apply to door supervisors who operate at casinos or bingo clubs since personnel who work at those premises are already tightly regulated by the Gaming Act 1968. Unfortunately, the present drafting does not achieve that exclusion and a reference to the exclusion of premises licensed under Part II of the Gaming Act 1968 is required. I hope that the Committee will accept these straightforward, technical amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am delighted to agree to the remedying of these two technical oversights, particularly as the Minister was kind enough to write to me in some detail to explain that the Government
682
intended to move these amendments. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, and for that matter the noble Baroness who was in attendance until recently, for their patience and the way in which they responded to debates during Committee. I also ask the Minister to pass on my appreciation to his officials who have supported him throughout the debates.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I associate myself with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I am most grateful to the Minister and to those who have supported him.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment. No. 54:
Schedule 2, page 25, line 32, at end insert—
("() any occasion on which a licence is in force in respect of the premises under the Gaming Act 1968 and the premises are being used wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming to which Part II of that Act applies;").
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
Tuesday, 30th January 2001.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Details of the procedure to be followed in Grand Committee are to be found in the opening passages of Hansard on the first day of Committee on the Bill on 23rd January. I remind Members of the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the noble Lord speaking should be as brief as possible and we will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY POLICY
(" . In the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996, insert the following section—
"Publication of special educational needs and disability policy.
3A.— (1) Any provider of nursery education who—

(a) is in receipt of grant under the arrangements under section 1; and

(b) is not a maintained school,

shall prepare and publish a special educational needs and disability policy.
(2) Regulations may make provision—

(a) as to the content of the special educational needs and disability policy; and

(b) for the review and amendment of the policy."").

The noble Lord said: As I am on first at this third matinee in the Moses Room, I apologise for the soliloquy that is about to follow. I assure Members of the Committee that it is short, but it may appear greedy in the cluster of new clauses in front of us.
Aware of the ability of the parliamentary draftsman to make silk purses out of sows' ears, my hope is that the Government will accept the principle of what I am trying to do and achieve the desired result with more elegance and economy than I and my advisers have been able to marshal. If the Minister wishes to offer reassurance rather than legislation, I shall of course listen carefully to what she has to say, though the reassurance that it will not rain is rather less reassuring than actually having an umbrella.
I seek three things. The first is to ensure that those who receive public funds to educate three and four year olds have a published policy on special educational needs and disability. The second is to require local authorities to assist agencies funded to
CWH 140
provide nursery education by providing them with appropriate goods and services. The third is to have plans for children with special educational needs or disabilities written into the early years development and childcare plans.
I am well aware that early years plans and policies pay some attention to special needs and that there is for example guidance on having a special educational needs co-ordinator covering the foundation stage. However, there is not a statutory requirement to have the policy which the special educational needs co-ordinator will oversee. Nor is there a statutory requirement to put into mainstream nursery provision the sort of goods and services that will enable children who are a little different from the ordinary run of service users to be included. Finally, I have never been sure that what I shall call, for simplicity's sake, children with disabilities, stand out in the existing guidance from the wider issues of disadvantaged groups and disadvantaged areas. In the plethora of very valuable initiatives for younger children, disabilities can get lost and the educational needs and disability link become a little unclear.
For families with a disabled child at the early years stage, life can be particularly difficult—sans diagnosis, sans prognosis, sans experience and sans the toughness that the passage of years can bring. On the other hand, whatever the eventual diagnosis and prognosis (and for some that can be pretty grim) the early years are precious. My amendments are designed to help ensure that the right support is delivered by the right people in the right way at the right time during those precious early years. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Very briefly, (though not very quietly), I support the noble Lord in these amendments and certainly in their thrust. According to some of the briefing I received on this Bill, "He'll grow out of it" must be the greatest mantra for virtually all children with disabilities, particularly those of the hidden kind. If we do not have some process for looking at this, it will be, "Put him to the back of the class". Also, in very young classes, there is always the temptation to push them quietly back and say, "He's not very good at writing yet; let him play and draw for a bit". Those things do happen; they have happened in the past. The noble Lord is pointing out something that has a real historical basis. This would be one attempt to address the problem.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I thank my friend the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for having moved this amendment. A question of fundamental importance for the Minister is whether she can confirm that LEAs will be required to provide educational support to children and their parents post-diagnosis and up to three years of age. It is a question of particular importance for children with disabilities such as deafness, whose lives can be revolutionised by the benefits of early intervention and the harnessing of new technology before and after speech and language acquisition. Moreover, those benefits will significantly increase the chances of a child's successful mainstream

CWH 141
education. Given all that, is it not crucially important to have it confirmed on the face of the Bill? I know my noble friend will reply as helpfully as she can.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): The amendment would require early years education settings and early years development and childcare partnerships—which I will refer to from now on as partnerships—to set out their policies on plans for children with special needs or disabilities. It would also require local authorities to supply goods and services to support children with SEN in an early years setting delivering Government-funded early education.
We do not believe the proposed changes are necessary. However, having said that, perhaps I could respond immediately to the question put by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester. LEAs do not have the same duties towards children under two as they have in respect of those over two. However, they have the power to make and maintain a statement for children under two if they consider it necessary, and they must carry out an assessment of a child with SEN if they need to determine the special educational provision that the child needs and the parents request an assessment.
To a large extent, practice has shown that the most effective interventions for very young children are those that involve the input of services other than education. Such children may be "children in need" under the Children Act 1989 and, therefore, their parents can expect support, advice and appropriate provision from both social services and the health authority. The Children Act places a specific duty on local authorities to provide services designed to minimise the effect on disabled children within the area of their disabilities and to give such children the opportunity to lead lives that are as normal as possible.
For children under three, it is common practice for LEAs to provide educational services through portage home visiting services or peripatetic sensory support services where they are needed. Those services are provided without statutory assessment or a statement. Such educational support is usually allied to support from the other statutory services such as health.
Appropriate provision for young children is very important, so I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester have just said. We would be very happy to discuss the matter further with interested parties before Report stage if that would be helpful.
I shall say a little more about why we think there are other routes to achieve what lies behind the amendments. I reiterate that the Government accept the importance of early identification of special needs and the provision of appropriate support for young children with SEN and disabilities, so I am grateful that this concern has been raised.
Let me deal first with Amendment No. 87. This seeks to put a requirement on the face of the Bill to ensure that early years settings delivering government
CWH 142
funded early education have an SEN and disability policy. I do not think that that is necessary. Perhaps I could take the opportunity to update the Committee on the kinds of actions that have already been taken.
All partnerships are required under the School Standards and Framework Act to admit a plan for approval by the Secretary of State. To meet the criteria for approval, the plans are expected to provide information as requested in the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Planning Guidance. For 2000–01, the partnership plans had to include an annex addressing special educational needs and disabilities and this will also be a criterion for future years. Among other things, the guidance asks, in relation to children with SEN or a disability, for an implementation plan and details of how children will have equal access to childcare and early years services.
All early years settings delivering government funded early education for three and four year-olds must be registered with their partnership to receive any grant. It is a condition of registration that providers agree to be bound by the conditions of grant and for periods during which they are claiming grant.
It is also the case that all early years settings in receipt of government funding are required by law to have regard to the SEN code of practice.
The 2001–02 revision of Requirements of Nursery Education Grant will make it a full condition of grant for settings to have an SEN policy. Setting such a requirement is currently an option for LEAs but making it one of the full conditions on which grant is dependent makes a very significant strengthening of the arrangements. All settings providing early education and/or childcare will be subject to disability duties under the DDA, once the Act is in force.
In due course we will issue specific guidance for partnerships and their early education settings to help them to understand and implement the requirements of that legislation. The Disability Rights Commission's code of practice on Part III of the DDA and on the new disability duties to be imposed by the Bill will provide detailed guidance on the disability duties contained in those provisions.
We have set targets for all partnerships to make sure that by 2001–02 they deliver the foundation stage, and by the end of 2001–02 an SEN co-ordinator—sometimes known as a SENCO—responsible for establishing and implementing the settings for SEN and equal opportunities policy.
It is also the case that the latest version of the Ofsted Handbook for Inspecting Nursery Education in the Private, Voluntary and Independent Sectors requires the inspectors to obtain copies of the settings' SEN and other policy documents for consideration as part of the inspection. There is thus a genuine means of monitoring and enforcement which underpins our very great commitment to seeing improvements in this area.
Finally, the Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, which was published in June last year, sets out the importance of creating an inclusive learning environment. It makes clear that practitioners need to

CWH 143
plan for each child's learning requirements, including those with particular needs. We will support partnerships and settings by issuing specific guidance to help them to understand and implement their obligations to children with special educational needs and other disabilities.
Let me turn briefly to Amendment No. 88. Currently, local authorities are granted powers under the Education Act 1996 to supply goods or services to help with special educational provision for children with SEN in early years settings, delivering the government funded early education. This amendment seeks to change these powers to a duty but that is not necessary.
Many LEAs and local partnerships are already working very effectively to support children in early year settings within the private, independent and voluntary sectors.
In the 2001–02 version of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Planning Guidance, we have asked the partnerships to make sure that they have developed a clear strategy to allow all children to have equal access to childcare and early educational services regardless of their special educational needs or disability.
In 2001–02 we are making available £41.5 million to partnerships, via their LEAs, to fund training and development for early years practitioners, including the SENCOs so that there is much better infrastructure support than there has been.
We are working with partnerships to increase the early identification of SEN and for them to intervene where it is required so that there is better access to appropriate support and services. Those actions demonstrate our long-term commitment to improving the provision.
I turn now to the final amendment in the group, Amendment No. 89. Again, the Government do not believe this amendment to be necessary. We have set partnership targets in their plans to improve SEN support and provide help where it is needed, by establishing SENCOs and developing networks of area SENCOs.
I hope that I have reassured both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and my noble friend who asked me a specific question, that early years and childcare development partnerships, working together with their early years settings, local authorities and other support services are making significant advancement.
The special needs of young children must and will be identified early; that is absolutely paramount. Partnerships will ensure that the appropriate course of action is taken. On that basis, and with a suggestion that further discussions can take place on how to really make this work, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: Before my noble friend sits down, I want warmly to thank her for her response
CWH 144
to my intervention. With I am sure many colleagues, I welcome and will be pleased to take up the kind offer she made, as I am sure will the RNID, whose enormous help to all deaf people is so widely admired on both sides of the Committee.
Would the Minister agree with me that current local government practice does not exemplify joined-up services in this area and, if so, how do the Government propose to change this?
Baroness Blackstone: There is always room for improvement in joined-up services. That is a longstanding problem. Successive governments have often found it particularly difficult to get really good joined-up services, but this Government are committed to trying to improve them, particularly in relation to young children with special educational needs.
Lord Rix: I thank the Minister for her generous response to these three amendments which, as can probably be imagined, were inspired by the special education consortium. They did raise one point that I should like to leave with the Minister.
The difficulty with the guidance is that something can be a requirement of a grant one year, as with the provider's policies. But it can change its status the next year if it is not a primary requirement. Equally, governments sometimes change and the special education consortium would welcome a commitment to anything more enduring than guidance.
Having said that, I am delighted that the opportunity will be given to the SEC to have further discussions with the Minister's department. At the same time, the response was sufficiently encouraging for me to be able to say: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF RIGHTS BY CHILD
(" . In section 576 of the 1996 Act (meaning of "parent"), alter subsection (4) insert—
"(5) For the purposes of Part IV of this Act, a child may exercise the rights conferred on a parent in relation to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal if that Tribunal declares that he is capable of so doing."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 90 returns to the public the rights of the child vis-a-vis the parent and looks at the question of appeals to the tribunal. The Minister said some helpful things at an early stage of this Committee on the way in which tribunals would take into account a child's views. Nonetheless, a child does not have a right of action in front of the committee. There will be occasions, notably I suspect for the child in care, where the local authority outside the tribunal table is the child's parents for the purposes of the tribunal. Therefore, if the child has no independent right of action, he or she may have no real way of getting in front of the tribunal. There will be other occasions when the child is in dispute with his or her parents and wishes to make an appeal to the

CWH 145
tribunal when his own parents do not. It is not unknown now for children to sue their parents for various reasons, and there will certainly be occasions where a child will wish to take action in front of a tribunal when the parents are unwilling to do so.
If the tribunal feels it appropriate, I do not see why a child should not have a right of action in front of the tribunal. It would seem to be a reasonable extension in these modern times of the rights of a child. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 90 would create dual rights of appeal for the parent and the child where the tribunal considers the child capable. This could be confusing and is not necessary. I hope that what I am about to say will be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The new SEN tribunal regulations which will be laid before Parliament soon will entitle the child to attend the hearing of an appeal and to give evidence at the tribunal's discretion. The current regulations do not expressly entitle the child to attend the hearing, so we are moving exactly in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants. In the light of these reassurances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: That does not answer the question I have raised. That is the answer the Minister gave a week or more ago, and which I welcome; it is excellent news. The question I am raising, however, is, where are the parents? Suppose the parent is the local authority. Is the local authority supposed to take itself to the tribunal? Are we really supposed to believe that that is practical? If a child in care is being dumbed down by the local education authority, will the local education authority take itself to court to make itself provide more?
Surely there are occasions—I do not just refer to disputes between a child and his parent which I can understand may cause the Minister some difficulty—where the local authority is the parent for these purposes. I may be misreading the legislation, but it seems to me that there is no other obvious parent or no truly independent parent of a child in care. I will listen to what the Minister says on that, but that is the question I am asking.
Baroness Blackstone: Where it is a case of children in care, the local authority is the parent and has to act as the parent. In those circumstances the local authority would be required to allow an eligible child to appear before the tribunal.
Lord Lucas: Yes, they would appear before the tribunal, but who is going to take the case to the tribunal? The child has no right on its own initiative to take the matter to the tribunal. It is the parent who can take the matter to the tribunal, but the parent is the local authority. How on earth in those circumstances is a child supposed to get there? A child has a right to speak in front of a tribunal, but it cannot get in front of a tribunal. That is the problem I am addressing in
CWH 146
the amendment. The Minister is not providing me with an answer. I will not press the matter further, but I will certainly come back to this on Report, and will be grateful for anything she can say to me before that stage.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment—I suspect that is what he is going to do—there is a genuine lacuna in the Bill that my noble friend found. While he was speaking to the amendment I realised that there is a point to be considered here.
It is fanciful to say that the LEA would never ever let a child down who is in institutional care within the authority. If the LEA is capable of letting down children with bona fide parents at home, and/or foster parents who can act in loco parentis for a child, then it is capable of letting down a child in care.
As mere observers of children in care, some of us would say that many of our children, probably a disproportionate number who are in care, are let down. It takes a stretch of the imagination to believe that the LEA would find itself wanting and would take itself before the tribunal in the interests of the child. Whether the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas is acceptable or not, the point he is making is extremely important. It would help me and I suspect other members of the Committee to know how a child in those circumstances can be represented. We are all open to the consideration of novel alternatives to the normal process. This is a real issue. The most vulnerable are those children in institutional care.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept a great deal of what has been said by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. However, it may be a mistake to see the local authority here as a totally seamless, single organisation. I said that it is the local authority which has to be the parent in those circumstances, not the LEA. The LEA is responsible for SEN provision but it is the local authority and indeed the social services department which have responsibility for children in care. Thus, it would be representatives of the social services department who would mount the case in support of the child where there was an argument as to whether the child was receiving adequate provision. I hope that that response helps although it may not entirely satisfy noble Lords opposite.
Lord Lucas: In the most perfect of all possible worlds that would naturally be the case and Ministers would not have to sign up to ministerial codes. Nor would any of us go on registers of interest because we would all behave perfectly and no conflict of interest would ever cause anyone to suspect that we might act awry. However, this is an enormous conflict of interest for any local authority to be faced with: that its own local education authority—a very large part of the authority—is misbehaving in relation to a child and that that child wants the local authority to take its own local education authority to the tribunal.
There is a clear and obvious conflict of interest and it is not satisfactory to rely on the goodwill of local authorities. That may in many cases be there but we

