Sitting of 20 March 2001

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

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
COLCHESTER BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Business Rates
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent representations he has received from industry and business concerning business rates. [152907]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received many responses from business to the proposals for business rates set out in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance". A summary of the responses has been published on the Department's website. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she confirm that the Government's plan for a supplementary business rate, which could increase the business rate by up to 5 per cent. for hard-working enterprises, is to be scrapped, as reported in this morning's Financial Times? Will she now endorse the Opposition's call for a rates holiday for tourism and other businesses cruelly hit by the foot and mouth outbreak? Finally, will she endorse the Conservative policy of cutting business rates for vulnerable rural shops, post offices, pubs and garages by an average of #x00A3;1,000 a year over and above existing rate relief?
    Ms Armstrong: On the first question, the supplementary rate was an issue for consultation. As I told the hon. Gentleman, we shall publish our conclusions in the White Paper; he will simply have to wait for that. In response to the problems that businesses in rural areas are suffering from because of the foot and mouth outbreak, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will make a statement later, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. The Conservative party's proposals are interesting, but I suggest that he looks at the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill,
    174
    which the Government have published and presented to the House, as it will give additional rate relief to all food shops and to certain garages and pubs in small villages. Given his interest in the motor trade and the Leader of the Opposition's interest in the pub trade, I am sure that they will support our proposals.
    Mr. David Borrow: There was a consultation meeting in Tarleton on the rural White Paper, and the proposals to give 50 per cent. rate relief to small rural businesses were widely welcomed by many of the people at that meeting. I urge my right hon. Friend to move swiftly to a conclusion on the consultation process. How quickly does she think that the Government will be able to implement those urgently needed reforms?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend has shown a very great and knowledgeable interest in this matter. As he says, the proposals on rate relief for small businesses are out for consultation, and we hope to bring them to a conclusion quickly. I am sure that he discovered at the meeting that he mentioned that, more than ever, people in the business world want a stable economy and no more boom and bust, and they know that they will get that from the Labour party.
    Mr. David Heath: From what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, it would be hard to believe that he supported the Government who introduced the uniform business rate. It was iniquitous then, and it is iniquitous now. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it penalises smaller retailers to the benefit of the larger out-of-town stores, so ably represented by the Conservative party? Is not it time that it was radically reformed and replaced with something fairer, which would also support traders in our town centres, not just those in villages?
    Ms Armstrong: I expect that, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will fully support our proposals for rate relief for small businesses.

    New Roads (Pollution)
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What plans he has to review the provision of new motorways and bypasses against pollution and other environmental criteria; and if he will make a statement. [152908]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The environmental impact of every new motorway and bypass proposal is assessed in accordance with the relevant European directives as implemented in the UK. We use the new approach to appraisal technique—NATA, as it is called—to assess all road proposals in our targeted programme of improvements. NATA takes account of sustainable development principles: environmental, economic and social factors are all properly examined and evaluated in a clear and consistent way.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, but will he take into consideration what happened in my constituency with the diversion of the A1 through Ferry Bridge? A public inquiry was held in the mid-1990s, but the evidence submitted on the

    175
    environmental situation under planning regulation 10 was at least five or six years old at that time. The road will be built at some time in the next four or five years, so we are considering evidence that was submitted at least 15 years before it will be built.
    As significant changes have been made in the control of the environment on motorways, will the issue be reviewed when the Government consider the construction of new motorways and diversions?
    Mr. Meacher: I am aware that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in his criticism of the AIM Ferry Bridge to Hook Moor road. As he knows, an environmental impact statement was carried out originally and the project was then appraised in the 1998 roads review, using the NATA technique. Of course, when there are significant changes in the local environment, the appraisal has to be updated. I accept that that is not the reply that my hon. Friend has received in the past, but I repeat that, if changes can be assessed as significant in their environmental impact, I would expect a further application of the new approach to appraisal technique to be used.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: How does the Secretary of State square the policy of completing a network of motorway service areas at 30-mile intervals, as reflected in the decision to allow the building of a service station in the Meriden gap green belt, with the Prime Minister's assertions that we need to put business, technology and environmental protection together?
    Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what lies behind a single appraisal summary table, which looks at issues of environment, economy, safety, accessibility and integration. They are very different in their applications and an attempt has to be made in every case to weigh them and to decide where the balance lies on which the decision should be made. I cannot speak about the case that the hon. Lady has mentioned. However, I am sure that that exercise was thoroughly undertaken and that the decision reflected not the fact that there may be environmental disbenefits, but that, on balance, the decision should be in favour of proceeding.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in finding a balance, it is important to take into account the relief of an urban environment as well as protecting the rural environment? Consequently, when Ministers consider the proposals for access to Hastings and integrated transport, including the bypass, will that be a consideration in their minds?
    Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend, who has been diligent in his pursuit of this issue, that we shall consider that case extremely carefully. All that I can say is that, at this point, due process is being undertaken and it is not for Ministers to intervene in any way. We shall await the result of that process.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that a restoration project is going ahead for the Lichfield-Hatherton canal. However, is he aware that his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, overruled the Government inspector and said that the new Birmingham northern relief road should cut the canal in half? Will the
    176
    Minister intervene with his right hon. Friend, overturn his decision, and try to restore the Labour party's promise that there should be an integrated and green transport policy?
    Mr. Meacher: The Birmingham northern relief road was planned under the previous Administration and the decision to go ahead was taken under the previous Administration. We inherited that decision and, on the balance of considerations, we have decided to proceed. The hon. Gentleman will know that the construction of the road has not yet begun, but it is designed to relieve congestion on the M6 north of Birmingham. As I and many others have experienced, that congestion is intense. Of course we accept that the road is controversial in that there are environmental impacts, but I repeat that, on the balance of considerations, relieving congestion in a major way must be weighed against the environmental effects. I believe that we have found the best solution.

    Leasehold Reform
    Maria Eagle: When he plans to bring forward legislation on leasehold reform. [152909]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which was introduced in another place on 20 December last year is currently making good progress through its Committee stage.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the feudalism that underlies land law in this country is an inappropriate basis on which to deal with the law of property in the 21st century? Given that his Bill is languishing in the other place, which has a more recent affinity with feudalism than this democratic House, will he confirm that his Department will prioritise it when considering whether there is time to debate it here?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is not for me to determine the allocation of time when the Bill comes to this Place. However, I am pleased to tell her that that important measure, which gives effect to the Government's commitments to achieve fundamental reforms in the antiquated and unsatisfactory leasehold tenure, is making good progress in Committee in the other place. I hope that, with a fair wind, it will complete that stage in the near future.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers saying in 1996:
    "Labour in Government will have no hesitation in introducing a comprehensive leasehold reform package including commonhold legislation"?
    Does he agree with the Campaign for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold that his Bill fails in at least 10 areas to address the needs of the 2 million leaseholders in this country? Why has he introduced a Bill so late in this Parliament that it cannot possibly receive proper parliamentary scrutiny before the forthcoming general

    177
    election? Why has he failed so comprehensively to redeem that clearest of pre-election pledges, and why should he be trusted on the issue at the next election?
    Mr. Raynsford: That is pretty rich coming from a party that spectacularly failed to honour its pledge to introduce commonhold in the previous Parliament. We will take no lessons from the Conservative party on leasehold reform and commonhold. The Bill is the most comprehensive measure for several years on the subject. It gives new rights to leaseholders to take over the management of their homes if that is unsatisfactory, extends their opportunities to buy the freehold of their homes and introduces a new commonhold tenure to enable current leaseholders in flats to own the property collectively. It is an important reforming measure that shows the Government's commitment to leasehold reform, in contrast to the abject failure of the Conservatives.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned an organisation that has been campaigning on this matter. Many of its alleged facts are inaccurate. I do not accept its criticisms; nor do the vast majority of leaseholders, who recognise the enormous progress that the Government are making.

    Public Transport (Disabled Access)
    Joan Ruddock: What plans he has to increase access to public transport for people with disabilities. [152911]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have made significant progress since 1997. Regulations requiring disabled access to new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced and similar regulations for taxis are planned. In addition, the 10-year transport plan introduced a new commitment to ensure that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.
    Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's progress, in contrast to the Tories who failed to introduce the regulations necessary to provide increased access for people with disabilities. Although those improvements are welcome, does she agree that many railway stations, such as those operated by Connex in my constituency, present huge problems not only for people with severe disabilities, but for elderly travellers and parents with baby buggies? Does she have any proposals to deal with existing inaccessible infrastructure?
    Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vehicles are only part of the equation, and enabling disabled people to negotiate stations and transport premises is obviously equally important. In 1997, we established the disability rights taskforce, which led to the formation of the Disability Rights Commission. Those bodies, along with transport industry representatives, are working to produce the guidance that is necessary to ensure that providers can meet the requirement that the Act laid on them, which is that by 2004 they will have taken all reasonable steps to remove, alter or avoid physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably
    178
    difficult for disabled people to use the service. Certainly the commission and the Government want to ensure that the guidance will bite.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the hon. Lady realise that it is almost impossible for disabled people to get on to the platform at most underground stations, and even if they were able to do so, they would need the strength of a British Lions rugby forward to get on the trains in the rush hour? Why, after four years, have the Government not fulfilled their commitment to initiate the public-private partnership for the tube, to modernise the system and to give proper access to disabled people?
    Ms Hughes: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that although the Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995, the previous Government did absolutely nothing in their remaining two years to introduce any of the necessary regulations to implement its proposals. This Government have systematically worked since 1997 not only to make vehicles accessible but, as I have just explained, to make the transport infrastructure accessible.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I applaud what my hon. Friend said about disabled access to public transport. May I draw to her attention Tilbury Town station in my constituency, where all the residences are on the down side towards Southend? If my disabled constituents want to board a train to London, they have to travel an additional mile.
    When the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), makes his journey to visit my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) to look at the parlous railway line c2c—which in my parlance stands for cancellation to cancellation—will she ensure that he has all the relevant documents and is fully briefed about that appalling station? Will she get her officials to consider that matter in advance of his visit?
    Ms Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is equally concerned about disabled access, and he will ensure that he has all the necessary information before he makes that visit.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken, and applaud those steps taken by the industry, such as bus manufacturers that have been equipping buses to take disabled people. Is this not also a question of changing thought patterns, particularly in the aviation industry, where people with disabilities can travel on some planes but certain companies can refuse to take them? Surely the Act should cover them all.
    Ms Hughes: In principle, I agree. The hon. Gentleman will know that while we have taken many steps to improve the situation and to introduce regulations for national transport systems, it is more difficult to deal with methods of transport with an international dimension, such as aeroplanes and ships from other countries that come here. We need to work with countries in Europe and more widely to make sure that we can set standards with

    179
    which a number of countries will comply. That is the only way to make sure that these issues are tackled across the board.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My hon. Friend will be aware of the several reports from the Employment Sub-Committee pointing out how crucial public transport is in getting people to work and, indeed, in getting them to participate in the new deal. Obviously, that is especially true of disabled people and those in rural and semi-rural areas such as Bishop Auckland and Teesdale. Despite the Government's best efforts, will she now say what further measures they will introduce to enable disabled people to get to work and to participate in the new deal?
    Ms Hughes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out how crucial the question of transport is to issues of social inclusion, in terms of ensuring that when jobs become available everyone, including disabled people, can access them. I think that he would acknowledge the additional resources that have gone into providing transport in rural areas. As I pointed out earlier, the transport plan includes a commitment to make access for disabled people a condition of future public investment. That initiative has been welcomed by the disabled persons transport advisory committee, which will monitor our performance on it.

    Congestion Tax (London)
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the congestion tax in London. [152912]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Parliament has given the Mayor, Transport for London and the other London local authorities powers in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to introduce congestion charging. The Mayor has chosen to use those powers and he is now consulting on proposals for a scheme in central London.
    Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is correct in saying that this is a matter for the Greater London Authority. With that in mind, may I draw his attention to the front page of the Labour party's London manifesto for the elections that took place last May? Will he explain what exactly was meant by the words "no congestion charges"?
    Mr. Hill: That is perfectly simple. It was the position of the Labour candidate in those elections that he would oppose not the principle of congestion charging, but its introduction in the first four years of mayoral tenure. In practice, the legislation is absolutely simple and straightforward. The Mayor is entitled to introduce congestion charging proposals and the evidence is that they are widely supported in London—[Interruption.] I hear cries of scepticism. Let me point out that the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, of Westminster and of Wandsworth, all Conservative boroughs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is absolutely no point in shouting at the Minister.
    Mr. Hill: Those three Tory boroughs in London have opposed the introduction of the scheme and poured money into fighting it. However, when the borough of Kensington and Chelsea conducted a consultation exercise, the result was a majority in favour of charging. Further evidence emerged in a MORI survey of senior city executives published in February 2001—it revealed that 59 per cent. agreed that a system of congestion charging would benefit London. The Government are broadly supportive of the Mayor's proposals and so, it appears, is much of London opinion.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman failed to explain the sheer hypocrisy of the Labour party's position in its London election manifesto. After four wasted years on the tube, during which the Government have failed to raise a single penny of the private investment that was promised, will the Minister tell the House what exactly the Government have done for public transport in London since they were elected?
    The Conservatives built the docklands light railway, the docklands light railway extension, the Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink and the Heathrow express. Those were Conservative projects. What has the Labour party done? It promised that things would only get better, but they have got worse. The Labour party has failed Londoners, failed the London tube and delivered London to a standstill.
    Mr. Hill: That was a pretty good rant from the hon. Gentleman. However, in addition to seeing through the completion of the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway, and the introduction of the Croydon tramlink, the Government have introduced the £60 million London bus initiative. Additionally, we have pumped no less than £1.5 billion into London's underground system. There is no need to look into the crystal ball to find out about Labour's achievement—hon. Members can read it in the book.

    Neighbourhood Renewal
    Ms Bridget Prentice: If he will make a statement on public service targets for neighbourhood renewal. [152913]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government have set targets to improve outcomes on employment, education, health, crime and housing in our most deprived areas. For the first time, public services will be judged on how well they are narrowing the gap between those areas and the rest, rather than on national averages.
    Ms Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Downham ward in my constituency is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country? The money that is going into neighbourhood renewal is being used effectively by all concerned: the council, the community and the local police. If the local police achieve the targets

    181
    set by the public service agreement—and I am sure that they will—will they be rewarded for that achievement, not penalised?
    Ms Armstrong: The money that is going to Lewisham is in recognition of the number of people living in wards in the borough that are among the 10 per cent. most deprived in the country. I assure my hon. Friend that the targets that we set are minimum targets. Indeed, last week Lewisham council signed its local public service agreement, which extends those minimum targets and sets even higher targets. When people achieve those higher targets, they will be rewarded.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the Minister remember the wise words of her right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? He said of urban regeneration schemes:
    "There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved at national, local and area level. As a result we are spending vast sums of money, often over and over again on the same people through different programmes".
    What is different about the Minister's neighbourhood renewal scheme? Specifically, what will the new neighbourhood managers do, how many have been appointed and to whom will they be accountable? Will the Minister give a guarantee that the neighbourhood wardens in the scheme will not be used as a substitute for the 2,500 police officers who have been lost under this Government?
    Ms Armstrong: There were about six questions in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can reassure him that it is precisely to overcome different initiatives undertaken by different Departments that we have instituted the neighbourhood renewal programme, which brings all Departments together, nationally and locally, to make sure that they deliver effectively better outcomes for local people.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Given that my constituency lies at the heart of what the centre for the analysis of social exclusion deems the biggest poverty cluster in the United Kingdom, and given that the local Liberal Democrat council is unable or unwilling to access programmes for neighbourhoods in my constituency such as Anfield, Kirkdale and Walton, can my right hon. Friend suggest to my constituents ways in which they can gain rightful and proper access to the excellent programmes introduced by the Government?
    Ms Armstrong: It is precisely because we recognise those levels of deprivation in Liverpool that the neighbourhood renewal fund will provide the city with an additional £45 million over the next three years. That must be spent in such a way as to ensure that at least the floor targets are delivered. People in my hon. Friend's constituency can be assured that they will have a voice in the local strategic partnership. Their voice will be heard, which will ensure that their anxieties and aspirations are properly addressed.

    Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about Government plans to give greater protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty. [152914]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced provisions for the better management and protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty, including requiring a management plan for every AONB and providing an option for the creation of conservation boards. Planning protection for AONBs has been confirmed as being at the highest level, alongside that for national parks.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for all his efforts while piloting the legislation through the House, and assure him that it is greatly appreciated by all those in my constituency who live and work in the Wye valley area of outstanding natural beauty, and by people from all over the world who visit the Wye valley. Can he give some indication of the timetable for introducing the measures that he outlined?
    Mr. Meacher: Yes. The main requirement relates to the introduction of the regulations that will govern the mapping process. I have already said that the mapping process must be concluded by 2005, although it is my intention that it should be concluded significantly earlier than that. It depends on the initial mapping exercise that the Countryside Agency is to carry out in the north-west and south-east of the country this summer. In the light of that, we will decide whether to proceed to open up areas of the country on a regional basis or by land type.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards). Will he agree to give the same planning protection to sites of special scientific interest, including that which is identified along the line of the proposed pylons for which his Government have given approval and which go right through a SSSI? Will he agree to give SSSIs the same planning protection as areas of outstanding natural beauty?
    Mr. Meacher: The CROW Act, as it is called—the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—provides greatly strengthened protection for SSSIs, not just for AONBs. The degree of protection compares with that given to grade listed housing. In other words, if damage is done, the person responsible for it can be taken to court, prosecuted and forced to return the site to a pristine condition at his or her expense. That is a clear protection, which has never existed before and now applies to all SSSIs.
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the speech that my right hon. Friend made earlier this month, particularly the creation of the pathfinder forces to be administered by the Tidy Britain Group, an organisation that has already shown extraordinarily good judgment by siting its national headquarters at Wigan pier. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the features that make our areas of outstanding natural beauty so attractive are the canals and

    183
    rivers that flow through them? What plans does he have to extend part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to include the banks, thereby giving authorities the ability to keep them litter free?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I am concerned at the state of many riverbanks, and the surface of rivers is often badly littered. There are disputes about who carries that responsibility. I am keen to introduce as soon as possible new regulations or legislation that will ensure that there are adequate powers to deal with the issue. I have already had it brought to my attention, particularly in regard to the Mersey basin, but it applies to many other parts of the country. River basins that are badly litter strewn must be cleaned up.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to think about access to the countryside, particularly to areas of outstanding natural beauty, and how that would impinge on the present problems that the countryside is experiencing as a result of foot and mouth disease? It is possible that the Prime Minister will soon call a general election. Rather than cutting and running with a general election, does the Minister intend to stay in his Ministry during the election to make sure that the problems in our areas of outstanding natural beauty, which are causing concern to my constituents, are dealt with by the Government?
    Mr. Meacher: That question was rather silly and over the top. Of course there is a very serious point about access to the countryside during the foot and mouth outbreak. In a few minutes, I will make a statement about that. As we stated in the guidelines that we issued on Friday, there are many parts of the country, including areas of outstanding natural beauty, which people can safely visit, as long as they abide by the rules, which are to avoid all contact with livestock, keep away from farmland and, above all, strictly obey the "Keep out" signs.

    Disabled Facilities Grants
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on disabled facilities grants. [152915]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The disabled facilities grant is a mandatory grant that is paid through local authorities for adaptations to help disabled people to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. The Government have increased the resources available for this grant in the comprehensive spending review by 20 per cent., to £87 million next year and £89 million in 2003–04.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she outline how Coventry will benefit from the increases, bearing in mind that many families waited for years under the previous Government, but were always denied access to the grant because of the lack of money allocated to them?
    Ms Hughes: My hon. Friend is right on that last point. We have increased resources substantially from £56 million, which was the amount set in the last Budget
    184
    of the previous Government, to £87 million for the coming financial year. I happen to have Coventry's disabled facilities grant allocation to hand. For the current year it is £456,000, but for the next financial year of 2001–02 it will increase by 23 per cent. to £561,000, which is about 5 per cent. higher than the average for the area. The allocation reflects Coventry's very good record on investment in facilities for disabled people and in housing adaptations.

    >South East England Development Agency
    Mr. Michael Fallon: What the current annual cost is of the South East England development agency. [152916]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hurray!
    Mr. Prescott: Any more?
    The South East England development agency's total budget will be £79.2 million this year. Only 8 per cent.—£6.3 million—will be spent on its strategic and management role. That is excellent value for money and is less than the 9 per cent. average for the rest of the RDAs. We have a streamlined and effective way of delivering regional development, in contrast with the previous Government, who had no co-ordination and no regional policy.
    Mr. Fallon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the South East England development agency has written to Members of Parliament asking them to make representations to the Commission in support of the Chancellor's highly controversial state-subsidised regional venture capital fund? Is he aware that it has supplied MPs with core scripts for that purpose? Is it genuinely the function of a regional development agency to try to rig a competition investigation in that way?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not accept for one moment that the agency is doing what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is doing an excellent job on regional development in the south-east. One can see how many jobs it has created and how much investment has been brought in. That is a matter of record. It is often said in the House that the Conservatives do not support the regional development agencies or the assemblies, which are actively involved, but it is important to bear it in mind that 105 Tory councillors serve on the regional chambers, 41 of whom do so in the south-east regional assembly. I note that the Conservative party is rightly prepared to keep the RDAs for Scotland and Wales, but that it has apparently said that it is prepared to keep them for London and not for the rest of the English regions. Greater London Assembly Member Bob Neil said:
    "It is not the policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency."

    185
    Is there now another area to which it will not subject its policies? Why should the rest of the English regions have RDAs denied to them by Conservative policy? Or are there enough days left before the election for other areas to be covered by the same exemption rule?
    Fiona Mactaggart: Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the South East England development agency, which leads the No. 1 region in Britain, has the resources that it needs for capital development, such as the proposed heart of Slough development? That would enable the local authority, local business and so on to create a hub of communications and cultural industries in the town that I represent.
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is exactly what the regional development agency is doing, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in many parts of the south-east. Indeed, we met RDA chairmen only about a week ago and told them about the extra resources and the single pool of development capital that will available for investment in the regions. That was welcomed, but we went further. We gave £500,000 a rear to each of the regional assemblies so that they can check what the RDAs are doing in their areas and to ensure that they are more accountable.
    Mr. Archie Norman: I am surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister does not accept that SEEDA is doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) says it is doing, because it has described exactly that in writing to all south-east Members. As the Deputy Prime Minister believes that SEEDA is such excellent value for money—indeed, it is one of the more efficient development agencies—will he say how much it spends on representation and lobbying in Brussels and how much it spent last year on PR and marketing, including its own annual report?
    Mr. Prescott: The amount I mentioned for administration was £6.3 million. I do not know the exact figure for how much is spent in Brussels, although it is clear that development agencies want to make representations because much regional funding is decided there. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to say how much is spent, but a quick call to the regional chair would have established it.
    >The agencies are doing an excellent job and I am absolutely delighted to hear that the Opposition spokesman believes that the South East England RDA is doing a good job, as 41 of the Tory councillors—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] Well, I thought he said that. If he did not, I withdraw my remark. Presumably, he believes that RDAs are not doing a good job. That is fine; he will have a chance at the coming election, whenever it comes, to put his case for abolition. I am sure that many Tory councillors, including the leader in Kent and the leaders of a number of Tory authorities, support the proposal for a development agency and an assembly. They will have a choice and I think they will vote accordingly.
    Mr. Norman: The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be totally out of touch, even with his own figures. Let me tell him the figure for administrative expenses, PR and marketing SEEDA itself—£630,000 last year. Furthermore, £50,000 is spent keeping employees in
    186
    Brussels and a large sum also goes on lobbying there. The leader of Kent county council has specifically assured me, and has gone on the public record as saying, that he opposes the development agency and supports our policy to abolish it.
    Is not the real truth that SEEDA is another example of an unwanted quango covering a region that nobody identifies with and spending money that would not otherwise be spent? Does not the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if it succeeds in achieving anything, it will attract businesses that would otherwise go to the north and the midlands, thereby extending the north-south divide? Is not this the real point: England would be better represented as one country with a coherent regional policy rather than by eight regions, all with their hands out for state subsidy?
    Mr. Prescott: I fail to understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's point. He is prepared to accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, whatever the bureaucratic cost and whatever the difficulties in assisting with the differential between the north and south of Scotland and the English regions. Why can he accept development agencies for Scotland and Wales, but not for the English regions, where the populations are far higher and often in desperate need of economic assistance? The agencies have done an excellent job. In order to inform the House, and so that I can be better informed, will he comment on this statement by a Tory GLA Member:
    "It is not policy of the Conservative party to abolish the London Development Agency"?
    Would the Tories keep the agency for London?
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have supported RDAs from the very beginning? Like him, I am a Yorkshire and Humber Member, and he will agree that Yorkshire and Humber is the No. 1 region in the United Kingdom. We believe in the RDAs, for all the country, because they are good for investment, good for innovation, good for planning and good for the future.
    Mr. Prescott: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Tories said that they would abolish the Scottish and Welsh development agencies and they put that in their manifesto, but when they came to power they found that they needed such agencies to help to change and develop the economies in all regions. I suspect that the same would happen on this occasion were they to be elected, but there is not much chance of that.

    Social Housing (Southern England)
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate he has made of the need for additional social housing in southern England. [152917]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Because of the wide variation in need between different parts of the country, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to carry out local housing needs assessments. In determining housing requirements for their regions, and in order to meet the full range of housing needs, regional planning bodies may have to estimate the future balance between general

    187
    market and affordable housing. Draft regional planning guidance for the south-east suggests a provisional indicator of 18,000 to 19,000 affordable homes per year, and draft regional planning guidance for the south-west suggests a figure of between 6,000 and 10,000 per year.
    Mr. Swayne: That is an extraordinary statement from the Minister, given that his Department is interfering and preventing New Forest district council, which is a beacon council, from getting on with the job of building social houses to relieve homelessness. Is not that why 50,000 fewer social dwellings have been built under this Government than were built in the preceding four years?
    Mr. Raynsford: New Forest district council has done extremely well under this Government. In the coming financial year, it will receive a housing allocation of more than £5 million, which is 25 per cent. higher than in the current year and 88 per cent. higher than the allocation when the Tories were last in power. This Government are giving more money to local authorities and more money for housing.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to assess the need for additional social housing it is a good idea to have some plan of the overall housing need in any region? Does he agree that a policy of abdicating the need for any planning guidance or planning decision in favour of allowing local authorities to build housing in their own areas, as the Conservative party believes, is a recipe for little or no social housing or for such provision to be unpredictable? Will he commit himself to ensuring that, in planning regional housing need, careful consideration will be given to what level of social housing is required and how it can best be provided?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the fact that it is important to make a proper assessment of the considerably varying needs from area to area. That is why we put the focus on local authorities analysing the needs of their own areas. We think that it is right and appropriate for regional planning bodies to estimate the balance between affordable, social housing and general market housing. That is an essential element in developing a proper analysis of each region's needs to inform local authorities' local plans. We will adopt that approach to ensure that a serious analysis is conducted region by region and local authority by local authority.