CWH 147
know very well that in other cases it is not. We shall return to this matter on Report but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 91:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
RESOURCES
(" . The Secretary of State may by regulations made under this Part require local education authorities to reserve sufficient resources properly to discharge their duties under Part IV of the 1996 Act as amended by this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My noble friend Lord Jenkin is unable to be present because he is engaged in highly technical work on a Select Committee. I have agreed to move the amendment for him.
In pressing the amendment, I want to refer mainly—it is my noble friend's very personal concern—to young people with varying degrees of sight impairment. The points I shall make in speaking to this amendment will, however, apply to many other conditions. I would first refer to a sentence contained within the special needs draft code of practice and it would be helpful to know whether there is any intention to alter this reference. It is paragraph 8.1 on page 69, at the top, which reads:
"However resources are provided, legal responsibility for securing the necessary provision rests with the LEA. LEAs' schemes for financing schools made under section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 may contain a provision repeating the requirement in section 317 of the Education Act 1996 which is set out above".
That is the backdrop to what I want to say to this amendment, which would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring LEAs to hold sufficient funding centrally to maintain specialist support and advisory services for children with low incidence disabilities, such as visual impairment—services which cannot effectively be delivered by delegation to individual schools.
There are 22,000 children and young people under 16 in the United Kingdom whose sight is impaired in such a way that they require additional support for their learning. Visual impairment is a low incidence disability and one for which specialist support is vital from the earliest stage that visual impairment is identified. The funding implications for equipment and support can be enormous and there is significant need for flexibility in order for resources and expertise to be employed as cost effectively as possible.
A sufficient level of funding must be held centrally in order to ensure the co-ordination and provision of support services, to enable statutory assessments to be carried out by qualified specialists in visual impairment. Entitlement for visually impaired pupils to equipment and support must be safeguarded. Access to mobility and orientation services must be guaranteed, an issue which was debated earlier. Access to transport must be provided not only during school hours, but also to make it possible for children and
CWH 148
young people to participate in after-school activities such as homework and computer clubs and to promote the full inclusion of pupils who are visually impaired.
We have talked about cross-party support for delegation to schools, but we all admit that there is a tension as to how an education authority can fulfil its central duties to provide for special needs and how the schools can meet those special needs unless there is a system of money flowing flexibly in such a way that the children who require the resources receive them.
Most LEAs provide specialist visual impairment services to support blind and partially sighted pupils in mainstream, resourced and special schools in that way. That has proved vital to the process of inclusion of visually impaired children in mainstream schools and special schools for the past 18 years.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind agrees that schools should be expected to presume responsibility for their own development needs and priorities, but it argues that specialist support services for low-incidence disabilities cannot be effectively or efficiently provided and that if sufficient resources are not retained centrally by LEAs for these services, there will be consequences. For example, the early identification of visual impairment is likely to be severely threatened. The LEA advisory services for visual impairment provide that key function prior to statementing, often well before a child even gets to school. Standards could be compromised, as individual heads and governors lack the knowledge and expertise to devise job descriptions and judge the competencies of qualified teachers of the visually impaired. They may not fully appreciate the teachers' need for specific resources and training.
A further consequence would be the loss of the flexibility afforded by central funding of visual impairment staff, which enables them to be deployed where they are needed. Appointing staff to a resourced school may only guarantee employment for a few years to cover a given group of visually impaired children, leaving heads and governors with difficult hiring and firing decisions when children move on. An LEA-wide service can adapt to the needs of children in both resourced and other mainstream schools where children may need more or less support.
While the recent Green Paper on local government finance contains proposals that could begin to improve the clarity and certainty of SEN funding—for example, by giving separate assessment for schools and LEAs and giving LEAs three-year funding settlements—the Government need to issue guidance to LEAs to ensure the future stability of LEA-wide support services for low-incidence disabilities such as visual impairment.
To encapsulate what I have sought to say, delegation will go ahead. My party supports the Government's robust programme on that. We vie with the Liberals as to who was the first to support devolving funds to schools. There is a case for devolving some special needs funding to schools. All schools contain a range of abilities within the 20 per cent of children whom we have come to know as the

CWH 149
Warnock children, from the low end to the severe end of the special needs scale. However, there is a role for the LEA and I am not suggesting absolute answers.
My noble friend argued for flexibility in the system to ensure that the LEA's responsibilities are properly met and that the LEA properly supports the schools to meet their obligations under the law. It seems sensible to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to ensure that flexibility. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the amendment. The important issue of resources was raised on Second Reading and during the first day in Committee. On this occasion I support entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said in relation to the role of LEAs. It is vital that they retain an overall function for the supply of support services. There are many specialist support services which cannot reasonably be delegated to schools and where it is much more efficient and sensible to retain them at the LEA level.
While it is important that the regulations make clear that the LEAs have the responsibility we are discussing and that they should retain at the LEA level sufficient resources to be able to carry out that responsibility, it is also important that the Secretary of State ensures that, under the standard spending assessments and the revenue support grants, the LEAs receive enough money to do so.
Baroness Blackstone: While I entirely agree with the gist of what the noble Baronesses have said, I fear that I may disappoint them because the Government do not feel that this amendment is necessary.
The reason that the amendment is not necessary is that it would allow regulations to be made requiring LEAs to reserve sufficient resources to discharge their duties under Part IV of the Education Act 1996, as amended. Part IV covers the main provisions dealing with LEAs' duties towards children with special educational needs.
It is of course important that LEAs continue to spend money in this area, but this amendment is unnecessary because they will retain their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs. Lack of, or failure to reserve, such resources by an LEA would not relieve it of such duties. These duties include those under Section 313 (to have regard to the code of practice), Section 315 (to keep its arrangements for special educational provision under review) and Section 321 (duty to secure that it identifies children in its area with SEN, and for whom it is necessary that the LEA determines the special educational provision for which their learning difficulty calls).
As these statutory duties remain, there should not be a need for secondary legislation to require sufficient resources to be set aside: by definition LEAs already have to plan properly to meet their statutory requirements and, in consequence, ensure that the necessary funding to carry these out is available. We
CWH 150
think that the law is sufficient here and we do not have any intention to change the words in the code on this point.
Even with the move to greater delegation of funding to schools, LEAs will still retain, as they should, a key role in SEN provision. We have recognised this continuing key role in our October 2000 policy paper, The Role of the LEA in School Education. But we also recognise that schools themselves are, in many cases, best placed to determine the most appropriate provision for pupils with SEN, including those with visual impairment. Governing bodies of maintained schools must continue to be under a duty to use their best endeavours to secure that the special educational provision which a pupil's learning difficulties calls for is made in those schools.
There are many examples of funds being delegated to schools while, at the same time, a high quality service to those schools has been maintained by the LEA. I believe that North Lincolnshire is a good example of a place where this happens effectively.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness, on behalf of her noble friend, feels able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lucas: Before my noble friend speaks, I would be fascinated if the noble Baroness could let me have whatever information she has on how good Lincolnshire is. I know this is a problem which troubles a number of local authorities. They are faced with a target of 85 per cent delegation and many rural local authorities will be spending close to 6 per cent now on transport, which they are not allowed to delegate. The SEN budget is 5 per cent and rising and, in good local authorities, it can rise quite quickly because the understanding of needs, and the provisions that need to be made, is rising and they find themselves in a great deal of difficulty. Blindness affects 22,000 children—an average of one per school. That means that a lot of schools do not have a blind child from one year to the next and then suddenly two will come. How can a local authority delegate funds to deal with such sporadic occurrences? There are times when it is more efficient to keep the resources in the centre and allocate them as particular needs arise in schools.
That is a difficult issue for local authorities. I have heard many of them saying that they do not know which way to turn. Since the noble Baroness does know which way to turn, I would be delighted if she would inform me so that I can pass on the good news.
Baroness Blatch: The Government predict that there will be a substantial shift of young people into mainstream schooling. None of us will be in a position to challenge that presumption until we see what happens.
I have looked a number of times at the financial appraisal in the Explanatory Notes. It does not tally with the idea that there is going to be a shift of young people with special educational needs from special into mainstream schools. Paragraph 130 says:

CWH 151
"The Bill will require LEAs and schools … to plan to increase the accessibility of schools to children with disabilities, and to implement their plans".
The estimate for that is £4 per school. There are 25,000 schools in this country, and the budget is £100,000 per year. I can barely pay for the time to write a letter that would cost £4; it is a very strange sum of money.
Paragraph 129 says:
"The Bill will require schools in England, Wales and Scotland to make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled children are not placed at a substantial disadvantage".
It goes on to say:
"We estimate the costs of these duties to be within the range of £1.5m—£3m per year".
The Minister may rightly say that not every school needs adjustments, but many schools will if they are to take partially sighted young people. Noble Lords will remember that I referred to orientation classes as well as bricks and mortar.
The Explanatory Notes also say:
"the cost of funding LEA projects to make schools more accessible will be supported by the Schools Access Initiative."
Some £220 million will be made available over the three years. That works out at £9 per school—again a modest sum. I am deeply suspicious about trying to reconcile the Government's prediction that a substantial number of children will move from special into mainstream education with their expectation of the resources that will be required.
It will he difficult to predict what will be needed with any accuracy. For example, the staffing costs are said to be worth nothing. No amount is allocated for them. Presumably, the Government think that there will be no staffing implication. If those young people are to have support staff in school who transfer with them, there will be a staffing implication. Paragraph 141 says:
"The SEN provisions will have very few manpower implications".
The Government do not even see fit to put a figure on it.
I find it difficult to reconcile the Government's robust prediction that many more young people will move into mainstream with the most modest costs that I have ever seen in a Bill. We need some means by which national government can assist LEAs and schools, with funding streaming from one through to the other, so that they meet their obligations without creating serious adverse effects on other parts of the service. We have had sensitive debates about impact on other young people, in particular, children who do not have special educational needs. The impact would be quite substantial if there was not some flexible arrangement for the Government, who are the proposers and sponsors of this legislation, to ensure that the resources are in place. Otherwise we will have a building up of expectations and a dashing of them once the Bill is enacted.
4.15 pm
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may try to respond to some of those points. First, I should be delighted to send information on north Lincolnshire to the noble
CWH 152
Lord, Lord Lucas, and explain why that council seems to be a role model for other authorities. Perhaps I may say also that the Government have always been quite clear that they are not delegating to schools responsibility for special educational needs provision. That is something that we have felt very strongly should be held back. Indeed, there are members of the noble Lord's party who believe we should have 100 per cent delegation to schools. But how could we if we are going to have local educational authorities providing for adequate term provision which needs to be done by the authority?
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I indicated earlier in Committee that substantial additional amounts of money are being allocated for the inclusion parts of the Bill. There is some confusion in that what the noble Baroness read out was not about the inclusion parts of the Bill, but about the disability part of the Bill where the costs are much lower. The Government recognise that, and I said at Second Reading that there are extra costs in moving towards mainstreaming. Indeed, that cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said at one point, is well worth providing for. We are doing just that.
I hope that explanation will clarify the position. The £1.5 million to £3 million is for reasonable adjustments under the disability part of the Bill. It is difficult to predict what they will be, but many of them will not in fact be very expensive on top of all the extra funding that is going in to promote inclusion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is absolutely right when she says that a low incidence disability, such as visual impairment, will not be something for which many schools will have to provide. I imagine that in some cases those children who are blind or visually impaired will be in units attached to part of a school where there will be several such children rather than being distributed across a wide range of schools.
I hope that what I have said on funding helps to explain the position.
Baroness Blatch: I stand chastened for reading the financial paper, but it is the only financial paper there is in the Explanatory Notes; there is no other. It is headed up, "Effects of the Bill"—I take that to mean the Bill before us—"on Public Sector Finances". I read out a number of references, to schools, post-16, rights of redress, advice and conciliation services and SEN provisions.
My understanding is that a financial paper at the end of any Explanatory Note refers to the whole Bill. It is not just as the Minister said; that is, that it only refers to part of the Bill. If it only refers to part of the Bill, there ought to be a cost appraisal of what the full measures of the Bill include.
The Minister has spoken on good practice and referred to Lincolnshire. I happen to know Lincolnshire very well; it is my neighbouring county. A good friend of mine, Mr James Speechlcy, is the leader of the Lincolnshire Conservative Group. I know that the council's reputation goes before it in

CWH 153
many spheres, including provision for special needs. So good practice is one thing but ultimately there is a tension in all our minds about the rhetoric and the expectations that are being raised by the Bill among many groups concerned about provision for children with special educational needs and the likely reality on the ground; namely, that local authorities are extremely hard pressed at present. They will face real difficulties. The noble Baroness said that we were not placing on schools the responsibility for delivering special educational needs. That is not true. Schools will have responsibility for delivering special educational needs. There seems to be no plan. If we refer to children with special educational needs rather than just those with severe learning difficulties, up to stage 3 it is very much a school-based provision. Schools have that part of their budget delegated. The amendment should ensure that LEAs and schools are able to meet fully the obligation with regard to this new tranche of young people coming into mainstream schools who will have the higher end of learning disabilities to be managed within mainstream schools. The Government are placing that obligation upon schools and LEAs through this legislation. The Government's responsibility is to ensure that they are held to account for that.
My noble friend will want to read carefully what has been said during the course of this debate and I have no doubt that he will refer to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91ZA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 91ZB:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
FUNDING OF TRAINING FOR SUPPORT STAFF
(" . In the 1996 Act insert—
"343A. The Secretary of State shall approve and fund formal training and qualifications for support staff operating to meet special educational needs within the maintained sector."").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I want to address training. It is a probing amendment. One of my concerns with the Government's proposals in the Bill is that they will lead to the early closure of special needs schools. Indeed, there is already evidence that special schools are closing across the country, many of them on financial grounds. The children normally served by those schools could be at a disadvantage if the support in mainstream schools is not adequate. This particular amendment refers to the effectiveness of the people—the actual staff—who will be supporting those children.
I am concerned about the standards of training and qualifications of support staff in mainstream education. At present, special schools are apparently providing much of the informal training "on the job". With special schools admitting a broad range of children with special needs—anything from Down's syndrome or deafness to behavioural or emotional problems—there has been less pressure from formal qualifications in the mainstream sector. It has almost
CWH 154
been a question of learning by osmosis. I have met many non-professional staff who are working with children with disabilities in the special schools' sector of special needs who have performed quite brilliantly. Therefore, one would say that if there were any test of their competence, they would pass with flying colours.
Although in many parts of the mainstream sector there are currently higher thresholds for recruitment, in many cases there remains very little additional formal training. The closure or reduction of the specialist establishments, where most of the existing training takes place, will lead to a loss of training environment for support staff. Those will need to be replaced by the introduction of, for example, an NVQ in special educational support or some other recognised qualification. I feel strongly that it must remain the case that schools should retain the right to employ whoever they consider suitable for the post. To this extent, therefore, I am not proposing that such an NVQ should be a compulsory pre-requisite for employment as a special support assistant. I repeat: we can all think of staff employed as special assistants who do an absolutely wonderful and near-professional job. I believe that formal training provision should be made available, especially since the opportunities for informal training in special schools will almost certainly be reduced by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My noble friend has a point. We shall have to make sure that people know what they are doing when they come newly into a situation, and some form of training provision would certainly seem sensible. If it is covered somewhere else, I shall be happy. But I believe that this matter must be addressed. Later amendments of mine cover teacher training.
Baroness Blackstone: Significant record levels of funding are already available to LEAs and schools through the SEN component of the Standards Fund to support the training and professional development of both teachers and support staff working with children with SEN. In the current financial year we are supporting expenditure of £26 million on SEN training—an increase from £21 million last year—and we envisage that £30 million of the total £82 million available for SEN under the Standards Fund in 2001–02 will be spent on training.
That funding is designed to support the implementation of the SEN code of practice and to give direct, practical help to schools and LEAs when implementing the policy of inclusion. But it is designed to be flexible as needs in one area, or indeed from one school to the next, may not necessarily be the same.
A wide variety of providers currently offer courses of training in SEN, including some of the specialist voluntary bodies. We believe that such diversity is healthy, allowing flexibility and the ability to respond to changing needs.
We can play our part. We are making available £350 million for recruitment and training of teaching assistants between April 1999 and March 2002. Within that programme of support we have devised an

CWH 155
induction training course for newly-recruited teaching assistants, which includes an SEN component, SEN frameworks and processes within which teachers and assistants work, developed with the help of a member of the National Advisory Group on SEN. That course is being delivered across the country by LEAs from the autumn term 2000. There is also coverage of SEN within the literacy and numeracy modules, and we are keeping the need for further SEN training content under review in the light of experience with those courses.
We have been working closely with the Local Government National Training Organisation and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in connection with their work on developing a national, UK-wide set of occupational standards for teaching assistants. Both are expected to be ready this year. They will provide an overall framework within which teaching assistants can demonstrate their abilities and develop their careers.
The amendment refers to formal approval of courses and qualifications. We do not see the case for such a system at a time when we are trying to reduce bureaucracy in education. Indeed, creating a new administrative burden could have the unintended effect of dissuading current or potential providers from offering courses, which would be a pity. That is not to say that the Government should have no involvement in training at all: of course they should. There is a long-standing requirement for teachers of classes of pupils with visual impairment or hearing impairment or a combination of both to have an additional mandatory qualification approved by the Secretary of State and, of course, there are specific requirements laid down in relation to courses of initial teacher training, currently under review by the TTA. However, we see no need for a general requirement for courses for support staff to be subject to formal approval.
Rather, we see our role as lying in somewhat different directions. We have established an inclusion website which is designed to promote good practice and publicise SEN materials and facilities available to teachers and support staff. That would include the courses that are on offer. And we will be working with the National Association for Special Educational Needs and others over the next year to develop some teacher training material of our own designed to meet specific needs. Our intention would be to cover the interests of support staff in this material.
I hope that, having heard what I have had to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. She made many helpful points which I should like to read carefully. I should like to make three quick points. One is anecdotal. I was discussing the Bill with somebody who told me about a parent with an autistic child about whom that parent was extremely worried. The parent was not having the
CWH 156
happiest experience. The special school assistant who was working with that child had a mere two hours' training from a standing start and the situation was not working out very well.
Secondly, I believe that there is a need to think more positively about training for those who are working with young people with sometimes very complex special needs.
Thirdly, it sounds as though I am pressing the Minister to do something about this matter. I hope that we will not go down the road of adopting the rigid recruitment bar that used to be applied to social work training where one had to have a very specific qualification. It seems to me that in the area of special needs different qualifications will be needed. Some thought needs to be given as to the suitability of someone to work with a young person with special needs. I hope that we will keep in mind the need for training to be made available; the need for people to be better trained and the need for them to receive more suitable training. However, we also need to adopt sufficient flexibility to enable schools to employ people whom they believe to be the right people to work with children with special disabilities. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Discrimination against disabled pupils and prospective pupils]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 91A:
Clause 10, page 8, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (IA) of this section,").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 91A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 92A and 92B. These three amendments are probing amendments relating to the word "justified", which is in the proposed new Section 28B(1)(b). Amendments Nos. 91A and 92B relate to independent schools. I shall come later to Amendment No. 92A which relates to maintained schools.
Independent schools are often small and some specialise in particular ability ranges in sport, music, gymnastics or whatever. Can every school be expected to accept any and every form of disability? There are so many different kinds of disability. The National Union of Teachers says that the range of disabilities is vast and that enormous research would have to be undertaken for schools to inform themselves of every possible condition. Perhaps each school in the independent sector should be encouraged to cope with one disability. However, as I read the Bill, it might deny an independent school the opportunity to concentrate on doing one job well. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the word "justified" in the proposed new Section 28B(1)(b) covers a school which elects to concentrate on one disability and provide for it effectively but it could then reject children with other kinds of disability?
Another problem relates to Asperger's syndrome and other forms of autism and emotional and behavioural difficulties. Having too many children