    Railtrack (Investment)
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What assessment he has made of the benefits of encouraging train operators to invest in Railtrack. [152918]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government's 10-year plan provides scope for new ways of securing private sector finance and expertise, including from train operators when that makes sense. The
    188
    Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the preferred bidder for the south central franchise are currently working together to establish the first such partnership.
    Mr. McCabe: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fragmentation of the service and the complete split between track and train was probably one of the worst aspects of the previous Government's botched privatisation of the railways? In those circumstances, does he agree that there would be strong public support for any practical measures designed to reintegrate the structure and improve the performance, management and financial strength of the railways so that we can achieve the targets in the 10-year plan?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I have three observations about the argument on vertical integration. First, it would reduce the autonomy of franchisees and undermine current and proposed franchises. Secondly, it would make the Rail Regulator's role more difficult. Thirdly, it could hinder the efficient operation of cross franchise operators, such as freight companies.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that if Railtrack's structure is not changed, the notion of anyone investing in it is almost a joke? Given the complete chaos on our privatised railways, does the Minister believe that privatisation of the railways has created a market where "the customer is king", has led to
    "new energy and enthusiasm in the industry"
    and has ensured that
    "trains are cleaner safer and a good deal faster."
    Is he aware that those paeans came from his Labour colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and does he agree with them?
    Mr. Hill: It is good to see the Liberal Democrat beast waken from its slumber at last. I am sure we are all extremely grateful for that.
    Under the current structure of the railway industry—notwithstanding the difficulties experienced in the aftermath of recent tragic events—there has been a significant growth in rail usage of 70 per cent. over the past three years. The train operating companies are succeeding in attracting customers, and the Government are committed—by our proposal to invest £60 billion in the system over the next 10 years through the transport plan—to increasing passenger volume on the railways by 50 per cent. That is an objective to which I believe the whole House can happily assent.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my hon. Friend read the words of the Rail Regulator this morning? Given what he has just said about vertical integration, will he tell us what plans he has to ensure that before taxpayers invest £8 billion in the system they have some indication that their wishes will be carried out, that they will be given value for money, and that they will not be simply handing large amounts of their money to private investors?
    Mr. Hill: I have noted the remarks of the Rail Regulator, which the Government broadly welcome.

    189
    Through various mechanisms, the Government are working extremely closely with both the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack to achieve exactly the goal desired by my hon. Friend—the securing of proper value for money through the investment that the Government propose to make in the railway industry and, in due course, through Railtrack.

    Road Accidents
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: What steps he has taken to reduce the number of road accidents in the past three years. [152919]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): In March last year, the Government launched their new road safety strategy for Great Britain, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone". It included targets to reduce overall deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and to reduce child deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010, compared with the average for 1994 to 1998, together with details of many policies and initiatives that will help to achieve them
    Mrs. Cryer: I have very good reasons—personal reasons—to welcome any measures that will reduce the number of road traffic accidents. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the safest method of travel remains travel on our railways?
    190
    Following earlier questions, and in view of many letters in my postbag at home, I am beginning to be increasingly concerned at the number of people who tell me that they are returning from the railways to their cars—which can only bring about more accidents—owing mainly, in my area, to the chaos created by Railtrack at Leeds city station. May I encourage my hon. Friend to read early-day motion 69, which bears 108 signatures, and part of which calls for what is now Railtrack to be returned to public ownership?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The whole House recognises and appreciates my hon. Friend's interest in road safety.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point. Despite efforts made over a long period to make our roads safer—and our record in that regard bears comparison to that of any of our European colleagues—and despite the difficulties, and publicity about those difficulties, that rail has experienced over the past year or so, rail travel is still seven times safer than road travel. We must continue to make people aware of that, and encourage them as far as possible to use rail rather than roads, for safety as well as for environmental and other reasons.
    Mr. David Prior: What action are the Government taking to encourage county councils to impose 30 mph speed limits through rural villages?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We have given councils the power, where they think it appropriate, to introduce 20 mph speed limits. That is part of the programme introduced in the paper "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone".

Foot and Mouth (Rural Economy)
3.30 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I wish to report on the work of the rural taskforce, which held its second meeting this morning. We all agreed that our first priority remains to eradicate foot and mouth disease as soon as possible. The situation remains an extremely serious one. Its effects are very serious for farmers and the wider rural community, especially in tourism. The rural taskforce, which has representatives from a range of rural interests and Departments, is working urgently to develop measures to alleviate those impacts.
I must commend the response of the public who have been very anxious to avoid spreading the disease. However, large parts of the country are not affected, and people wrongly believe that the whole countryside is out of bounds. That has had a devastating and unnecessary impact on many of the businesses that depend on visitors to rural areas. The best way of helping rural businesses is to encourage their customers to return as quickly as possible to the many places where it is safe to do so.
The taskforce has therefore agreed on a number of actions to achieve that. First, last Friday we issued new guidance to the public on what they can do safely in the countryside and what they must not do. The basic message is that the public should stay away from livestock and their pastures, but that there are still plenty of things to do and places to visit in the country without risking spreading the disease.
Secondly, an increasing number of rural properties will be opening to the public again very shortly: English Heritage is announcing today that more than 200 properties will be open from 1 April; the National Trust will announce shortly that it will be opening about 150 properties between now and 1 April; and British Waterways will be reopening many of its canals starting next week. In all cases, that follows a very careful, in-depth review agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Thirdly. local authorities and national park authorities will be considering where footpaths can be safely opened. I hope that there will shortly be a much wider availability of footpaths for the public outside the infected areas.
Fourthly, we are mounting a public information campaign to ensure that the message gets through to the public about what they can and cannot do, and about the benefits that they can bring to rural businesses by their visits to the countryside—particularly to rural and seaside towns and villages, hotels, guest houses and tourist attractions in rural areas.
The Government, in conjunction with the tourism industry, are setting up a public information telephone line which will steer callers to more detailed help on what attractions are open. Extra funding will be made available to tourist boards to promote rural attractions.
We are also developing a preliminary package of measures to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas which have been badly hit by the sudden decrease in visitors and other knock-on effects of the foot and mouth outbreak. In preparing the package, we have met and listened to a wide range of rural interests.
192
The first stage measures are as follows. First, we can offer help through the rates system. We will consider help through the rates system by increasing the central Government contribution to rate relief, from 75 to 95 per cent., for small businesses in rural authorities in the areas of greatest need and that are suffering genuine hardship because of foot and mouth. Affected businesses can also apply to the Valuation Office Agency for a temporary reduction in their rateable value.
On Friday, we presented a Bill that will extend mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to all food shops in small rural settlements. We will also lay regulations to extend mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief to sole village pubs and garages with a rateable value of less than £9,000. Local authorities will also consider using their existing powers to allow deferred payment of rates. We are also announcing a three month extension to the deadline for business rate appeals.
Secondly, we can help through the tax system. As a first step, Ministers have asked Inland Revenue and Customs officials to take a very sympathetic approach to businesses experiencing financial problems as a result of the outbreak. The revenue departments already have power in specific circumstances to defer payment of taxes and national insurance contributions and to agree extended arrangements for time to pay. They will make maximum use of this flexibility for agricultural, transport, tourism and related retail businesses in the countryside, which cannot pay debts because of cash flow problems, where cash flow assistance, through rescheduling tax or national insurance contribution liabilities, would help.
Thirdly, we are considering with the Small Business Service and the banks how we can ensure continuing credit for small businesses badly affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease, including the use of the small firms loan guarantee fund. The Small Business Service, through a national helpline, will provide more information on the package of support available and access to the network of local business links.
Fourthly, we can help through the benefits system. Jobseeker's allowance may be available to employees and self-employed people out of work as a result of foot and mouth. The Department of Social Security will be making its procedures as fast and as flexible as possible.
I have had constructive discussions with the major banks. It is clear that they fully understand the problems faced by businesses from all sectors affected and they are being proactive in contacting their customers who are likely to be in trouble. They have made it clear that they are keen to support their customers wherever possible. They will look, on a case-by-case basis, at mechanisms such as extended lines of credit, capital repayment holidays and other measures. I would encourage all bank customers in difficulty or expecting problems to contact their local bank manager as soon as possible to discuss what options may be available.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the important role that the voluntary sector is playing in relieving rural distress. I can announce today that the Government will match the public donations that have been made to them for this purpose.

193
I should stress that this is a preliminary package. The taskforce will continue in being as long as it is needed. I look forward to making further announcements in due course.
Mr. Archie Norman: I thank the Minister of State for his statement. Many people in the countryside will have been awaiting his response today with mounting anxiety. It was a week ago that we first called for action to help businesses more broadly affected than those in the agriculture sector, including a call for business rate cancellation, on which the Minister commented today. It is now four weeks since the crisis started and it is clear that, on all sides, the extent of the crisis has been widely underestimated. The countryside is now risking meltdown and permanent loss of businesses, enterprise and employment. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not know about that, but Conservative Members do; we have many examples of enterprises that are threatened with going out of business imminently. The loss of employment will create enduring suffering in the countryside. It is important that all parties in the House address the question with great seriousness, and in a spirit of bipartisanship.
Against that background, the measures announced today will be widely welcomed, as far as they go. I have only just heard the Minister's statement, and the detail needs to be studied, but I have no doubt that the measures will command our support if they are delivered rapidly, and without bureaucracy and delay. However, businesses in the countryside need help now, not in a few months. The Minister was right to say that cash flow is their problem, and speed is of the essence.
Many people will be concerned that many of the proposals outlined by the Minister are conditional in nature and subject to further consultation. They will look for an accelerated time scale for the measures' implementation. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Government are still in the process of catching up with the crisis. We appreciate that the situation is fast moving, but the matter is now of the utmost urgency. When will the cash relief affect the bank accounts and overdrafts of affected businesses? That is the acid test.
In that context, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he undertake to look at the bureaucracy and the processes through which businesses must go, for example in applying for temporary rate relief? That process normally takes some weeks. Unless action is taken, however, businesses could go bankrupt in that period of time, especially given that Easter is approaching,
Does the Minister believe that the total tax relief, which he has presumably agreed with the Treasury, goes far enough? Will he give the House an idea of the Treasury estimate of the cost and financial commitment of the total package? That would give hon. Members an opportunity to judge the extent to which his announcement represents a real change.
For many businesses, the loss of cash flow will be irrecoverable. Overdrafts are rising, and tax deferral will merely add to the rising debt. Will the Minister consider going further than deferrals, and perhaps announce his support for enabling local authorities to provide a business rate holiday for the duration of the crisis for those businesses directly affected by it? The livelihoods of the
194
owners of those businesses are at risk. The Opposition have advocated that proposal, and the Minister's statement was not clear on that point.
Again in a spirit of bipartisanship, may I raise the question of the climate change levy? I appreciate that that has been a matter of contention in the House, but I wish to set that to one side. I recognise that the levy has been approved by the House, but does the Minister consider it possible to contemplate a deferral of its implementation? The cost of the climate change levy to agriculture alone is estimated at £17 million. The Cumbria tourist board and others have called for a deferral. The levy is due to be implemented on 1 April, and will adversely affect many of the businesses that are already suffering.
The Minister will know that there remains widespread confusion about public events. Horse racing events in agricultural areas such as Lingfield are continuing, but other events, such as Crufts, have been cancelled. Hon. Members of all parties will have received letters from people who have been given apparently contradictory advice by local authorities and other bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) gave me the example of the Sutherland Lodge activities centre in his constituency. The local authority has advised that all school outings should be cancelled, and as a result the future of the business is at risk.
Is it possible to provide further clarity in Government guidance about the holding of public events? That would enable people in this country—and foreign tourists thinking of visiting from abroad—to be clear about which public events are likely to proceed, and which are likely to be cancelled.
On the vexed question of the pending county council elections, the Minister will be aware that all the political parties involved in Cumbria and Devon have called for a postponement of them in those areas specifically. Many people in the areas worst affected are living under a state of siege. They would find it insulting if politicians were seen to be engaging in a partisan battle during the local elections. It is time, surely, for all parties to pull together in those areas. Have the Government considered our suggestions for deferring local elections, or for taking the powers to defer local elections in those areas, if necessary, so that a decision can be made in the next few days, depending on the way the crisis develops?
I appreciate that the role of the Environment Agency, for which the Secretary of State is responsible, falls at the outer edge of the subject covered in this statement, but the issue is critical to the industry. There is widespread frustration at the reluctance to authorise the burial of carcases. A report in 1969 recommended burials as the fastest and most effective method of disposal, and preferable to burning. Yet reports from all parts of the country suggest that the Environment Agency has adopted a negative and unconstructive attitude towards burial. We appreciate that the agency is now affected by European legislation, but will the Secretary of State undertake to meet the Environment Agency to discuss this and see what can be done to accelerate the process of burial where it is appropriate and where it can be undertaken without adverse environmental effects?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that it is critical to have greater clarity from the Government on the extent and severity of the crisis? It is vital that the extent of the problem is not understated. Some in the

195
Government have given the impression of wanting to downplay the crisis, while others have emphasised its seriousness. With hindsight, it may have been unwise for Ministers to have briefed last week that the situation was "under control". The Secretary of State spoke of safe zones on the "Today" programme last Wednesday. I do not know what has happened to the concept of safe zones, but the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not seem to have heard of them that same afternoon. That may be just one example of what has hitherto been a somewhat confused approach.
We appreciate that the situation is fast moving, and we welcome the Government's more encouraging response today. We will support remedies that bring fast relief to business. However, let there be no doubt that this is a national crisis that requires a national emergency response and a nation that speaks with one voice.
Mr. Meacher: I believe that we fully understand the extent of the impact of the outbreak. Given the efforts of my colleagues in MAFF to deal with the containment, control and extermination of the disease and the measures that we are bringing forward to help non-farm businesses, I do not believe that we have in any way underestimated the gravity of the situation. I believe that we have reacted rapidly and effectively, and that is the significance of today's statement.
I am grateful for much of the sober response of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). However, to refer to a "meltdown" is completely over the top and inappropriate and does not help in making a serious and proper response to the situation. Something like 1 per cent. of livestock have been affected. Of course, the implications go far wider, but we should keep things in perspective.
We accept that the Government will command support for their measures if they are delivered quickly. That is why I have had urgent discussions with the banks and have brought forward measures that will provide rate relief. Concern about the rate demands at the end of the month is, I think, people's prime financial anxiety. We are effectively meeting that anxiety with the proposals that we have made today.
I take the point that we should reduce bureaucracy in every possible way at this time. I stressed that repeatedly in my statement. The process of getting rate relief will be accelerated and prioritised. On the cost, I cannot give the house an accurate overall figure, because it depends on assessments made on a case-by-case basis. However, tens of thousands of small businesses will benefit from the measures that I announced today. Whether local authorities are able to offer a business rate holiday is a matter for their discretion, within the parameters of the extended scheme that I offered today.
The climate change levy, as the hon. Gentleman correctly says, comes into effect in less than a fortnight. I remind him that, overwhelmingly, it will be larger and non-rural businesses that will certainly have liabilities under the levy. I repeat that the measures being demanded of them are cost-effective; over time, those measures will benefit the bottom line of businesses by improving their energy efficiency. Although there is a short-term issue to be dealt with in respect of foot and mouth, the longer-term
196
climate change issue remains with us all the time. We should not abandon measures that are necessary for that purpose.
On sporting activities, of course we want the clearest possible information about the availability of sporting and other public events. That depends entirely and specifically on the advice of the chief veterinary officer. We hope that he will make clear his views on the holding of such events as quickly as possible.
Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, it is not the case that all parties in Cumbria and Devon have sought postponement of the county council elections. That is certainly not so in Cumbria. I do not believe that there is a justification for taking such action at this stage. Certainly, we have to take account of the future course of the disease and we have to listen to what people are saying, but to send a message—especially abroad—at this point in time, that the whole country, or major parts of it, is in quarantine and that democracy has been suspended will not give a true or accurate image of our country.
Finally, on the hon. Gentleman's last point, I realise that there is an issue in relation to the Environment Agency and the disposal of carcases. The valuation of carcases can take an unduly long time, but we are looking at ways to speed up that process.
Dr. Jack Cunningham: May I tell my right hon. Friend that in my rural constituency in Cumbria his statement and these first steps to bring help to businesses will be warmly welcomed? Is he aware of the importance not only of the Government giving a clear, coherent message about the countryside, but of regional and local agencies doing the same? For example, is he aware that more than 100 visitor attractions in Cumbria and the Lake district are still open for business as usual? There is no reason that people should not go to them.
It is important that the Government attack the foot and mouth outbreak more aggressively and urgently bring more resources to bear on the problem in Cumbria and elsewhere. As long as the outbreak continues, rural businesses—large and small—in Cumbria and elsewhere will suffer; they are already suffering very, very seriously—especially the tourist industry.
May I also—[Hon MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh, yes. May I tell my right hon. Friend, the House and the Opposition spokesman that there was a Cumbria-wide crisis meeting yesterday in Kendal? All parties and all MPs attended. At no time was there a call from anyone for the suspension of elections, so the Opposition spokesman is totally wrong on that point. Indeed the meeting called for a non-partisan approach to these mattters.
Finally, let me tell my right hon. Friend and the House that the statement by the Leader of the Opposition that the chief executive of the Cumbria tourist board has called for the cancellation of elections is also completely untrue.
Mr. Meacher: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he says. I am sure that he is right to say that the Government's clear and coherent message has to be reflected regionally and locally. Indeed, the helplines that we have put in place for local authorities and business are designed precisely to try to achieve that. I take note of the fact that, as he said, more than 100 visitor attractions are still open. That information is useful

197
because there is a widespread perception, which is wholly wrong, that they are all closed. That is not the case, and many more can be reopened.
We are deploying all the resources at our disposal to try to contain and eradicate the disease, especially where the outbreak is greatest—in Cumbria Devon and along the Welsh border. I take note, as did the whole House, of the correction that my right hon. Friend gave to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the Minister's interim statement and hope that it represents the first step in explaining to the House how the Government will assist businesses, which will be affected for a long time. I know he agrees that clarity is important in enabling the public and business people to gain access to the support. That is vital. We do not need more bureaucracy and administration; we need more management of the resources and better use of the existing channels.
Specifically on the right hon. Gentleman's discussions with the banks, does he agree that they have an opportunity to show just how supportive of small businesses they are? Is he aware that there is evidence to suggest that they are already pulling out of some projects for which they had originally shown support? On rate relief, will special support be provided charities? They already receive 80 per cent. rate relief, so the modest increase may not assist them greatly. Will he confirm that the proposals include the deferment of VAT payments for one or perhaps two quarters? Will he also confirm that this is just the interim statement and that he expects to return to the House in the not-too-distant future to explain what progress the taskforce has made?
Mr. Meacher: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I certainly confirm—as I twice said in the statement—that this is a preliminary statement. I appreciate the point about the need for urgency and rapid response. That is the reason why I have made this first step announcement today, but there will certainly be other statements, as and when necessary, in the light of further revelation of need. That is the criterion by which we shall decide what further action to take. Of course, as I said, it is very important that people should find it easy to gain access to the support. We are doing all we can to ensure that there is simplicity. We are running a massive advertising campaign to let people know, by using a single telephone number, where they can get help, so that they can be directed locally to precise and specific assistance.
I met the banks, and they said that they were being proactive and were seeking out among their clients those whom they thought might be in difficulty. I am concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that they might be pulling out of some projects. I should be pleased to know whether that is the case. I believe that they should be held to their word, and those who are involved in those projects should beard their local managers about the consequences of such action.
Of course rate relief is not primarily aimed at charities, and the hon. Gentleman should not belittle the increase in aid—from 75 to 95 per cent.—that the Government are offering. The proposals on VAT payments are primarily aimed at the next quarter, but a further quarter could be included if that were to prove necessary. There are
198
flexibilities in the system, such as deferment and rescheduling, and we shall use them, on a case-by-case basis, where we can.
Kali Mountford: My constituency has a mixed economy, in which farmers and tourists are very important. We need a clear and loud message that we have confidence in the countryside as part of the economy. In particular, the X Paragliding Company is entirely situated on National Trust land. It has not just had a cash flow problem—it has had no cash at all because the National Trust has been closed for business. I am very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that, within a week, we shall know more about the opening of National Trust land. What advice can I give to my constituents who are now suffering greatly from the lack of paragliding—although the snow may have prevented that from happening any way? How quickly will we be able to tell them which National Trust areas will be open for business?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that confidence in the countryside is an issue of great importance. If confidence returns and people realise just how far they can take advantage of the attractions and the beauty of the countryside and return to it in complete safety in the knowledge that they are not transmitting the disease any further, there will be no better way of bringing relief to rural businesses in their thousands. People may not visit the countryside for that motive, but that will be the consequence. It is an extremely important lesson for everyone in the country to understand.
With regard to paragliding, the advice that I have received from the National Trust is that it intends to open 150 properties after it has carried out a case-by-case analysis. That is the way that everything is being done; there are no blanket restrictions and there will be no blanket openings. Those properties should open in the next week or two, so I suggest that my hon. Friend advises her constituents to contact the National Trust. It will give precise advice about local areas.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Although I welcome part of the Minister's statement, does he really understand the true depth and extent of the fear, despondency and crisis in my constituency? I have questions on two specific issues. First, why will the Government not call out the Army in real numbers to bury the carcases that have been lying around for days in Devon? Why are they culling healthy animals in Cumbria and not dealing with the backlog in Devon? Secondly, how can we have county council elections in Devon on 3 May when many county councillors and many candidates from all parties are farmers? How can there be a proper democratic process in Devon? When will the Minister listen to the voice of Devon?
Mr. Meacher: We are listening to the voice of Devon; indeed, I intend to visit Devon for a whole next day Thursday. Of course, we are listening to Cumbria, to Powys and to Devon. Those areas are hardest hit and we take careful note of all the information that we have about them from MAFF and other sources.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should call out the Army to get rid of the backlog of carcases. I said in my statement that we recognise that that is a serious issue. However, we do not at this stage believe that that is the