CWH 157
with one type of difficulty in a school can be disadvantageous to all those children as well as to the other children in the school. Is an independent school entitled to say, "Sorry, we now have six children with Asperger's, we cannot take your child?"
Finally, there is the question of costs for independent schools. Can independent schools make charges for extra services? The school with which I am familiar has a good service for dyslexic children. It has about a dozen dyslexic children and, of course, an extra specialist dyslexic teacher is required. The parents of those children pay extra for that teaching. If they did not do so, the burden would fall upon all the other parents. Most independent schools today are non-profit making schools and someone has to bear the cost. Unless the clause is amended, or the word "justified" is very clearly defined, this clause might mean that independent schools had to accept every single pupil disability of any kind.
I move to Amendment No. 92A and the subject of maintained schools. The same problem was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the context of Amendment No. 91. I see two sets of circumstances which might cause problems in the interpretation of the word "justified". First, it simply is not realistic to suppose that no additional costs will be involved and no additional staff needed to enable children with many types of disability to participate fully in a mainstream school. Each type of disability will generate its own costs and staff needs.
Surely common sense and indeed a responsibility to use public resources effectively dictate that where a local authority has several schools of a particular kind—secondary, primary or whatever—each school should specialise in a particular kind of disability. Perhaps school A would specialise in mobility and school B in hearing difficulties. How do we know whether the courts would find that a local authority's policy on this matter falls within the category of being justified?
My second point relates to main schools and the issue of Asperger's and emotional difficulties which I raised in the context of private schools. The question is the same.
Clause 11(1)(b) refers to the treatment in question being justified. Justified by what? Since we shall not see the guidance until after we have passed the Bill, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the problems I have raised will be covered by the words "the treatment in question is justified"? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. It is important that we make clear that there will be specialist schools, whether they are independent selective schools or subject specialist schools, and their right not to select should be preserved in the interests of all children.
Baroness Blackstone: This grouping includes Amendments Nos. 121A and 131A. I am not sure that
CWH 158
the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke to those amendments, although they are in the grouping. Does he wish to do so?
Lord Northbourne: I would rather not.
Baroness Blackstone: Let us deal with Amendments Nos. 91A, 92A and 92B. The Bill will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of disability in the provision of education—every field of education and every provider of education. It will place duties on schools to help to remove the barriers which disabled pupils face in accessing education. Seven per cent of children are educated in the independent sector and we believe it is right that independent schools are fully covered by the new duties on schools. Independent schools are already fully covered by the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. We believe that pupils in independent schools should be protected in the same way as those pupils in maintained schools. I am sure the Committee would agree with that approach, which completely underpins the Bill.
Amendment No. 92A would allow a school to refuse to accept an application for admission from a disabled child, on the grounds of his disability, if refusing that application would be in the best interests of the child. I assume that I am right in saying that the intention behind this is to ensure that schools—including independent schools—could refuse to admit a disabled child if they did not, for example, have the facilities to provide for that child and felt that they could not adequately meet the child's needs.
This reopens the very significant debate we have already had in respect of amendments on Clause 1. During that debate, we discussed at some length how the best interests of the child might be represented, in deciding which school the child should attend. It would not be wise to repeat that discussion here, but I stress that with the right support most children could be included in mainstream schools. The test of whether the children should be educated in mainstream schools should be limited to what parents want and to safeguarding the interests of other children. Clause 1 and the SEN framework will provide that.
However, we do not expect all schools to have to admit any child, no matter how profound their needs. Disabled children with more severe needs will have a statement of SEN. Under the SEN framework, LEAs are responsible for arranging suitable school places for children with statements where the child's needs will be adequately provided for. Under the new disability duties a school may be able to justify less favourable treatment or a failure to make reasonable adjustments in certain admission cases. However, once the disability duties have been in operation for a while, more and more schools will be able to cater for children with a range of disabilities.
The aim of Amendments Nos. 91A and 92B is to ensure that independent schools can continue to select pupils on the basis of ability or aptitude. We expect schools that currently operate genuine selection arrangements to be able to continue to do so. The Bill

CWH 159
contains an automatic justification to the less favourable treatment duty for permitted forms of selection. We wish schools to be under the reasonable adjustments duty in relation to their admissions arrangements. However, there is an express factor permitting schools to take into account the need to maintain standards when deciding what the reasonable adjustment duty requires them to do.
While there is no need to maintain a particular standard when selecting pupils, independent schools will be expected to change their selection arrangements. A case in point might be selection on the basis of a written exam. Obviously, a school could not refuse a place to a child using a wheelchair who had passed the written exam on the grounds that the child would not be able to participate in the cricket team. We expect the DRC's code of practice to provide detailed guidance on that.
Schools that are able to select on the basis of ability or aptitude should make such reasonable adjustments to the selection arrangements as may be necessary to ensure that disabled pupils are not substantially disadvantaged. For example, if a school selects on the basis of an entrance examination, it will have to consider taking reasonable steps to ensure that a disabled child with, say, dyslexia, is given more time to complete the exam. After such reasonable adjustment to the process of the entrance exam, the results of the exam will determine which children are offered places at the school.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, asked specifically whether a school can accept one disability but reject another. Yes, a school could not admit a child if it could not cater for that child's needs. The school would have to provide justification that it could not cater for that need, but if it could provide such justification, it would have the right to refuse a child. Justification will be explained and illustrated in the code of practice. There will also be a consultation process on the code. I trust that that helps the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall certainly have to read what she has said because there seems to be a conflict there. On one hand, if a child wants to go to a school, the school has to provide the facilities. On the other hand, the child can be rejected if the school does not have the facilities. I will try to understand that. If the noble Baroness would like to take deal with Amendment No. 121A as well, as she has her notes there, I can speak to it quite simply. Indeed, it speaks for itself.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 121A would limit in various ways the duty on independent schools to plan to increase the accessibility of their schools. The limitation of the duty would apply only to the principal parts of the school. We are clear that a duty on schools to plan to increase accessibility should cover all school buildings and premises. A child in a school wants to make use of all the facilities available, not just the main parts. It may be that a school decides
CWH 160
to start planning for increased accessibility by focusing on the principal parts of the school buildings, but once the principal parts are accessible they will then want to focus on the other parts of the school. Planning for disability access and implementation of plans have to be a progressive continuing process and should not be limited.
Secondly, the amendment seeks to limit the planning duties so that schools do not have to make any alterations which may change or damage features of historical or architectural significance. I can assure the noble Lords that the planning duty will not override regulations covering listed buildings. We would not expect schools, for example, to widen the doorways and install lifts in a Grade I listed building. That would clearly be ridiculous. But there are other things that can be done.
I realise that some independent schools are housed in buildings of historical importance. They, too, will have to comply with a duty to plan for increasing the accessibility of their schools for children with disabilities. These schools will have to consider what they can do within the statutory framework governing historic buildings. This might include installing hearing loops or specialist IT equipment
Thirdly, the amendment delays the implementation of any physical changes until 20 years after the plan has been prepared. It would be quite unacceptable to allow any school 20 years before they would be expected to start implementing their plans. We want to make progress in removing barriers to learning now and not in 20 years' time. I am sorry to be impatient, but I think that it is right to be impatient about these things.
Let me stress, as soon as the planning duty is implemented, we expect independent schools to start planning for increased disability access and for implementing their plans. In considering implementation, independent schools will, of course, have to consider available resources, but they will also consider whether adaptations could be linked to other planned building works or refurbishments. That is understandable and would make adjustments and adaptations less costly.
Finally, the amendment seeks to require that plans will be based on recommendations by independent schools inspectorate. Certainly my officials will be consulting with the sector about what guidance will be required for independent schools in taking forward the planning duty. The proposal that plans should be based on recommendations from independent schools inspectorate will simply delay.
It is interesting to note that only about half of all independent schools belong to an association affiliated to the Independent Schools Council which inspects member schools. It would not therefore be appropriate to expect all independent schools to base their plans on recommendations by the independent schools inspectorate.
Amendment No. 131A would require the Secretary of State to provide grants to independent schools to meet the cost of the planning duty. Independent

CWH 161
schools will be expected to meet the costs of increasing the accessibility of their schools. We recognise the important role of these schools but they are independent, often commercial institutions and in most cases we do not think it appropriate to provide direct grants to them. But if, very exceptionally, a case arose where some assistance was justified and funds were available at the time, then it would be open to the Secretary of State to make a specific regulation to pay a grant in that particular case, under the existing powers in Section 485 of the 1996 Act—just as we have done in the recent past for capital grants to one or two individual independent schools in the music and ballet scheme—so there would be no need for a new power on the face of this Bill for that purpose.
In summary, I reiterate that independent schools must be covered by these new provisions, like other schools. Disabled children should not be discriminated against whatever kind of school they are in.
I hope that my assurances and the explanations of the duties that will apply to independent schools are able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to withdraw the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: I did not have much faith in the period of 20 years. However, I wish to raise the first issue proposed in Amendment No. 121A.
I have spent 40 years on the governing body of the independent school that I attended as a child, so I am deeply familiar with it. The school has 11 staircases on four different levels, two teaching rooms up one tower and another teaching room up another tower, and there are differences in levels within each floor. It will be very difficult to provide wheelchair access to all those areas, so presumably the areas that do not have wheelchair access will have to be discarded or used for some other purpose. Are we really at that stage? Is it as bad as that?
Baroness Blackstone: No, I do not think it is as bad as that. It is a matter of commonsense application of the Bill when it is enacted. It is a matter of planning timetables sensibly so that difficult-to-access rooms are used for provisions that may not be universal across the curriculum and therefore essential for every pupil.
Anyone who has run an educational institution, whether an independent school, a maintained school, an FE college or a university, will be familiar with what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just described. Most of our school buildings were built at a time when there was much less sensitivity to the needs of disabled students and pupils than there is today. It is a matter of common sense, trying to apply a timetable in a sensible way and to make the changes that are required to the most important parts of a school building, leaving those that are much more difficult until later or using them for a slightly different purpose.
Baroness Blatch: Can I ask the noble Baroness a quick question? Is there a power to require an
CWH 162
independent school—whether it is a special or a non-special school—to accept children with special educational needs? Is there a power to compel physical changes to the buildings? If so, it would be helpful to have those requirements set out, so that schools know what their protected areas are and can defend themselves in the not untypical circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
Baroness Blackstone: There are no physical features duties on any schools, either independent or maintained. It is a matter of making reasonable adjustments as and when it is possible to do so. There is an overall power requiring schools, whether maintained or independent, not to discriminate.
Lord Northbourne: If I was doing business with the noble Baroness, I would be perfectly happy, but I am not; I shall be doing business with local authority inspectors, or in an extreme case, with the courts. They will not necessarily interpret things in the same reasonable way as the Minister. That troubles me, but I shall read the Minister's comments with interest and bring my concerns back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:
Clause 10, page 8, line 34, at end insert ("on the grounds of the disability of that person").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 93, 95, 159, 160 and 217. I hope that the amendments make it absolutely clear that unlawful discrimination should be discrimination on the grounds of disability. This part of the Bill needs to be worded very carefully if it is not to be abused. It is right that a disabled person should be protected against discrimination on the grounds of their disability, but fair discrimination applies to all pupils, and must include people with disabilities.
Schools are entitled to discriminate between applicants in their admissions criteria. For example, an academically selective school can reject an applicant on the grounds of insufficient academic ability, whether the applicant is disabled or not. A school specialising in music, dance, or sport is entitled to discriminate on those grounds. Clause 11 attempts to define the discrimination that is to be outlawed in the Bill. However, in addition to Clause 11, it would be better for greater clarity simply to insert into Clause 10 that the discrimination, which is to be unlawful, is discrimination on the grounds of disability. That is quite simply what I have done in this amendment.
The noble Baroness gave an example of a person in a wheelchair taking an academic test for entry into a school which was selective on academic grounds. That is a very good example that, if the person is rejected, it should not be on the grounds of disability but on the grounds that they are not up to the mark, or that there has to be some selection process to take a limited number of people from the list.
Clause 10 reads:

CWH 163
"it is unlawful for the body responsible for a school to discriminate against a disabled person";
but that is not specific enough. What it should say is that it is unlawful for the body responsible for a school to discriminate against a disabled person on the grounds of the disability of that person.
It is true that Clause 11 seeks to define the meaning of discrimination as applied in this Bill, and it does so in a rather tortuous manner. However, it would give much greater clarity to the Bill, while leaving in Clause 11, if we started by making discrimination on the grounds of the disability of the person unlawful.
My other two sets of amendments do the same in other parts of Clause 10. My third set of Amendments, Nos. 159, 160 and 217, also refer to the further and higher education part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 95, 159. 160 and 217 seek to confine the duty on schools and post-16 institutions not to discriminate against disabled pupils, students and people enrolled on courses on the grounds of disability only.
Those amendments are not necessary. Part II of the Bill outlaws discrimination on the grounds of disability. Clauses 11 and 26 make it entirely clear that discrimination requires either less favourable treatment of a disabled person for a reason relating to his or her disability, or a failure to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled persons are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled persons, where that failure is to the detriment of a disabled person. The Bill could not be any clearer on that point.
The Bill does not prohibit discrimination against a disabled person on the grounds of, say, race or sex, because we already have effective legislation—the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act—which outlaw discrimination on such grounds.
All of the amendments tackle the same fundamental issue and I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness that they are unnecessary in respect of either pupils, students or indeed adults. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I can just raise a point on Amendment No. 95. Subsection (4) seems to present problems if it stands as it is. I cannot see how a school is meant to deal with, say, a boy with a severe case of ADHD. He may be extremely disruptive in class; his condition may be getting out of control and causing a great deal of difficulty to other pupils. If, as part of the management of that child and to bring home to him that he should perhaps in some way be subject to the same disciplines as other pupils and to set him objectives to help him come into line with reasonable standards of behaviour, the school wishes to exclude that child, it will no longer be able to do so. There will be no way in which exclusion of children can be used as a measure against a child where the disruption is a direct result of the disability.
Am I right in understanding that that is to be the position? If so, how would the Government wish a school in that situation to proceed?
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: We have already had a long debate about this in relation to the efficient education of other children where the Government were criticised by some members of the Committee for having included such a clause. Under this part of the Bill, yes, the schools will be able to say that a child who is consistently disruptive, out of control or disturbing the education of others can be excluded on the grounds of justification. They will have to provide that justification. But through that justification that will become possible.
Lord Addington: I am not sure whether this is the right time to raise a point about the new sports academies which are being formed. If they are not used to training wheelchair athletes, would they be allowed to discriminate? I hope not. If they were not used to dealing with that type of athlete I wondered whether they might be brought to account. I ask that as a matter of clarification.
Lord Lucas: I should like to come back to the question I raised earlier. Yes, I understand that discrimination can be justified, but I did not understand Clause 28A(4) to relate to discrimination. It states, as entirely separate from discrimination, that it is unlawful for a school to exclude a child on the grounds of discrimination. That seemed to be phrased separately in some way from subsection (1). However, that is clearly my misunderstanding, so I shall shut up.
Baroness Blackstone: I am not sure that I completely followed the question of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, but I believe that the answer is no, as long as it is a maintained school.
Baroness Blatch: There is clearly still some confusion about it. I am more than partly satisfied with the Minister's explanation. She appears to be saying that clause 11 has the same effect as I was trying to achieve through the amendments. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92A to 93 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 94:
Clause 10, page 9, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—
("(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), education or associated services shall include the provision of education and services related to teaching and extracurricular or leisure activities organised by the school for the pupils attending that school.").
The noble Earl said: I should like to make two points, one serious and one slightly frivolous. Everything that I shall say relates to the application of the Bill in Scotland. Indeed, the amendments have been inspired by the Law Society of Scotland, the Consortium of Children in Scotland and the RNIB Scotland. The frivolous point is that my name seems to have become prepositionally deficient throughout the

CWH 165
Marshalled List: there is an "of" missing. That is not an amendment; perhaps it should be an amendment to the Marshalled List.
The purpose of amendment No. 94 is to probe the meaning of the words "education" and "associated service". It also attempts to widen the possible meanings to ensure the inclusion of extra-curricular and leisure activities organised by the school for the benefit of pupils attending that school. The existing subsection (3), which the amendment would delete, gives the Secretary of State powers to decide retrospectively what education and associated services are and allows the Secretary of State to alter the definitions—and hence the extent of the clause—by regulation.
I am confused about who the Secretary of State is, especially in the Scottish context. I should have thought that the definition about education should come most naturally from the Education Secretary, the Scottish Minister in charge of education or the Secretary in the National Assembly for Wales. However, I do not have a problem with the possibility of there being three different definitions as a result.
To focus on the merit of the amendment, I believe it would be useful to have on the face of the Bill from day one a clear commitment that discrimination in education is outlawed in all aspects of the life of the school and not just in any narrow definition of, say, the classroom and the dining-hall. Subsection (3) will not help the reader of this future Act to understand to what it applies. Only by acquiring the regulations when they are published can the reader begin to understand the extent of this ban on discrimination. Surely, that is not a useful purpose for any Bill to have.
I anticipate that the Minister will tell me that all this is explained in the explanatory notes. However, these will disappear and will not be available to readers after enactment.
Amendment No. 157 is grouped with Amendment No. 94, which is another amendment needed in the Scottish context. There are several attempts in the Scottish legislation to define who is a disabled person and what their characteristics are. Since this legislation will alter somewhat the admissions process for all educational institutions in Scotland and, no doubt, elsewhere, it is essential that it is clear to whom the legislation applies and to whom it does not apply. I believe that the headings of physical, mental, emotional and psychological disability are helpful in establishing who exactly may not be discriminated against.
Amendment No. 162 is also in this group and is designed to probe and clarify the extent of the description of higher and further education. The amendment proposes to place a description of that extent on the face of the Bill rather than leaving the definition to a hotch-potch of secondary legislation to be published as and whenever the relevant Secretary of State feels like it. The amendment gives a broad definition demonstrating that discrimination issues have to be considered in that full context.
Finally, and briefly, Amendment No. 180 probes the meaning of disabled person and further and higher education by providing a broader definition. The amendment will be helpful but only if it is accurate. I can see little advantage if the Bill does not make it clear at whom it is aimed. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: We need the regulation-making power in Clause 10 because the boundaries of what constitutes education or associated services are not always black or white. Where it is unclear whether a particular service constitutes education or an associated service, the regulation-making power will help clarification. Amendment No. 94 seeks to set out on the face of the Bill certain services which will be included with those covered by the new duty not to discriminate against disabled children in the education and associated services provided by the school. However, I am clear that we need the flexibility here of a regulation-making power.
The Disability Rights Task Force recommended that all activities covering the life of the school should be subject to the new duty. The task force described what it wanted to secure as a set of new anti-discrimination duties which covered the life of the school. We followed that recommendation. This will, of course, include the provision of education and services relating to teaching and extra-curricular or leisure activities for pupils attending the school but it will also include things like break times, school meal provision, after-school clubs provided by parent associations, school trips and childcare provided by the school. It is impractical to list every aspect of school life in the Bill. We must not forget that new initiatives or activities like breakfast clubs, for example, which were not at all widespread five years ago, are always likely to appear. Where there are grey areas, we want the flexibility to be able to describe in regulations what services are and are not caught by the new duties so that schools and LEAs are always clear. The proposed amendment would not help because it would be inflexible and it would not have the same degree of clarity.
I have some sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 162, though not with the amendment itself. I understand the wish to provide clarity and certainty about whether particular services provided wholly or mainly for students are covered by the duties in this clause. Indeed, it is precisely in order to provide such clarity about which services to students are covered by these duties that the Secretary of State has given the powers under subsection (12) of this clause to make regulations to set out whether particular services are covered. Incidentally, it is the Secretary of State for Education and Employment because this is not a devolved matter; it is a reserved matter.
Such regulations are the most flexible and comprehensive way of defining student services, given the obvious complexity and variety of services provided for students and the changing way in which education and training are delivered.

CWH 167
The noble Earl's amendment seeks to remove that regulatory power and to give examples of student services on the face of the Bill. I have no difficulty with the examples given; they are taken from the examples given in the Explanatory Notes. But Explanatory Notes do not disappear once a Bill is enacted; they remain and are available for people to read as and when.
Far from providing more clarity and certainty than regulations, examples of this kind on the face of the Bill would leave it open to interpretation whether particular services, other than the specific examples mentioned, are or are not covered by the duties. With a power to make regulations, the Secretary of State will be able to clarify the extent to which a wide range of services to students—for example, career or welfare services—are student services covered by the duties in this clause, and will be able to react to any future difficulties which occur in interpreting whether a particular service falls within the definition on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 157 and 180 deal with the definition of disability. For the purposes of this Bill, the definitions of disability and of a disabled person are those used in Section 1 of the DDA. We intend to keep this definition of disability. Our clear intention, on which we have consulted, is to extend the DDA to cover education, and we believe that has the considerable benefit of clarity.
The DDA defines a disabled person as someone who:
"has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
Schedule 1 of the DDA regulations and statutory guidance expand on and clarify the definition. People who have had a disability, within the definition, are also protected from discrimination even if they have since recovered. Obviously any child or student meeting the definition will be protected by the Bill. Retaining the DDA definition of disability also provides consistency throughout someone's life.
The definition of disability already in the DDA has worked very well. However, the Disability Rights Task Force reviewed the definition and in its report, From Exclusion to Inclusion, made some recommendations about legislative changes to it. Two would involve covering people with cancer or HIV at an earlier stage in their illness. A further one recommended that people who are certified as being blind or partially sighted should be deemed to meet the definition because the task force found that some people with visual impairment were experiencing difficulties at tribunals in proving that they were disabled.
Finally, the task force made some recommendations for reviewing the definition. It proposed that aspects of the definition should be reviewed to ensure that there was appropriate coverage of people with mental health conditions and that there were no difficulties with the restriction to mental illnesses being clinically well-recognised ones. It recommended that the exclusion of particular conditions should continue for the time
CWH 168
being but be reviewed by the Disability Rights Commission. And it proposed that the definition be amended to bring in a range of conditions which can have severe but short-term effects; for instance heart attacks and depression, although they are covered if long-term. The task force suggested that the wider implications of the proposal needed to be explored. The Minister for the disabled announced in the other place on 20th November that we would respond to the task force report around the end of February. That response will cover the recommendations that I have just outlined. The DRC has a statutory duty to keep the working of the DDA under review and has decided to adopt all of the task force's recommendations. Like other equality commissions, the DRC can make proposals and give advice to Ministers on proposed changes to the law.
Having heard my reassurances, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is able to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: May I probe the Minister further on Section 28A(3)? She said that there would be regulations to cover the detail, but I should be interested to know in which services, not regarded as education or associated services, the Government think that discrimination may occur. The Minister spoke earlier about cricket as an example of an activity in which a disabled person clearly might not be able to participate. Rolf Harris addressed the problem a long time ago in "Jake the Peg". Many disabled people, especially those in wheelchairs, would be a great deal better at cricket than I would be—and I was made to play the game. With a little effort, it is surely possible to integrate disabled people into a lot of sports that some prejudiced sports masters might not think appropriate. I would be most concerned if those words in subsection (3) were to be interpreted widely I would like to know what the Government think about that.
Lord Rix: There is a strong movement on cricket for the blind. They play very successfully with an audible ball.
Baroness Blackstone: Sport will be covered as a service. I entirely agree with what both noble Lords have said. Many disabled people can participate in a wide range of sports and are probably better at them than I would be, just as they may be better at cricket than the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. One only has to see the extraordinary success achieved by disabled people in the Paralympics in Sydney. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is reassured on that point.
Lord Lucas: Yes, but I should still be grateful if the noble Baroness could give me some examples of what services the Government think might not to be regarded, for the purposes of subsection (3), as being education or associated services, although I accept that she cannot give me examples now.
Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for clarifying the issues raised in my probing amendments.

CWH 169
I note that the regulations are yet to be published, so we have to await that definition. I also take the point that my attempt to define what school and college life revolve around was not sufficiently inclusive. The noble Baroness spoke about a wider group of activities, which was highly satisfactory.
I attempted a definition in Amendments Nos. 157 and 180. They refer to a
"person with physical, mental, emotional or psychological disability".
Section 1 of the DDA, which is the ruling definition, refers only to a person with physical or mental, rather than emotional or psychological disability. That leaves us unclear about the position of people with behavioural difficulties or pupils such as those who attend the school run by my noble friend Baroness Linklater of Butterstone for educationally fragile children. I am not yet clear whether they are included in the definition.
Baroness Blackstone: I think that they are. I do not see why they should be excluded.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 96:
Clause 10, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 1 of the 1995 Act (meaning of "disability" and "disabled person"), after subsection (2) insert—
"(3) For the purposes of discrimination under this section, any child having a statement of special educational needs shall be regarded as disabled."").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for having misdrafted the amendment, no doubt in many ways, but particularly the words "this section", given that it refers to a different section of the Bill. What I mean is Chapter 1, Part II.
The objective of the amendment is to make it simpler for schools to know who they are dealing with when it comes to a matter of discrimination. Anyone who falls within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is likely to have a statement. Schools will know who has a statement, but the definition under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is feather-edged. It is difficult to know exactly who they are talking about, and the school may not know whether a person falls within that Act.
It would be simpler from a school's point of view if the child was statemented. It does not exclude other pupils from coming within the Act, but it makes the prima facie understanding by the school of who is disabled and who is not much easier. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: To include all children with statements within the definition of disabled persons under the 1995 Act would not be consistent with the intentions of the learning disability provisions in the Bill. Although many children with statements are
CWH 170
disabled, some are not, and will make sufficient progress with extra help, after a time, not to require a statement.
A person has a disability if he has a mental or physical impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. A special educational need is not necessarily long-term, and it may be remediable with the right help. SEN legislation and disability legislation serve different purposes. The first is about provision to meet special educational needs, and the second is about preventing discrimination on the grounds of disability.
In the past, a person who has had a disability is entitled to protection under the DDA, even if that person is no longer disabled. If this amendment were accepted, a child who had been statemented, even for a brief period, would be protected by the DDA for the rest of his or her life.
Furthermore, schools are already very familiar with the SEN framework in applying the new disability duties. It is more consistent and practical to work alongside that framework rather than to try to shift the boundaries. We want to avoid a school having to spend time deciding which piece of legislation applies to a child's needs before taking action. Similarly, the purposes of the disability provisions in the Bill and the SEN provisions in the Education Act are different. The former seek to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against throughout their life, as children and as adults, while the latter seek to provide additional help to enable children with learning difficulties to learn and progress while they are at school.
The Disability Rights Commission is charged with producing codes of practice on the new disability duties. We will invite the DRC, in drawing up the codes, to set the new schools duties in the context of the SEN framework, where that is appropriate.
The present definitions of SEN and disability are different but complementary frameworks. They underpin and allow a consistency of approach both to providing support for children with learning difficulties and preventing discrimination on grounds of ability.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I shall read what the Minister said. I suspect I shall be satisfied by it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Meaning of "discrimination"]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 97:
Clause 11, page 9, line 38, after ("question") insert ("having taken steps to inform itself as fully as possible about any disabilities and identified special needs of pupils and prospective pupils").
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group seek to place a duty on schools, colleges and other places of higher education to take steps to find out whether disabled people are applying to join their courses. They seek to tackle the opt-out within the Bill which effectively says that if they do not have that information, they are not discriminating.
The case of schools is much more complicated because they have to deal with parents. Normally parents are a driving force for dealing with disability. Their efforts are usually backed up by voluntary groups and educational psychologists.
I seek to place some of the emphasis in this regard on the education system. My remarks must not be taken out of context. I am not saying that that should be done with current resources. A later amendment in the Bill seeks to get schools to undertake that duty. For schools to say that they simply are not aware of a child's difficulties is not good enough. Huge delays in offering adequate provision can arise as a result of that. We have already discussed the matter of earlier recognition of problems. If we wait for the parent to discover that something is wrong—that is the worst case scenario because many parents react to information given by teachers—the kind of delays I have mentioned will occur. As we have already stated, if somebody has a minor difficulty such as not terribly acute dyslexia, or an eye problem, and it is discovered early enough, most of the problems will disappear. Indeed, the need for statementing may well disappear.
I shall be very surprised if the Minister does not mention colleges and places of higher education in this context. We envisage some form of enrolment procedure where there is a box to be ticked if you have a disability, and possibly a means of describing what that disability is. Colleges would then be unable to say, "We did not know you could not do such and such". Thus the problem we are discussing would be avoided. At the moment the Bill refers to institutions not knowing the relevant facts. But if they do not ask, they will not know. I suggest that we could remove that difficulty by having an application form with a little box to be ticked and a place for disclosure of information.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond kindly to these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has tabled amendments with a similar purpose. I am not at all fussy about the words here. If the noble Lord's words are thought to deal with the problem in a better way, I should be more than happy if they were accepted. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ashley who is unwell and unable to be with us this afternoon, to move and speak to Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 111 in this group, standing in his name. I am sure my noble friend will soon be returning to our debates on the Bill with all his customary energy, sincerity and skill; and I know noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will join me in sending him our every good wish.
CWH 172
In regard to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 it will he seen that, according to Clause 26 as currently drafted, there can be no discrimination if the authority did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that a child is disabled. Since we all know that "reasonably" can have a thousand and one interpretations, this part of the clause provides an escape route for local authorities that wish to do the minimum. They merely have to take no steps to ensure awareness by the authority.
My noble friend's amendments would help t o ensure that all authorities put systems in place that will make them aware of any discrimination. It is essential that every authority or school be made responsible for having clear procedures for encouraging disclosure. It is then up to the parents to decide whether or not to tell the school about their child's disability. The authority needs to be proactive, not reactive.
I know that the special educational needs code of practice says schools should produce policies that describe their SEN policy and have admission procedures that will identify children with SEN. But there are three objections. First, it does not cover all children; secondly, it does not cover all schools, because independent schools are excluded; and thirdly, it is not legally binding. I am glad to commend these amendments to the Committee.
I turn now to Amendment No. 111. We have already dealt with the purpose and principles of this amendment, namely that the child should have a right to participate in issues relevant to his or her future. Amendment No.111 relates specifically to the child's wishes for a disability to be kept confidential and that, too, deserves our support. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I should like to ask a simple question: how can a responsible body be deemed to be a responsible body when it has not even bothered to find out whether a disabled person is disabled?
Baroness Blatch: I, too, lend my support. Young people applying for further and higher education are at a particularly sensitive time in their life for talking openly about disabilities—or, rather, not talking about them, which is probably more the order of the day. Providing an extra tick box on a form would not cost the institutions much and I expect that they would willingly accept the obligation to allow applicants to be open. The form ought also to include an invitation to the potential student to discuss any disabilities or provision that they may require when they get to university. Our further and higher education colleges are doing an enormous amount to help young people with disabilities to be accepted into their institutions. That serves everybody's interests and I am happy to put it on record, as I have done before. We are dealing with another aspect of that. They need to he proactive in soliciting information from potential students about any disabilities that they have and whether those

CWH 173
disabilities would require any particular provision and they need to be sensitive about that information. I support the amendments.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I cannot add any useful arguments, but I would like to add very strong support to the object of the amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have great sympathy with the intentions behind the amendments. First, I shall address all the amendments except Amendment No. 111, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester in the stead of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. The other amendments are all concerned with ensuring that schools and post-16 institutions have taken steps or have policies and structures in place to find out whether a student or a pupil has a disability. I have the greatest sympathy with the intent behind the amendments.
The duty on schools and post-16 institutions to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory. A school or post-16 institution cannot, in general, wait until a disabled pupil or student arrives before making an adjustment. Most schools, colleges and universities should have—indeed, most already do have—procedures in place to ascertain whether or not a pupil or student, or potential pupil or student, has any disabilities or special requirements. For many institutions that will be part of the information requested in their listings procedure. It is good practice, although I do not know how many institutions use the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of the box being ticked by the intending student.
Schools and post-16 institutions will have to anticipate and plan ahead. They will need to review their policies, practices and procedures, including those relating to admissions, as a matter of course to ensure that they do not discriminate against potential disabled pupils or students by placing them at a substantial disadvantage. We will thereby ensure that good practice becomes standard practice throughout our educational institutions.
Clauses 11 and 26 make provision for responsible bodies not to be liable in respect of the duty to make reasonable adjustments where they do not know or could not reasonably be expected to know of a person's disability. An institution certainly would not be able to rely on a defence that it could not know of a student's disability if it had not done what it could be reasonably expected to do in order to find out whether that person had a disability.
Amendment No. 97 includes the words,
"and identified special needs of pupils and prospective pupils".
We do not intend to extend the disability duties to cover children with special educational needs who are not disabled within the DDA definition. There is a whole framework surrounding the identification and assessment of children with special educational needs. The revised SEN code of practice will be published later this year. There is also a requirement in the
CWH 174
maintained sector on LEAs and governing bodies to ensure that a child's needs are made known to all who are likely to teach him or her.
I turn to Amendment No. 111 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Morris. This would place a duty on schools to take account of a disabled child's wishes to have his disability treated as confidential in determining whether to make a reasonable adjustment. I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to seek a formal voice for the child and we have already had substantial discussion in the course of the SEN framework of the Bill on the role of the child.
I know that what my noble friend Lord Ashley intends is that the proposed duty would only bite having sensible regard to the child's age and maturity. The problem is: who makes the decision about the child's age and maturity? The school would have to make that decision. What, then, if there is a difference of opinion between the school and the parents or between the parents and the child? It cannot be sensible to add potential layers of conflict to the situation.
We believe that it is appropriate that the child's view should be taken into account. But in the inevitable hierarchy of rights of where the final responsibility lies, the parents' voice surely must be paramount. Children may rightfully have views about their disability and about keeping it confidential, and of course they should be taken into account by the school. In some cases it will only be after talking to the disabled child that a school will be aware of what adjustments need to be made.
The most effective provision for a disabled child will be the result of a partnership between the school, the parents and the child. However, it is appropriate to place schools under a legal duty to take account of the parents' view in respect of keeping the child's disability confidential. It is an established feature of our school system that the parents act on behalf of their children. This ranges from the choice of school to appeal against non-admission or an exclusion from the school as well as giving consent to certain activities, school trips and so on. It is right that the position of the parents should be the same in this case. Many children may lack the capacity to make the informed decisions that are required.
I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will recognise that the Government agree with the intentions of Amendments Nos. 97, 98, 163, 164, 165 and 166. My point is that they are unnecessary because the Bill already covers the intentions behind them. These reassurances and the comments that I have made in respect of Amendment No. 111 should enable noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I have tried desperately not to be political in this debate. It is an issue that goes across all parties. However, after the debate yesterday and having asked my Question today, for the Minister to say that many children lack the capacity to make such