199
right or necessary solution; we believe that there are better ways of dealing with the problem and we intend to put them in place. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make very clear the Government's proposals on that.
With regard to elections, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern when so many of his constituents and those in the surrounding area find it difficult to move around at this time. I repeat that I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I genuinely believe that to take such a decision at this point would be deeply irresponsible. If there is the widespread belief in the United States that BSE is exactly the same as foot and mouth, the message that some parts of England cannot even hold democratic elections will be taken extremely badly and it will be utterly counterproductive.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: There is a real crisis in my constituency and it is very hard to put into words what is happening in such towns as Keswick, where businesses, hotels, outdoor centres and shops have found that their turnover has dropped by 90 per cent. The whole turnover of some businesses in my constituency has been wiped out, so we cannot underestimate the significance of the package that my right hon. Friend has introduced. It will be appreciated in so far as it meets some of the central requirements and requests of the tourist authorities in the county.
In the detail of my hon. Friend's statement, he mentioned the countryside and rural areas. Can he assure us that the towns to which I referred will be included in those rural categories? There must be no mistake in the mind of the public, especially when it comes to taxation deferment and rates relief, which is what will concern people.
May I Pass on a constituent's suggestion that was made to me on the telephone this morning? He has a simple solution, for which I think he has a case. He said, "Why not subsidise attractions?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to 100 attractions in our area. Why not subsidise those? That would bring people back to our areas to fill the boarding houses, hotels and restaurants and could well be a less expensive way of dealing with a problem that might turn out to be very costly in the long term.
Mr. Meacher: I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation facing many farms and non-farm businesses, especially in Cumbria. When I was in the east and west midlands on Saturday, I met many representatives of small businesses who said that turnover had dropped by 50 or 70 per cent. and, in one case, by 90 per cent. I understand the problem. The question is how we can best respond to it quickly. That is what the Government have been addressing. There is no specific panacea; the package relies on a combination of measures that give well targeted, practical, short-term and effective help to tens of thousands of firms. That is our intention.
The package does apply to towns and small settlements in the countryside. Indeed, one matter under consideration is how far we can accelerate the application of the measures in the rural White Paper, especially in regard to parishes and small village settlements and the promotion
200
of market towns. We have provided £37 million for that purpose which, if we lever in money, could be £100 million. If we manage to introduce that money quickly enough, it, too, will be an effective measure.
We will certainly consider promoting attractions, but we believe that it is much better to allow the local tourist board, under the direction of the English Tourism Council, to receive extra funding for that purpose, which we propose to provide. That is the best way to get more people to visit attractions and it will reduce the need for direct subsidies. No one wants subsidies; people just want to return to norma1 business. Carefully targeted extra funding can achieve that.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Although I welcome the statement, which is a step in the right direction, may I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said about the Army on Dartmoor? It is a permanent home to an enormous military contingent and there are three live firing ranges and dry training areas. The Army are all around the moor, in the moor and on the moor, but they are not helping the farmers. That is madness.
The South Hams, which is part of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, has no foot and mouth disease and a huge tourism industry, but people from American and the midlands in particular believe that it is a no-go area. The attractions are open and people can walk on the sandy beaches. The Government could help by clearly stating that it is business as usual in the South Hams and that people from the midlands, the north and the United States in particular are most welcome.
Mr. Meacher: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the use of the Army on Dartmoor. I have already responded to that point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will certainly be taking account of this exchange, and I am sure that he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said. I repeat that we entirely accept that there is a serious problem and that it is totally unsatisfactory to have carcases lying around for several days. The question is how the problem is best dealt with, and that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend. He will have heard those comments, which of course are not unique but have been made by many others, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will respond to them.
On the second point, it is precisely the aim of my statement and of the rural taskforce that the Government can open up the countryside where that can safely be done and so long as the basic rules are obeyed. My statement will be followed up with all the institutions that can assist, and there will be massive advertising campaigns so that the message is put across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government are doing their best not only in this country but abroad. The British Tourist Authority is increasing its advertising in areas that have seen the biggest drop in the numbers of tourists coming to the UK—the United States, the Republic of Ireland, Germany and France There is a big campaign to set the record straight and to state that it is far from true that the countryside is out of bounds. In fact, the great majority of it is in absolutely no sense a no-go area.
Several hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call another Member, I appeal for short questions. That will be very helpful indeed.
Mrs. Betty Williams: The measures offered by my right hon. Friend and the speed with which he has acted will be much appreciated by my constituents. The delegation that I led to the Wales Office last week to meet the Under-Secretary of State was seeking such actions. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the widespread effects that the cancellation of this year's Urdd National Eisteddfod in Cardiff will have? Will he note also the knock-on effects of the cancellation on Llandudno in my constituency? If the 2002 Eisteddfod is cancelled, the area will lose about £2 million. Will he therefore ensure that effects on the whole of Wales will be considered by the taskforce?
Mr. Meacher: I am aware of course that the outbreak has had devastating effects on many national and public events, not least the one to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand that the Under—Secretary of State for Wales has written to her about what was said at their meeting. We want to ensure that festivals with international as well as national significance should be able to go ahead. I repeat that our actions must be guided by MAFF's veterinary advice. As soon as it is safe to reopen venues or to allow events to go ahead, the Government are extremely keen that we should do so, but we must rigorously accept the advice, whatever it is.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Everyone who has known the Minister over the years will know that he made his statement today with complete sincerity. However, at lunchtime we heard the Leader of the House saying that it is not people who are in quarantine, but only animals. Does that not give rise to the suspicion that the Government do not yet appreciate that they have a national crisis on their hands?
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will have made an assessment of the consequences for a tourism industry that may well find that in certain parts of the country the summer season is already lost. I assume also that he will have made some assessment of the effect that that will have on farmers who may not be able to start up their proceedings again for six or nine months. Given that we have a national crisis on such a scale, what measures is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of introducing, other than those announced today which are very small and specific? Where in his thinking is the sense that we are dealing with a national crisis that needs a national response?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentle man has not fairly characterised the tone of my statement or my responses. I recognise, as all Ministers have, that this is a very serious situation. I do not think anyone attempts to underplay it in any way. However, the issue is how we handle it, and how we contain and eradicate the disease.
The hon. Gentleman is almost certainly right in saying that there will be significant losses of international tourism in the summer, and that for many farm and non-farm businesses the effects could continue for some considerable time. That is why I said—taking account of
202
the demand of the House for an urgent statement so that the immediate requirements could be put in place and everyone knew what they were, and so that the helpline could be set up within a matter of days—that I would then judge whether it was right to introduce further measures over the next few weeks. Obviously the content of such measures would depend on the course of the disease, and on further and clearer revelations of the degree of economic damage that the situation has caused.
Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to publicise the fact that many of our tourist attractions in the countryside are still open: for example, in Amber Valley, the midland railway museum, the national tramway museum, the Denby pottery visitors centre and the industrial heritage sites. Will he ensure that nothing is done to muddy the message that Derbyshire and other parts of the country are still open for visitors?
Will my right hon. Friend also note that my constituency is a mixed urban and rural area, and confirm that those who are suffering—such as businesses and those providing holiday accommodation—will be eligible for relief? For example, if the Pentrich rock and blues bikers festival does not go ahead, the local town could lose £500,000 worth of business. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all businesses in such mixed areas will be eligible for relief if they are suffering?
Mr. Meacher: I repeat that many attractions remain open, and we believe that many more can open without risk. I understand that Derbyshire has been particularly affected. As with other areas, we are keen to see it opened up again where it is safe to do so. That is the message that I am giving all over the country.
With regard to the festival to which my hon. Friend referred, I must make it clear to the House that the statement that we have made is highly significant, and that it is also a preliminary one. It does not mean—the Government have never said that it meant—that there will be full compensation for everyone or every institution that has suffered economic loss. No Government are in a position to offer that. We need targeted measures for businesses at risk of going down, to keep them afloat and to provide them with the essential support to get through this situation. That is what the package is designed to do.
Jackie Ballard: Tomorrow afternoon, a crisis meeting is to be held in Porlock of representatives of Exmoor businesses. This situation affects not only those who provide tourist accommodation or services to tourists, but those who rely on passing trade from visitors to the national park, such as garages and pubs, whose takings have slumped dramatically.
Although the measures that the Minister has announced will be welcome, they will deal only with some of the short-term cash flow problems. They will not help people to pay their immediate bills for the basic necessities of life. Deferring payments will not deal with the long-term cash flow problems. What message would the Minister like me to pass on from the Government to those Exmoor businesses at their meeting tomorrow, to give them some hope for the future?
Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on the message that the Government are listening, responding

203
and providing immediate emergency help in a manner that is directly relevant. I have already been around the country a good deal, listening, and I have included in the statement the matters of most concern that were expressed to me.
The hon. Lady is right to say that this is not just about tourist attractions. A vast range of small rural businesses, pubs, shops, bed and breakfasts and hotels have been affected. I have said that transport and haulage contractors can also gain benefit under this package. I do not believe that, as a result of the application of the package, people will still not be able to pay for the immediate necessities of life. If they had to meet new rate demands and demands for VAT and PAYE payments on the dot when they came in, however, they would be in trouble, and we are finding every possible means within the current legislative system to defer some of those payments and to relieve them of their immediate liability. Of course that will leave a greater problem in the longer term, and we shall consider that later on.
Mr. Tom Levitt: First, may I correct the impression that my right hon. Friend may have given? There has been a single outbreak in south Derbyshire, but the Peak district, whose tourism is dependent on 22 million visitors a year, is not affected by foot and mouth disease in any way and is open for business. Indeed, last Thursday I was at a conference for representatives of the Peak district tourism industry, who have put together a package that they wish to have implemented. My right hon. Friend may have read their proposals, because those which he announced today exactly match those of this vital tourism area.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend look at imaginative ways of making sure that some of our attractions reopen? I am thinking of Peveril castle in Castleton, which has been closed because it uses four sheep full-time to keep the grass down. If those sheep could be moved, the attraction could be reopened.
Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the people responsible for the four sheep will take note of the obvious solution and move them pretty quickly. On the general point about Derbyshire, I agree that is vital to stress that the Peak district, which has about 22 million visitors a year, is totally unaffected by the crisis. When I said that Derbyshire had suffered, I meant that many people in that attractive part of the country who are dependent on the tourist business have been hit secondarily, as their takings have been affected. The statement is designed to assist people in that position.
Mr. Robert Key: May I ask the Minister how best to address a short-term crisis with long-term environmental consequences, particularly in forestry? Christmas to Easter is the maximum planting period; many small businesses across rural Britain have commenced planting, only to be told that they are now in an infected area. In turn they have had to inform customers and clients that they have been in an infected area, even if they are not carrying the virus, which is putting their businesses in crisis. More importantly, we will lose a whole season's planting of trees if we are not careful.
Mr. Meacher: I appreciate that people are in that situation. Again, what I have said about rate relief and the assessment of the situation by revenue departments and Customs and Excise is relevant. Those people will be treated as sympathetically as possible concerning those statutory payments. If there are other means of assisting them, we are very glad to use them. Those who are right inside the infected areas are grievously afflicted; most of them are farmers, who get agreed compensation for animals that are slaughtered, but people who are not farmers, and do not have livestock, have also been seriously affected. The hon. Gentleman referred to a particular category to which we ought to pay further attention.
Mr. Eric Martlew: The reality in Cumbria is that the economy will not recover until we get on top of the disease. Will my right hon. Friend tell the Agriculture Minister that a senior MAFF official needs to go to Carlisle to take charge of the problem? As for the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the Cumbrian economy is badly damaged. It is not in meltdown, and it will recover, but the speed of that recovery will depend on the assistance that Cumbria receives from the Government. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the Chamber
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment agree to meet representatives of Cumbria county council when they come down here to explain what is necessary to get the Cumbrian economy back on its feet?
Mr. Meacher: Cumbria, and in particular the area around my hon. Friend's constituency, Carlisle, has been one of the most affected areas in the country. I repeat that we are extremely anxious to do what we can to help. I would be willing, I think, to meet a delegation that my hon. Friend brought from his constituency, so long as it was not treated as a precedent for my meeting everyone else from all over the country who comes from an infected area. One must be careful about these matters.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister will meet only those from Labour marginal seats.
Mr. Meacher: I am very happy to meet people from any kind of constituency, irrespective of the political nature of that constituency or the majority. People can get a little overheated about the issue, which is an extremely serious one. Public opinion outside is not assisted by some hon. Members treating it as political kick-about.
I am glad to help my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) in any way that I can. I suggest that he gets in touch with me with particular proposals. I do not want to offer tea and sympathy. People want practical help, and if they can suggest ways in which we can provide that, we will listen.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The Minister's statement began with a few dos and don'ts, then he gave a list of things that he was considering, studying and deferring, but the only item of substance in the statement was an element of rate relief. That was the guts of it. How exactly will that work? When will he publish clear rules and guidelines? What is his budget for

205
it? Will it be administered by the county layer or the borough layer? What do people have to prove in order to qualify? Exactly what details must they gather in order to secure the qualifying relief that he announced this afternoon, and when will it start?
Mr. Meacher: Those are perfectly fair questions, and I will give fair answers. Of course, we will produce those details. The statement was produced ultra-quickly, because that is what the public demanded. We will produce the answers to those questions very soon, and I mean very soon, because we want the scheme to be in operation as quickly as possible.
However, to dismiss the rest of the statement as a deferment or a consideration of this, that and the other is wrong. If the hon. Gentleman studies the detail, he will see that the cumulative impact is considerable. In particular, those who deal with the victims of the outbreak will receive case-by-case and very favourable and sympathetic assistance, not only from the revenue authorities, but from the banks and the Small Business Service. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss that with a shake of his head. It is extremely important and will provide genuine assistance.
Mr. John McFall: I welcome the positive statement from my right hon. Friend, but mixed messages are being sent. Loch Lomond, in my area, depends heavily on tourists and the message to hill walkers is that it is unacceptable to be in the countryside, whereas the message to skiers is that it is acceptable. I welcome the public information campaign that the Government are about to undertake.
To talk about abandoning any elections would put out entirely the wrong message. We must remember that during the second world war, we had elections, while we were still prosecuting a war against the Japanese. In 1974 we had a three-day week, but we had an election, which was called by the Opposition. The message must be that the United Kingdom has not shut down—it is open for business seven days a week.
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right. We need to clarify where people can safely go. I have said that repeatedly, and it should be made clear across the piece—given the earlier reference to skiing that may not be an appropriate metaphor. There should be clarity about all kinds of activities. We will provide a helpline so that if people still have doubts after reading the guidelines, they can get specific and detailed assistance from the helpline. On the question of elections, my hon. Friend put the case exactly. To suspend elections is a sign of crisis, which is out of all proportion to the state that we are in.
Mr. William Ross: The Minister not only dealt with short-term help, but spoke about a Bill that was published yesterday, .which is presumably supposed to deal with the long term. First, what is the extent of that Bill and will the aid that it provides apply throughout the United Kingdom? Secondly, what is his definition of a small rural settlement?
Mr. Meacher: The Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill, which we published on Friday, provides for an extension of mandatory 50 per cent. relief to village shops, pubs and garages under a
206
prescribed rateable value. We are considering to what extent we can fast-track the measure so that its benefits are not only available in the long term, but can apply in the immediate short term. If we can do that, we will. The general definition of a small parish settlement is a settlement with a population of fewer than 3,000 people.
Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his detailed but interim statement will be widely welcomed throughout north-east England. It will be especially welcomed in my Teesdale constituency, where most tourism businesses are micro-businesses that currently have devastating cash flow problems. I should like, however, to issue him with two constructive warnings. First, Ministers will need to have a firm grip to ensure that the clear message that he has given today rings out with equal clarity and cogency throughout the whole country and from all agencies. Secondly, Ministers must have the same grip in respect of money, if it is to get quickly to the people who need it.
Mr. Meacher: I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's constructive warnings. It is always hardest to give assistance to micro-businesses, which are at the end of the line of small and medium enterprises and are not always plugged into their information requirements. That is the purpose of the massive advertising programme that we are about to start—I hope that we will do so before the end of the week—in the newspapers and on the radio. It will be parallelled by similar campaigning abroad as soon as the British Tourist Authority can provide it.
With regard to my right hon. Friend's strictures for Ministers, I assure him that we are conducting a joined-up campaign within Whitehall. Ministers from several other Departments are members of the taskforce, and I have been in constant contact with them during the past few days. Whether it is MAFF, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, all those other Departments are putting their weight behind the campaign, which is a good example of Government working through close co-operation.
Mr. Tim Collins: Given that Cumbria is the most affected county, will the Minister tell us whether a Cumbrian serves on his national taskforce? If not, will he consider appointing one? I welcome his remarks about business rate valuations and appeals against them, but is he aware that Ulverston Inland Revenue valuation office already has an 18-month waiting list for current cases? What can he do to speed that up? Furthermore, Cumbria county council, which is run by the Labour party, estimates that the region's economy is already losing £15 million a week. What is the estimated value of the package that he has announced for the nation for, say, the next three months?
Mr. Meacher: The membership of the rural taskforce, which is already large and has between 20 and 25 members, involves all relevant interests. If the taskforce had to be formed on a geographic basis, it would have to have members not only from Cumbria, but from Devon, Powys and the Welsh borders, and Dumfries and Galloway, as it is dealing with a UK effort. Such a requirement would become impossible, although that does not mean that we are not deeply aware that Cumbria is one of the two areas that has been most affected by the

207
outbreak. A great deal of our effort is now directed to it. On the speeding up of rate claims in Ulverston, we are, as I said, postponing for three months the period for receipt of rating appeals. If we can assist in the handling of those claims in any other ways, we shall certainly consider them.
The hon. Gentleman says that the losses in Cumbria amount to £15 million. I am sure he is right; they are considerable in many parts of the country. The thrust of my statement is that the best way to assist people is not to increase Government expenditure, though that is necessary in the immediate short term, but to get people to accept that they can safely go back into the countryside and spend their money as they wish at rural businesses, shops, B and Bs and hotels. That is what the statement is designed to achieve.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Foot and mouth strikes cloven-hoofed animals—ones that we are familiar with and others such as the antelope. The elephant can also be affected. My question is about zoos. Will special consideration be given to the plight of zoos, which are major visitor attractions? If the outbreak drags on for long, it could put some out of business.
Mr. Meacher: I am concerned about that. When I was in the east midlands, I met an owner who had closed her zoo. When I asked why, she said it was because of the fear of the disease spreading to it. I also asked where the nearest livestock were. She replied, "18 miles away." I then asked whether she had sought local veterinary advice, and I hope that she will do so. It is not for me to decide, but I believe that many nature reserves and zoos can open, although that depends on local advice.
Mr. David Curry: The Minister's recommendation to spirit away sheep will be studied with interest by the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister talks about affected areas, but does he realise that many areas with no foot and mouth outbreak are none the less grievously affected and may be in an exclusion zone? He also talks about jobseeker's allowance. Does he realise that many people have a job, but have no work? Companies have no business but want to keep their staff, so will he consider whether jobseeker's allowance can be used to help people who remain technically employed, but are not earning wages because their companies cannot pay them? Are local authorities eligible for the Bellwin scheme in respect of significant expenditure incurred in managing elements of the foot and mouth outbreak?
Mr. Meacher: Of course I realise that many areas outside the immediately infected areas—what are sometimes called the designated areas, in a 10 km radius—are almost as acutely affected, because so many paths, buildings and access routes are closed. Again, we are content to accept local advice as to how far some of those areas, under some conditions, can be opened up. I repeat, however, that that is a matter for local veterinary advice. Assisting areas outside the infected areas is the whole point of my statement.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members took note of my statement, because many people do not understand that self-employed persons can, under certain conditions,
208
be entitled to jobseeker's allowance if they have no work. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a particular situation that I have not considered and it is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to take a view on the matter, but we shall certainly consider what might be done for companies that have no work as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak, but which do not want to lose their trained staff.
The Bellwin scheme is implemented under closely prescribed conditions, as is of course necessary, and it was used in the example of flooding. It may have application in this example. That, again, is a matter that we want closely to consider in the next few days.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people at Bolsover castle and Hardwick hall will be pleased about the preliminary statement made today and the money involved, because they contrast sharply with what happened during the pit strike of 1984 and 1985? In all those beleaguered pit communities, businesses went under and shops had to close, but there was not one penny piece from the Tories and, to show their thanks, they closed all the pits and made the problem even worse. Does he agree that the only reason he is able to hand out money today is that we have run the economy 10 times better than that lot did when they were in power?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend always makes a powerful political point forcefully and eloquently. We all have our views about the pit strike. It is certainly true that the current economic situation makes it easier for the Government to respond, and we shall do so as fully and as effectively as the circumstances require.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The owner of a local riding stables rang me this weekend to say that she is going out of business. We have not yet had a case of foot and mouth in Lincolnshire, but every footpath has been closed. What plans does the Minister have to work with county councils to ensure that we fight this disease where it is breaking; out, and can open footpaths and bridleways through arable areas? Could the Minister also answer the question that has been posed and tell us what the package is worth because it is important that relief is not spread too thinly over the whole country?
Mr. Meacher: We have been going for an hour and 10 minutes, and I keep repeating that the whole point of this statement and of the rural taskforce is to bring aid to people in those parts of the country outside the immediately infected areas who have been seriously hit by an economic downturn which has been no fault of their own. It has been dramatic, and they have no defence against it. We recognise that they need assistance. The best way to assist them is to get people back into those areas by making sure that they understand that it is safe. We must get rid of people's serious misconception, which is perhaps due to their feeling of patriotism and their desire to help the country. They thought the best way to do that was to keep out of the countryside, but we now know that that is wrong; and it has had a devastating effect. I hope that we will all take a non-partisan approach and join together to get that message across in all constituencies. Hon. Members will certainly have the assistance of Government through an advertising

209
campaign, and of the tourist boards and local authorities. We are all trying to ensure that we get across a clear message.
I have already answered the question about bridleways and footpaths. They will be opened if it is safe to do so. I have asked the Local Government Association and all local authorities to consider case by case whether they can open the footpaths in their area. I have no doubt that over the next week or two the great majority of them will be safely opened.
Mr. Nick Ainger: I thank the Minister for his statement. It will he warmly welcomed in my constituency, which has a large tourism industry. Some attractions are due to open at Easter, but the guidance and advice that they are receiving is unclear about whether they should open or not. Bearing in mind the fact that Easter is only three weeks away, will he ensure that clear guidance is given to those attractions, because we want them to open for business as quickly as possible?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been of great concern to the Government. People are now making their Easter bookings. Many small rural businesses have a fairly hard time during the winter months, but in the spring and summer their earnings manage to pay back the winter losses. It is critical that they have the full benefit of visits and the increased custom that comes when people are enjoying themselves and taking recreation in the countryside. That is exactly why it is so important to get this message across, and why the Government are doing all in their power to ensure that people realise that they can safely visit those attractions this Easter.
Mr. David Heath: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to open access to farmland in some of the finest dairying areas in the country, in Somerset in my constituency. Does he realise that a great many businesses are not directly related to tourism but their turnover is nevertheless being decimated? That applies not only in small villages, but in the market towns to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell Savours) referred. I hope that the Minister's package will deal with. that.
A specific problem relates to the Royal Bath and West show, which is due to open in a few weeks' time. It is far more than just an agricultural show; it is a major showcase and shop window for hundreds of rural businesses. Will the Minister meet representatives from the show to see how they can ensure that the show not only takes place, but takes place successfully?
Mr. Meacher: I have made it clear repeatedly that, while we want as much of the countryside as possible to be opened, we must make certain that that is done with caution. We must ensure that paths across farmland or pastures that might be used by livestock are not opened. Everything must be considered on a case-by-case basis,
210
and the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman may well be one in which such action would simply not be advisable. I entirely accept that it should not be undertaken until it is safe for that to happen.
According to the English Tourism Council, the tourism industry receives about £12 billion a year from visitors to the countryside, especially in spring and summer. It is an enormous industry, and it is crucial. We are not concerned just about tourism, however. I have mentioned haulage and transport, but other rural businesses not seen as directly connected with tourism would certainly be covered by my proposals.
It is not for me to say whether the royal agricultural show should take place. I suggest that its sponsors speak to local MAFF and veterinary officers, and identify conditions under which it could safely be opened. As long as those conditions can be met, no one will be more pleased than me if the show goes ahead; but if it is decided that they cannot be met, we must accept that judgment for safety reasons.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As the Minister knows, I wrote to him last week commending two or three items that he has included in his package. They are good short-term measures, but they are only short-term. May I urge the Minister to look further? Direct financial compensation will be needed, owing to the disastrous position of many rural businesses.
Does the package cover Wales? Last week, Wales Office Ministers were not even invited to join the taskforce.
Mr. Meacher: As I said a few minutes ago, given the magnitude of the economic impact of this outbreak, no Government would be in a position to compensate each and every business for all the losses it has suffered. What we want to do is enable people to survive the crisis and not go under—to get to the end of it, and then begin to recover their economic strength. If more measures are needed to achieve that, we will certainly consider them.
I understand that a Welsh representative was at the meeting of the taskforce. I stand to be corrected if that is not so, but an invitation was certainly issued. Representatives of all devolved Administrations are invited, and a Welsh representative was present this morning.
I am keen for this to be a United Kingdom initiative, although the work of the taskforce primarily concerns England. It hardly needs to be said that foot and mouth is no respecter of boundaries, and I am keen that we should all act together: that will make our action more effective. It is, however, for the devolved Administrations to decide on the implementation of what is agreed in their own way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed questions on the statement to continue for nearly an hour and 20 minutes, but we must now move on. I thank the Minister for his patience.

Points of Order
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Trade and Industry has in its possession a report into the affairs of a company called Hollis Industries plc. That company was also the centre of a separate investigation by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges because of an allegation that an hon. Member had received an undisclosed payment of £200,000. The Committee, at the time, was unable fully to resolve the matter because of a lack of information.
The point of order is that that information does exist and that it forms part of the report which is held by the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is refusing to publish the report, despite the fact that he has legal powers to do so under section 449 of the Companies Act 1985. The matter therefore constitutes a cover-up for the political convenience of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, can you tell me whether you have received from the Government an indication that they will now explain themselves to the House or provide the necessary documents, so that the House and its Select Committee can get to the bottom of this tangled web of relationships and payments between the late Robert Maxwell and the Labour party and Government of today?
Mr. Speaker: I have received no approach. That is all I can tell the right hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Adoption and Children Bill was published last Thursday, 15 March. On the front cover it states:
"Explanatory Notes to the Bill … will be published separately as Bill 66".
The notes are still unavailable in the Vote Office, despite the fact that, yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said that they would be made available. Consideration on Second Reading will occur next Monday, but the lack of those notes is making preparation for it extremely difficult.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government. However, I hope that those documents are promptly made available to the hon. Lady and to any other hon. Member who is interested in the matter.