CWH 175
a request for confidentiality fits ill with the fact that the same children of the same age will be asked to request confidentiality to receive the morning-after pill.
Lord Rix: Clauses 3 and 4 are a "cop out". They are weasel words. Why could it not be kept simple by just striking out those two clauses? The meaning of discrimination is the whole purpose of Clause 11 and subsections (3) and (4) seem to negate that whole purpose.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right. If the Government wish to include these sections, that is reasonable, particularly with regard to colleges. I shall have to read more carefully what the noble Lord said as regards schools. I agree that we have obligations. The Bill states that,
"it did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he was disabled".
We should get rid of that and indicate that that provision has gone. The Minister said that the Government are required to have some provision to deal with this. This is a total nonsense; we are chasing our tails when we can give clarity. The only people who stand to benefit from these subsections are lawyers. If we are to be a job creation scheme for lawyers, I suggest that we have another Bill for that purpose. I cannot see that the provision has any function here. We shall have to return to this issue at a later date. However, at this point I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I thank my noble friend for his response to Amendments Nos. 98, 99 and 111. I assure him that my noble friend Lord Ashley and I will look at it very carefully. I know that the Minister will not be surprised to see us returning to these issues on Report. Meanwhile I reserve my noble friend Lord Ashley's position and will not press the amendments at this stage.
Lord Lucas: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, may I also encourage the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, and his noble friend to pursue Amendment No. 111? I was not really impressed by the Minister's answer. All that is required is that the authority have regard to the confidentiality request. I cannot see why they do not have due regard to the confidentiality request made by a disabled person under whatever circumstances. They can make their own decisions as to what weight to put on it. It seems to me absolutely right that they should have to take notice of it, and due notice according to the particular circumstances involved. We cannot be more specific than that. Clearly the child should have a right to request confidentiality.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as I know my noble friend Lord Ashley will be when he reads the Official Report.
Lord Addington: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Disabled pupils not to be substantially disadvantaged]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 100:
Clause 12, page 10, line 28, leave out ("substantial").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 12 requires the responsible body of a school—by which we take it to mean the head teacher and the governing body—to ensure that discrimination of a disabled person does not take place. However, it goes on to specify the two circumstances where it should not take place; first, in the admissions procedure to the school; and. secondly, within the school once the pupil has been admitted. In both those subsections the clause specifies that the disabled persons,
"are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled".
My concern here is with the word "substantial". I understand that once a disabled person is a pupil at the school there can be a measure of disadvantage compared with other pupils—and that is true—even with the best will in the world to keep such disadvantage to a minimum. The disabled pupil might, for example, be physically slower to get around the school; might find certain facilities that we all take for granted usable but not totally convenient; and so forth. It is fair enough, therefore, for the clause to make unlawful substantial disadvantage for the pupil once in the school. Such a qualification concedes that there may always be some disadvantage, even if such disadvantage is kept to a minimum. Where I find the qualification "substantial" unacceptable is in the first subsection; that relating to the arrangements for admission to the school.
The school will invite applications and will' publish its admissions criteria. If it is an academically selective school it will apply some form of selection test; if it seeks other abilities or skills, such as music or drama or sport, it will set its admissions criteria accordingly. If the school is over-subscribed, it will have to apply some kind of pre-published selection process such as siblings of the pupils at the school and then, probably, how far from the school a child lives.
In none of that should the disabled applicant to the school be treated any differently from the rest of the applicants. Thus it is that I say there should be no disadvantage to the disabled person in comparison with other persons when applying for a place at the school. Hence my amendment drops the word "substantial" from subsection (1)(a)—the one concerning admissions to the school. Thus it leaves the wording that there should be no disadvantage.
If the Government argue that the word "substantial" should remain and my removal of it is not acceptable, then another form of words I should like to propose at the next stage of the Bill is "reasonably avoidable". A view needs to be taken which can be tested as to whether the reason for discriminating against a pupil could be avoidable in

CWH 177
reasonable circumstances. I wait to hear what the Minister says in response to my amendment. I can also say that Amendment No. 167, to which I also speak, applies to Clause 27, but it is the same argument. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I support my noble friend's amendment most strongly. It is absolutely right that there should in principle be no discrimination in the provision arrangements. There is little excuse for it. Certainly my noble friend's back-up wording would seem to cover any possible faults. It would give me particular pleasure to see the word "substantial" taken out because of the amount of time I spent last year trying to get the Government to put it into the Freedom of Information Bill.
Lord Rix: Looking at the semantics of this amendment, if the Government insist on leaving in a word such as "substantial", I wrote down two words that might do almost as well: one is "unjustifiable"; the other is "avoidable", which might suit matters better. The requirement would then be that disabled persons should not be placed at an avoidable or unjustifiable disadvantage. I wonder whether those two words might be more suitable.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether the noble Lord is addressing that question to me, but I would welcome a debate about the important issue of negotiating an appropriate word. The point I want to make most strongly is that "substantial" is the wrong word here.
Baroness Blackstone: The Bill places a duty on schools and post-16 institutions to make reasonable adjustments if a disabled pupil or student is placed at a substantial disadvantage.
The amendment would remove "substantial" from the trigger for reasonable adjustments to admission arrangements. It would place schools and post-16 institutions under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to admission arrangements whenever a disabled pupil or student faced a disadvantage, however trivial. We are not legislating to overcome mere slight disadvantage; we are legislating to ensure that schools, colleges and universities help disabled pupils and students where there are real barriers to accessing education. "Substantial" is a well understood term and the Disability Rights Task Force recommended that it should be the trigger for the reasonable adjustment duty on schools and post-16 institutions.
The amendment would create one trigger for reasonable adjustments to admission arrangements and a different trigger for reasonable adjustments to the educational and other activities while a disabled pupil or student was attending school or a post-16 institution. The amendment would not cover adult education at all.
The amendment would create a great deal of confusion for schools, colleges and universities operating under the reasonable adjustment duty. It
CWH 178
would also set up a hierarchical system within the reasonable adjustment duty. I am sure that noble Lords understand that we want to keep a consistent test across the board.
It may be helpful if I set the substantial disadvantage trigger in context. The starting point for the Bill was the precedent set by the DDA. We have taken the best of the DDA and applied it to the provision of education. We decided to adopt the substantial disadvantage trigger for the reasonable adjustment duty placed on employers under Part II of the DDA because it was a relatively low trigger for adjustments to be made. That leads to a strong reasonable adjustment duty on schools and post-16 institutions. It will also require schools and post-16 institutions to act in an inclusive way, since they will need to compare the experience of disabled children and students with that of their non-disabled peers in deciding what steps they need to take.
In contrast, the duty to make reasonable adjustments in Part III of the DDA is triggered only if disabled people would find it "impossible or unreasonably difficult" to access the service. There is no comparison with others accessing the service. The disability lobby prefers the "substantial disadvantage" test to the "impossible or unreasonably difficult" test in Part III of the DDA for providers of goods and services.
Under Part II of the DDA, a substantial disadvantage is one that is more than minor or trivial. "Substantial" is not defined in the DDA, but in the code of practice issued under it. The term "substantial" is also used in other parts of the DDA, for example in relation to the definition of disability, and in each case it means more than minor or trivial. We expect the DRC to reflect that and to provide further guidance in the codes of practice that they will produce in respect of these new duties. Research monitoring Part II of the DDA has found that disabled people, employers and tribunals have no difficulties with this test. It appears to be working well and is widely understood.
Removing the word "substantial" in the trigger would require schools and further and higher education institutions to make reasonable adjustments however slight the disadvantage. Even if a disabled person was facing only trivial disadvantage, a school or institution would have to do something about it.
People face many sorts of disadvantages every day. Fortunately, most of them are insignificant and they arise from the sort of problems that any of us face as we go through life. They are minor disadvantages that are part and parcel of everyday life for us all and we put up with them. We are not legislating to overcome mere inconveniences. We are legislating to make sure that schools, colleges and universities help disabled pupils and students where there are real barriers to their taking part in education; real difficulties beyond what any of us might be expected to put up with. Otherwise there would be no end to the potential for dispute and challenge. Schools and colleges could find themselves

CWH 179
dissipating their resources to deal with a myriad of minor difficulties instead of focusing on the real problems that we believe they ought to be addressing.
We believe we have the balance right and that the Bill will ensure that help is available for disabled pupils and students where and when there really is a need for it. I hope therefore that, having heard what I said, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I find it difficult to imagine what kind of discrimination would be trivial or reasonable in the case of admission arrangements. We are talking about a tiny function. Can the Minister give me some examples of what might be a trivial piece of discrimination which should be disregarded but is nonetheless reasonable as part of admission arrangements?
Schools have some strange admission arrangements. I know of one private school which requires pupils to stand on one leg for admission—it knocks the dyslexics out of the running; they find it hard to do. I would not find that reasonable. I believe that to be discrimination. When it comes to admission, I cannot think of anything, however small, that should be in admission arrangements that would disadvantage disabled people. I cannot see that there is anything in that tiny area which it is difficult for a school to adjust so that disabled people are not discriminated against. I would love some practical examples of the sorts of thing that schools should be allowed to do which, if we took "substantial" out, they would not be allowed to do.
Baroness Blackstone: I propose that setting an examination on a particular day of the week to admit a child into a selective school could be defined as a trivial discrimination against a child who happens on that particular day of the week to attend some kind of programme that might be in some other way supporting his or her education and therefore helping the child who has some kind of minor disability. I am thinking off the top of my head but that is the sort of thing whereby we could, if we were to take this phrase out, find people who in a vexatious way decide to make trouble.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure what to make of that particular example. It seems to me that, if in every other respect the disabled person or the person with disability had all that it took for entry into a school, I suspect it would be reasonable, under the Bill, to find some way of accommodating them in a way that would allow them to take up a proper place at the school, the day of the week being a proper adjustment.
I am sorry that the Minister in her response, which I suspect is a seriously prepared one, did not respond to the kind of negotiating stance that we are all in to find words that are appropriate. As my noble friend said, we are talking about a narrow area of function in the Bill and "substantial" seemed to leap off the page as being the wrong word. I should like to think more about it and perhaps Members of the Committee will
CWH 180
do likewise. I hope that, in the meantime, the Minister is able to reflect on some of the things that we have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 101:
Clause 12, page 10, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 101 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke which, it will come as no surprise to the Committee, has my full support.
As currently drafted, the Bill specifically states that schools do not have to remove or alter physical features, nor to provide auxiliary aids or services. This amendment deletes that specific statement. It does not mean there would be enforceable rights to auxiliary aids, services and changes of physical features. What it does mean is that these matters would be included in the "reasonable adjustments" duty on schools.
Appropriate auxiliary aids and services would be essential for some children for without them the education of the disabled child could come to a full stop. There is no point in changing physical features, however, if a child cannot follow what goes on. Nor is there any point in providing excellent communication facilities if a child cannot get to the rooms where they are provided. In all such cases, education is denied.
This amendment will, in particular, enhance protection for disabled pupils without statements because they have no legally enforceable rights of redress against the school's failure to provide such extra help.
It may be argued that the SEN system already makes provision in this important area for disabled children. It does not. Only 2 per cent of children with SEN get statements and, even when they do, evidence from the RNIB shows that large numbers do not receive adequate support. One in three children with significant problems do not get school test and examination papers in their preferred format. In other words, they are put at a disadvantage and the handicapping effects of their disabilities are increased, not diminished.
It is accepted that schools cannot be expected to provide all that is required, as some of the child's needs can be the responsibility of the NHS or the local social services department. However, the code of practice could highlight who should provide what and where responsibilities and duties lie.
The object of this amendment is to try to ensure that disabled children of the future do not suffer, as they do now, from huge inequalities and inconsistencies in provision across the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It might be helpful if I speak to Amendment No. 135A, which is coupled with Amendment No. 101.

CWH 181
In the previous clauses, the obligation has been placed upon local education authorities, and upon schools, to provide facilities and alterations in order to give access to, and to accommodate generally, pupils who have disabilities.
The schools and the authorities have to prepare annual plans as to how they are going to do so, and they have to implement those plans. As I have already said in a previous debate, I fail to see how they can possibly do that without knowing that they have the funds to do it.
However, Clause 15 seems to be suggesting that there is no obligation upon the local authority to adapt the school premises, or to provide auxiliary aids or services for the benefit of children with disabilities. Subsection (3) on page 15 says that these provisions do not require the authority to remove or alter a physical feature, or to provide auxiliary aids or services. Indeed, the noble Baroness said that herself this afternoon on an earlier amendment. My amendment adds a third provision, which I know will be a sensitive one; namely, that it does not require such provision by the authority if to do so would incur unreasonable expenditure.
If, as it seems, Clause 15 modifies the absolute demands upon local authorities and schools imposed by the previous clauses to become demands that have to be reasonable and practicable, that may be a sensible approach. I hope that the Minister can explain this apparent contradiction between Clause 15 and the earlier clauses. I am attempting to square the circle here, by emphasising yet again that, unless additional staff and services are added to mainstream schools, and possibly some physical adaptation as well, there is no way that children with disabilities—and for that matter, children with special educational needs—can be properly accommodated in mainstream schools to fulfil all the aims and objectives of the Bill.
I am afraid this takes us back to many of our earlier debates. I speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Morris.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: When considering this legislation, I hope there is an over-arching principle which is that there should be choice between special facilities and integration. If there were to be no compulsion available to procure physical alterations or to provide auxiliary aids and services, then there may be a denial of choice. Exclusion from some schools would ensue, by reason of disability. If schools are to be allowed to fail to provide facilities such as IT, information in alternative formats, specialist teaching, a differentiated curriculum, mobility and independence training, access to specialist support services, then inclusion will often remain a mere pipe dream.
There will be a need for changes to physical features such as loop systems, signage or wheelchair access. Without these changes it is likely that the school will fail to provide for children with disabilities and, to cap
CWH 182
it all, there will be little redress against such a failure to provide. This lack of enforceable rights will reinforce inequality of provision and undermine the Bill's intent.
The Bill presumably relies on the availability of another, adapted school. This may work in our five Scottish cities but not in rural and remote Scotland nor in the four island groups. In these areas there is often only one school. The proffered solution will be to live away from home, as usual. The explanatory notes state that the record of needs,
"already provides for the identification and provision of educational aids and adaptations for pupils in school".
The consortium, Children in Scotland, has pointed out to me that this is insufficient justification to allow for the exclusion of physical adaptations, for two reasons. First, records of need only provide for identification and provision of aids but not adaptations. Secondly, the current assessment and recording system in Scotland does not always work well and is soon to be consulted upon by the Scottish Executive. There is a form of postcode prescribing across Scotland which results in considerable diversity in criteria for recording.
It seems that ENQUIRE, the national advice service for special educational needs in Scotland, in its first year, found that 30 per cent of all enquiries were concerned with records of needs and, of that 30 per cent, a third concerned the level of service provided for a child or young person.
This amendment has merit in Scotland and, no doubt, elsewhere.
Lord Rix: When I was a member of the Arts Council and Chairman of the Drama Panel—less than 10 years ago—the Arts Council moved from 105 Piccadilly to 22 Great Peter Street. At the time we moved, the architects were aware that I was chairing the Arts Council Monitoring Committee on Arts and Disability. We pressed them most strongly to put into the building the necessary adjustments for members of my committee, all of whom were disabled in one way or another. Unfortunately, the architects failed to take note of our request and we moved in across the road—just off Millbank. Eventually, it cost the Arts Council a further £130,000 to put in the very facilities that should have been provided to begin with. This very probably applies to many schools and other places of education. If all adjustments are not made at the time of such alterations, the costs will be prohibitive.
The argument is constantly being used about theatres: that it is impossible to provide access for disabled people in one form or another because the buildings are either historic or listed. Gradually, however, people are beginning to realise that quite simple adjustments can make life possible for people with disabilities of all kinds. Architects are aware of this. This clause, referring to the removal or alteration of a physical feature is probably a big stumbling block. It could refer to virtually anything—a pillar that did not hold up a roof or some steps that were there—because one was not prepared to alter them. When designed, the Barbican had stairs down to the bar off the concert hall. In the end, they had to put in a ramp,

CWH 183
which gives the feeling of running up a one-in-four hill leading down from the auditorium to the bar itself. Frankly, I can imagine it could be extremely dangerous in a wheelchair when one could freewheel into all the people drinking at the bar!
Just to say that to have to "remove or alter a physical feature" does not require a responsible body to make admission possible seems a very weak excuse, particularly in view of the "reasonable requirements" stipulated by the DDA and the Disability Rights Commission.
Baroness Wilkins: I, too, wish to give strongest support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, which would rectify what I perceive as one of the main weaknesses of the Bill. If we do not ensure that disabled pupils have enforceable rights to auxiliary aids and services and that the necessary alterations to the physical features of a school are made, discrimination against disabled children in education will continue largely unaffected. Schools and LEAs will continue to use those requirements as an excuse to hide their prejudice against disabled children and the main purpose of the Bill—to strengthen inclusion and put an end to discrimination in education—will be undermined.
How can disabled pupils and disabled prospective students not be placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled children if the exemption clause is not removed? At the very least, a time scale should be placed on its removal. Disabled children will continue to suffer rejection, frustration and clear discrimination as they make the transitions through their school lives.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make it clear that the exemption for auxiliary aids and services and changes to physical features relies on the fact that the 1996 Act makes provision for those through the statementing procedure. However, the statementing process can be stressful, time-consuming and wasteful of resources. In their 1997 Green Paper, the Government referred to the excessive prominence of statements of need in providing children with appropriate support and to their unwanted side effects. The exemption clause places undue pressure on families to use the statementing process to gain the necessary support for their child. Research by RNIB Scotland, which has already been referred to, shows that almost a third of pupils in Scotland with significant vision impairment are going through the education system with no statement. Some 8 per cent of pupils had to wait two years for their statement and one in 10 parents knew nothing about a statement of need.
Most importantly, the amendment would address the needs of the thousands of disabled pupils who are unable to obtain statements. They currently have no legally enforceable right of redress against a school's failure to provide the help they need. Unless the clause is removed, those now of school age will see scant change as a result of the Bill.
CWH 184
The Disability Rights Commission has argued that by 2004, the education service should be required to comply with the same duties to improve disability access to buildings and premises as will apply to other service providers under the DDA. If schools are under a duty to make adjustments to premises for disabled staff and to consider changing physical features for members of the public attending a function in a school, why should disabled pupils continue to suffer discrimination as a result of this exemption clause?
6.15 pm
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I also warmly support the amendment. However, I take a slightly different view of statements from my noble friend, as I shall call her, Baroness Wilkins, who has made a powerful speech. I believe that they are necessary at the moment and they need to be good statements. I understand that the Disability Rights Task Force recommended that the exemption was unnecessary because of the protection afforded by the statement. Yesterday we had much talk about bland, meaningless and woolly statements. It is welcome that the provision will be specified and not set out but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, highlighted, we understand that at times it will be quantified as necessary. There is therefore a question mark about the strength of the term, "where necessary" as well. So the protection of the statement is not that huge at the moment.
I should like to cite IPSEA again and declare in the same breath that I am a member of that organisation. It stated,
"After nearly 20 years of advising parents and carers of children with special educational needs, IPSEA has concluded that there is a need for an enforcement agency to ensure that LEAs fulfil their legal duties towards children with special educational needs rather than leave it to individual parents and carers to fight for themselves, which means time, energy and money which are all in short supply for the disabled family, or relying on charities like IPSEA to get the appropriate provision which is their legal right".
The extension of the DDA to cover education is hugely welcome but it will not help in this case. As everyone has said, it excludes the denial of aids and services as a ground for discrimination and deprives parents of the potential support of the Disability Rights Commission, which would be that enforcement agency, in their struggle to secure the provision to which their children are entitled under the law. Therefore, I strongly support this amendment which would strengthen their rights and give them that support.
Lord Lucas: I add one trivial point. I am puzzled by the use of the word "that" at the beginning of subsection (2): I have never seen it used in that way before. The words I would expect to be there are, "subsection (1)". "That" seems very inexact and indefinite and, while I believe it means subsection (1), it does not say "subsection (1)". Can the noble Baroness produce any example where "that" has been used like that before?
Baroness Wilkins: Perhaps I may correct an impression I might have given earlier. I was

CWH 185
complaining about statements of need; that was not my intention. My intention was to show that it is often time-consuming and frustrating to obtain a good statement and that those statements should not need to be relied on to obtain the correct resources for a disabled child.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 101 seeks to remove from Clause 12 the exception to the reasonable adjustments duty for adjustments to physical features and the provision of auxiliary aids and services. The Government want to remove barriers that disabled people face in accessing education and we believe that the Bill offers an effective means of achieving this without placing an additional duty on schools to provide auxiliary aids and services and make adjustments to physical features. Aids and services are often already provided through the SEN framework and we believe it is more effective to take a strategic approach to improving physical accessibility to premises and the curriculum. That was the position recommended by the Disability Rights Task Force and we have accepted its recommendation.
We expect children, whose special educational needs require them to have aids and services, to receive them under the SEN regime. Children with statements of SEN have an enforceable right to the provision specified in their statement, which may include auxiliary aids.
The issue of auxiliary aids should also be seen within the wider context of the duty on LEAs and schools, under Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill, to plan systematically to increase physical accessibility to schools by disabled children. In meeting that duty, they will be required to plan and act strategically in order to make both school premises and the curriculum more physically accessible to disabled children. This is not just about lifts and ramps; schools and LEAs will also need to consider providing aids such as specialist furniture, induction loops and improved colour schemes and signs.
Perhaps this is the point at which I should explain what happens in Scotland.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): A Division has been called in the House and therefore the Committee stands adjourned until 6.30 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.20 to 6.30 p.m.]
Baroness Blackstone: When the Division was called I was about to explain that, while in England and Wales, changes to physical features are done strategically through the planning duty, there is of course no such duty in Scotland. Auxiliary aids for specific pupils are done through the SEN framework, or what I think is called the record of needs in Scotland. I thought I should make that clear.
The DRTF felt that requiring every one of the 25,000 schools to make reasonable physical adjustments was not the most effective method for
CWH 186
increasing access for disabled pupils. It favoured more strategic arrangements, with LEAs working in partnership with schools to increase accessibility in their area. It considered that a duty on LEAs and schools to plan to increase access would produce the greatest benefit for all disabled children in an area. We have accepted that recommendation.
Noble Lords are aware that we are significantly increasing funding for this purpose through the schools access initiative. As I have already told the Committee, over the next three years we will invest £220 million in making school premises more accessible.
Clause 15 places a residual duty on LEAs. Amendment No. 135A would place a duty on LEAs to make physical adjustments and provide auxiliary aids and services where they would constitute reasonable adjustments, provided the LEA would not incur unreasonable expenditure in doing so. I understand that Clause 15 does not affect the planning duty. The LEA will have to plan to make physical alterations as part of that duty. That would overlap with the SEN framework that provides for auxiliary aids and services for children with special educational needs. As I have explained, we accepted the DRTF recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about that in subsection (1). That does mean subsection (1) and we cannot provide any example.
I hope that my noble friend, Lord Morris of Manchester, feels able to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord, Lord Morris, comes back, could I ask the noble Baroness a question? There is a great deal of confusion, as I suggested when I spoke to Amendment No. 135A. On the one hand, Clause 12 says that LEAs and responsible bodies are not required to,
"remove or alter physical features (for example. one arising from the design or construction of the school premises)",
or to,
"provide auxiliary aids and services".
On the other hand, they are required to plan for such things. What are schools and colleges to make of the fact that they are not required to do it, but they are required to plan to do it? Can they plan not to make alterations and provide auxiliary aids? That is an extraordinary juxtaposition of two requirements.
Baroness Blackstone: The key here is strategic planning across an LEA or across an area of an LEA where, as the DRTF recommended, it is considered more cost-effective and sensible to work together and plan provision across a range of schools, than to leave every school to make adjustments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Baroness has worried me, because I had it in mind that Clauses 13 and 14 were not appropriate for Scotland. Did the noble Baroness say that Clause 12 would not run in Scotland? I think that it will.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not say that Clause 12 does not apply in Scotland—it does. I was simply

CWH 187
pointing out that the planning duty does not apply. The auxiliary aids referred to in the amendment are dealt with through the SEN framework or a record of needs in Scotland.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Clause 13 also seems to be about planning. Will that run in Scotland?
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps we could deal with that when we come to Clause 13.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I was disappointed by the Government's response. My noble friend Lady Blackstone has heard today the very wide-ranging support, some might say acclaim, for the amendment I moved on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ashley. When she has an opportunity to consider again the case we have adduced in support of his amendment, I hope that she will feel able to revise her response. As of now, I feel I can go no further than reserve the position of my noble friend Lord Ashley. He has clearly struck a chord with opinion in all parts of the Committee, and it is with some reluctance that I will not press the amendment this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): Before calling Amendment No. 102, I must tell the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 103 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 102:
Clause 12, page 10, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 11.
The noble Baroness said: Subsection (3) on page 10 permits the Secretary of State to make regulations at some time in the future as to what steps the governors of a school have or have not to take to ensure that there is no "substantial disadvantage" to the pupil.
Clause 12 provides for those responsible for a school to ensure that the disabled pupil is not put at a substantial disadvantage. I will not go over the debate we have had on that matter.
Subsection (3) of that clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations as to when it is reasonable for a school to have to take steps as may be prescribed by that regulation; steps which it is always reasonable for the school to take; circumstances when it is not reasonable to have to take certain steps; and steps which it would never be reasonable for the school to take.
This is a very bureaucratic process. Already the Bill is heavily bureaucratic. It seems to assume that those involved in the education of children with special needs, or children with a disability, lack common sense. We do not need yet more regulations. Those involved with these children are more likely to appreciate what measures can or cannot be taken to help them than are parliamentary lawyers framing regulations, no matter how well intentioned those lawyers may be.
Through both the informal process and through the formal process of statementing and the LEA fulfilling its duties, there will be procedures to test whether a school and indeed, a local authority, is behaving reasonably and fully meeting its obligations under the Bill. I do not believe that this layer of bureaucracy is needed. It is unnecessary and meddlesome. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: If we are to have this clause, I really do not see the function of paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (3). There is no way that regulations can anticipate every set of circumstances. The Government can set out good practice, and if they want to do it by regulation rather than by code of practice, they can say this is what they would normally expect people to do and these are the circumstances under which they would normally expect them to react. Someone in Whitehall may think that under paragraph (c) they can specify something which it would probably not be reasonable to do. However, a circumstance turns up in a school a year later and several hundred miles away, where, because of the particular circumstances of the school and child, a certain step would have been the perfect one to take, but the regulations say it does not have to be taken. That seems ridiculous.
Why are paragraphs (c) and (d) needed? I share the antipathy of my noble friend Lady Blatch towards this subsection as a whole, but if we are to have it, what are paragraphs (c) and (d) there for? Surely they cannot have any function in support of the child; they can only turn to the bad. I do not see that they are of much use to the school either.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Amendment No. 103 is grouped here. Perhaps I ought to speak to it now, despite the possible pre-emption.
This amendment embodies the classic "may/shall" argument, but hopefully it will not run as long as it sometimes does.
I seek to ensure that regulations will contain measures that a school must implement to comply with the requirement that it shall not substantially disadvantage disabled pupils.
The clause requires certain actions but then does not say what they are. The amendment remedies this by ensuring that there will be regulations, either giving a requirement for action or exoneration from action. These regulations must identify, in a mandatory way, what steps the school should take, and those which it need not take.
Without this amendment, it is likely that we shall continue to have 32 varieties of provision in Scotland, and possibly many more, if each school can draw its own conclusions.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I shall address my arguments to both amendments for the obvious reason that they have been grouped together, and because I shall be able to point out the wisdom of the Government's course of action in the context of the two amendments.

CWH 189
Amendment No. 102 would remove from the Bill the regulation-making powers in Clause 12. It may be helpful if I start by explaining why we decided it was necessary to have such regulation-making powers. Clause 12 allows us to make regulations to prescribe circumstances in which it is or is not reasonable for a school to have to make prescribed adjustments, and to prescribe adjustments that it is always or never reasonable to have to make.
The school system, after all, is a national, regulated system, providing broadly similar experiences to all. The regulation-making powers will allow us to deal with specific problems where it is apparent that it is not appropriate for those matters to be dealt with purely by the general reasonableness test and by guidance in the code of practice. We might, for example, wish to set down categorically that certain adjustments would not be reasonable.
The regulation-making powers provide sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to changing circumstances or to problems which emerge. It is important that we are able to take account of any changes in arrangements in schools.
Amendment No. 103 would require us to make regulations irrespective of circumstances. However, if it turns out that the experience of the operation of the reasonable adjustment duty is such that one or more of the four separate regulation-making powers contained in this clause need to be used, we would not want to be forced to use them. We would only tend to use them where we feel it is of great benefit to do so. It may prove to be the case that the application of the reasonableness test, together with the consideration of the factors set out in the clause and the guidance contained in the Disability Rights Commission's code prove to be quite sufficient. We are arguing for flexibility between the two positions.
One of these amendments is about removing the regulation-making powers; the other is about ensuring that we take them up straight away. There is clearly a balance to be struck here and that is what we think we have achieved in this clause. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness will accept that the regulation-making powers are needed in Clause 12, and also that the need is for flexibility in the operation of these powers. I hope that they will therefore consider withdrawing their amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am afraid the answer will not do. I argue that, without this provision, we have flexibility. I am arguing for flexibility because the provision will be implemented in many different ways. LEAs or schools differ greatly in what they reasonably can or cannot provide. I have not seen a regulation before any House which does not provide a blanket way of doing something. There is no point in having a regulation which states that schools will do what is reasonable in the circumstances. Regulations will be made when the Government at national level wish a particular rule to apply across a category of schools and/or LEAs. The proposition here is one of rigidity and not flexibility.
CWH 190
I ask the noble Lord a technical question as to the circumstances when it is reasonable for a responsible body to have to take steps, if the reasonable steps include providing auxiliary aids and/or services by a school and/or a local authority. In Clause 12(2) there is an unequivocal statement that responsible bodies are not required to provide auxiliary services; in other words, it is up to them whether they provide them under the test of reasonableness. Do those two statements conflict? Could regulations be taken by the Secretary of State which, under subsection (a), would say that it is reasonable in the circumstances for LEA X and/or schools Y and Z to make these provisions available? In other words, could they be required to make them available?
Lord Davies of Oldham: The issue that the noble Baroness identifies—the question of requiring auxiliary aids—is on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State is bound in his actions by what is contained in the legislation. On the question of whether regulations would be required, it is difficult to predict the precise circumstances in which they would but there might be examples. What if a school felt it should alter its policy on class size in an attempt to meet the requirements? Or if it had to reduce the length of the school day? That might be considered not to be an appropriate way of tackling those issues and there would need to be some power within the legislation that gave any Secretary of State the right to make judgments on the course of action that might be proposed in certain circumstances.
Lord Lucas: I am somewhat confused by that answer and indeed by the first one. A school would surely have the right to shorten the school day anyway? These regulations would only stop a school being compelled to shorten the school day by reason of not discriminating. The noble Lord's comments actually suggest that the department does not have any clue as to the purpose of these regulations. They are not going to use them immediately. They are not going to put them into force but wait to see if they are needed; they are a reserve power, as it were.
Though I would prefer not to have them, I can imagine some practice evolving whereby schools were refusing to provide chest microphones for teachers to help students with hearing difficulties. The Government might then say it is always reasonable to provide microphones under those circumstances and make it a universal practice.
I cannot however imagine any circumstance when it would be reasonable for us to let the Government have the power that they want in paragraphs (c) and (d). The only time they will need those powers is if some practice has grown up, perhaps as a result of court judgments, stating that this Act means that the school has to do this under those circumstances for the child and the Government are going to use these regulations to prevent that. In other words, they will use these regulations against the children because the courts have decreed that this Act requires some provision to be made for them.

CWH 191
That sort of back-tracking should not be allowed in secondary legislation, particularly since the Government do not really know what they want to use it for. They are not likely to table regulations under paragraphs (c) and (d) and the Minister is probably not able to produce any examples of the sort of things he would put in those regulations. If my understanding is correct, it is not appropriate that they should remain in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I shall of course withdraw the amendments. As I have said before, I have no other option at this stage in the Bill in the Moses Room. I simply say that this is a control too far. The examples that were given by my noble friend and indeed the responses from the Minister quite terrify me. It does seem that if the Government have in mind to regard the length of a school day and class sizes as reasons for bringing in a regulation which could only do one thing—that is, prevent schools from doing something or giving them a stipulation right across the board, across all categories of school— and if I take prima facie what the noble Lord said (that the Bill says that a responsible body cannot be required to provide auxiliary aids and services) then this regulation power could not be used to require schools to provide auxiliary services and powers.
The other argument is this. There are mechanisms throughout the Bill to see that schools and LEAs act reasonably. There is a statementing process whereby, if it is decided that a school or an LEA has been unreasonable, they can be required to make that provision.
In relation to the inspection system, it is possible for Ofsted and/or the Government to have a specific look at the way in which LEAs and schools are behaving. I go back to my original point. It will be school by school that they behave reasonably or unreasonably; LEA by LEA that they behave reasonably or unreasonably, and the notion of taking a regulatory power to do something blanket across all local authorities and all schools simply because one or two are acting unreasonably seems to be inappropriate and a control too far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 104, I have to inform the Committee that, if Amendment No. 104 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 due to pre-emption.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 104:
Clause 12, page 11, leave out lines 8 to 26.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 104 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and I shall also speak in support of his Amendment No. 169.
These amendments remove from the face of the Bill the duty on a school's responsible body to have regard to a specific list of factors in deciding on "reasonable adjustments".
Educating SEN children in mainstream schools is an evolving process. Already what at one time would have seemed inappropriate and unrealistic is actually happening and working well. However, in the years to come attitudes will change even more and resources will follow. It is for this reason that the list of factors which have to be considered should be in a code of practice and not on the face of the Bill. They should guide, not bind.
My noble friend and I believe that, if the factors have legal status, they will unduly fetter the tribunal in developing a concept of "reasonableness" for the future.
An example is, if a school wanted to modify a sports programme to include a physically disabled child, the factor laying down the need to maintain sporting standards could tie their hands. Amendment No. 169 refers to further education to the same effect as Amendment No. 104 refers to schools. I am pleased to commend my noble friend's amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 105 and 169 which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington, and to support the other amendments in this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has already explained why these amendments were tabled. We have here on the face of the Bill a number of specific qualifications as to what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. Earlier we were talking about Clause 11 and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggested that subsection (3) was what he called a "cop-out". It seems to me that, in specifying all these detailed issues on the face of the Bill, we are driving a coach and horses through the whole principle of inclusion that we are trying to write into the Bill.
The difference between Amendment No. 105 and Amendment No. 104 is that we have suggested that it is more appropriate for all the specifics to go into the code of practice. Part III of the DDA, on which I believe that the provisions are based, does not contain an exhaustive list of factors that have to be taken into account in determining what is reasonable. There is no place for such a list of factors on the face of the Bill. It is highly prescriptive and will send out the wrong messages to schools and local education authorities. There is no justification for civil rights in education to be treated less robustly than civil rights in other areas, yet it is a common pattern throughout the Bill. Factors such as,
"the need to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards"
in paragraph (a) and,
"the interests of other pupils and persons who may be admitted to the school as pupils"
in paragraph (g) are wholly out of place here.
Such factors would be more appropriate in a code of practice. We recognise the need for an interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable steps" and that a range of considerations will be taken into account. I also recognise that the cost of a particular step is a