Standards and Privileges (Independent Appeals Body)
4.52 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, at the time in question, was chaired by Lord Neill, and the report reviews the first five years working of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The report has been gathering dust for 15 months. The House has been given no opportunity formally to consider the Committee's recommendations, which I think should be debated before the end of this Parliament.
The report expressed concern that our in-house procedures for examining the conduct of hon. Members
"fail to meet the minimum requirements of fairness",
as set out in the Nicholls report.
For hon. Members who are not familiar with the 1999 Nicholls report, I should say that it is a joint report on parliamentary privileges in the Lords and Commons by a Committee which was chaired by Lord Nicholls, who is a distinguished Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Many distinguished Members of this place sat on that Committee, which had a broad spectrum of views on the way we should conduct our proceedings.
The House of course has a perfect right to determine its own rules on the way in which it conducts its affairs. However, I cannot imagine that any hon. Member would claim that the current system is entirely satisfactory. Lord Neill seeks not to change the rules, but to extend the right to an accused Member to appeal against a decision when that Member feels that his affairs have been treated with less concern than might be considered proper.
The Library informs me that, currently, the only way in which an hon. Member can challenge a decision of the Standards and Privileges Committee would be to go to the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg. That is a lengthy and expensive procedure that prolongs the agony and leaves a cloud hanging over the hon. Member concerned. An appeals procedure, as recommended by Lord Neill, would establish a degree of consistency by building up a body of case law and would help to take some of the politics out of these proceedings.
The first recommendation that my Bill would seek to adopt is that
"in serious and contested decisions of the Standards and Privileges Committee the accused MP should have the right of appeal."
The report goes on to say that
"it is likely that a contested case will involve a range of complex legal issues, with conflicts of evidence and legal debates on procedural points … which would be difficult for non-lawyers to control and decide."
For this reason, Lord Neill proposes that what he calls "an investigative tribunal" should be chaired by an independent lawyer such as a senior retired judge, advised on the parliamentary procedures involved by two or four senior Members of the House.
The second recommendation that I believe we should adopt is that Members who receive an adverse ruling and wish to challenge it should be provided with financial

213
assistance to pursue the appeal. It is only when the appeal is dismissed that the Committee should report to the House, along with any recommendations as to penalties.
I have raised these matters on more than one occasion with the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. He has said that he is in favour of these matters being debated and that we should examine the possibility of providing legal advice and expenses to Members who wish to challenge decisions.
Lord Neill is not the only one who has expressed concern about the way in which our current procedures are working. In his retirement report, Sir Gordon Downey—the former commissioner, who worked with the Committee for three years—warned of the dangers of tit-for-tat wars breaking out. One would have to have flown in from another planet not to realise that that prediction has already come to pass.
If we were to adopt Lord Neill's recommendations, I believe that they would bring our disciplinary procedures nearer the concept of natural justice and would go some way towards improving public perceptions of the way in which we conduct our affairs. Whether we like it or not, these are portrayed in the press in a manner that must give cause for the public to wonder precisely what this Chamber is about and where our priorities lie. I commend my Bill to the House.
4.58 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for this opportunity. I shall speak briefly to answer the points of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and—in some limited measure—to oppose them, at least in their emphasis and timing. I do not wish to press this to a vote as it should not be a divisive or a dividing issue. I would be extremely reluctant to see the House divided—whipped or unwhipped—along party lines. What matters in this case primarily is not the feeling in the House, but the feeling in the country.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the points that she raised and the particular perspective that she brings to the matter. She has had personal experience of the House's self-regulation, of the procedures of the commissioner and of the Committee, and of the consequences. There is no doubt that an appeals procedure must be introduced.
I draw the attention of the House to the 21st report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which was agreed unanimously in the 1997–98 Session. The report provides exactly for such a court of appeal, in effect. I was
214
concerned about the case of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Tatton. I believe that Sir Gordon Downey was thorough and fair in his investigations.
I believe, too, that the Committee did its best. I was not a member at the time, but I believe that it could stand by its report. However, an appeal procedure was not available. The commissioner is not a prosecutor and the Committee is not a court of law, but the effect of my predecessor's condemnation was akin to a criminal conviction: as he put it at the time, he was condemned to a life of penury and unemployment. That is why it is necessary for a suitable procedure to be put in place.
I very much hope that, between now and the end of the Session, the House will consider and adopt the suggestions made in the Bill. However, the emphasis must be on restoring public trust in public life. My goodness, we have a long way to go: I am not altogether convinced that this Parliament is held in higher esteem by the public at large than was the previous Parliament.
In the end, the answer lies not with commissioners, Committees and tribunals, but with ourselves. We hon. Members should register our interests. When in doubt, we should ask the commissioner, whom I believe to be one of the outstanding public servants of our time, and the registrar. We should not resort to lawyers, except for basic advice. We should certainly not resort to lawyers to obstruct the work of the Committee and the commission.
I think that the public will forgive us if we are too rigorous, and even nitpicking, in how we deal with these matters. People will not forgive us if we are not rigorous enough.
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 Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Douglas Hogg, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Sir Richard Body.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES (INDEPENDENT APPEALS BODY)
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to implement the recommendations contained in the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 69].
Orders Of The Day

  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  5.3 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have never met anyone yet who has not paid lip service to the need for improvements in special educational needs or disability rights. However, sympathy is of little comfort to parents and children, or to adult men and women who have a disability, when discrimination and lack of rights undermine their efforts to achieve equality of opportunity.
  I had hoped, therefore, that we might have been able to build on the consensus that was developing in the House of Lords. Regrettably, the Opposition have decided to table an amendment, which means that I shall have to go into greater detail on the issues on which the amendment touches that could undermine that consensus.
  It is not that there are no differences of opinion when it comes to achieving disability rights or bringing about equality of opportunity for people with special educational needs. Those differences exist, but debates can be conducted in a way that ensures that we secure the improvement—the step change—that the Bill promises. We can ensure that anomalies are ironed out, that obstacles are removed and that interests that can be promoted without undermining others' well-being are so promoted. [Interruption.] I am being heckled already, even though I plead guilty to saying nothing offensive or controversial—
  Graham Brady: Or meaningful.
  Mr. Blunkett: Or meaningful—I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that remark. I am always in favour of listening to the Opposition, even when they mumble away from a sedentary position.
  I want to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone for the way in which she conducted the Bill's proceedings in the Lords and for being prepared to listen and respond to requests for amendments and alterations in the code and the guidance. It is on that basis that we shall proceed. There were 92 amendments in the House of Lords. Although two thirds of them were technical, 27 were in response to concerns. I intend to continue conducting the Bill and the debate on the code and regulations in the same spirit.
  I am grateful to the Under Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who has been conducting discussions with the various groups, including the consortiums, to get this right. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the
  216
  Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), led the disability rights taskforce towards finding a way forward through difficult areas in relation to further disability rights. We have been able to accept the taskforce's recommendations and can move forward on them.
  The Bill builds on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It enhances disability rights and extends the role of the Disability Rights Commission and the rights established under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. However, there is still a long way to go. Securing rights, not simply through writing them into legislation, but through the changing of attitudes, will take time.
  The Bill is about having an education service that is tailored to the needs of children and the wishes of parents. It squares the circle when one claim sometimes leads to accusations that another set of rights has been infringed. It will overcome the contradictions when words appear to mean one thing but actually mean something else entirely. It was Humpty Dumpty in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" who said:
  "When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
  Mr. John Bercow: That is not original.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is not original because it is from Alice Through the Looking-Glass". [Laughter.] No wonder all the king's horses and all the king's men could not put them together again. What a silly intervention.
  Mr. Bercow: It was a particularly silly quote.
  Mr. Blunkett: It was not. I am all in favour of promoting English literature at its best. The reason I used the quote was very simple: today's reasoned amendment and the interventions of Baroness Blatch in the other place were predicated on a misunderstanding of terminology relating to the needs of the child. If the needs of the child, as put together in a statement, are used by schools to prevent that child from having access to the parents school of choice, words art turned on their head and have the very opposite effect on that child's needs. That is why the debate in the other place, and presumably this debate, need to be predicated on getting right the balance between parental wishes and the avoidance of damage to other children's education.
  We must ensure that we protect others and that, if a school's ability to deliver education adequately is undermined, other facilities are found for youngsters with special educational needs. We must try our utmost to ensure that we have an integrated education service—not necessarily in terms of an individual being placed in a particular school or setting, but we must always try to integrate the opportunity of the child.
  It is always difficult to match parents' needs and requirements to what is available, and it always will be because supply and demand are not perfect. However, all of us want to ensure that, through the maintenance of adequate special school facilities and through meeting specific—sometimes profound—needs, we get that balance right.
  Kali Mountford: I thank my right hon. Friend for the award of more than £16 million that has just been made to Kirklees for special educational needs.

  217
  When considering how to use that money to enhance education for children with special needs, would it not be right for the local education authority to reflect carefully on the words that my right hon. Friend has just spoken and to ensure that the child is at the centre of policy? A range of provisions should be available in the area so that children with both mild and severe learning difficulties can be accommodated in the education system.
  Mr. Blunkett: I agree with that. I am pleased that my hon. Friend's campaign to retain Lydgate school has, apparently, been so successful. I understand that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) visited the school, in a truly non-partisan fashion, to try to secure its future. We were all grateful for her intervention—as was the local council—[Interruption.] That caused a little kerfuffle and stir.
  Mr. Bercow: Get on with it.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am getting on with it. The hon. Gentleman should not be so irritable—[Interruption.]— and irritating. I was about to say something that he would be interested to hear.
  Some right-wing thinkers and commentators on special needs education have something sensible to say. There is a tendency to label youngsters as having special educational needs when all that has happened is that they were poorly assessed as youngsters and poorly taught in school. If we can put that right, neither individuals nor schools will feel that the special educational needs label is required.
  Furthermore, through baseline assessment and the development of the literacy strategy, we can tackle specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, with which I have some familiarity. It is important to be able to identify and thus to address conditions such as dyspraxia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and, indeed, autism in ways that we have not done previously, to try to meet the needs of the child in both mainstream and special schools.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I hope that my right hon. Friend does not mind being squeezed by both sides of Huddersfield in such quick succession. Although some Labour Members disagree with some of Baroness Blatch's comments in another place. some parts of her speeches were good. She put her finger on the fact that there is a lack of consistent research into assessment and long-term outcomes—to consider what we actually do for those children over time. We need such research to check that evaluation is right, that what we are doing is right and that it leads to a successful outcome.
  Mr. Blunkett: I have not spoken to my hon. Friend on this matter, but he inadvertently throws me up an easy ball. I agree with that point. That is why we are putting another £100,000 into research into dyslexia—as I can announce today. That will help us investigate causes and apply best practice. We need to do much more than we did in the past to get that right.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend consider the training possibilities for teachers? He probably knows more than me about the dimensions as regards training or courses.
  Mr. Blunkett: Initial and in-service training programmes are crucial. I pay tribute to the work of
  218
  special educational needs co-ordinators—I shall refer to them henceforth as SENCOs—in learning about, spreading and reinforcing best practice in schools. A great deal of good work on that is taking place. A few years ago, that work would not have been done—that is a non-partisan approach to the situation.
  Some parents are clearly worried whether, even with the best will in the world and the best training, their children will receive the help, support and resources that they need if there is a clearly identified, on-going problem. It is therefore not surprising that parents seek a statement when their children have severe special educational needs.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that the controversy that arose last year about the consultation on the code of practice needs to be put to rest. We were seeking to ensure that a flexible and responsive way forward existed. Clear views were expressed across the range of opinions, suggesting that it would be better if we could secure specificity and clarity through the code of practice. I intend to read into the record our proposals on the code of practice
  We shall make it clear that education authorities are required to specify provision in statements, as they always have been. We shall retain the requirement in the regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on education authorities set out in the Education Act 1996. The code will state clearly that statements should
  "describe clearly all of the child's special educational needs in full; set out the main objectives that the special educational provision aims to meet; specify clearly and in detail the provision required to meet each of the child's needs; describe the arrangements for setting shorter term objectives for the child; describe any special arrangements for the annual review of the statement; stress the importance of the school monitoring and evaluating the child's progress during the year; emphasise the importance of the local education authority monitoring the child's progress toward identified outcomes—with the school".
  The guidance will make it clear that provision may often need to be expressed in terms of hours, equipment or personnel. It will make it absolutely clear that education authorities must not, in any circumstance, have a blanket policy not to quantify the provision in statements. We made a commitment on Report in the House of Lords that we would also enhance the guidance on assessments to make it clear that education authorities should not have blanket policies that prevent those from whom they seek advice from commenting on the amount of provision that they consider appropriate for a child.
  Mr. Phil Willis: May I tell the Secretary of State how much that statement will be welcomed in the special needs world? Will the cash resources that must be made available to meet the provisions that he describes specifically come from the school's budget, or will they come from the local education authority? In either case, where will those resources emanate from?
  Mr. Blunkett: Of course part of the required resources will travel with the statement in terms of the amount allocated. I am intent on not making this a party political matter, which is why it is important that we do not simply delegate resources to schools on a blanket basis, and it is why we must be sensitive to those needs and to retaining

  219
  authorities that can co-ordinate and deliver the necessary provision. Sufficient access funds must be allocated to education authorities, again, to be able to pick out where that investment is required. Those are fairly basic precepts of a system that, in the words of a former Conservative Select Committee Chairman, cannot have 24,000 bobbing corks on a murky sea.
  Mrs. Theresa May: On that point, I am happy to reassure the Secretary of State that our proposals for free schools—although he did not utter that term, I assume that he was alluding to them—make it absolutely clear that the statementing function will remain with the local authority and that the local authority will be funded accordingly.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply grateful for that clarification. On 12 March—only eight days ago—we challenged the hon. Lady about that policy, and she put on record that all the funds would be delegated to schools. That is what she said. Now, at least some of the funds that the education authority—I am sorry, I meant local authority; as Humpty Dumpty rightly said, "Choose words carefully." Local authorities, as opposed to education authorities, which would be abolished, would presumably have the money that the hon. Lady mentioned to allocate according to need.
  I wonder whether the authorities will have the access funds that are being provided. After all, this year alone, we are providing five times more money in access funds than we inherited. By 2003–04, we will provide 10 times more than we inherited, and that money will be applied to meet the needs of the individual child.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the code of practice, but may I raise the specific issue of children suffering from autistic spectrum disorders? I know that he will agree that provision for those children is not what it should be and that the problem goes back many years. In particular, does he agree that there is a problem in pre-school and nursery years when provision for those children often falls between the two stools of the health authority and the local education authority? That is highly unsatisfactory, so will he take this opportunity to spell out how the Bill will address those children's problems?
  Mr. Blunkett: There has been a specific problem in that much of the good work that began—dare I say it—in the early 1970s when Baroness Thatcher held this portfolio has not been taken forward. Real moves were made by local government, central Government and the health service to develop good assessment programmes. Some of them remain, but they have not been accelerated or developed for many years. Therefore, we propose to allocate £25 million over the next three years to develop services in the early years. We shall train staff to ensure that a co-ordinator is linked to every facility for early-years provision. Sub-regional and regional provision will ensure that there can be monitoring, support work and the spreading of best practice. Some £11 million of that sum will go to the specific improvement of services, including joint multi-disciplinary assessment, so that we link the health, social services and education services in a positive regard.
  220
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is today publishing a White Paper on the needs of the young and old alike who have learning disabilities—or mental handicaps as we used to call them. I hope to be able to integrate the policies that we are developing with the proposals in the White Paper to give tens of thousands of those with learning difficulties a much better deal and their families much greater security as they grow older. We shall address both the educational and personal needs of those people.
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way once more, but I would then like to make more progress in case I am accused of not having dealt with the Bill.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In response to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), he described the route by which the money will reach the pupil, through both the local authority and the school. However, although he mentioned additional sources, he did not address the central issue of the amount. Is he saying that resources will not be a problem, whatever the terms of the statement?
  Mr. Blunkett: Of course I am not. Were the resources always available to match supply and demand, we would be living in a happy third-term Labour Government. We are intent on winning the second term first. I can promise that the £3 billion for special needs, which is either devolved or provided through local education authorities, will be used effectively and wisely. Additional resources, both devolved and delegated to schools and enhanced by education authority resources, will be available. Specific funding, such as access funds, will also be provided. That is in addition to the quadrupling of capital spending, which, by allowing us to improve, remodel and rebuild schools, enables us do the job more effectively.
  We want to promote centres of excellence in the special school system and to protect schools that offer an expertise. They should act as a resource that provides peripatetic support to pupils in other schools. We want to ensure that they offer high quality and excellence regionally and nationally. Progress has been made in the regional planning experiments. There cannot be a market in the provision of residential facilities for special needs purposes. There is no guaranteed supportive stream of funding for such facilities, and that knocks schools out. We need to use the co-ordinating structure at a regional level to secure a basic minimum provision that gives parents a choice when they consider their children's requirements and gives us the ability to retain that key expertise for the development of research and for delivery in the future.
  In case people think that there has been a massive acceleration of the closure of residential facilities, let me state the facts. The proportion of children in special residential and day provision has remained almost the same in the past decade, at 1.2 per cent. Some 317 special schools closed in the 10 years between 1987 and 1997; 129 closed between 1997 and today, and 17 will close in the next year—a total of 146 closures within a five-year period. Seven schools are to open this year, which means that 38 new special schools will have opened in the same

  221
  five-year period. I make no party political point, but 317 schools closed in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, and 146 will close in the past five years, with some new schools opening.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Given what the Secretary of State says about the importance of special provision and the need to harness the undoubted expertise that is available, why does the Bill discriminate against non-maintained special schools such as the royal school for deaf children in my constituency? Why does he not want to harness that special expertise?
  Mr. Blunkett: Not only are we not discriminating against non-maintained schools, but we have started to provide them with the devolved revenue and capital that we announced in the last two Budgets. That has not been a feature of any other Government, Labour or Conservative. We have reached out to the non-maintained sector and want to draw it into the regional planning process. If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is a specific problem concerning that school, I shall be happy to address it if he writes to me. We need to retain expertise in a range of provision that would otherwise not be available.
  The Bill is designed to take us one step further on the road to getting this right; it is not the end of the story. I appeal to all hon. Members to ensure that it has a clear passage. I hope that, in the end, no one will be able to suggest that the Government or that Opposition sought party political gain. I certainly do not seek such gain, and I did not do so in the previous Session when mechanisms were used to delay the introduction of the measures under specific regulations.
  The first 10 clauses apply only to England and Wales and cover special educational needs elements. Part II has 30 clauses and covers disability issues in education, with the exception of strategic planning and access functions in Scotland, which are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. Otherwise, the measures in part II apply throughout Britain; they do not include Northern Ireland, because equality is a devolved function.
  Clause 1 contains a commitment to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs where parents wish it and where it is not incompatible with the education of other children.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If there is one part of the Bill about which I have a slight concern, it is that second caveat about the impact on other children. I am concerned that it might be used to justify not placing the emphasis on parental choice which my right hon. Friend and I would like to see.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is one reason for our rejection of the reasoned amendment. A school needs to be able to show that it has made an effort to provide access and to accommodate a youngster. By being inclusive and gaining a reputation for supporting particular needs, some schools have found themselves swamped, and admissions have resulted in them being unable to fulfil the second condition in clause 1. Getting that right is a matter not simply of common sense but of reasonableness on the part of all those who take part in delivering an inclusive service. I have faith that people will get it right, but we need to provide protection to ensure that it happens in practice.
  222
  Clauses 2 and 3 place a duty on the education authority to provide parent partnership services and arrangements for resolving and preventing disputes, which are another important part of getting it right. Clauses 4 to 10 amend existing special educational needs frameworks to streamline the process for parents and to maximise the benefits for children. That means slimming down bureaucracy and administration and making access to rights easier.
  Part II deals with disability discrimination in education. It covers discrimination in schools and in post-16 institutions—that aspect that was not dealt with in the Learning and Skills Act 2000—and contains miscellaneous supporting provisions. Clauses 11 to 16 place new duties on education authorities and schools, including independent and non-maintained special schools in England and Wales, and on local authorities, independent, self-governing and grant-aided schools in Scotland.
  In England, as well as in Wales and Scotland, the new duties include not treating disabled pupils less favourably than pupils who are not disabled, unless there is justification. There is also a duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled pupils are not put at a substantial disadvantage.
  Additionally, in England and Wales there is a new duty to plan strategically and to make progress in improving accessibility to premises and to the curriculum. I mentioned premises earlier, but access to the curriculum is also important. The development of information technology is making that possible in circumstances that did not exist a few years ago, and we should take full advantage of it.
  Clauses 17 to 25 provide enforcement through the special educational needs and disability tribunal in England and Wales and through the sheriff court in Scotland. Clauses 26 to 29 place new duties on colleges, universities and local education authorities in relation to adult education, community education and youth services. Those duties did not exist before, and will be enforceable through the tribunal in England and Wales, and through the sheriff court in Scotland. For adults, enforcement will be through the county court, or its equivalent in Scotland.
  It is important to change attitudes. We cannot bring about a step change in equality simply through legislation. We can set the framework, begin to change the way in which people see problems, and consider ways of overcoming them. We have sought to do so by extending part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by developing the new deal for disabled people, and by creating greater inclusion through the changes in the work of Remploy introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
  We have provided much better non-repayable grants and support for students with disabilities in post-16 and higher education, including part-time and postgraduate students. That provision did not exist before. We can ensure that we apply extra resources to make that happen, as we committed ourselves to do in the Green Paper. However, in the end, there must be a change in attitude and outlook. This will be about seeing ways round problems rather than seeing the problem, and about ensuring that when we talk about an inclusive society, we

  223
  mean it for everyone. Let us all join together in taking yet one more step on the road to equality of opportunity, to inclusion and to social justice.
  5.37 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords] because it does not explicitly give priority to the special educational needs of the child and contains no mechanism for safeguarding a viable choice for parents between types of school.
  This is an important debate because the measures in the Bill will have a significant impact on the educational opportunities and development of children with special educational needs, and particularly those with disabilities. Because this issue is so important, we need to ensure that we get the Bill right, that we discuss it properly and fully, and that we consider its implications. In that connection, I am sorry about the tone that the Secretary of State took in some of his comments on the Bill.
  I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that we support the principle of the Bill—that is, its desire to widen access to mainstream education and to ensure that no artificial barriers are put in the way of providing all children with the education that meets their needs. Much of the Bill builds on work done by the previous Government in the Education Acts of 1981, 1993 and 1996, all of which dealt with special educational needs.
  When considering any legislation of this kind, it is essential to ensure that the needs of the child are paramount, and that the education provided genuinely meets the child's needs and is in their best interests. That focus on the child has driven the work of my colleagues in another place when scrutinising, and tabling amendments to, the Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them and, in particular, to pay tribute to the work of Baroness Blatch, who has done sterling work in examining the detail of the Bill and suggesting improvements to it. In doing so, she has reflected the concerns and interests of parents of children with special educational needs, and the concerns and interests of disability organisations.
  The Bill was initially promised in the Queen's Speech in 1999. We were then promised that the Government would publish a draft Bill, which did not materialise. That is a pity because a Bill such as this, which has a broad sweep of support in principle, is one where an early opportunity to consider a draft Bill would have been welcomed by many, including interest groups which, I know, regretted that they did not have that opportunity.
  Now, however, we have a Bill to consider. As I have said, our approach is driven by the needs and interests of the child. Any approach to the issue must be characterised by a belief that the educational needs of all children must be accommodated; whatever the background, whatever the mental and physical needs or abilities of a child, our education system must be able to meet those needs and interests. It is important that the Bill ensures that schools, local education authorities and others act at all times in the best interests of the child.
  At the moment, the Bill includes important provisions that ensure that the wishes of parents and the interests of other pupils in schools are heard. Indeed, it is necessary
  224
  to consider other pupils in a school and the impact that the inclusion of a child with special educational needs will have on them. There are many examples showing that the inclusion of a disabled child in a mainstream school has enormous benefits for the child and his or her peers. I visit many schools that are already doing good work to include disabled children. Wessex infants school in my constituency has a unit for hearing-impaired children. On Monday, I was in Piggott secondary school in my constituency, which has a number of pupils who are wheelchair users.
  When I visit such schools, I am struck above all by other pupils' attitude—or perhaps I should say their lack of attitude, as they treat disabled children as they do any other member of the class, which is as it should it be. The inclusion of those pupils therefore has a very positive benefit. However, situations will arise in which the inclusion of a child with special educational needs can have a deleterious impact on the education of others. That is most likely to occur when a child has behavioural problems. The inclusion of a particularly disruptive child in a mainstream class can damage the education of others.
  It is therefore right that the Bill includes consideration of the provision of efficient education for other children as well as parents' wishes. However, it does not include a provision which would require action to be taken specifically either in accordance with the special educational needs of the child or in his or her best interests. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State talked about having to balance competing needs and provide an education service tailored to the needs of children. I agree that we need a service tailored to children's needs and that we must balance competing needs. The Bill is flawed because it does not set out and balance those competing needs.
  My colleagues in another place tried without success to insert the phrase
  "the best interests of the child"
  in the Bill. Indeed, on Third Reading in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch said:
  "The primary aim of the Bill is to serve the best interests of the child with special educational needs. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against that from the Government. We have had this debate at each stage of the Bill and Members of all parties have argued in favour of serving the best interests of the child."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 March 2001; Vol. 622, c. 1285.]
  To most people, it is common sense that that should be the Bill's aim. So far, however, the Government have resisted pressure to include such a statement in the Bill, which is one reason why we tabled our amendment.
  The importance of our approach is that it ensures that children with special educational needs are not compelled to attend a maintained school simply as part of some dogmatic drive that sets a target for inclusion above the needs of individual children. The needs of children must be assessed thoroughly, and then those children should be provided with the education that they need.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the system should be structured to meet the needs of the individual child, rater than expecting the child to be structured to meet the needs of the system. In that context, would my hon. Friend consider visiting the admirable Maclntyre school in my constituency, headed by Helen

  225
  Willdridge, which caters magnificently for the interests of children with severe disabilities? It does a wonderful job, but it gets very little praise; it could do with some support.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for rightly pointing out the excellent work done by the school in his constituency. I am happy to visit the school and see the work of the teachers there, and look forward to his further invitation to do so. I am happy to visit schools across the country to see the excellent work carried out in both mainstream and special schools. I make no apology to the secretary of State—who made one or two comments about the fact that I had visited a school in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—for going into schools and listening to parents and teachers about what they consider to be the issues that we politicians should address.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the Jubilee Room just before the debate started, to listen to the concerns of pupils, teachers and parents from Alderman Knight school in Gloucestershire, who feel that their school is under threat because of the Government's actions. Does she regret, as I do, that not a single Labour Front Bencher was able to call in, even for five minutes?
  Mrs. May: Indeed. Those parents, teachers and children were speaking from their hearts and expressing their feelings about the proposed closure of the Alderman Knight school and other special schools in Gloucestershire. Later in my remarks I shall deal with the threat that hangs over so many special schools.
  Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Among all the party political point scoring, is she concerned that as a result of the actions of the Conservative party we could end up losing the entire Bill? Is she concerned that the "needs of the child" condition has been used to deny children places in mainstream schools? That condition is already covered by protections in the Education Act 1996 and overarching legislation in the Children Act 1989. Disabilities charities are satisfied with the conditions set out in clause 1.
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that non-party political intervention. I fully accept that the needs of the various parties in the equation must be balanced. That is why it is important that we do not ignore the best interests of the child by wiping out that condition. Our amendment seeks what Ministers in another place have accepted and what the Secretary of State has accepted in some of his comments. At the heart of the Bill should be the best interests of the child. It is sad that the Government will not write that into the Bill, as that would allow us to balance the competing needs.
  I accept that achieving those best interests and balancing those needs is not always easy. There are occasions when parents are naturally protective of their children and fearful of their inclusion in mainstream schools, when that might be the right solution for a particular child.
  There are also parents such as those whom I met at Thurlow Park school in Lambeth and the Lydgate special school in Colne Valley, and those whom I heard this
  226
  afternoon from Alderman Knight school in Gloucestershire, whose children have tried mainstream schools and have found that while they might be physically included in the mainstream school, they have often been excluded from full participation in the school and from realising their full potential. The same children have blossomed in the special school environment.
  It is only common sense, and fair and just, to include the best interests of the child, alongside those of other children in the school and of parents. The latter two groups are already identified in the Bill.
  Dr. Ladyman: Does not the hon. Lady fear that adding a further caveat to the Bill will be used by some local authorities as an opportunity to override the primacy of the wishes of parents, by saying that they know better what should happen to a child?
  Mrs. May: No. The three parties would be identified, and the need to balance their interests would be written into the Bill. The alternative is the circumstances currently facing parents such as those whom I have mentioned, who want their children to be in special schools and believe that their decision is in their children's best interests, but are forced by a local authority that has an inclusion agenda to opt for a mainstream school.
  Dr. Ladyman: Surely, without the caveat, the Bill ensures the primacy of the parents' wishes in respect not only of mainstream places but of special school places.
  Mrs. May: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), I intend to speak in more detail about special schools. Sadly, the primacy of the interests of special schools is not being maintained. The Bill does not allow it to continue or to be enhanced. We must ensure that children's best interests can be taken into consideration and that their needs are balanced. I accept that that balance can often be difficult to achieve, but if it is not clearly stated that the best interests of the child lie at the heart of the Bill, many children will be unable to develop their full potential. Children will be placed in mainstream education against their interests and their parents' wishes.
  Some of my further points on the specifics of the Bill have also been made by colleagues in another place. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke about the Bill's implications for education in independent special schools. Clause 1 expressly excludes local authorities from paying for places in independent special schools. We have expressed concerns in another place about preventing local authorities from funding such places and from taking into consideration the correct provision for a child and his or her best interests. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he does not believe that that is the case, but clause 1 states that the cost of a place at an independent special school cannot be met by local education authorities.
  I understand that Ministers gave assurances in another place that the ability to fund places in independent special schools is protected in legislation. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 contains provision enabling local authorities to buy places in independent schools, but that required regulations that the Government have been singularly slow to introduce. I assume that the Bill

  227
  revokes that provision anyway. The ability to pay for places in the independent sector is especially important in respect of children who require 24-hour residential places, which are often purchased from the independent sector. It is also important, however, with regard to specialist schools run by disabilities organisations, such as the royal school for deaf children in Margate, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet. If the Opposition are not convinced by the Government's reassurances that local authorities' ability to fund such places remains in place, we will seek to remove the relevant provision in clause 1, which states that proposed new section 316 in the Education Act 1996
  "does not prevent a child from being educated in … an independent school that is not a mainstream school … if the cost is met otherwise than by a local education authority."
  There is, however, a wider threat to independent special schools. Constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have drawn to my attention the problems that parents face in relation to the code of practice, which obliges local authorities to comply with the preference that is expressed by parents for a particular maintained special school. However, the code contains no duty to comply with parents' representations—there can be only representations, and not preferences—regarding independent special schools.
  A further problem exists in relation to the information that local authorities provide to parents. Authorities are required to provide information on maintained special schools so that parents can express a preference, but they are not required to provide information on schools that are in the independent sector or that are provided by voluntary, charity or disabilities organisations. Many such excellent schools currently exist, including the royal school for deaf children in Margate, and we do not want the Bill to remove the ability to give children places in them.
  Mr. Blunkett: We do not want to set any hares running and mislead people outside the House into believing that a measure is being withdrawn when that is explicitly not the case. That is especially important as it relates to what is currently available to parents. The implications of the hon. Lady's comments—the provisions to which she referred do not give necessarily give the same impression—are completely incorrect. We are not withdrawing any current right for a parent to have a place paid for in an appropriate school, whether it is independent or not. That right will apply if such a place is appropriate and the matter is discussed and agreed as part of the process that has been set out this afternoon.
  Mrs. May: I am sure that the matter will be the subject of an interesting debate in Committee. I look forward to considering a Government amendment that clarifies the words in the Bill, which currently state that independent special school places cannot be paid for by a local education authority. If the Secretary of State is saying that that is not his intention—[Interruption.] He remarks that he said what he said, and I accept that, but I suggest that he asks his officials to consider the wording of clause 1. I do not believe that his intention, which I welcome, is reflected by that wording as it currently stands. I look forward to debating the matter further and to considering an appropriate amendment.
  228
  As I said, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about the intention to keep independent special school places available to parents. I trust that he will consider the code of practice with regard to parents' ability to express a preference for an independent special school, as well as to the information that local authorities must make available to parents in respect of the special schools that are suitable for their children, whether they are in the independent or state sectors. I also welcome his comments about the terms of the code of practice in relation to the nature of the statement. Despite the letter that he circulated before Christmas, the issue has continued to cause anxiety among parents. We were previously placed in the difficult position of having to consider the Bill without knowing the content of the code. I am grateful to him for setting out what the Government intend to include in the code to ensure that the ability to specify provision in the statement remains.
  Another continuing concern to which hon. Members have referred is the future of special schools. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said:
  "I want to make it absolutely clear that the inclusion agenda is not a wholesale closure if specialist facilities and schools that meet particular needs of youngsters and their families."—[Official Report, 8 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 259.]
  I welcome that statement, but many Opposition Members, parents, teachers and governors are worried by the fact that a number of local education authorities have decided—some claim to be under behind-the-scenes pressure from the Department—to pursue an inclusion agenda that leads inexorably to the closure of special schools. I have visited a number of special schools, some of which were concerned about that issue and about the possibility of closure. Government figures show that there are now 1,000 fewer special schools places than there were in 1997. If parents are to have the real choice that the Government want to establish through the Bill by saying that parents' wishes should be met, there must be diversity of provision for children and it is vital that special schools can be maintained.
  As more children are integrated into mainstream education where that is right for them, the number requiring special schools is falling. However, a more worrying process is at work. Local education authorities simply stop statementing children or so drag their feet over statementing that children do not enter special schools. Those schools then close, not because parents have chosen another school but through a process of stealth. That point was specifically made to me by the parents and governors I saw from Alderman Knight special school in Gloucestershire, who said that that was happening in the county.
  Parents of children at Kingswode Hoe school in Colchester, whom I met recently with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), are also concerned about that. In a letter to the Secretary of State, a member of the Kingswode Hoe action group said:
  "To apply the limited success stories and suggest Inclusion works for all children with special needs is a gross misinterpretation of the truth. One cannot apply a blanket rule for all children.
  Parents of children Who attend special needs schools recognise the difference in education that they have to offer. Many parents may have experienced a failed Mainstream education for their special needs children who then subsequently flourish in a Special needs school setting. There is no need for radical change. Surely the task in hand would be to improve even more on what we already have rather than set a policy in motion which may adversely affect these young more vulnerable members of our society."

  229
  The same concern has also been raised by parents from Alderman Knight and other special schools—those who are members of the Gloucestershire special schools protection league—who clearly make their point:
  "Inclusion has never been the issue!
  Our dispute with the LEA concerns:
  The right of parents to choose the most appropriate type of provision for their child.
  The right of each child to be educated in an environment in which they feel secure and can realise their potential.
  We also do not expect miracles. We do, however, expect that after several years of little progress and often misery for the child, it should be recognised that this provision"—
  that is, mainstream provision—
  is not appropriate and that transfer to a special school should be routine. We do not expect to encounter obstruction and even downright lies in support of a dubious political objective.
  Surely it can be of little surprise to anyone that parents are united in support of these excellent schools in which we have seen our children flourish, when so many of us have direct experience of the failure of the alternative on offer."
  That is where the balanced approach is important.
  I fully accept that, over the years, some children with special educational needs and some disabled children who would have flourished in the mainstream have not had the opportunity to go into mainstream education and develop their potential in the way that was right for them. However, in remedying that wrong, we must make sure that we do not create another wrong for those children for whom special schools are the appropriate provision. Ensuring that that choice is available is extremely important.
  We must also ensure that the needs and best interests of the child are at the heart of our actions. The wishes of the parents must be accommodated in the best interests of the child when it is right for that child to attend a special school.
  I want briefly to touch on two issues. The first is the cost implications of the Bill, which have been referred to in a number of interventions. The Government have given the impression that putting the Bill into practice will have few cost implications, but if its consequence is a significant shift towards more children with special educational needs being educated in the mainstream, there certainly will be a cost implication, and inclusion without the necessary resources is less likely to work. That is not in the interests of the child and it will also put enormous strain on teachers.
  As a result, a child with special educational needs or other children in the class may not receive the quality of education that they deserve. I do not want the Bill to raise parents' expectations only for them to be dashed because the resourcing and funding needed to make it work properly are not available and because the Government have not made a proper assessment of the implications of the cost of that legislation.
  Secondly, we must also ensure that teachers are involved in decisions on whether educating a particular child in the mainstream will affect the education of other children. It is important that teachers' professional judgment is involved in that decision and in making such assessments.
  The official Opposition support the Bill's intention to ensure that children with special educational needs whose interest will best be met by a place in a mainstream school
  230
  are able to access such a place, but we must not be driven by some dogmatic inclusion agenda that pursues inclusion for its own sake rather than for the benefit of children. We shall give the Bill the fair and detailed consideration that it deserves and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond, as he said this afternoon he would, to the concerns that we have raised. Above all, our comments and any amendments that we might table will be driven simply by the best interests of the child.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I welcome the Bill with great enthusiasm for two simple reasons—it will strengthen the right to mainstream education for disabled children and children with special educational needs, where their parents wish it, and, under part II, it will outlaw discrimination in education on the ground of disability. Thus, it will put right a major flaw in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—namely, the exclusion of education from part III
  The objective for us all is to create a society in which everyone can participate fully as equal citizens, but we have a long way to go in respect of disabled people, who are twice as likely to be out of work and to have no formal qualifications. Education provision for disabled children and disabled adults is central, and appropriate education in an environment free of discrimination is essential, as it is the foundation on which so much else rests.
  Therefore, I welcome the great changes being introduced by this radical and progressive measure. I congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on the Bill, the high priority they have given it and on the extensive consultation. It has given rise to much debate and my files, like those of every other hon. Member, are full of comments from the detailed consultation exercises.
  The Government have done the most thorough job imaginable and the consultation has secured overwhelming support for the Bill. Therefore, I was genuinely saddened and not a little angry to read the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which asks hon. Members to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. I know of no organisation in the country, apart from the Conservative party, that wants the measure to be blocked tonight.
  The special education consortium, which represents 247 bodies including the major disability organisations, parents' groups, children's groups and local authorities, says, "We want this Bill and we want it now." I have the privilege to be secretary of the all-party disablement group. I therefore checked our minutes carefully and the SEC told us that this is the Bill that
  "the sector had wanted since 1995"—
  the year of the much-flawed Disability Discrimination Act.
  The SEC wants the Bill on the statute book
  "at the earliest possible opportunity".
  The organisation, which speaks for virtually every disability group and for parents, local authorities and children, is not the only one that wants the Bill. The Disability Rights Commission has said:
  "Disabled children and adults, and their families, would find it hard to understand if such an excellent piece of legislation did not reach the statute book."

  231
  The Royal National Institute for the Blind strongly welcomes the Bill and has said:
  "It is vital that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible."
  The Royal National Institute for Deaf People very much welcomes the Bill and has also said:
  "It is vital that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible."
  Scope has said that the Bill
  "is a huge step forward"
  and wants it to have a "swift passage". The Local Government Association has welcomed the Bill, and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has called for no delay in its implementation. Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities,
  "welcomes the legislation warmly"
  and wants to see it become law as soon as possible. I will happily give way if the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) can name one organisation of disabled people or one parents' organisation that does not want the Bill to get a Second Reading.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Surely it is clear that the Conservative party welcomes the Bill in general terms, because it builds on our own success with the three Bills that we introduced in our time in government that dealt with special educational needs. However, we question certain aspects of the Bill, and the purpose of any amendment on Second Reading is to make those concerns concrete, which is exactly what we are doing.
  Mr. Berry: The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition states:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill".
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Because.
  Mr. Berry: Yes, the amendment gives reasons, but a little more effort would have made its terms slightly more persuasive. It does not say that the Conservatives welcome the Second Reading of the Bill and will propose amendments in Committee to improve it further.
  Mr. Gale: I think that I am right in saying that every organisation that the hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid, while welcoming the Bill, has also sought amendments to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a point relating to a school in my constituency. Conservative Members have learned the hard way that the Government do not listen and will not accept amendments, even intelligent amendments, to Bills, which is why we must go down a road that none of us would choose to go down. If the Government would listen, things would be different.
  Mr. Berry: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had thought that this was a Second Reading debate. I shall show that in the other place the Government have listened on a number of matters, and I am pleased about that. I may even, if tempted, list areas where I think there is scope for modest refinement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the outset of the debate that these are extremely important matters,
  232
  so presumably intelligent adults, let alone Members of the House, may offer a few views. I am simply saying that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to decline a Second Reading to the Bill when every disability organisation supports it.
  Mrs. May: The purpose of a Second Reading debate is to consider the principle behind a Bill. One of the key principles of the Bill that concerns us is that it does not put the best interests of the child at the heart of the legislation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best interests of the child should be the aim of the Bill?
  Mr. Berry: Education legislation should be clear on what education authorities are supposed to do, and of course the interests of the child are extremely important. Clearly, I have touched a raw nerve, and I was hoping to be non-political. I was slightly confused by the Opposition amendment. Perhaps they are now saying that they will support Second Reading.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman went through a long list of charities that he reckons support the Bill. Not one of those charities has contacted me in Gloucestershire. Could it be because they are beginning to see the reality of the Government's policy through the wholesale closure—despite the Secretary of State's denial—of special schools in the county? Is that why those organisations in Gloucestershire do not support the Bill?
  Mr. Berry: I was not "reckoning" that those organisations support the Bill: I was quoting what they had said to me in writing. I can let the hon. Gentleman have my file of letters. With respect, if the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the position taken on the Bill by those organisations that is his problem.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend forgets to tell Conservative Members that the special education consortium not only welcomes the Bill, but it is so anxious to get the legislation that it is seeking no further amendments to it.
  Mr. Berry: Indeed, that is correct.
  Part I amends the current framework for special educational needs, and most of the debate has so far focused on that. I want to say a few words about part II, which amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: I can produce written evidence from two organisations that would not want to be missed off my hon. Friend's list. The Local Government Association and the National Association of Head Teachers have written to all Members supporting the Bill.
  Mr. Berry: I am extremely grateful for that contribution. I do not of know about the postal services in Tewkesbury, but everyone else seems to be aware of the support of those organisations.
  Part II addresses a major gap in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which did not embrace education in equal rights legislation. The Bill is a major

  233
  plank in the Government's strategy to secure comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people.
  I am tempted to say—I cannot resist temptation—that the 1995 Act was not introduced because the Government of the day wanted it. Indeed, they had been assiduous in trying to prevent such legislation. They had blocked a previous Bill in such a ham-fisted and devious manner that it led to a massive public outcry, and the DDA was introduced on the hoof. It is frequently pointed out that when the Bill came back from the other place there were more pages of amendments tabled by the then Government to their own legislation than there were pages in the original Bill. I mention that merely to point out that the DDA was drafted on the hoof by a Government who did not want it. It is hardly surprising that the DDA is seriously flawed: it did not provide for a Disability Rights Commission; it contained a too narrow definition of disability and a small firm exemption under the employment provisions; and it excluded education.
  After the election, the Government set up the taskforce to consider how best to proceed—initially, with the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission. That provision reached the statute book in 1999, and the commission opened its doors in April last year. The Government have recently responded to the taskforce's recommendations for further improvements in legislation. It is important to put this Bill in that context.
  I am delighted that, on the definition of disability, the DDA is to be extended to provide legal protection to those with non-symptomatic cancer or HIV, that small employers are to be covered, and that, before Christmas, in the other place, the Government inrtroduced this Bill on access to education. This is part of wider and substantial disability agenda.
  There is still a lot to do, as my right hon. Friend said, and we could all raise some issues for attention in the future. However, by any fair assessment, there is a dramatic contrast between the Governnment's policies on disability and those of their predecessor. I am proud to be a supporter of a Government with such a record. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, past and present, who have brought about these progressive changes. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). who is present, and her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), have worked on the disability rights agenda, and I am proud to be associated with them. They have done and are doing a fantastic job.
  I want to refer to funding, and particularly the schools access initiative, which my right hon. Friend has already mentioned. Although we all know that the provision of more public money is not the only way in which to improve people's lives, on many occasions it makes a fair amount of difference, and this initiative is a classic example of that.
  While I am in the mood for congratulation, let me congratulate Scope and the National Union of Teachers. Readers of the New Statesman—who, no doubt, include Members in all corners of the Chamber—will have observed an advertisement in this week's issue congratulating the Government on their spending programmes for the schools access initiative. One of the first documents that I read on becoming a Member of
  234
  Parliament in 1992 was a report produced by Scope and the NUT, entitled "Within Reach." It basically said "We really do not know very much about access". A year later, the two organisations produced a report telling us rather more about the subject—and, I am delighted to say, the schools access, initiative was established by the last Government as a result.
  The New Statesman advertisement reminds me that allocations have increased dramatically under the present Government. My right hon. Friend has already given the figures. The fact that we are currently spending five times more on the access initiative than the last Government spent during their last year in office, and that in two years' time we shall be spending 10 times as much, illustrates the priority that we have attached to the programme. It is a wonderful programme, which deals with key access issues. The standards fund for special educational needs has also been increased dramatically: this year it will be three times larger than it was during the final year of the last Government.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Conservatives also consider the report on schools access to be constructive and worth while? It is not merely a paean of praise for the past practice of either Government; it issues some interesting and pointed directions for the future, suggesting that there should be—as it were—better access to the access initiative, and that it should be distributed more equitably in that more schools should be made aware of it.
  Will the hon. Gentleman accept that as constructive comment, which is what it was intended to be?
  Mr. Berry: With pleasure: I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman has said.
  As we know, the Bill was considered at length in the other place. I now recognise the relevance of my right hon. Friend's invocation of Humpty Dumpty: it was especially apt in view of what I have heard so far, and, more important, what I discovered when I read the record of debates in the other place.
  The Government have given a number of welcome undertakings as a result of those debates, but I feel that three issues are still worthy of comment. Clause 1 is a Humpty Dumpty clause, is it not? To a large extent, it is a question of how people interpret certain words and phrases. Under the Bill as it stands, a pupil with special educational needs and a statement must be educated in a mainstream school, unless that is incompatible with the wishes of the parent or the efficient education of other children. I realise that the Opposition would like a third condition to be included. May I make a comment that I do not intend to be dogmatic? It relates to an issue that others have raised. Of course I respect the wishes of parents, but it must be said that the wishes of a parent and those of a child are not exactly the same.
  In the other place, there was much discussion of how the child's best interests and the wishes of the child—the child's voice—could be taken into account. Comparisons were made with the provisions of the Children Act 1989, which require account to be taken of the child's wishes. The Government argued that, if such a provision were included in this Bill, children who could benefit from inclusion could be prevented from gaining a mainstream place. That is possible, but it is not entirely obvious that it would happen.

  235
  I welcome the Government's assurance that the child's views would be given clear prominence, as an important principle in the revised code of practice. This is a difficult problem to which I can offer no simple solution, but which we need to address increasingly as society pays more attention to the views of children as well as those of their parents.
  I note that the taskforce did not recommend the retention of the condition relating to efficient education. I agree with my noble Friends Lord Ashley, Lord Morris and Lord Rix—I usually agree with them on matters such as this—that reference to efficient education could leave a loophole enabling local education authorities to exclude from mainstream education SEN children who would otherwise benefit from it. However, I acknowledge the Government's assurance that mainstream places would be refused in only a small number of cases.
  My final reservation is one that some of my colleagues are expecting. The Bill refers to the remedies available to disabled children who experience discrimination. The Government have argued that if a child experiences discrimination on the ground of disability, the educational remedy is appropriate. I consider that remedy to be the most important, but I agree with what was said about the issue in the other place. It was pointed out there that if a child were refused a place on a school trip on the ground of race or gender, the case could be pursued, with financial compensation being a remedy at the end of the day. Under the Bill, if a child were refused a place on the trip on the ground of disability, financial compensation would not be possible.
  I appreciate that, given the way in which the new tribunals are being structured, the Government rightly want to minimise antagonism and conflict. I am reluctant to say more than this: there is currently an inequity in the approach to discrimination in education, which depends on whether that discrimination takes place on the ground of disability or on the ground of race or gender. I hope that the maximum range of remedies will be considered in regard to disability discrimination.
  Despite those small reservations, I think that the Bill constitutes a massive step forward. More important, disability organisations, parents' groups and local education authorities see it as such. A number of organisations have gone out of their way to tell most Members that they think it should be passed as quickly as possible, and I hope that no Member will do anything to prevent that this evening. This is a landmark Bill, which should be supported with enthusiasm.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: 1 welcome the Bill, and pay tribute to the way in which it was handled in another place. It was handled in just the way a Bill of such sensitivity should be handled. I am thinking especially of the Government's responses to criticisms from, in particular, lobbying organisations. Bills of this kind should not be dealt with in a party political fashion. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was right to say that the Bill is yet another staging post along the route on which we started in 1979 with the Warnock report, and on which we have travelled since.
  236
  Liberal Democrat Members welcome the Bill's two underlying themes. First, disability should never be a barrier to access to mainstream education. I do not think that any hon. Member would not support that principle. Secondly, unlike some official Opposition Members, we believe that there should be a presumption that, whenever possible, children with special educational needs or with disabilities should be educated with their peers. We believe that that is an issue of natural justice that should be enshrined in law, and that the Bill goes some way towards meeting that goal.
  We welcome many of the Bill's provisions. The establishment of parent partnerships to try to resolve disputes is one of the issues that has bedevilled special needs education for so long. I have been closely associated with that issue for many years. Nothing is more unseemly than to hi ye a dispute about where to place a child with special needs or to argue about a child's statement. There have often been such disputes, and we welcome action to resolve them.
  The Government expect that the Bill will enable, both at local education authority level and at school level, planning for access for youngsters with special educational needs. That issue has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but we welcome that provision. However, in Committee we shall be arguing for a proper implementation timetable. It is no good simply saying that we should have planning. As we know from so much experience in schools and local education authorities, planning can become a distant ambition rather than a means of producing tangible outcomes.
  Liberal Democrat Members also support the Bill's minor provision on the duty to inform parents if their child has a special educational need. It might seem obvious, but there are still many cases in which schools do not inform parents of such needs, even when children have been placed on stage 1 or stage 2 of the register. It is important that parents should be informed, although it is often hurtful to parents to receive the information.
  We welcome the fact that the Bill addresses the issue of disability discrimination, to which I shall return later in my speech. We particularly welcome removal of the third caveat, in section 316 of the Education Act 1996, on the efficient use of resources. That was a cop-out clause, then section, and we are delighted that it is being removed.
  We particularly welcome the emendations to section 329 in the 1996 Act, as they will allow schools or other responsible bodies to begin the statementing process. So often, relying solely on parents or on some other type of intervention to begin the process has bedevilled the child's best interests. I hope that, in her reply, the Minister will clarify whether parents will have the right to veto the process once it has been started by a school. I support the principle of allowing schools to begin the process, but we should know where the duty of the school or other responsible body—such as a health authority—to the child begins and where the parents' duty ends.
  I closely followed the debate on the Bill in the other place. Lord Northbourne, Lord Rix, Lord Ashley, Baroness Darcy de Knaythe and my hon. Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford made particularly cogent contributions in speaking to various amendments. Lords Rix and Ashley have of course contributed for many years to disability rights and special needs legislation. We appreciate their many contributions.

  237
  Despite what I shall say in a moment, I think that it would be churlish not to express our thanks to Baroness Blatch. Her scrutiny of the Bill in another place was, to put it mildly, very thorough, and it was consistent with much work done by previous Conservative Administrations since 1981. Indeed, the way in which those Administrations progressed from Baroness Warnock's 1979 report to the 1981, 1993 and 1996 Education Acts, to make special needs a real issue in schools, was one of the hallmarks of those Administrations—[interruption.] Perhaps it was too good to last.
  I think that the hon. Member for Kingswood was a little churlish in his comments on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Although one tends to remember the unseemly scenes of father and daughter fighting that was important legislation. I pay tribute to the fact that it was passed.
  How sad, however, that on Third Reading in the other place, and, today, on Second Reading in this place, the official Opposition should sink so low as to seek to stop the Bill's progress. It is especially sad when one considers the record of those past Governments and the record of some of their colleagues in the other place.
  Baroness Blatch and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) purport to raise as their standard the best interests of the child, and they do so as if the best interests of the child were not already enshrined in a host of legislation. It is sad that anyone working with children in schools, local authorities or the independent sector should not have children's best interests at heart. Although I appreciate why Conservative Members are seeking to make the change, it is sad that we should have to make such provision in legislation.
  Conservative Members believe that the omission of such provision in the Bill is sufficient reason to deny all children with special educational needs; and disabilities the opportunities that the Bill would make possible. Denying them that opportunity would be the consequence of accepting Conservative Members' reasoned amendment.
  The amendment is only a hollow gesture. The best interests of the child will be served by guaranteeing that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the general election. Every one of the special needs and disability lobbyists who have been involved in the issue over very many years will never forgive Conservative Members if they halt the Bill's progress.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has the issue upside down. People who have children with special educational needs are concerned that their children will not receive an appropriate education. Can he also tell us why the Liberal Democrats in Gloucestershire have driven through a closure programme since publication of the Government's Green Paper?
  Mr. Willis: I cannot speak for my colleagues in Gloucestershire or elsewhere; they must speak for themselves. Clearly, they are elected locally to act in the best interests of youngsters in Gloucestershire, and I have no doubt that they have done so to the very best of their abilities.
  Mr. Robertson: They have done their best to close schools.
  Mr. Willis: As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said, the record of the previous Conservative
  238
  Government shows that as many special schools closed between 1992 to 1997 as between 1997 and now. I am not in a position to know whether it was right or wrong to close those schools. The reality is that schools close as the education system moves on. I have often been involved in school closures.
  Mr. John Hayes: The Secretary of State did not relate the number of school closures to demand. The truth is that over the 15-year period detailed by the Secretary of State, the number of statements has risen dramatically and our understanding, identification and analysis of special needs have moved on apace. To quote numbers irrespective, and out of the context, of changing demand is disingenuous and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will dissociate himself from it.
  Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. He surprises me, as he has not done his homework. He has looked at one side of the argument. He is right that the number of statements has increased dramatically, but the number of students who are in special schools has remained fairly constant, at about 98,000 to 100,000 for each of the past 10 years. To answer the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), that means that in some places special schools will close and in others they will open. That is the nature of an evolving education system. We must not simply create an education system in aspic. However, I will return to the subject of special schools; no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be delighted with what I have to say.
  Miss Anne Begg: Just because the number of children with statements has risen does not necessarily mean that the desire for places in special schools has risen. There is a recognition that many children in mainstream education need records of need, in Scotland, or statements, in England and Wales.
  Mr. Willis: I am pleased to echo the hon. Lady's comments.
  The one thing that I thought was missing from the speech of the hon. Member for Maidenhead was how special needs and the provisions of disability legislation would he delivered in free-for-all schools. How is that to be achieved? We have had two U-turns within eight days on the free schools policy, but there has been a dramatic U-turn today also. Suddenly, special needs responsibility is no longer to be completely devolved to schools, but will be held by the successor body.
  Mr. Boswell: I hope that we can now close this silly argument. Right from the first day the free schools policy was enunciated, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have made it clear that the assessment and statementing process will remain a local authority function. There is nothing new. It is merely a reiteration of something that we decided more than 18 months ago.
  Mr. Willis: That is yet another revelation; something that many hon. Members will have heard for the first time. The £540 extra that every school is to get for every student includes all the funding for special needs, transport and every other administrative cost. The Conservatives cannot say on the one hand that they will