CWH 193
consideration when determining what will be provided through Part IV of the 1996 Act. However, when it comes to a consideration of the rights of other pupils, there needs to be a careful balancing—as the Minister has said on other occasions—of the rights and duties of the various adults and children involved. The face of the Bill is not the right place to rehearse such balances, as the Minister has told us on several occasions. This is the territory for guidance under codes of practice.
The Government have recognised that in respect of the guidance on the operation of Section 316. What constitutes "reasonable steps" under Section 316A(6) will be teased out in guidance. The Disability Rights Task Force report, From Exclusion to Inclusion, published in December 1999, also made it clear that a code of practice was needed to address such issues and gave examples.
Amendment No. 105 locates the consideration of what conditions should inform the interpretation of "reasonable" within the code of practice to be drafted by the Disability Rights Commission. Under Section 9(4) of the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, the DRC code of practice has to be approved by the Secretary of State and it is laid before both Houses.
It is ironic that on many occasions when we have asked for specifics to be written into the Bill, we have been told that it is not appropriate, yet here we are confronted with a list of specifics that, taken at face value, would drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. We are asked to accept that that is reasonable. I maintain that it is not.
Lord Rix: I support Amendment No. 105 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Earlier the Committee talked a good deal about the difficulties caused to children in mainstream schools by having extremely disruptive children in their midst. As I understood the discussion, it was regarded as essential that those most problematic children should go to a special school. I heard only one voice raised in recognition of the argument that children in special schools should not be expected to have their education disrupted and their persons endangered so that children in mainstream schools could work in total peace.
My vision of inclusion is that all children get the appropriate education for them in an appropriate place with appropriate resources, whether that be in mainstream or special schools or in a combination of the two. I enter that caveat, since we are once again discussing the difficulties caused for children in mainstream schools by having to share with children with special needs. Clause 12(4) is an open-ended invitation to stretch the imagination to find some remote possibility of some child at some time being disadvantaged by having to share resources with a child with special needs. Frankly, most children will face far greater difficulties from other sources than they will ever have to face from the removal of disability discrimination in our schools.
CWH 194
I hope that, as this amendment proposes, we can sweep away this plethora of entirely unnecessary additional excuses for what I can only describe as injustice.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I like Amendment No. 105. Some very good arguments have been made for it. My concern rests with subsection (4)(a) in relation to subsection (1)(b)to which I imagine that it refers. I can imagine no circumstances under which subsection (4)(a) would be needed. How does one prejudice the academic standards of a school by providing for not discriminating against disabled people? One might be able to catch certain factors under paragraph (g) where they were affecting the interests of pupils or other persons who may be admitted to the school as pupils. But if it does not come under paragraph (g), what comes under paragraph (a)? Can the Minister give me some concrete examples of what subsection (a) is supposed to catch?
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies, I am afraid that I shall take issue on this. If these provisions are swept away altogether, it may be that the Minister and I are on the same side for once.
The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, are reasonable. They are eminently challengeable. They can be challenged by the informal process. They could be challenged by the inspectorate. I suspect they could even be more formally challenged through the statementing process. A school must have some defence.
Let us use some more extreme examples. I shall not name any schools because it would be invidious to do so. One tends mostly to talk about severely disruptive behaviour. But I have been given some graphic examples of where the disruption factor is so great that it is unable to cope, physically and in terms of staffing. It is unable to manage. An unsupported family has a young person—he is not culpable in any sense—who will not work in groups. It is impossible to leave him alone and impossible to provide "single only" education for him within the school.
A system for testing whether a school is being reasonable or not reasonable is an important safeguard in the Bill. I hope the Minister will not be tempted to sweep it away.
On the other hand, it is right that there should be a severe test of a school's case when, for whatever reasons, a school says that it is unable to take a particular child. However, there are circumstances when to accept a child with particular disabilities would be inappropriate for the school, and at the end of the day, it might even be inappropriate for the individual child. The appropriate provision may not be in mainstream schools, but in a special unit or specialist school which deals with particularly severe behavioural problems.
We should not put that burden on the schools, particularly at this time. The schools are not funded to cope. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will say

CWH 195
that that is not an argument. We have had much debate on money, but at the end of the day, there is a real world. Resources will be finite. If the money and the support for the school are not forthcoming, there needs to be a defence in law for the school to say—it will have to make the reasons public—that it simply would be an inappropriate placement for that child and to allow the system to test the case of the school.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the Minister replies, I should like to point out that Amendment No. 105 does not sweep them all away. It proposes that the conditions should go into a code of practice. I have been arguing that that is more appropriate.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I was arguing against the specific amendments which called for the abolition of this part of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments relate to the factors in Clauses 12 and 27, which provide guidance for schools and post-16 institutions on what they should have regard to in determining what is or is not reasonable in the context of the duty to make reasonable adjustments. The factors do not affect the less favourable treatment duty.
We decided that it was right to set out on the face of the Bill the factors that schools and post-16 institutions should take account of when considering reasonable adjustments. That provides absolute clarity on the issues that institutions have to bear in mind and reassures providers that important matters are relevant when determining what is reasonable. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said on that. A number of respondents to our consultation said that they were looking for recognition of such factors, not so that providers could evade their responsibilities—of course they should not do that—but to enable them to meet them in a sensible way. Setting out the relevant factors in the Bill also makes it clear to the Disability Rights Commission what needs to be covered in the code of practice.
The list is not exhaustive, but the code of practice is the right place to provide further detail. Our approach is not unprecedented. The reasonable adjustment duty in Part II of the DDA also contains a list of factors to be taken into account when considering whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take particular steps to comply with his reasonable adjustment duty.
The amendments tackle the factors in different ways. Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 169 would remove the list of factors. Amendment No. 105 would require schools to have regard to the code of practice when considering the issue.
The other approach, in Amendment No. 106, is to remove only the factor relating to,
"the need to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards".
The purpose of that provision is to enable schools to preserve particular standards. The school will have to decide whether there is a need to maintain a particular standard, or whether a standard should be adjusted. In most cases, schools will have to adjust the sports
CWH 196
programme to include a physically disabled child, because a certain standard of performance would not be necessary. However, if a school is entering a sporting competition with the aim of winning, the school ought to be free to select a team with the greatest likelihood of winning. The presumption is for inclusion, not exclusion.
Paragraph (a) is not about excluding disabled pupils. Let us not think that having a disability is incompatible with the ability to meet high standards. Our discussion about cricket earlier shows that. The use of objective criteria will make schools think carefully about their activities and about the way in which they choose pupils to take part in those activities.
Amendment No. 171 would add another factor to the list in Clause 27 to ensure that any grants available to the institution to facilitate the education of disabled students should be taken into account. The factors already allow post-16 institutions to have regard to the financial resources available to them and the cost of taking a particular step in deciding what reasonable adjustments to make.
We do not want post-16 institutions or schools to focus on taking particular steps only when specific grants or funding are available. That would be contrary to our overall approach. The duties to make reasonable adjustments are anticipatory. The nature of the anticipatory duty means that institutions should look at all the resources that are available to them and not just the specific grants or funding. We want institutions to take a more holistic approach to improving access.
In conclusion, as on the previous group, I accept that there is a balance to be struck. We think that we have achieved that. I shall take into account the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the strong feelings expressed by others in the debate and consider whether we can reflect them on Report. In view of my intention to reconsider this issue, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: Before the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, replies, could I ask the noble Baroness for some further clarification on Amendment No. 106? I had not read new Section 28C(4)(a) and (b) as giving any right to disabled pupils to a place in the first football team just because they were disabled. I cannot see how the noble Baroness is reading that in that way, or how, in the absence of subsection (4)(a), disabled persons would have a right to a team place if they were not among the best eleven in the school.
It seems to me a very dangerous thing to put in this sort of overall idea of the maintenance of academic, musical, sporting and other standards because it suggests that a disabled person can threaten those standards. It is reasonable to suppose that there are circumstances where having a disabled person in a school would result in the musical standards being lower. You have a person in a wheelchair, it squeaks and disturbs concerts. What are we talking about here?

CWH 197
I cannot see any circumstances where paragraph (a) applies and the matter would not be caught by paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) is a totally reasonable provision, but if you are not affecting the interests of other pupils in any way, what reasonable sort of discrimination are we talking about which should allow a school to say, "You are not affecting the other pupils but we will exclude you because you will affect the musical or sporting standards of the school"?
I cannot see how the provision is going to operate. This may be a lack of understanding on my part. If the noble Baroness could, in the interim before Report, give me some worked examples of the sort of evils which would occur if paragraph (a) went, I would be extremely grateful.
Lord Rix: I should like to add to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on Amendment No. 105. It is not saying that we want to remove these regulations; we are saying that they should be expressed in the code of practice. The reason is that when these regulations are on the face of the Bill there seems to be a draconian element to them and they seem to provide in tablets of stone the excuses that schools are looking for. Whereas yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said, in response to a question of mine:
"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 implemented".—[Official Report, 29/1/01; col. CWH 87.]
I would have thought that applied to these particular clauses precisely, and I would have thought we would all be delighted if they went into this ever-increasing size of code of practice. On the other hand it would be capable of interpretation perhaps more liberally than on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Lord, Lord Morris, replies, I endorse the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The measure that is particularly objectionable is paragraph (a) of subsection (4) because it leads to selectivity and to exclusion. It would be very unfortunate if that were on the face of the Bill.
Lord Morris of Manchester: While I thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone for her response, as before, I reserve the position of my noble friend Lord Ashley in regard to pressing the amendments further on Report. Meanwhile I know that he will be as appreciative as I am of the support they received in Committee here today. Indeed, I thought my noble friend Lady Blackstone ended her speech on a highly positive note. It may therefore not be necessary for my noble friend and Ito work too strenuously to carry the amendment on Report. It seems that we may have the Minister's support at that stage. I trust that is not undue optimism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 107:
Clause 12, page 11, line 19, leave out ("or services") and insert (", services or finance").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 107, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108 and 172. We are still on Clause 12 with the theme of what is reasonable for a school to do in order to overcome disadvantage to a disabled pupil and what would be unreasonable or excessive. In making that judgment the governors of the school have a list of considerations given to them in the Bill, which they need to take into account when assessing what steps they can reasonably take to accommodate a disabled pupil.
I am pleased to note that subsection (4)(c) lists the costs of taking any particular step and it is a pity that cost was not similarly emphasised in Part I of this Bill dealing with children with special educational needs. Whether we like it or not, costs matter and, in the real world, finances available to local authorities and their schools are always limited. However, subsection (4)(e) goes on to advise the governors that they can take into account which aids or services would be provided under legislation.
That does require amendment. It is not just aids or services to be provided; it is money. The governors will naturally bear in mind the cost of any improvement proposed to assist a disabled child as well as the finances they have to meet that cost. They would not be good governors if they did not ensure financial probity in these matters. The real concern is the inevitable tension that will result from a Bill that raises everybody's expectations; which puts legal obligations on local authorities and schools who may not have the resources or who may have no choice but to meet such obligations resulting in serious financial problems elsewhere in the system.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 172 are about proportionality. It was, I believe, my noble friend Lord Lucas—or somebody else around the table earlier this afternoon—who addressed this whole issue of proportionality. The amendment to Clause 12 of the Bill relates to provisions requiring disabled children not to be substantially disadvantaged in respect of a school's admissions policy or, where they are in school, in respect of their education there. There are similar provisions relating to disabled students in higher education in Clause 27 of the Bill, to which we are proposing a similar amendment.
In summary, I welcome and support the policy embodied in this part of the Bill, which seeks to protect disabled children from discrimination at school. I also endorse the Government's recognition in this clause that the anti-discrimination requirements need to be tempered by reasonableness, having regard among other things to the interests of the other, non-disabled schoolchildren. The amendment is designed to give specific practical effect to this principle in one important way.
By way of background, Clause 12 is designed to extend the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by inserting a new provision—the proposed new

CWH 199
Section 28C of the 1995 Act. The proposed new Section 28C would extend the anti-discrimination rules to the sphere of school education. In particular under the proposed subsection (1), the responsible body for a school—generally the LEA or, for a private school, the governor or proprietor or, as I argued yesterday, the same person—is obliged to take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that disabled children are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled. However, both in its policy for determining school admissions and, once children are in school, in respect of their education and associated services, the proposed subsection (4) is intended to clarify what is meant by "reasonable" in this context; that is, what is the extent of the duty to take such steps as are reasonable?
The proposed subsection (4) lists seven factors—(a) to (g)—to which regard shall be given in determining reasonableness. The last one in paragraph (g) of the proposed subsection (4) is that regard must be had to the interests of other pupils and persons who may be admitted to the school as pupils—"other" meaning non-disabled pupils and applicants. We support that principle. It does seem right in determining the rights of disabled children not to be discriminated against, to take account also of the rights of the rest of the children. The right to be educated properly and effectively at school is something that should be enjoyed by all children.
Our aim is to give practical effect to the Government's principle. We propose that the principle in subsection (4)(g) should expressly state the consideration that the interests of non-disabled children,
"will depend in part on the proportion that disabled pupils constitute of the total number of pupils in any one lesson or class or school".
The example has been given of a school that gains a reputation for dealing with children with autism. Over a period, more and more children with that particular problem go there, to the point when the education of all the children—those with autism problems and the rest—is affected. My amendment is about proportionality.
We hope that the Minister will agree with that proposal. We support the compassionate objectives of the Government's provisions. It is right that disabled children should not be discriminated against. However, allowing that to result in a disproportionate concentration of disabled children in any one class or lesson or school would be a form of dogmatic political correctness, which I would not want to support.
I emphasise again that the important point is what is appropriate. If it is appropriate to have a large number of children with similar disabilities and that is accommodated by the school, by the parents and by the LEA, of course that is the right thing to do. However schools that are particularly effective in dealing with children with particular conditions or
CWH 200
behavioural problems may suddenly find themselves with so many placements that their provision becomes ineffective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments relate to the factors in Clauses 12 and 27, which provide guidance on what schools and post-16 institutions should have regard to in determining what is and is not reasonable in the context of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Amendments Nos. 107, 108 and 172 would add factors to the lists. Amendment No. 107 would insert the need to take account of the finance provided for the disabled pupil under the SEN framework. The aids and services needed to cater for a child's SEN needs will be identified and provided through the SEN framework. For those with the most acute needs, they will be set out in the statement of SEN. The resources made available to meet particular SEN are an intrinsic part of the provision of those aids and services. More generally, they will form part of the resources available to a responsible body, so they can be taken into account under subsection (4)(b).
The intention behind Amendments Nos. 108 and 172 is to make the school or post-16 institution consider the proportion of disabled pupils or students in a class when considering what reasonable adjustments should be made. However, in many cases the proportion of disabled children or students in a class has no relevance to the question of whether any particular reasonable adjustment will affect the interests of other children. For example, if a school has a practice of allowing a disabled child to do an alternative sport to the one that the rest of the class are doing, it will rarely make any difference to the interests of the other children if a few extra children take that alternative sport.
Similarly, if college students who are blind receive material on audio tape, whether one person or five people in the class receive this will not affect the interests of the other students. The interests of other students will not always depend even in part on the proportion of children with disabilities in the class, as the amendment suggests. We do not think that the Bill should suggest that it does. If the interests of the other students are affected in that way, the school or post-16 institution will be able to take that into account when deciding what adjustments to make under the Bill as it is currently drafted.
The amendments are not necessary and they are not very helpful either, so I hope that the noble Baroness will not want to press them.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has just argued that the amendment will not be needed if the issue of proportionality has no relevance. In that case, the only requirement is that regard should be had to the issue of proportionality. If it had no relevance, it would be discarded and they would move on to something else. It does not seem to be an argument against my proposal. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 109:
Clause 12, page 11, leave out lines 30 to 35.
The noble Baroness said: I can be brief on this amendment. It seeks to leave out subsection (6) in Clause 12; to explore with the Minister what, frankly—if I may use the colloquialism—this gobbledegook means. Why is it necessary to write into primary legislation that, having received a request for some steps to be taken to improve the provision for a disabled child, the governors must see whether the steps that they propose to take do meet the request being made? I should have thought that was obvious. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I hope that I can also be brief in response. The amendment would remove the factor that schools must take into account in relation to the reasonable adjustment duty which deals with the wishes of the parents of a disabled child to have the disability treated as confidential.
As I explained earlier, the duty on responsible bodies to make reasonable adjustments is anticipatory—we emphasised that in earlier discussions in Committee this afternoon. Anything that can be done in reasonable anticipation that pupils with particular disabilities may attend the institution therefore has to be done, irrespective of knowledge or confidentiality issues.
However, some disabilities are not obviously apparent and Clause 12 allows schools to take into consideration a request made by a parent of a disabled child that a disability may remain confidential. That might include disabilities that could cause a child to feel embarrassed or vulnerable. The school must take into account whether making a particular adjustment will result in disclosure of the disability contrary to the wishes of the parent. That is the basis of this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I have two points to make. First, that is not an answer to the proposition I was making, nor was it an answer to the problem here. Secondly, the noble Lord addressed something quite different; something which this amendment does not seek. In my book, that is otiose.
If the school is either anticipatorily considering or considering when it is about to make a determination whether it is reasonable for the responsible body to have to take a particular step in relation to a child, it would go without saying that the school would have to consider whether it matched up to the request being made. It really is otiose, and I hope that it will disappear from this Bill before it passes from this House.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I could pick up what may be the origin of this problem. Subsection (5), when read with subsection (6), just about makes sense. But subsection (5) does not say that subsection (6) only applies when subsection (5) applies; so subsection (6)
CWH 202
applies in every case. That is where the difficulty arises—it is not only applicable to subsection (5); subsection (6) actually applies to the whole clause.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I may add support to this. In pursuit of plain English, we really should be able to do better than the gobbledegook of subsection (6).
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 110:
Clause 12, page 11, line 37, after ("person") insert (", or by the disabled person himself,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a subject that was discussed earlier today. It is a simple amendment and I believe it is necessary. In Clause 12, provision is made for a request of confidentiality as to the nature of a person's disability to be observed by the local authority. Such a request for confidentiality is made by the parent of a disabled person and, while it is reasonable for the parent to make such a request on behalf of a young child, it is also proper for the child—certainly if they are of secondary school age—to be able to request that confidentiality themselves.
I beg the Minister not to tell me that young people do not have the capacity to request confidentiality when I sat through the whole of yesterday being convinced that they do indeed have the capacity to request confidentiality if they are taking the morning-after pill. This is simply to guard the young person's coyness, sensitivity or whatever it might be, about their particular disabilities. It seems reasonable that a child—certainly of secondary school age—should be allowed to request confidentiality. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I note that the noble Baroness introduces an aspect of yesterday's debate which revolved around confidentiality in relation to a medical position, and not directly in relation to the educational one. Surely the noble Baroness would accept the whole basis of our education system as far as responsibilities and rights are concerned; namely, that the parent is at the heart of the system. It is the assumption that parents generally act in the best interests of their children on which the whole of the school system is surely based.
Of course we expect schools to take account of the views of the disabled child. Disabled children may well have views about keeping their disability confidential. Schools should always work in partnership with their pupils and their parents. That is particularly important when a child has special needs or disabilities.
I hope that we are as one in terms of the broad objectives of the legislation and the relative responsibilities of the parent in relation to the child as far as the Bill is concerned.
Baroness Blatch: I am probably about as close to being cross in this Bill as I have ever been. The noble