  239
  give that to schools and, on the other, that they will keep the most expensive functions centrally. Where is the money to come from? Perhaps the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will explain later. Some 24,500 separate schools—each with its own independent admissions policy—would mean that special educational needs and disabilities provision would be put back at least 10, if not 20, years. That is too horrendous to contemplate.
  Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that the Conservatives want to give these powers to local authorities, having abolished the need for such local authority powers in legislation they passed when in government?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would wish me to get back to the Bill.
  My noble Friend Baroness Sharp was castigated on Third Reading in the House of Lords for changing her mind in respect of supporting the amendment on the interests of the child that was proposed to clause 1. I defend her, because she bothered to listen to all the organisations that wanted the amendment dropped, and responded accordingly. She was right not to allow an amendment in the House of Lords that would have ping-ponged here and back again and would have had exactly the effect that the hon. Member for Maidenhead and her hon. Friends want—to delay the Bill and to prevent it being enacted before the general election. That is shameful, and I am delighted that my noble Friend was tough enough to stand up to the bullies in the other place.
  Mr. Hayes: I have enormous admiration for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of and commitment to these subjects, but he is again being slightly disingenuous. The Conservative party did not choose when to propose the Bill. The Conservative party will not choose when to hold the general election. Frankly, to suggest that the squeezing of the Bill into its narrow timetable is somehow the responsibility of the official Opposition is a distortion of the facts.
  Mr. Willis: That intervention was not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. He knows that my hon. Friends and I met the Secretary of State nearly 18 months ago to give our support to the Bill and to ensure that it reached the statute book. We were committed to ensuring that we tabled amendments and debated the principal issues, but we wanted to see the Bill on the statute book.
  During the Third Reading debate in the House of Lords, we were able to extract from the Government an important change to the original clause 12, which would have driven a coach and horses through attempts to make sure that young people were able to get mainstream education. That clause contained a number of caveats—concerning, for instance, the need to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards, and the financial resources available to the responsible body—all of which would have undermined exactly what the Government, my party and, I hope, the official Opposition are trying to do with the Bill.
  My association with special needs education goes back a long way. I have spent almost the whole of my life in schools where there have been significant populations of
  240
  disadvantaged youngsters and children with special needs. Working in Chapeltown in the late 1960s convinced me that unless we could educate the whole community together—wherever they came from and whatever their needs or disabilities—frankly, we would breed dysfunctional communities. It is a point of principle to me and my colleagues that inclusive education goes to the heart of the education system.
  As head of two schools in Middlesbrough and Leeds, I found it interesting to see the development take place. When I see the posturing of certain hon. Members, I think of those young people who have been denied access to mainstream education simply because of the local authority area in which they lived: the post code lottery. That cannot be right and, hopefully, the Bill—and in particular the comments of the Secretary of State earlier—will have made that clear.
  Current legislation may have been well intended, but the caveats in section 2 of the 1981 Act—repeated by section 316 of the 1996 Act—allowed LEAs and schools to refuse entry to children on the grounds of the efficient use of resources. That was not right. Ricky Corner, a youngster severely disabled by thalidomide, was in my school in Middlesbrough 20 years ago. He would not have been allowed to sit on the science bench, using his mouth and toes to do his science experiments, in a great number of schools; but thanks to an enlightened local authorityCleveland—and the dedicated staff whom I worked with, he could at ours. That was 20 years ago.
  Carrie, a girl with Down's syndrome—she caused a lot of work for me—and severe behavioural difficulties would not have been allowed to enter most schools in Leeds when I was there in the 1980s, but thanks to the support of the local authority and dedicated staff, she could enter ours.
  Mark was totally blind and came from one of the most deprived estates in Leeds. With his inspirational teacher at the school for the blind, he fought to be allowed to enter mainstream education. He would not now be a lawyer in one of London's main firms had it not been for inclusive education and the results that it achieved. I rejected that young man because my school had four blocks, each of which had stairs. I did not think that Mark would be able to cope, but other people persuaded us that he would cope, and that he should be allowed to cope. That made a huge difference.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time, and I appreciate the moving examples he has cited. However, does he accept that similar examples could be offered of children who plead to be allowed to go to special schools?
  Mr. Willis: I certainly agree that it is not an either/or proposition. People who say that it is are wrong. Each child must be considered as an individual: my premise is that no child should be denied access to mainstream education simply because of his or her special need or disability.
  Thousands of examples of children such as Ricky, Carrie or Mark could be cited, but I contend that the real advantage of inclusive education is felt not by the child with a disability, but by the rest of the community. That important principle needs to be understood. We live in a world that is embarrassed by physical, sensory or

  241
  cognitive impairment. People who are different are perceived as a threat, but I assure the House that that does not happen when children grow up together in school communities. Ensuring that children grow up together in that way will help to overcome a great many barriers.
  On 1 March, Lord Baker said in the House of Lords that never in his 30 years as a Member of Parliament had parents of a child with a disability or with special needs come to him and asked that their child be allowed to go to a mainstream school. I found that a really sad comment, because parents come to me with exactly that request all the time. The real crisis in my constituency, and with the local authority with which I worked, is that so many parents want their children to be normal and to enjoy the same opportunities as other children. I am saddened that we cannot give them that chance.
  The hon. Member for Kingswood was right when he mentioned all the organisations that have written to us. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury has not received the same series of letters—perhaps they have not been sent to Gloucestershire.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I wonder why.
  Mr. Willis: So do I, but I am pretty sure that all the disability and special educational needs organisations are not conspiring against Gloucestershire. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will receive the letters.
  All the organisations want the Bill to go forward, but a number of matters need to be addressed. We touched on the question of resources earlier. We can use all the fine words and say all the nice things that we like, but they will come to nought without the resources to back them up. As the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, the Secretary of State's response to me was totally inconclusive: the Bill is litter with resource implications, but he did not say where the extra resources would come from.
  Plans cannot be made for access programmes in every school in a local authority area without incurring a bill of significant size. I accept that £222 million over three years is being made available for access, but that will just scratch the surface. That total, divided by all the schools in England and Wales, comes to about £10,000 a school over three years. The research by the NUT and Scope entitled "Within Reach" said that £625 million was needed to meet access needs in schools.
  No mention has yet been made of the fact that the Bill also covers further and higher education. In the further education sector, £172 million has been allocated for access, but the small print makes it clear that colleges can get that money only if they find match funding. So £172 million will have to be taken out of further education budgets that are incredibly tight already in order to access the £172 million from the Government. That is not acceptable, given that the Bill is a piece of primary legislation that requires colleges to act.
  The next problem has to do with revenue funding. The Secretary of State has made vague commitments—and he was vague again today—about money coming from the standards fund. Other hon. Members may know differently, but my experience is than, every school that I visit is using its standards fund money to the hilt. There
  242
  is no spare money sloshing around in that fund at the moment, which means that something would have to be cut to provide the necessary extra resources. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will not say that the £25 million announced today is sufficient to meet all the requirements: it is not.
  Two major elements of expenditure are involved in ensuring access to the curriculum. The first is staff training: inclusive education means that every member of staff in a school has to be trained. There is nothing in the Government's proposals to say that that is a requirement or need, or that what goes on in teacher training establishments will be changed. However, if inclusive education is to be the norm, the question of staff training must be dealt with.
  The second element of expenditure arises out of ensuring access to the curriculum. It is no good if children can access buildings but not the curriculum. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned the impact of information and communication technology. The effect will be profound, as children with sensory, physical and sight impairments will be able to use equipment and machinery. However, it is enormously expensive to put loops into every classroom, to invest in ICT that is supportive of youngsters with disabilities, to acquire adapted technology, and to establish the necessary support in the school infrastructure. The Government must come clean and say where the extra resources will come from.
  My final point on the question of resources has to do with statements. All hon. Members in the House today—and, I presume, over the past 10 years—will be used to parents saying at surgery meetings that what is contained in the statements that they have received is not being delivered. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he has made a clear statement today about responding to criticisms of the code of practice, and we must praise him for that. However, it has been noted already that there has been a 27 per cent. increase in the number of statements issued since 1994. We have been told that resourcing for that is not guaranteed, but statements make no particular difference if they are not supported by the necessary resources. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to that point in due course.
  I shall conclude by dealing with special schools. One myth is that those of us who fervently support the inclusive agenda are somehow against special schools. and that the proposition is therefore either/or. Another myth is that special schools are closing by the day, that soon none will be left and that no one will be able to make a choice in the matter. In that regard, Gloucestershire is clearly different from the rest of the United Kingdom, but I must take the word of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on that point.
  I mentioned earlier that the number of youngsters going to special schools has been virtually unchanged for the past 10 years. The reality is that it is unlikely to change in the next 10 years as well. We will still need significant special school education provision for many of our youngsters. However, the disabilities and needs of children in special schools are becoming ever greater because the inclusive agenda ensures that youngsters who can move into mainstream education are doing so. We must therefore look at special schools in a different way.
  We must re-examine the role of special schools in our school communities and education services. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who is no

  243
  longer in his place, touched on this. I see special schools not simply as centres of excellence but as research and development establishments for good practice that can be spread across the entire education service. Special schools need to be linked, in research terms, to universities to make sure that we are always at the leading edge of education provision, in terms not simply of teaching aids but of teaching methodology elsewhere
  This is an interesting and worthwhile Bill. I earnestly hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead, who has, like the grand old Duke of York, marched her troops to the top of the hill, will decide to take them back down again and support the Bill's Second Reading.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: For the reasons so well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I support this very good piece of legislation.
  I am sure that this debate will attract many expert and informed contributions, such as the one we have just heard from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Unlike many of the other hon. Members who may seek to catch your eye in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no such experience on which to draw. I have no significant background in the issues with which the Bill deals. However, when I practised law, I was regularly in front of the sheriff court representing families whose children should have had records of needs—or statements, as they are known in England. I also represented families whose children had records of needs but whose local education authority could not provide the resources necessary to fulfil the demands that those records of needs entailed. I always felt that that was a distinctly inappropriate way in which to deal with matters relating to education.
  The second half of the Bill applies to Scotland and if it improves the situation there in any way, it will have served a significant purpose. I will come back in a few moments to the role that the sheriff court plays in education in Scotland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way to me on that vital point. So many education authorities did not make statements because they did not have the necessary finance. Will the hon. Gentleman join Opposition Members in pressing the Government to provide the extra resources that will be needed to make the Bill what we want it to be?
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Resources are, of course, the key to delivering the Bill's objectives. I am speaking post evolution, at a time when the responsibility for providing such resources in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive, which is answerable to the Scottish Parliament. Already more resources are being made available for education in Scotland. The delivery of those resources in some respects increases the distinctiveness of Scotland's system of education from that in England and Wales.
  I am satisfied that the Government will deliver the resources that are necessary to achieve the objectives of this legislation in Scotland. My local authority is already doing a significant amount in that respect.
  244
  As I said, I am a relative newcomer to these issues, and I am very grateful to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Scotland and to Children in Scotland for helping me to understand some of these provisions and to work my way through the implications for Scotland. I could have doubled the list cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood of organisations supporting the legislation, wishing it a fair wind and wishing to see it enacted very soon, simply by adding the word "Scotland" to the name of every organisation that he mentioned. I was tempted to make an intervention at the time, but I thought that the point would probably be better made in my speech.
  The Under-Secretary responsible for disabled people and disability rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber to hear this, met with those organisations, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and myself on 27 February to discuss some of the Bill's implications for Scotland. It was a very constructive meeting. On behalf of us all, may I say how grateful we are to tire Minister and the civil servants in her Department? It is comparatively unusual, these days, for a Scottish Member of Parliament to have such meetings with civil servants in that Department. The civil servants were extremely helpful and their understanding of the differences in relation to Scotland was encouraging. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary undertook to write to the relevant Minister in the Scottish Executive, and she has done so. I am sure that progress will be made. I hope that my hon. Friend's fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will forgive me if I go on to raise some of the issues that we discussed, because it is important that they are put on the record.
  I say that this is a good piece of legislation for the same reasons as all other right hon. and hon. Members. It will advance significantly the educational opportunities of pupils and students is with disabilities and special educational needs. I support wholeheartedly the principle of inclusive education. From the experience of my constituents, inclusive education, when properly provided, adds to the lives of our children, improves educational standards and benefits child and parent alike. I agree with the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough that, through it, children come to value difference and treat their colleagues with the respect they deserve. My own children have learned from the experience
  Although inclusive education presents teachers with a professional challenge, they, too, learn from experience. They are able to translate positive skills for the benefit of all young people in their care. As I see it, this is a win, win situation.
  An integrated inclusive approach to education is of paramount importance in a modern education service. I recognise that there are many benefits to individual students with special needs in East Ayrshire schools who are included in local educational provision—a practice that is positively promoted and supported in the council's education and social services department. For example, a blind pupil who attended a Kilmarnock school has gone on to Strathclyde university. The most important aspect of that man's experience of school was that his accomplishment as a musician was encouraged through performance in school shows and the annual East Ayrshire showcase. That involvement would have been denied him had he not been included in mainstream education.

  245
  One deaf young person had a distinguished academic career in a Kilmarnock school before going on to Glasgow university. Even before leaving school, he was an articulate advocate for the deaf community, engaging regularly in advanced debates with council officers about service provision for people with disabilities. He became a leading figure in his school community
  A number of autistic spectrum children are totally integrated within the mainstream school setting in my constituency. Another fine example is the facility for children of secondary school age that has been established at Grange academy for about 20 years now. Young people with hearing impairments are supported in a purpose-built base, but their main learning takes place in classrooms beside, and on the same basis as, children of the same age. In that way, the pupils become fully integrated into the life of the school and its wider community; they are able to participate in the same range of artistic, sporting and cultural activities enjoyed by that it peer group. They are able to gain exactly the same range and nature of qualifications as other young people. That important point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
  More important, the Grange hearing-impaired pupils have learned to relate to their classmates on an equal footing. In turn, their peers accept them as equals, learning about their culture and sign language, and befriending them on an equal basis.
  My final example relates to a young student in an East Ayrshire secondary school who has a most complex package of educational, social work and learning support. but who has been successfully integrated into the school. Furthermore, because the education department was the sole pilot authority for the education maintenance allowance scheme in Scotland, many young people—some with exceptional needs—have been helped and supported in the community with a financial bonus to stay in education.
  My contribution to the debate will focus on the Scottish dimensions of the Bill. Its passage through another place has been especially interesting to me as a Scottish Member. This is the first occasion, post-devolution, that Parliament has considered equal opportunities legislation that has an impact on a devolved matter—education. Although serious efforts have been made by the DFEE to take account of the differences in the Scottish education system, some questions remain—perhaps inevitably. It is those questions that I want to address. I will argue that, in order to ensure clarity in implementation, a separate Scottish code of practice should he drafted by the Scottish Disability Rights Commission to accompany the legislation in Scotland.
  Members will be well aware that Scotland has a distinct system of education—I am sure that many of my predecessors from Scotland will have told the House that often enough. Of particular relevance to today's debate are the differences relating to special educational needs. For example, unlike England and Wales, Scotland does not have a special educational needs tribunal system, nor do we have statementing. Moreover, the Scottish equivalent to statementing—the record of needs—is soon likely to be abolished, or at least substantially reviewed. Those expected reforms come in response both to withering criticism of the record of needs procedure from every quarter of the Scottish education scene, and to this
  246
  year's highly critical final report of the Scottish Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee into special education needs.
  I highlight those differences because the provisions of the Bill that proved most controversial in Scotland appear to be predicated precisely on statementing and SEN tribunal arrangements that pertain only to England and Wales. The two most controversial provisions are the lack of a right to financial recompense for disabled schoolchildren who have experienced discrimination, and the exemption from the duty of reasonable adjustment of auxiliary aids and services and of physical features. I shall briefly deal with each of those provisions.
  On the thorny question of financial recompense, I preface my comments by saying that I share the Secretary of State's emphasis on the prime importance of educational remedies in cases of disability discrimination. The problem arises in the minority of cases where no educational remedy is available. In that connection. I received a briefing from a Scottish disability charity which asks:
  "If a final year disabled pupil fails a GCSE or Standard Grade because they had not been given access to a field trip or had missed out on essential handouts and course books in accessible formats, what remedy would there be? What action by the school could put that right?"
  The Scottish dimension to that matter is that as there is no SEN tribunal structure in Scotland, cases under this measure will be heard in the sheriff court. Indeed, that same sheriff court could—under this measure—offer financial recompense to a 16-year-old disabled Scot at college, but not to a 16-year-old disabled Scot at school. More generally, it seems odd that a disabled school pupil can receive financial recompense from a shopkeeper, but not from his or her education authority when no educational remedy is possible.
  Although the sectors in England and Wales may be somewhat divided in their view of financial recompense in cases where an education remedy is not available, the Scottish sector is united. Indeed, it is as united on that matter as it is on its wish to see the Bill enacted. Joint amendments on the issue were drafted for another place by RNIB Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland and the Children in Scotland consortium. Although I am not supporting any amendments at this stage in the Bill's passage, the issue may have to be revisited at a future date.
  The second controversial provision in the Bill, from my perspective, is the exclusion from the reasonable adjustment duty both of auxiliary aids and services and of physical access to schools. Again, there is a Scottish dimension: the record of needs system, which should provide the necessary support for disabled pupils, patently does not work. Indeed, in a submission to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the Forum on Scottish Education stated:
  "The Record of Needs procedure has been corrupted to the point where its future must be considered. On the one hand, teachers have encouraged the opening of records in order to gain additional resources; on the other hand, education authorities have resisted the opening of them because of fears over the cost implications."
  That criticism is all the more devastating when the membership of the forum is reviewed; it comprises all the key players—from the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish School Boards Association to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the

  247
  Scottish TUC. Statementing may be an appropriate basis on which to provide for the needs of disabled pupils in England and Wales, but the record of needs procedure certainly does not currently fulfil that role in Scotland.
  I am mindful of the time, so I shall deal quickly with the physical accessibility of schools in rural areas of Scotland. Although it may be possible to invest in the accessibility of schools serving disabled pupils from a wider catchment area in towns and cities, that is not easily achievable in rural Scotland, where the nearest school may be more than 100 miles away.
  My final point is on the case for a separate Scottish code of practice. Scottish education is distinct—it always has been; post-devolution, it is diverging even more from the system in England and Wales. There is thus a strong lobby in Scotland for a separate Scottish code of practice, drafted by the Scottish Disability Rights Commission. That will avoid something that we have had to put up with for years: Anglocentric legislation with references to Scotland in footnotes and between brackets.
  The Bill should be viewed alongside recent measures that significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, such as the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. The failure of the Conservative Government to extend the DDA to education has long been highlighted by disability campaigners as a major weakness of that legislation. The Bill addresses that weakness, and it does so for Scotland; the Secretary of State and the Government should rightly feel proud of that.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Like the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I am neither an education expert nor an expert in special educational needs—I apologise for that. I have four brief points on the Bill.
  A cross-party consensus, in which I share, has already been expressed. It was referred to by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). There is cross-party consensus on the desirability of mainstreaming pupils with disabilities wherever possible. As noted by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, that was the thrust of section 316 of the Conservative Government's Education Act 1996. Furthermore, our agreement reflects an international consensus—the UNESCO Salamanca statement in 1994 was in favour of inclusive education.
  The first of the four points that I want to make is that there is this consensus among the well-meaning. Among hon. Members, including myself, the basic philosophy is that, wherever possible, children should be fitted psychologically and educationally for life in normal society, and alongside that consensus we have the necessary set of buzzwords—if I may dare call them that—"integration" and "inclusiveness". Who could possibly be in favour of disintegration and exclusiveness?
  My second point is that the history of social policy tells us that well-meaning intentions often give rise to unexpected and, indeed, perverse consequences. It is now generally accepted that the classic case of that was the Seebohm report and its consequences on provision for the
  248
  mentally ill. Even in the relatively limited and more recent field of special educational needs provision that rule can be seen to work.
  Last year, the Centre for Policy Studies published a pamphlet, by Dr. John Marks, on special educational needs. It showed how the numbers involved have increased well Ahead of the expectations when the legislation was introduced and suggested some reasons for that, not all of which I agree with. Let me put the figures on the record. Since 1991, the number of pupils with special educational needs, but without statements—the English nomenclature—have increased from 11.6 to 19.2 per cent. of those in primary school, and from 9.6 to 16.5 per cent. of those in secondary schools. The numbers of pupils with special educational needs has increased from 0.8 to 1.6 per cent. of those in primary schools, and from 1 to 2.5 per cent. of those in secondary schools.
  Dr. Marks speculates that one reason for that growth may be the coincidence of the introduction of the special educational needs policy with that of national performance tables for schools, which gives incentives to schools, he argues, to protect themselves from complaints about low performance by increasing SEN numbers. That is one explanation Another, perhaps more plausible, explanation, which will ring a bell with all of us who have had the experience in our surgeries that has been mentioned several times, is that parents may believe that they have an interest in getting their children statemented—recognised as having special educational needs—so as to attract additional support and funding to their children. So I come to my third point.
  One of the reasons; why good intentions in social policy so often miss their mark is that insufficient regard is paid to the economic incentives that changes in policy bring into play. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has always spoken strongly on that point, and I agree with him about it. Let me illustrate that with some rough figures. A statemented child in Oxfordshire is likely to receive on top of the provision for ordinary children about 10 to 20 hours a week of "learning support assistance", which will add roughly 50 per cent. to the normal unit costs for an ordinary child. That has at least two economic consequences.
  First, as I have said, parents become very interested in the extra provision in our generally under-financed state education system. So there are the strong pressures, with which all hon. Members are familiar from their surgeries, from parents on LE As and schools for more and better statements. Incidentally, the procedural reforms in the Bill, which I support, represent an attempt to address those pressures, but the Bill will do nothing about the underlying economic forces that drive the process.
  The second economic consequence is that the LEAs and ultimately the Treasury—we must never forget the power of the Treasury, which hovers like a shadow over all our proceedings—are undoubtedly increasingly concerned about the rising cost. That brings me to my fourth and last point
  The concern about the mounting costs of special educational needs provision threatens the range and quality of special reeds education. That is the point referred to in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. Again let us consider some figures. Oxfordshire's special schools use a

  249
  banding system. A child in band 3, with moderate learning difficulties, attracts current funding of about £3,000 a year. A child in band 7, with profound and multiple learning difficulties, attracts about £7,000 of current spending a year. Relative to the cost of the current provision for an ordinary child, those are high figures—multiples ranging from two to six are involved. And of course the figures are also high in relation to the cost of provision in mainstream education for special needs children, with or without statements.
  Cynicism would not be an appropriate note to strike in a debate of this kind, where we are all being high-minded, but I wonder whether we could not speculate a little on whether the growing consensus, among us well-meaning people, in favour of mainstreaming might have something to do with the economic incentives to reduce the unit costs of the growing demands for special educational needs provision.
  I strongly support the aspiration—which has been expressed on both sides of the House, including by the Secretary of State—in favour of maintaining a range of high-quality special schools alongside the important trend of mainstreaming children with special educational needs. However, I agree with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that that aspiration may need to be more fully articulated in Committee. I need not reiterate the arguments for special schools alongside those for mainstreaming, but I am concerned about the underlying trends that I have described.
  Again, let me propose a simple economic equation. The more special educational needs children are mainstreamed, the fewer will be available to attend special schools, so the unit costs of provision in those schools will be higher. Some of us have already picked up the dialogue and know that arguments of the following kind will be articulated. Some may say, "Of course these kids' needs are very serious, but surely it isn't fair that they should get such a large share of the cake." Some may say, "Any way, inclusion and integeration are best for the children." The bottom line is that others may say, "The truth is some parents are too pushy."
  The Bill is a well-meaning measure, but I do not believe that some of the important facts of life in special education are fully recognised in it. To that extent, it will not improve the situation as much as we all hope it will. That is a matter of regret. The problems are real; our aspirations are for the best, but, as the poet said:
  "Between the idea
  And the reality
  Between the motion
  And the act
  Falls the Shadow."
  7.28 pm
  Laura Moffatt: It gives me enormous pleasure to support the Bill, which will do so much for children who require special education and their parents. May I say from the outset that I vehemently support neither mainstream nor special schooling; they both have a serious place in the education system. However, I would fight to the death for parents' ability to choose the sort of education that they want for their children. That is precisely what the Bill will do; it will facilitate education and give parents a more equal footing on which to fight for their children's needs, so that they can get exactly what they believe their children should have.
  250
  Much has been said in this debate about the loss of special schools. I have to tell the House that Crawley is losing two special schools, but we are going to have one beautiful, new special school, costing more than £6 million. It will be sited close to our mainstream schools to allow integration between schools and to ensure that all services are properly integrated.
  I am here also to convey very grateful thanks from all the parents in Crawley. We are still reeling from a recent announcement that there will be £60 million pounds of investment in secondary schools. We cannot believe that that has happened after decades of neglect in Crawley new town. The schools in which I was educated are still using the same equipment, and they can hardly believe that they will receive the investment that they wanted so much from the Government. I wish to highlight that fact, because parents are delighted and want me to thank the ministerial team for making it happen.
  Let me make a few comments about new build. Most of us would assume that access for pupils with mobility problems is a given in new buildings. Sadly, that is not true. Many of us have seen examples of new buildings and we cannot quite believe that they do not offer accessibility to pupils who do not have full mobility. Those pupils cannot get into the buildings to use their facilities with their fellow pupils. It is important to focus on that issue. The Bill will ensure that not only do we focus on the needs of individual pupils, but that every new building in the education system is accessible to everyone.
  There are many ways to do that, and Crawley gives us an example of good practice. The town access group, known as the TAG team, is at the heart of the planning process in the education system and throughout the town. It consists of people with varying disabilities—some are wheelchair users, some are not sighted and some are deaf—but for all sorts of reasons they have become mobilised to ensure that everyone has access to buildings. The group will be very much involved when the planning process for new schools comes to fruition. It will be shown the plans and encouraged to take an interest in what is going on, so that we avoid the disaster of building a beautiful new school only to find that pupils who wish to go there cannot make their way around it safely and easily. What a message that sends out to young people with disabilities.
  Such young people should have access to new buildings without first having to make special arrangements, so that they can take advantage of the new facilities. I hope that the Bill will put that issue at the fore as it proceeds through the House. The party has not finished in Crawley; people are delighted and are looking forward to the time when the schools are up and running.
  The other issue that I wish to raise relates to something that most of us would consider to be a hidden disability. It is rarely discussed in school circles, because it is a difficult subject. I am a member of the all-party group on AIDS. Although the number is thankfully still relatively small, a growing number of children have HIV and even more suffer from the hepatitis B infection. Those children want to play a part in mainstream schooling, but their small numbers sometimes mean that it is difficult for them to obtain the education and care that they rightly deserve. That is especially the case for children with HIV who become ill. I hope that the Bill will take account of their needs. As I said, the number of such children is growing and they should be recognised in the Bill.