CWH 203
Lord said this is about education; it is about the child. It is about the specific disabilities of a child who is highly sensitive. If a parent supports the request for confidentiality, that is fine. We would all agree with that. However, as my noble friend said earlier, it is not every young person who is represented by a parent in these circumstances. Therefore, it should be open, certainly to a child of secondary school age, to request confidentiality.
The noble Lord says, "Ah, but taking the morning after pill is a medical matter", it is about sleeping around and taking a pill after the event. We are talking about young people with disabilities they are sensitive about who do not wish that to be known more widely than it needs to be known within the education sector. I can see no reason at all why the noble Lord should not be sympathetic to both the parent's request and also to the individual teenager's request.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I can speak up for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in this instance. I believe that a great deal of bullying takes place when people have physical impairments of one sort or another. The child should be able to keep that confidential from, not necessarily the authorities perhaps because of the special circumstances of going to school, but certainly from his or her fellow pupils.
It should be their right to ask that this is kept to themselves, and they should be able to say that to their parents as well. I cannot believe that parents would not be confidential in these circumstances, but it could happen. To grant a child a right of confidentiality is fair and just.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It seems to me that it is utterly right on these occasions, if children are old enough to express their own views on this, that they should be taken into account. If I might say so, the logic of the reply the Minister gave us points entirely in that direction.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I too support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his reply. We are talking about conditions such as being incontinent and having HIV status, etcetera. Those are sensitive issues. I beg him to think again.
Lord Davies of Oldham: In the light of the strength of the representations that have been made in support of this amendment, I will certainly look again at the debate we have had this afternoon.
Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Accessibility strategies and plans]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 112:
Clause 13, page 11, line 46, after ("period,") insert ("the learning, teaching and").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ashley, which, if accepted, will put due pressure on authorities to recognise that disability ranges far wider than having limbs that do not work. The clause as drafted requires authorities to prepare strategies and plans for improving the physical environment of schools. That is admirable, particularly for children in wheelchairs or with callipers. However, it does nothing for children with any other disabilities.
To be properly educated, blind children may need braille or in some cases large print. Deaf children may need portable induction loops, videos with subtitles or TVs with teletext. The planning duty should cover provision of these essential aids over time so that children do not need to be statemented before they get them. Speedy decisions matter in education. It has been said that the planning duty will include such an adjustment. But the Bill does not say that and my noble friend Lord Ashley and I do not accept that view. The language needs to be strengthened to ensure that there is no need for argument or disagreement. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 113A, which stands in my name. This amendment to Clause 13 requires stronger LEA planning for the inclusion of children with special educational needs. It was encouraging to see the support expressed at Second Reading for increasing the inclusion of SEN pupils in mainstream schools. It is, however, vitally important that such inclusion should be properly organised and resourced if is to be effective.
The amendment provides a stronger planning requirement on education authorities and schools in order that children with special educational needs are provided with properly supported mainstream education. With many others, I believe that LEAs and schools should have a fixed period of time to prepare to support the full diversity of disabled children and the whole range of impairments.
Sharon Rustemier of the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education has prepared a number of case studies demonstrating the stress and emotional strain for families in obtaining adequate mainstream support, provision for which we feel should be theirs as a basic human right and which requires stronger legislation to achieve. I shall be making those case studies available to the Minister and I hope that she will look at them with her customary care and understanding.
In Sharon's view, schools need to be ready, in order to cater for diversity, to support any child in their locality and be prepared to set up arrangements as necessary to accommodate individuals, whatever their needs. Cleves School, in London Newham, is a good example of how teams of teachers and learning supporters work together with other professionals and parents to provide every child with access to learning.
Sharon feels, as I do, that such a commitment needs to be enshrined in legislation so that no child is discriminated against. I hope that the Minister will see

CWH 205
the significance and importance of the amendment and that he will respond positively to its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 113 and 118, I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington (regrettably he is not in his place), the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—a formidable triumvirate indeed. The amendments are a complete mirror image of Amendments Nos. 112 and 117.
It is a matter of continuing sadness to me that the whole access debate so often resolves itself into a debate about whether you can get a wheelchair in. In the early days of the late Millennium Dome—which was quite good on access—it took some time for the Access Advisory Committee to get beyond the planners' initial preoccupation with physical access. Now, in an educational context, despite the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations and the department's consultation document in March last year, we seem yet again to be concentrating on physical access.
I am sure that being able to get a wheelchair into a toilet is very important, but for the disabled child with learning disabilities or difficulties, accessing education depends on the curriculum, the teaching methods and materials, classroom and wider support, the measurement of progress, the way the school and the class are organised and the way that the child is supported.
The inclusion debate in education is coloured by an apparently simplistic assumption that if you change the physical environment you have achieved equal access. That is simply untrue. Every child is capable of learning, but many children in special schools as well as in mainstream schools are not being given the chance to learn, because the educational experience offered to them is irrelevant to their needs. Imagine the effect on our education had we been given a comfortable chair in a comfortable classroom, but the lesson was conducted in a language that we did not understand, accompanied by gestures that meant nothing to us with tasks that we found unintelligible and goals that were incomprehensible.
I cannot believe that the Government have misunderstood the challenge of inclusion as completely as Clause 13 seems to suggest. I hope that the amendments will be accepted, or at least that I will be given substantial reassurance, perhaps in the ever-lengthening code of practice.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said. Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 duplicate each other, as do Amendments No. 117 and 118. The issue here is access to the curriculum in its widest sense. It is not just a question of physical access. It is vital that we have that on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 113A is of a different category. I have some reservations about it, because it would require us to look to the planning. The accessibility
CWH 206
strategy should be that all disabled pupils will be capable of attending a mainstream school. I have made clear my support for the principle of inclusion, but I do not believe that it is realistic to expect to be able to accommodate all disabled pupils in a mainstream school. Some disabled people do not wish to be included. I was asked whether I would put my name to the amendment, but I do not think I can.
Baroness Wilkins: I give my support to Amendments Nos. 113A and 118. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the point is that mainstream schools should be capable of absorbing the full diversity of children and giving them a good education. They do not necessarily all have to go there, but the place should be available for them. Maybe they will come in and out as appropriate.
The aim of the clause is that over a prescribed period, we will achieve full inclusion for all disabled children. In the London Borough of Newham, the principles were set down initially and it has been achieved over time. There are currently also two Channel 4 programmes that speak to this very well called "Count Us In", which I recommend to Members of the Committee. I give my full support to these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I do not want to hold up the proceedings but I should like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to know formally, on the record, that I support the whole point of having curricular arrangements properly addressed, and that will include Amendments Nos. 113, 117 and 118.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I support Amendments Nos. 113 and 118. I am concerned that Clause 13 uses too narrow a definition of disability. It needs extending to ensure that curriculum teaching and learning arrangements are included on the face of the Bill. This is a particular problem for children with an autistic spectrum condition; they need access to the curriculum. Currently, a lottery exists as to whether LEAs will plan provision for children with autism.
Due to the breadth and complexity of the autistic spectrum, authorities must plan for a range of educational provision, ranging from autism-specific schools, colleges and units to supported mainstream places. The challenge of autism is exacerbated by the increasing reports of a significant increase in the number of children with autism. Research by Dr Fiona Scott of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University has shown that one in eight of the primary school SEN population of Cambridgeshire has a diagnosis of an autistic spectrum condition.
Yet lack of trained staff remains the critical barrier to the effective inclusion of children with autism. Where staff are not adequately trained, a sympathetic placement in the mainstream will remain difficult and parents will continue to seek a specialist autism-specific environment for their child.

CWH 207
Research has shown that 70 per cent of teachers, in the mainstream, taught children with autism but only 5 per cent reported having specific training in their basic teaching qualifications, and only 5 per cent reported attending subsequent autism-specific training days.
The current wording of Clause 13 will undermine the Bill's best intentions if the interpretation of access remains confined to physical limitations alone.
Lord Lucas: I entirely support the same two amendments and would only add what wonderful schools they are that concentrate on this aspect of the work, because they are so much better for ordinary kids too. There are so many benefits that come from providing properly and individually for the learning and teaching requirements of disabled children, particularly children who have dyslexic/dispraxic autism spectrum disorders. It breeds an attitude in the school and its teachers; it breeds a range of facilities which are of enormous use to ordinary kids. They are wonderful places to visit and this is something we should be encouraging. Just making doors wider is not really not where it is at.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The planning duty is a crucial mechanism for increasing, over time, the physical accessibility of school premises and the curriculum to disabled pupils and disabled prospective pupils. After all, as first steps towards learning, pupils need to be able to get into and around the school and the classroom and be in a classroom which is conducive to their learning. We are aware that, although some good practice exists, LEAs do not plan as strategically as they could.
We have accepted the Disability Rights Task Force's recommendation that the most effective way for increasing accessibility for disabled pupils is by taking a more strategic approach with local education authorities working with schools in their area to increase accessibility.
What is the planning duty intended to achieve? It is not just about increasing the accessibility of premises; it is also about increasing physical access to the curriculum by providing aids to learning outside of the SEN framework, which provides specific aids and services to meet the needs of individual pupils.
We want to ensure that LEAs and schools do more to improve physical accessibility than just providing ramps and lifts. We want them to think about what physical measures will help disabled children access the curriculum. This may include providing laptops, using appropriate paint schemes and carpets, installing soundfield systems or providing specialist furniture.
The provision of such physical aids can be used to improve access to education by a range of disabled pupils: they are not restricted to one type of disability.
We recognise that improving physical accessibility to schools is important. LEAs in England are eligible for funding through the schools access initiative to increase accessibility to mainstream schools for pupils with both physical and sensory disabilities. The sum of £220 million is being made available to LEAs in
CWH 208
England over the next three years, which is a significant increase over the £30 million which was allocated this year.
If this were all that LEAs were required to do, the amendments might have some substance. However, other provisions in this Bill and other measures already being taken by this Government provide sufficient levers to ensure that teaching and learning arrangements are sensitive to the needs of disabled pupils.
We do not believe that schools' plans and LEAs' strategies are the right vehicle for securing change to teaching and learning approaches. These amendments would introduce additional administrative burdens when schools and teachers are now required to ensure that they follow inclusive practice in delivering the national curriculum.
Under Clause 12, schools will have to consider what reasonable adjustments to practices, policies and procedures such as general teaching methods should be made if particular arrangements would place disabled children at a substantial disadvantage.
All maintained schools and a fair few independent schools follow the national curriculum. The national curriculum statement on inclusion sets out three principles that teachers are required to have due regard to in planning and teaching the national curriculum: setting suitable learning challenges; responding to pupils' diverse learning needs; and overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils.
It goes on to say that teachers should take specific action to respond to pupils' diverse needs by, among other things, providing equality of opportunity through teaching approaches. For pupils with disabilities, it specifically states that teachers must take action in their planning to ensure that these pupils are enabled to participate as fully and effectively as possible within the national curriculum and the statutory assessment arrangements.
This is a major lever for ensuring that teachers, as part of their professional duties, will consider how to adjust their teaching methods to ensure that disabled pupils are able to access the curriculum—which is the burden of the speeches and the nature of these amendments.
During the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, described the planning duty as appearing "very weak". This is not so. It should not be seen on its own, but rather as part of the wider framework which includes the existing SEN framework that provides auxiliary aids and services to meet children's special educational needs; the duty to make reasonable adjustments; additional school access initiative funding; the national curriculum statement on inclusion; and increased funding for training for SEN. These will increase services to disabled children and make provision that will help them develop to their full potential.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 113A. We recognise the importance of making schools physically accessible to pupils with disabilities, which is, of

CWH 209
course, the intention of the planning duty. I sympathise with the intention of Amendment No. 113A, but it would be unreasonable to expect LEAs to ensure that their mainstream provision is accessible and can cater for all disabled pupils within the prescribed time period of the strategy.
The planning duty is to plan strategically over time. The LEA may initially decide to concentrate on improving the accessibility of its schools to pupils, for instance, with a hearing impairment. Alternatively, the LEA may decide to improve the accessibility of one school to a number of pupils with a number of different disabilities. We do not want to be prescriptive. It will be for each LEA according to its particular circumstance to prioritise. Not all LEAs will start from the same starting point. Some LEAs, for instance, may already have accessible provision for visually impaired pupils.
As time moves on, we naturally expect LEAs to have made progress in increasing the physical accessibility of schools to disabled pupils. The duty is progressive. But it is also realistic in recognising that some schools, because of the availability and nature of their building stock, may have further to go than others.
In the light of this description of the way in which all aspects of educational policy come together, I hope that it will be recognised by the noble Lord that this amendment need not be pressed.
Lord Lucas: In dealing with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the Minister suggested that these plans would cover such things as provision of equipment for the hard of hearing and laptops. I do not see how that fits under the phrase "physical environment". If I were asked to describe the physical environment of this room, I would say it was cold and dark, and I would be right, but the fact that I do not have a laptop in front of me has nothing to do with the physical environment of this room.
If we were to put the words "and equipment" after "environment", then I would understand that what the Minister said corresponded to what was in the Bill, but that is not there at the moment. Would the Minister consider their inclusion?
Lord Davies of Oldham: At the very beginning of our Committee proceedings there was a complaint about the physical dimensions of this room and about the acoustics. I thought it was indicated that they could be improved. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said on this occasion and I will look further at that point.
Lord Rix: Before my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester concludes the debate, as I imagine he will,
CWH 210
I would like to say that I cannot totally accept what was said by the Minister. The amendment does not place an additional burden on LEAs and teachers and schools any more than is already put upon them in the Bill. It clarifies the situation and it also puts a belt and braces not only on the physical access, but also on the teaching access which is essential for all disabled pupils.
I fear that I must return to this issue possibly when we come to the next stage of the Bill, but I shall consult with the Special Educational Consortium who will, I hope, in turn have words with officials in the department. I hope that some compromise may be reached.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, winds up, I would like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said. We have had a great deal of explanation on the essence of the clauses and in particular on the vital role played here by the long-term strategy. It gives completely the wrong message to mention just the physical environment here. It is very important that the concept of access to the curriculum is embedded on the face of the Bill.
Lord Morris of Manchester: We have had an informed and worthwhile, if discursive, debate on these important amendments. I trust I may be forgiven for expressing special pleasure about the speeches of my noble friend Lady Wilkins and the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
Turning to the reply from the Minister, while I had hoped for more today I am not unhopeful of a more favourable reply when we return to these issues on Report. After all, the Minister said that he favours the intention of Amendment No. 113A. Is it unreasonable to expect that he may take one further step and discuss with those who support the amendment any necessary improvements to its drafting if that would help matters along?
Meanwhile, I again reserve the position of my noble friend Lord Ashley in regard to Amendment No. 112, and on this occasion also my own position in relation to Amendment No. 113A. On that basis, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 to 113A not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
The Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday, 6th February 2001.
The Committee adjourned at one minute past eight o'clock.

  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  European Security and Defence Policy Report
  European Security and Defence Policy Report
  Mount Athos
  Mount Athos
  Iran: Export Licences
  Iran: Export Licences
  Iran: Anti-Drugs Assistance
  Iran: Anti-Drugs Assistance
  Terrorism Act Orders
  Terrorism Act Orders
  Election Expenditure Limits
  Election Expenditure Limits
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act: Implementation
  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act: Implementation
  Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters Incident
  Rendlesham Forest/RAF Bentwaters Incident
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Unsolicited Direct Marketing Communications
  Unsolicited Direct Marketing Communications
  Monitoring of Employees' Communications
  Monitoring of Employees' Communications
  Third Generation Mobile Spectrum Licences: Auction
  Third Generation Mobile Spectrum Licences: Auction
  Employment: Government Policy
  Employment: Government Policy
  New Deal: Evaluation
  New Deal: Evaluation
  Unemployment Rates
  Unemployment Rates
  Employability and Jobs
  Employability and Jobs
  Full Employment
  Full Employment
  Bridge Street/Whitehall Bus Service
  Bridge Street/Whitehall Bus Service
  Oil Spillages at Sea
  Oil Spillages at Sea
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  War Widows and Benefit Fraud
  War Widows and Benefit Fraud