  251
  I hope that the House will give the Bill the fair wind that it deserves, because it will help all parents. We know that inclusivity benefits us all and allows us to flourish as a civilised and healthy nation. I hope that the Bill has a smooth passage, so that we can hold up our heads knowing that we have done the right thing for children with disabilities in the United Kingdom.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Today has been quite an experience, because I welcomed 50 people to the Jubilee Room from the Alderman Knight school in my constituency. The school feels very much under threat because of the policies pursued by Gloucestershire county council and an unholy alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors.
  The county council has already proposed the closure of Bownham Park school in Stroud and I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ask him what judgment he will make on that proposal. People in Gloucestershire are certainly not persuaded that the school should close, and his decision will give us an indication as to his views on special schools.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the future of the special schools in his constituency, but does he accept the point, which I have made to him previously, that the final decision is not for the Secretary of State, but for the local school organisation committee? If it is not unanimous, it will then be a matter for an independent adjudicator.
  Mr. Robertson: Yes, I accept that, but the school organisation committee has failed to be unanimous, so it will be left to an adjudicator to make the decision. Therefore I do not accept that the decision is entirely out of the Secretary of State's hands. [Interruption.] Well, we shall see what happens. Certainly, Gloucestershire county council was sparked into action by the Government's Green Paper and is proposing to close the special schools.
  If the Bill is accepted in its present form, it will be a triumph of theory over practice. When the people from the school visited the House of Commons, almost the entire Conservative Front-Bench team came to listen to their views. Although Ministers were asked many weeks ago to attend and were reminded this week, not one member of the Government team could find even a couple of minutes to call in. Perhaps that reflects their views on special schools. Ministers are shaking their heads, but I do not know why. The invitations were sent out many weeks ago and they were reminded again this week.
  A young boy called Brian Beard has not been educated in any school since September, because the local education authority will not recognise his parents' wish for him to be educated in a special school. He was present today, as was another girl. She was in tears as she described how she simply could not cope in a mainstream school. Eventually, she was placed in a special school and she has developed considerably since she has been there.
  For many children for whom inclusion has taken place, it is the correct policy. However, it is important to recognise the needs of individual children and they and
  252
  their parents must decide the best place for their education. The Bill will not give parents that ability. It states that if there is no statement, the child will have to be educated in a mainstream school. The problem, however, is that local authorities are not efficient in their statementing.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that local education authorities have to take account of parents' wishes for their child to be educated in a special school. Nothing in the Bill will change that. If that does not happen in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it is up to him to make sure that it does.
  Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me how to do that without bringing it to the attention of the Secretary of State and Ministers. It is my job as a Member of Parliament to raise issues with them. That is what I am doing and what I have done many times before. Only a few hours ago, I got the permission of the young boy's parents to One Ministers his name and address if they want it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good intentions, but the boy has not been educated since September.
  Miss Begg: I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's statement. He describes the situation as it pertains today. Nothing in the Bill will make that the norm. If anything, the Bill will help to ensure that children are appropriately educated, according to the wishes of their parents. He should welcome it.
  Mr. Robertson: My reading of the Bill is different. I can only base my comments on the experience in Gloucestershire since the Green Paper was published. The other parties in the council have got together to drive through a programme of closure of special schools. That is the reality. We can talk in this place all we want, but that is what is happening on the ground. I am paid as a Gloucestershire Member of Parliament to bring that to the attention of Ministers and I hope that they will respond.
  Many hon. Members—in particular Labour Members—have claimed that children are being denied access to mainstream schools because of their special educational needs. I fully recogonise that that might happen. However, no parent has written to me about that problem. Instead, many parents, inducing those who were here today, have complained that they cannot get places in the special schools that they believe their children deserve.
  Heads, teachers, governors and pupils at mainstream schools are concerned about the inclusion policy. They know that if children struggle in mainstream schools, other pupils will suffer as a result. They are not being selfish, and neither are the parents. They merely recognise the reality that children need to go to an appropriate school. As one or two Labour Members stated, that has to happen by considering the needs of individual
  Let me tell the House—not for the first time—where I was educated. I was excluded, in the sense that I did not successfully negotiate the 11-plus examination all those years ago. I am neither proud nor ashamed of that and, if I could have my time over again, I would not change the secondary school that I attended. It was a good Church of England school, with a good ethos, and it was right for me. Whether it was the best school in the area is irrelevant.

  253
  The girl who spoke at the meeting earlier today was brought to tears when she said, "Nobody is listening to us." We are sat in this place and councillors are sat in Shire hall in Gloucestershire. We come out with fine theories, but no one listens to the parents and pupils who know that they are better off in special schools. The closure of those schools in Gloucestershire makes them wonder why they have elected representatives. The parents, teachers, governors and children in many schools throughout Gloucestershire are expressing a clear wish that is being ignored by hon. Members and members of Gloucestershire county council. No wonder those people are dubious about the role of politicians and have no faith in the democratic process.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Even if we were not having this Second Reading debate, there would he every reason to discuss and celebrate what the Government are doing for children with special needs and disabilities. They introduced the schools access initiative, which received £45 million in the first three years and will get £220 million in the next three. The grant that is available to disabled students who go into further and higher education has doubled. The new deal for disabled people has ensured that they get access to training and skills, which has been a tremendous success. Those measures and the Bill fit into a framework that includes the Disability Rights Commission, the disabled persons tax credit and much stronger disability discrimination legislation, which is better than the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that we inherited.
  We have not heard much about the 1995 Act. Conservative Front-Bench spokesman have not given a feasible explanation as to why education was excluded from it. That omission gave the message to young disabled people they have the right to gain access to a pop concert, a pub for under-age drinking or a video shop, but they do not have the right to gain access to their schools. That is nonsense.
  I appeal to the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to withdraw their amendment. All three have been—and, in some cases, still are—active members of the all-party parliamentary disablement group. I cannot believe for one moment that they are happy to lead their troops through the Lobby to vote in favour of the amendment and against the Bill on Second Reading.
  Mr. Boswell: Having expressed disbelief about our alleged attitudes on some matters, will the hon. Gentleman ponder on the fact that we might have reservations about the Bill? It does not seem odd to me to reflect that in an amendment.
  Mr. Levitt: What seems odd to me is to vote for an amendment that, if successful, will defeat the whole Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman should ensure that the Bill is agreed to on Second Reading so that he can take up his concerns in Committee. That is the logical response.
  Dr. Ladyman: Is my hon. Friend as baffled as I am by the comments of Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen?
  254
  Has it occurred to him that they have not read the amendment and do not realise that it will prevent the Bill from making progress?
  Mr. Levitt: At least two of us have told Conservative Members that. Perhaps there will be a change of heart before 10 o'clock.
  There is little disagreement about the principle of inclusion. After all, we meet disabled people every day, we live in a mixed-ability world, and there is wide acknowledgment that it is a positive experience for non-disabled children to mix with disabled children. On the other hand, it is possible that in the past we paid lip service to special educational needs. Perhaps we allowed some special schools to become out of sight and out of mind. Perhaps units within our mainstream schools share a postcode but little else with the school to which they are attached. Perhaps—I speak as a former teacher—some teachers might be quite happy for the special needs department to get on and do the job, as long as they do not have to sully their hands.
  I commend the report by Scope and the National Union of Teachers. "Within Reach 3" says that, in 90 per cent. of schools where access initiatives have been implemented and schools have become more inclusive by introducing into the mainstream disabled children and children with special needs, attitudes towards children with disability have improved. There is less bullying, less exclusion and more physical inclusion.
  The Bill assumes that education will be inclusive rather than exclusive. It gives all parents the right to send their child to a mainstream school, but it also reserves their right to special education if that is best. I have sympathy with those people who defend the special schools cause for at least one good reason: I think that I am the only Member of Parliament who can use sign language to any extent. I am certainly the only Member of this House who is a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, although Lord Ashley in the other place is another.
  I was present in the Chamber a couple of years ago for an Adjournment debate in which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) sought to save a school in her constituency which was operated by a London borough and provided a sign language environment in which young deaf children could grow up. She asked the then Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), for permission for a trust to be set up to help the school to survive the policies of the distant LEA, which would have closed it, and to set itself up as an independent school. My hon. Friend gave that permission on the night, and I was pleased that we would retain an institution in which deaf children were educated in an environment where sign language was the norm. That is an example—perhaps an ironic one—of a listening Government.
  Another example of our listening Government deserves mention. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it briefly. I refer to the code of practice for statementing. My postbag, particularly in December and January, was full of letters from people complaining about proposals for that code. As a result, the Government withdrew the document that had been put out for consultation and allowed the existing code of practice to proceed. It will not necessarily remain unamended, but

  255
  the Government listened and said, "Perhaps we haven't got these proposals right. Let's go away and think about them again."
  Turning once more to children with a hearing impairment. I want to place on the record the fact that only 14 per cent. of deaf pupils in mainstream schools achieve five or more A to C grades at GCSE, compared with 44 per cent. of hearing children. Some children with a sensory impairment have to travel 20 miles a day to have their special needs met, and many will have had to stay in a special unit or school when integration and development of lip reading and speech skills might have been better for them. That is a different group of children from the one to which I referred a moment ago. Where there are questions of language development, it is particularly important that we accommodate the children concerned.
  Some 840 babies are born with a significant hearing impairment each year; 400 of them will have that impairment detected by the age of 18 months, but 200 will not have had it properly detected at the age of three and a half years. That leads us to question whether those children are receiving the right education, help and diagnosis from that early stage.
  Mr. Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we can persuade this Government, or a future Government, to introduce universal neonatal hearing screening on a national basis as soon as possible, we could pick up those problems at an earlier stage? We would then both create a problem for ourselves and require that we answer it.
  Mr. Levitt: I certainly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to achieve that aim. Typically, the children to whom I referred are tested by the health visitor distraction test at seven or eight months, but the test is not infallible at that age. Certainly, I agree that we need improvement by one means or another.
  That leads me to a situation that I have encountered in my constituency. In Derbyshire, four-year-olds have traditionally gone into primary schools early. We now have universal pre-school education for four-year-olds whose parents want it, and thanks to the Government's policies, we now offer it to three-year-olds. What happens to the two-year-old or three-year-old with special needs? There is a little confusion, to say the least, about who has the responsibility for finding the right help for those children.
  I find that people who run pre-school schemes for three-year-olds in the voluntary and private sectors are very uncertain, and indeed scared, about the idea of a child with special needs wanting to enter their group. They call the social worker, but they are not sure whether the problem should be dealt with by social services or by the education or health services. They might have been running the group for only a couple of years, and their basic training will not be sufficient to diagnose special needs properly. Now that we have the opportunity to extend pre-school education to three-year-olds, we have the chance to improve the diagnosis of special needs. We can then address the thorny problem of statementing a child of that age.
  256
  I want the statementing process to be speeded up. I want to see "easy win" assessments being carried out within days of referral. The whole pre-school sector should be given the same support and opportunity to help children with special needs in their care.
  Another constituency case, which hopefully will have been resolved today involves a girl at the other end of the age spectrum. At 16, she has been in a special school for children with multiple learning difficulties. Had she been born a year earlier the careers service would have led her into a full-time residential place in further education. Had she been born a year later, the Learning and Skills Council would have placed her in full-time residential education. This year, however, it appears that the careers service is pulling back from its former role and the Learning and Skills Council is not yet up and running. Parents have been left facing weeks and weeks of uncertainty about what is happening to their l6-year-olds with severe learning difficulties. Those children will go to a new school in September, but parents need a reliable framework to assist them in meeting their children's needs and in exercising the choice that we have all said we want the Bill to preserve. I am sure that it will do so.
  There are excellent initiatives in special needs education. Many of us attended a fringe event at last year's Labour party conference where we were privileged to have conversations with young people with special needs. That might not sound unusual in itself, but they were young people with whom I could not previously have had a conversation. They were using the latest speech synthesis technology, which is very expensive. By using synthetic speech, those children, who have very little muscular control and no speech, were able to have bright, engaging and intelligent conversations. That was an example of how technology can come to the aid of children with severe communication difficulties. It was a tremendous evening children were liberated and I and others were educated
  The Bill is a milestone. It finally recognises the needs and entitlements of children and adults to access appropriate education. Nothing more needs to be said about it and I commend it to the House.
  7.59 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate having the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
  Undoubtedly, children with all manner of special needs and disabilities are able to be integrated in mainstream education. I visited every school and college in my constituency. I went to see the work that Godalming sixth-form college is doing. At Badshot Lee and Broadwater, I saw the special units for children with various disabilities. Much can now be done in mainstream education and with new, technology, and I endorse the point that training and investment in information and communications technology is enormously important in enabling more children to release their potential. I remember our excitement in the Department of Health when cochlear implants were going to be made available on the NHS. Young people with all manner of physical disabilities can be released from the constraints under which they have lived, and lead full lives as active citizens.

  257
  It is not, however, my view that the mantra of social inclusion is necessarily always the right one in education for children with special needs. I say that having worked for many years—when I had a proper job before entering Parliament—in a child guidance unit, having been the chairman of a magistrates court, and having worked at some of the special residential schools that the then Inner London education authority set up amid great grandeur all over the home counties.
  Many young people need special assessment and special provision, and coercive social inclusion is counter-productive. I do not dispute the degree to which having a fellow pupil with a disability reduces the fear, ignorance and stigma shown by the other, able-bodied members of the class, but I do dispute the idea that all children should be forced into this socially inclusive pattern.
  I was interested in the comments made by Professor Peter Farrell, the professor of special needs and educational psychology at the university of Manchester. He said:
  "Social inclusion, as equal members of society, is something that most people would support. But this is not necessarily the same thing as educational inclusion. For very disabled kids"—
  I do not like the word "kids"; it is patronising, but be that as it may—
  "with minimal communication skills and demanding physical needs, some degree of separation may be more appropriate—even a precondition for social integration."
  Badshot Lee primary school has a wonderful facility for children with severe physical disabilities. A young man, Igor, to whom I am particularly attached, suffered grievously in the Chernobyl disaster. He lives in my area. He is very small because he lost a number of his limbs. Until the age of 11, he was comfortable at Badshot Lee. However, at 11, he wanted to go to a special school because he felt vulnerable and unusual, as adolescents do. Adolescents with severe physical disabilities may feel even more so. There is not one answer, but coercive social inclusion is wrong. Igor wanted to go to the Lord Mayor Treloar college, and had great difficulty achieving his objective.
  I am particularly persuaded by Melanie Phillips, who recently warned of teachers being left
  "to flounder with pupils whose very disruptive behaviour still spells chaos in the classroom … for the majority of heads and teachers, the problems of incorporating severely disruptive children are overwhelming."
  My special concern is with children with mental health problems. I am disappointed that they have had so little mention in this debate. That is extraordinary. I particularly applaud the work of Young Minds, led by Peter Wilson. He is having the greatest difficulty in securing funding. Despite all the talk of joined-up government—the words never match the reality with this Government—he cannot get adequate funding to provide the mental health services necessary for so many young people
  Fearing that I was not going to catch your eye for a long time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I briefly visited, for sustenance and information, the launch of the manifesto card of the NSPCC, the Child Poverty Action Group—my first employer—and Barnardos. In the material that they have produced, they make it clear that one in five children and adolescents suffer from some form of mental health problem. One of their campaigns, which I applaud, is that
  258
  "independent counselling schemes in all schools to provide emotional support for all children who need it"
  should be available. That is a tall order, but it is not my view that every child benefits from being forced to stay in the mainstream.
  I wish that we had heard more from Ministers about what they are doing to co-operate with health providers, social services and the criminal justice system to ensure that those young people who often end up in the sheriff court—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said—and the juvenile court, as I would have called it, receive the help that they need when they need it. So often with the goal of social inclusion, problems are delayed until a child is really suffering and falling out of the system, and until the teachers and parents are desperate. The great idea that social inclusion is the objective and that special education is somehow a failure or a lesser option is, in my view, misguided and misjudged.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) had the right of it when she said that children's needs should be given priority. I am sceptical about the mantra of children's rights. Children have a right to be cared for and a right to be heard, but the concept of children's rights is not a wise one because so many children need control, care, support and containment. When hon. Members talk about the disability rights legislation applying the same language and understanding to children as to adults, they misunderstand the nature of childhood.
  I strongly support the work done by my noble colleagues in another place, when they talked about the best interests of the child. I spent many years working on children's legislation, including the Children Act 1989, and I believe that to fail to give children the support and care they need is a great error. Children are not adults with adult status, and we fail them instead of serving them if we fail to understand that.
  It has been said by a number of my colleagues that there is a role for special schools. I support the comments made by Doug McAvoy, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers. Goodness, I remember him coming in long ago, when I worked for Chris Patten at the Department of Education. I did not feel, then, that I had many points of agreement with Mr. McAvoy, but I agree with him when he says:
  "There is a continuing role for special schools, not least as centres of expertise and as resource centres, as well as providing for each young person's special needs."
  If hon. Members came to the Abbey school or the Ridgeway school in my constituency—one is for young people with mild learning disabilities, the other for those with severe learning disabilities—they would see how young people can gain status, have leadership roles and be celebrated at prize-givings and other events for their success and their status. Those opportunities are, with the best will in the world, hard to achieve in the mainstream.
  I am also concerned about the role of residential provision. I return to the issue of co-operation over funding. I was deeply influenced by the late Lady Faithfull, who was for many years instrumental in the all-party parliamentary group on children, and also in the Caldecott community. The difficulty of securing funding for residential places continues to be as problematic today as ever.

  259
  I ask the Minister to comment on what steps are being taken to achieve co-operation between social service departments, health departments and education departments. It was ever thus that the children who need residential provision often have not only educational needs but social needs. Children with special educational needs come not with one label, but, increasingly, with multiple labels. There is a degree of buck-passing and cost-shunting between agencies in relation to who will fund the provision. There will be few hon. Members who have not had experience of parents desperate for their children to receive a place, but somehow the agencies could not resolve the problems until, all too often, the criminal justice system has to pick up the bill.
  I am also worried about the degree to which residential provision, which probably used to be excessive, is under threat. The reasons for a placement are rarely purely educational; almost always social factors are behind it. When we read of the effect of having a severely handicapped child—marital breakdown and family pressure—it is scarcely surprising that social factors combine with educational needs.
  I share the profound concerns, represented widely in my constituency, about the potentially adverse effects of the Bill on the independent sector. It is hard to explain, but there is a huge demand, certainly in my area, for placements in the independent sector. There are a number of not-for-profit denominational independent establishments in my constituency which have prestige and cachet. Parents who are coming to terms with their child's disability may believe that if the child can be placed in one of those independent establishments, the school will provide added value. I understand that parents can find valuable the additional contribution that the faith community often provides in those circumstances; I would feel that myself.
  My worry is the degree to which the independent sector will be discriminated against in a needless and serious manner. In my area, St. Dominic's school and More house have both provided remarkable care, education and encouragement for many decades, and have given self-esteem to youngsters who were failing to thrive and flourish in the mainstream.
  I very much hope that the Government will re-examine the matter and accept the view of the Opposition that choice for parents is important, especially when people are coming to terms with their children's difficulties. All parents want their children to overcome obstacles and be free from difficulty; having a choice can make a huge difference to their accepting the outcome. I hope that the Government will recognise in statute that the best interests of the child should have priority.
  I hope that the Government will look again at joined-up government. I am sure that other hon. Members have received letters of anguish from advisory and support services for children and the family court on the Lord Chancellor's proposals for self-employed guardians ad litem. Guardians ad litem do much to ensure that children in the looked-after sector realise their potential and achieve all that they can, given their resources and their adverse circumstances. In the interests of joined-up government, I am sure that the Department will want to
  260
  talk to the Department of Health, social services, those dealing with criminal justice matters and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  I am sure that many hon. Members have read Lord Renton's comments in another place. He described his daughter, who has severe learning and physical disabilities, and said:
  "Having children with learning difficulties in mainstream schools causes serious problems. The first is that the children become more conscious of their mental handicap, which gives them an inferiority complex. Alas, sometimes they are bullied and often they are treated with casual contempt by normal pupils and even by teachers."
  Lord Renton continued:
  "Integration into mainstream schools often means disruption and delays in the classroom detrimental to the normal pupils."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2001; Vol. 622. c. 616–17.]
  I hope for a more optimistic view of the vast majority of children with special educational needs. This country has made progress in the past two or three decades; one only has to go overseas and see the special educational provisions in many other countries to realise that the House is right to be proud of that progress. I hope that the Government will not get so carried away with their own rhetoric that they fail to understand that individual children, their assessment and best needs should be their guiding light.
  8.14 pm
  Kali Mountford: Following the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), it comes as a surprise to realise that I agree with much of what she and many Opposition Members have said. My surprise is that we reach different conclusions from our shared experience and attitudes. Certainly the view that children ought to be the centre of policy should be shared by Members on both sides of the House. I am therefore surprised that Opposition Members conclude that the Bill should be opposed, while Labour Members conclude that, where change is needed, it should be sought and made.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to two constituency issues. The first is the review of special educational needs provision in my area in Kirklees education authority; the second is my personal interest in ADHD—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—which is little understood and needs closer examination.
  In my own area. about a year ago, the education authority felt, with good reason, that special educational needs provision needed to be reviewed and changed. Some schools in the neighbouring constituency of Huddersfield—my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) spoke earlier about local education—do not offer good provision. Some of their buildings are not the best; ideally, we would not children to be in them, as they are not comfortable. Some schools are far removed from communities and, for certain pupils, travel is difficult. Change in provision was therefore not necessarily a bad idea. However, to assume that the outcome of the Bill will he identical to the first paper read by members of the education authority is not necessarily the best thing to do. The fact that those LEA members based some of their consultation on the Education Act 1996, which dealt with another matter, also changed the focus of what could have been a good review into something that caused suspicion.
  Some of that suspicion has been voiced in the House today and rests on the fact that, when we look at special educational needs, we are really talking about taking

  261
  places out of the current system and making a single overall change by saying that all children with needs should be included in mainstream education. However, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that. I share the view of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey that children vary so much that we have to look at a range of provision. If, after long consultation, we do not do that in Kirklees, I would be extremely disappointed.
  The Government have just announced a grant of more than £16 million towards the change in education provision in Kirklees, yet still the consultation goes on, as it must because parents also need to be listened to during the process of change which, after all, affects their children. The voices of children are rarely heard directly. We often listen to their parents, but perhaps we need to spend a little time listening to children when discussing inclusion. Children often tell me, "I do not want a statement. I do not want people to think of me as different. I do not want the people who I mix with in the youth club or football club to say that I am different and not in class with them."
  Often, children themselves have a different view of what their statement should be about, especially as they get older and articulate their own needs. The Bill includes a great deal that will allow us to tell parents and children that everyone should be encompassed in the process of change. All of our views should be taken into account.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made some interesting points about resourcing, with which there are problems. Resourcing is not always just about money. I have encountered a big problem when looking at assessments of need—we do not have enough educational psychologists to do that work. They are in short supply not simply because we cannot afford them, but because they have not been trained and are unavailable. That obviously slows the process down. We should be examining such issues in detail, not putting up a straightforward barrier and saying that, as a matter of principle, we oppose the Bill. We should be working together to find solutions.
  In Kirklees, we decided that there should be an all-party statement declaring that the issue was non-political, and that we would all work together to find out what was in the best interests of children. I pay tribute to the chair of the education authority, John Smithson, who is a Liberal Democrat councillor. I am not ashamed to congratulate him. When it was drawn to his attention that parents were uneasy about the change that the authority was making, he listened. Listening is at the heart of everything that has happened.
  I went to see Ministers, and the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who has just left the Chamber, met parents and explained carefully her view of what should be done for children who had been statemented and the range of provision that should be available. She made it clear to those parents that, for some children, inclusion in mainstream schooling is desirable, but that such inclusion is not necessarily desirable for all children. For some children, a temporary period in some form of provision may be a solution—perhaps a period of catching up, a period of adjustment or a period of being supported. For some children, a permanent statement of needs will be required. For some, a specific range of equipment or a style of teaching may be the solution.
  262
  Much has been said today about the ways in which we can deal with problems, but we have not heard much about styles of teaching. Some children, particularly those with mild learning difficulties, benefit a great deal from being taught in a slightly different way. I am thinking especially of children with dyslexia, who could stay in the mainstream, with the right support—possibly technical equipment such as a laptop in the classroom or, for very young children, learning to draw with a finger in sand. Such a solution gives them a multi-sensory experience that helps them to learn.
  We need to consider a range of different ways in which children can be taught. Learning to write with a finger in sand is not the most expensive way in which education can be delivered, so money is not always the issue. We need to use our collective resources and our imagination to find out what is best for each child. I do not want a one-size-fits-all education system, and that is not proposed in the Bill.
  A one-size-fits-all education system would certainly not help children who suffer from ADHD. The condition is hugely misunderstood and has a wide range of effects on children. It has a huge effect on almost all the families of those children. Some children with a mild form of ADHD present almost no problems at all. Parents are often told that the problem is simply bad parenting, and that if they took control, their children would be better behaved.
  A multidisciplinary approach is needed. The children whom I have met with their parents display such a wide range of problems that labelling those children as hyperactive, naughty, disruptive, behaviourally poor or not paying attention in class does nothing for them, and does not recognise the stress and strains that the condition causes for families. We must find out how early we can identify needs. That applies to almost all special needs, but particularly to children with ADHD.
  Sometimes a doctor identifies the problem. With MRI scanning, the effect on the brain can be identified quite early. However, I recently met a young man who is about to go into secondary education. He was diagnosed as suffering from ADHD and is being treated with ritalin, but has not had a statement of needs of any kind. Because he can reach a certain level of attainment in his classroom, the rest of his needs are being ignored. Teachers say that he is coping, but he can do better than coping.
  Parents of such a child say that they struggle to pay for extra tuition in the evening, work hard with the child with his homework, and that the family is crumbling under the strain of trying to cope with the child educationally. None of that is taken into account under the current system. That must change. The Bill should not allow children to carry on coping, when they could be achieving. It should maximise the potential of everyone.
  Those are views that I have heard from Opposition Members, so I am surprised that we cannot find some agreement and some way of co-operating to take the matter forward. No one claims that the Bill is the be-all and end-all—the end of the process of dealing with special educational needs. That would be a disappointment, because it should be a devolving process that includes everyone, not least the children and the parents. If we refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading because there are flaws in it, and because it does not go far enough, that sends out a strange message to my constituents, who have grave concerns about children who are still waiting for their statements.

  263
  Will we deny those children the resources that they need? We can argue quite properly about whether the resources are sufficient and whether they are being spent in the right way, but let us not argue that nothing should be done. That would be a bizarre response to the moving stories that we heard today about children's specific needs. I am thinking especially of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who is not in his place. I was moved to learn that children in Tewkesbury are suffering as he described, and that Gloucestershire council has not been able to respond to their needs. I hope that Kirklees council is listening carefully to the debate and learning from it.
  When we go out and listen to parents, we will hear some who say that their children have had a good experience at school. Those parents will ask us to ensure that the special needs school is not closed, but adapted and made more useful. Can we find a better way for pupils in such a school to link with mainstream education? Perhaps we can create a better path through education. The school that I have in mind is Lydgate school, which has good links with both primary and secondary schools and with further education. We could do even more. That school could serve as a model for special needs education and links with mainstream education and with the community.
  The solution does not have to be the closure of existing schools and the building of new ones. One solution might be to adapt existing schools. Less successful schools that cannot deliver the sort of education that we want may have to be replaced with new schools. I hope that both solutions will be available in Kirklees, and that we will listen to both sets of parents—those who say that we need a new school and those who want to keep the schools that we have. It is possible to compromise and find solutions to suit everybody. Councillor Smithson has taken that approach, and I commend him for it. I commend also the parents who have fought so hard to keep the education that is appropriate for their children.
  The Bill is about finding the appropriate response to the needs of children and parents. It should not be about a cash reduction in spending, which is what some people think that we mean when we speak about reducing places. It is mischievous and misguided to lead people into believing that that is what the Bill is about or to suggest that it ensures that no children will have their special educational needs met in a specialist sector. The multidisciplinary approach that I believe to be necessary for children such as those with ADHD requires links with the health authority, social services and housing providers, as well as with education.
  For children with ADHD in my constituency, I want to give credit to the National Children's Centre, which is located in Huddersfield, to Huddersfield university and to doctors at St. Luke's hospital. They have all been working with the council to produce an integrated approach for the needs of children with ADHD. I agree with Opposition Members that people do not have special needs only while they are in school, at home or out in the community. People's special needs encompass their whole lives, which is why an integrated, all-encompassing approach seems the right one to adopt. I believe that the Bill sets us well along the way to achieving that target.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on a contribution that was obviously well informed. Clearly, she takes a keen personal interest in the matter. For my part, I should like to declare an interest, as I am married to a teacher who teaches children with severe learning difficulties. Whenever I am at home, the joy, achievement and frustrations of the Pear Tree school at Kirkham, about which I shall say more in a moment, fill our house. On Sunday, we had the pleasure of looking after one of the school's pupils who came home after a school concert in the outskirts of Preston which was attended by teachers. It was a joy to see what the school had done for that young man.
  Labour Members have made many critical remarks about the amendment. The title of the Bill states that it is intended
  "to make further provision against discrimination, on grounds of disability, in schools and other educational establishments; and for connected purposes."
  I have not heard my hon. Friends say anything to make me believe that we do not support the principal purpose of the Bill. In another place, Baroness Blackstone said:
  "All children have a right to an appropriate education that affords them the opportunity to achieve their personal potential."
  She went on to say that
  "where parents want more specialist provision, their wishes should be listened to."—[0ffical Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 635.]
  Those words seem entirely compatible with our amendment, which states that we want the Bill to contain provision to:
  "explicitly give priorit3 to the special educational needs of the child".
  Nobody disagrees with this aim or has suggested that it should not be our principal objective. However, as the amendment points out, the Bill
  "contains no mechanism for safeguarding a viable choice for parents between types of school "
  The reason that Opposition Members have criticised the Bill was reflected in the comments of hon. Members who pointed out that the philosophy that underpins the changes in special education such as the move towards a more inclusive regime, has caused much concern and worry among people with good experience of special schools. The hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke about the review that is being conducted by her local authority. A similar review is occurring in Lancashire, where there is considerable anxiety about the threat that it carries with it. I believe that one London authority has already eliminated all its special schools—
  Mr. Boswell: Newham.
  Mr. Jack: People have seen what can happen. There may be good reasons for what happened in Newham, and I do not want to debate that specific case, but people are worried.
  Mr. Berry: What does the right hon. Gentleman believe would be achieved if the amendment were agreed to and the House declined to give the Bill a Second Reading? What would happen next?
  Mr. Jack: If the Bill were not given a Second Reading, we would be the Government. We would not have introduced a Bill containing such treasures in the first place. The hon. Gentleman has a selective memory. I seem to remember that the previous, Labour Opposition often tabled amendments to good Bills. That is the only mechanism that Her Majesty's Opposition can use to register a point of principle about a Bill. He shakes his head. I am sorry if my comments are inconvenient to his argument, but I reiterate that we are simply registering a point of principled disagreement about an aspect of the Bill and are not objecting to Second Reading itself.
  Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend may recall that we also tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading of the Learning and Skills Bill—the Act of 2000—which was also introduced in the other place. Although I make no presumption as to our actions after this evening, I remind the House that we did not vote against that Bill on Third Reading: we abstained. We had reservations, we expressed those reservations and, to some extent, they were met.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. To conclude my remarks to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), were we lucky enough to win the vote and were the Government to remain as committed to the Bill as they say they are, they would reintroduce it in a modified form that we could all support. No doubt the thesis behind our amendment will be discussed in Committee, but to try to label us as being against making further progress is wrong. [Interuption.] The hon. Member for Kingswood should not laugh at us, because some of us speak with passion and a degree of understanding of the subject, just as he did. We want to protect both the interests of the children and some remarkable educational establishments.
  I put on record my appreciation of all teachers, particularly those in special schools. They not only deal with the nice side—the happy, smiling children at the Christmas concert—but clean up after an incontinent child, administer the valium when a child has a fit, and deal with the child who may have a violent outburst through no fault of his own. Such teachers are dedicated and sometimes their role can easily be forgotten as we take a broad-brush approach to these matters.
  Teachers are ably assisted by many others from the health services. Certain provisions will create a need for more assistance from a further army of occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists and educational psychologists. All are in short supply, but that point was not dealt with by the Secretary of State.
  May I take the House on a brief trip to Pear Tree school? I want to paint a picture by using not my words, but those in a recent Ofsted inspection report. Pear Tree is an all-age community school with 61 pupils on the roll, and Ofsted observed:
  "Pupils love coming to school. A high proportion of lessons are simply inspirational".
  How often does Ofsted describe a school as inspirational? The word "excellent" is used 18 times in the report, and only one lesson out of 72 observed was anything other than satisfactory. That is a tremendous testament to Mrs. Jean Cook, the head teacher, and her staff, in terms of what the school can achieve.
  266
  Parents speak about the school in remarkably glowing terms and Ofsted said that the leadership and management are excellent, that the teaching
  "is often excellent and very good overall",
  and that inclusion for pupils is very good. The school is complimented on its efforts to ensure that a
  "growing number of pupils are successfully engaged in integration activities in primary schools and opportunities for pupils from other schools to work alongside Pear Tree pupils in their own school are regularly and successfully made."
  That is what a centre of real excellence in the world of special education can deliver, but hon. Members should consider how Lancashire's review of special educational needs is being conducted. The council
  "intends to maintain a vibrant special school sector within its overall policy of inclusion."
  In the world of special schools, however, a growing paralysis is setting in. People are uncertain as to what will happen. The review has been inspired by the consultative exercise and, indeed, by the Bill. There is a great need to try to remove some of that uncertainty.
  There may be an argument for special schools in Lancashire to be re-examined, but I am worried by the apparent assumption that more and more pupils will move to the mainstream, to the extent that many special schools such as Pear Tree might not be viable and there will be no choice for parents when they have to make up their minds about what is best for their children. When parents show their passionate support for Pear Tree school, as adjudged by their comments to Ofsted, they are speaking on behalf of the consumers of education—sadly, some of their children cannot articulate their feelings themselves. Those parents know the tremendous contribution that Pear Tree can make.
  What worries me about the Bill is the provision on guidance to parents to enable them to make up their minds about what is right for their child. Will the Minister comment more specifically on clause 2, which refers to local education authorities making arrangements to provide parents with information on SEN matters? Who will provide sufficiently dispassionate advice to enable parents to make their minds up?
  Parents are not a homogeneous commodity. Some of the parents whom I have had the pleasure of dealing with at Pear Tree are articulate, well resourced and remarkable people, and will fight to the last for what is right for their child. Some children come from fractured homes where there may be only one parent and the child does not always get the attention that he or she deserves because there are many siblings and the family does not have the resources. Who will explain the arguments in an understandable and dispassionate way so that a proper choice can be made? There needs to be a debate so that we can avoid any stigmatisation, but we must also ensure that the right advice is given to the parents of a child with special educational needs so that a proper choice can be made to meet that child's needs.
  Mr. Willis: I have listened carefully to the passionate and cogent argument that the right hon. Gentleman has put. How is it compatible with the policy of members of his Front-Bench team—of getting rid of local education authorities and taking away that plank of advocacy which has hitherto been the central role of the LEA on behalf of the very children to whom he has rightly referred?
  Mr. Jack: As the hon. Gentleman may have observed, there is more than one source of advice. The Government point to the role of the voluntary sector as a possible source of help. We are debating the Bill in the context of the present arrangements, to which my remarks are directed.
  There is an omission in the Bill. What has saddened me more than anything is the fact that, after hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of effort has been put into enabling children to come out of Pear Tree with every possible resource at their disposal to enhance their further living, they then face a real problem that is not dealt with by the Bill—it does not say what is supposed to happen next.
  I have known many cases of children who have found it difficult to go into training, employment or, more importantly, the specialist institutions that provide further training, nurture, succour, education and comfort for the children who come from Pear Tree school. One faces an enormous battle to give those children the opportunity to derive benefit from the investment that has been made in them by the Pear Tree schools of this world. Lancashire county council often fights against providing resources for those children. If they do not get those resources, all our efforts to improve special education, whether in mainstream or special schools, will be wasted.
  The university sector has not so far been covered in the debate. I received from the university of Lancaster a copy of the minutes of a meeting of its court held on 10 February. It was supportive of the Bill, but said that it could be improved by
  "including a definition of disability which adequately covers all those with an impairment which may affect their education. For example, a student with dyslexia may be able to concentrate for a short period of time but will need modifications when taking a three-hour exam".
  I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that Lancaster university, as well as others, will be contacted, so we can be sure that its observations on the way these powers can be strengthened further will be taken fully into account.
  Many of us speak passionately and with some knowledge about special education. The most important thing is to keep the child at the centre of our arguments; but I hope that the Bill will not lead to a lessening of choice or to any diminution of the resources devoted to caring for the many children who find it difficult to give us their own views, and for whom we therefore have a huge responsibility.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) indeed spoke with passion. He also spoke with great eloquence, and with first-hand knowledge of the issues. Let me simply say this to the right hon. Gentleman. if the Opposition support the principle of the Bill—as they have said they do—and if they also feel that the Bill needs further amendment, they should surely vote for it on Second Reading, try to amend it in Committee and, if they fail to amend it satisfactorily at that stage, decide whether to vote for Third Reading.
  It strikes me as foolish for the Opposition to break the all-party consensus that has been built up, not just in both Houses but among all the organisations that have worked together on the Bill. I ask them to reconsider, even at
  268
  this eleventh hour. By all means let them fight for their amendments in Committee, and then make a decision on Third Reading, but I urge them not to divide the House tonight.
  I agree with many members of other parties who have spoken about the importance of special schools. I support such schools. There are many excellent special schools in my constituency; a number of my constituents attend them, are flourishing, and would flourish only in those schools. Nothing in the Bill undermines special schools, but the Opposition amendment would undermine them. Some local education authorities would undoubtedly use it as a cop-out. It would enable them to keep children out of mainstream schools when it was inconvenient for children to be in such schools because the authorities had not made sufficient provision. It would also enable some LEAs not to put children into special schools when that was their parents' wish, because they could not provide the necessary places and wanted to force the children into mainstream schools. If the Opposition are serious about supporting special schools—and I accept that they are, for very good reasons—I ask them to think carefully about their amendment.
  We need to continue the dialogue about the Bill. One of the most powerful aspects of its progress is the fact that it has developed as far as it has as a result of dialogue. The Government were accused earlier of not listening, and of not being prepared to accept amendments. In whatever other contexts that n may or may not be true, it is not true in the context of this Bill, which has been improved considerably in the House of Lords. The Government have listened, and the Secretary of State said earlier that he was prepared to go on listening if we continued the dialogue.
  I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. I would not presume to speak for the group tonight, but my experience of working with it, the people whom I have met and the organisations with which I have been able to discuss the issues have given me some ideas. Before relaying the concerns of autistic people and the organisations that look after them, however, I want to tell the House a story about a child with special needs—not autistic—whom I encountered about three weeks ago, when visiting a mainstream primary school in my constituency. It was one of those mainstream primary schools that were built about 30 years ago. I shall not name it, because the individual concerned might then be identifiable, and the privacy of that person should be respected. The school is in a dreadful state and essentially needs to be replaced. I was visiting to see the damage that had been done to it recently and to talk to the head teacher about the campaign to renew it.
  Inside the school hall, there was a little girl who looked very much like my own daughter. She was about six years old and had long, curly hair. She was jumping on a trampoline with the help of a learning assistant, who was holding her hand. The little girl was counting each time she jumped, and, every time she reached the number five, she would fling herself high into the air. She was laughing as she jumped, and her laughter was absolutely infectious and filled the hall.
  I continued my tour with the head teacher. When I returned to the hall, the little girl was running across it, still laughing and giggling. She would run back and forth

  269
  and the learning assistant would catch her and then set her free again. As she ran past me, I realised that she had no eyes.
  That little girl is in a mainstream school. I suspect that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is the only hon. Member who knows how much guts it must take for that six-year-old to run across a hall with no one there to guide her and no idea of what is in the hall. My right hon. Friend is probably the only hon. Member who has experienced anything remotely like that.
  That little girl has so much guts that, if we give her the support she needs, she could achieve anything. As I said, she is being supported in a mainstream primary school, where she is able to fulfil herself. At some point, however, she will have to make the transition to a secondary school. After that, she will have to make the transition to a sixth form, and then to higher education. Each of those transitions could be a huge obstacle for her, but I believe that she can do anything. We have to give her that chance. It is up to us—the House, her local education authority, her parents and her teachers—to give her that chance.
  A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported in the newspapers as saying that he did not think he would ever be Prime Minister because the country was not ready for a blind Prime Minister. I disagree with him. I think that. when the present incumbent decides to give up the post, my right hon. Friend is one of several senior Ministers who would make an excellent Prime Minister.
  I also believe that, if we give that little girl the support that she needs throughout her life, if that is the type of course that she decides to pursue, she, too, could make the transition—but only if, throughout her life, she has access to the type of education that is right for her. That is why we have to clear away obstacles and ensure that every mainstream school and every college is available to little girls like her.
  The Bill identifies the need to remove obstacles. It says that the parents choice will be paramount. An additional caveat has also been included in the Bill—on the efficiency of education for other children. I admit that, if I had a magic wand, I would wave it and remove that caveat. The only caveat that I would leave in the Bill is the one concerning the primacy of parents" wishes.
  Someone has to speak on behalf of the child. If we include caveats such as that proposed by the Opposition, on the particular needs of the child, the parents wishes will no longer be paramount and someone else will have to judge the weight to give to each caveat. The parents wishes will have to be subordinated to the judgment of another authority. Parents wishes are not perfect and some will need a lot of guidance to make choices. However, parents are the best hope we have because they know their children best.
  The Bill is going in the right direction, and I hope that the Opposition will come to understands that. The Special Educational Consortium understands that. It says:
  "The Consortium believes that proposals contained in this Bill will dramatically improve the quality of education available for disabled pupils".
  Many other organisations have a similar view; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) quoted many of them. The National Autistic Society certainly has that view, and the society and the Special Educational
  270
  Consortium want the Bill and seek no further amendment to it. They believe that the Bill can have a dramatic effect on the people whom they represent.
  The Bill will be important for autistic people because of the duty to provide a mainstream place. Many people have quoted examples of how a mainstream place can be important. The National Autistic Society has identified a girl of average ability with autism who was excluded from mainstream primary schools because the teachers said that her problems were too great. Yet a secondary school was prepared to help her, with a dedicated team that was prepared to look after her needs. She made a great transition to that secondary mainstream school, and has now independently gone on to art college. That shows that we sometimes close our eyes to the possibility of what can be achieved in mainstream schools.
  The duty to plan is regarded by the National Autistic Society as a vital amendment in relation to children with autistic spectrum disorders. Two specific areas of planning that need to be considered are transition and staff training. The transition of a child between different schools is vital, and a child who is flourishing in one school must be allowed the opportunity to flourish in the next school.
  One example of good practice is Blackpool local education authority, where school support assistants are trained to make transition plans for pupils. An example from the authority is that of an autistic boy who was identified as needing to use public transport to get to his secondary school. The school support assistants made plans to introduce him to public transport and make sure that he could use it to make the transition.
  On staff training, an example of which 1 am aware is that of a little girl who was in a mainstream primary school. She was starting to become disruptive when all the children were sitting around for story-telling and reading. The reason, it was worked out, was that because the child was autistic, she needed a fixed place in the circle. Because she was not given a fixed place, she became uncomfortable and disruptive. The staff realised what was going on and put a red carpet tile down, explaining to her that whenever the class was sitting in a circle, she would sit on the red carpet tile. After that, there was no more trouble from her because she had her place and understood what was necessary. That sort of staff training is vital if we are to introduce autistic children into mainstream schools.
  We have to look at teaching strategies. Classes must have visual structures and a clarity of purpose. The objectives of the lesson must be set out so that autistic children can understand them. They will then learn much better and feel more comfortable.
  If we are going to plan, we must understand how many people we are planning for. So far as autism is concerned, we still have no real idea. The Government have started to recognise the need to work out how many autistic children there are, but we need to speed up that process. A few decades ago, it was assumed that only four people in 10,000 were autistic. In the 1970s, that figure was raised by studies that suggested that 20 people in 10,000 were autistic. By 1993, the estimate was 71 in 10,000, and the National Autistic Society currently estimates that 91 people in 10,000 are autistic. Recent studies suggest that one person in 175 is autistic.

  271
  Moreover, there has been an increase in the number of pupils who are now considered to be autistic, and perhaps one in eight pupils with a special need are now thought to be autistic. That matter must be addressed, or planning will be impossible.
  Early years education for autistic children must also be looked at. If children up to the age of two can be identified as autistic, we can start giving them intensive help, with the result that they will do very much better in later life. However, we must be able to identify such children and to ensure that early years education is available for them. The people who help in the schools must also be able to employ the techniques needed to identify autistic people.
  As has been said, the Bill is a milestone. It will dramatically improve the lives of autistic children and make a huge difference to children of all disabilities. At this eleventh hour, I appeal to the Opposition not to break the huge consensus that has built up in support of the Bill. I urge them to step back from the position that they have adopted, and think again.
  I hope that the Opposition will work with the Government in Committee to try and get the amendments that they want into the Bill. However, the important thing is that we all carry on working together to deliver what is a vital measure for disabled people.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I rise to support the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I do so because I am anxious about certain parts of the Bill—my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave a fair account of the problems involved.
  All hon. Members are united in our desire to give all our children the best possible opportunity, regardless of whether they are disabled or have learning difficulties. It is interesting to reflect on how legislation is first brought to the House. Does it come as a result of the work of pressure groups, or is it based on the advice of civil servants? Does it derive from the experiences of individual Members of Parliament? Some hon. Members are disabled, and many had special learning difficulties when they were children. When I was a small child, I had to go to a speech therapist for three years, reciting the phrase "how now, brown cow" and so on. I am very grateful for the help that I received, and not at all ashamed.
  It is on the record—and I am sure that the Minister will accept this—that the Secretary of State did not entirely enjoy his experience at school. My brother-in-law is blind, and my wife's sister has very little sight. They are about the same age as the Secretary of State, and went to a school similar to the one that he attended. However, their experiences are different from his. He has all the power, and they have no power at all.
  I want to share with the House the practical effects of the Bill. When my noble Friends Lady Blatch and Lord Baker spoke in the other place, they were very concerned about how the Bill would be funded. Lord Baker thought that the costs would be astronomical in educational terms, and felt that the Government had not estimated the financial consequences of what they were doing. The care
  272
  in the community policy was very expensive, as the House knows, and I believe that the Bill will also turn out to be very expensive.
  At the start of the debate, hon. Members asked whether anyone could point to an organisation that was not in favour of the Bill. Given that other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not spend time on that point, but there are any number of organisations—
  Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amess: I will not give way, as that would be unfair to other hon. Members. I want to tell the House that there are organisations that have expressed concerns about the Bill, among them the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. The letter from the National Association of Head Teachers, which has been referred to, shows that that association, too, has reservations, which it outlines.
  I want to share with the House what has happened in Southend. The Liberal-Labour council, driven by the Government's intention to develop their policy of inclusion, decided to consult. The council's proposals have upset parents and children alike. I went round all the schools, and not one parent wrote saying "David, for goodness' sake, we must close these special schools and put the children into mainstream schools."
  My constituency has magnificent schools, including Lancaster, Kingsdown, St. Christopher, Fairways special needs unit and Priory school, which, along with the school mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, also received a magnificent Ofsted report. In the neighbouring constituency we have St. Nicholas school. I pay tribute to all the teachers for the magnificent job that they do.
  The chairman of the education committee. Councillor Mrs. Sally Can, said to me that this was a fine policy, but did the Government realise that, perhaps uniquely, there was a teacher crisis in Southend? We do not have the number of teachers that we need in our secondary and junior schools. One need only look at The Times Educational Supplement, which advertises a huge number of vacancies, to realise that there is a dire shortage of teachers. Is it any wonder, considering the Government's policy outlined in circular 10/99? There are three cases in Essex of children who have been caught with drugs on school premises. Government circular 10/99 has enabled the parents to appeal against the exclusion of such pupils. The Government's policy is that if children bring drugs into school their parents can appeal against their expulsion and they can be taken back. Children can be permanently excluded only if they are actually selling drugs on school premises.
  That has obviously undermined a number of head teachers, who have quite rightly expelled children caught with drugs on school premises. However, as a result of Government circular 10/99, whose potential consequences the Government presumably fully understood when they issued it, the good reputation of those heads has been completely undermined
  I spoke this afternoon to Mr. Peter Brown from Essex Mencap about the Bill. He said that everyone welcomes inclusion in so far as it means assisting people with learning disabilities to access community facilities where it is their wish to do so. Those are not my words; they are the words of Mr. Peter Brown, who also said that although

  273
  politically correct thinking says that the learning disabled should use community facilities, in fact in many cases they prefer to associate with people who are also learning disabled. Mr. Brown drew an analogy: people want to play tennis with others on their level, not necessarily with professionals. Mr. Brown said that of course Mencap was against discrimination and that it was not against the learning disabled having access to community facilities. However, he was wary of the danger of pushing people with learning disabilities to do something that they were not necessarily comfortable with for the sake of political correctness.
  The head teacher of one of our excellent special schools said that if we are to begin the process of inclusion, we must ensure that mainstream schools have the right resources and staff to provide services.
  I presume that Labour Members are putting it around that the Conservative party is opposed to helping children with learning difficulties and disabled children. However, we all know that that is not so. As parliamentarians, we want to be party to good, sensible legislation, so we should scrutinise measures.
  I salute all those teachers who are working so hard. We have a tremendous teacher shortage at present. It is all very well for the Government to say that this Bill is wonderful and that it will help all our children, but it will fail if it is not carefully thought through and if we do not have the resources to back it up.
  9.10 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Like many Members, I welcome the Bill. I, too, have received a large number of representations from organisations in Scotland; they also welcome the Bill and hope that it will pass speedily through this place so that it can be enacted before a general election comes along.
  I have always felt strongly about the subject of the Bill—it is very dear to my heart. Apart from my first four and a half years and the past four years since my election to this place, I have spent all my life in education. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not in his place—although perhaps I am glad. Earlier, he was jumping up and down heckling my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  I spent a long time in education not because I was a slow learner, but because I became a teacher. I felt passionately about that. However, I almost did not become a teacher, because in 1973, when I applied to the college of education in Aberdeen, I was told that I could not go there. Why? Because I had an encroaching disability, and people with disabilities could not be teachers. I suffered discrimination.
  Had my disability been slightly more advanced while I was at school, I might not have been able to attend a spanking new school in 1970, when I was in the fourth year of secondary school. At that time, I was still walking, although my legs were beginning to break and so on. Had I been in a wheelchair, I would riot have been able to go to that school, but would have had to go somewhere else. As I lived in a rural community, it would probably have been several miles away—possibly in Dundee, 26 miles away. Thirty years ago, that was a long distance. In 1970, no one even thought that someone in a wheelchair could attend mainstream school.
  274
  I felt passionately about the fact that education was left out of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That was a glaring omission and I am glad that the Government are putting it right.
  In my comments, I had intended to concentrate on part II of the Bill, because its anti-discrimination provisions are relevant to Scotland; part I deals with special educational needs and does not apply to Scotland. However, as I have been called towards the end of the debate and shall perhaps be the last Labour Back Bencher to speak before the winding-up speeches, I want to correct some of the impressions given by Conservative Members.
  I have looked carefully at the Bill. Nothing in it suggests the end of special schools, and no Labour Member has said that. I, more than most people, appreciate that, due to advances in medical science, an increasing number of babies and young children survive and live with severe disabilities who would have died in previous generations. They will need an enormous amount of support if they are to be educated. Sometimes that will be in special schools, but I find that, in Scotland, they are frequently educated in special units of mainstream schools. The situation may be different in England and Wales.
  Those children do not necessarily follow a mainstream curriculum. Indeed, they may not be very integrated with the mainstream. They go through the same school gate, but they attend a specially equipped unit. They often mix with the other pupils at interval time and lunch time, but there is a special curriculum that they can access. In some cases, they mix and match: sometimes they dip into the mainstream curriculum; at other times, they are taught in the special unit. I taught at a school where there was such a unit. Nothing in the Bill outlaws any of that provision.
  The Opposition want the Bill to be passed, but if their amendment is accepted, the Bill will not receive its Second Reading and it will fall. Thus many parents who want their children to receive mainstream education will be denied it, as happens now. Parents who want special education for their children will not be denied it under the Bill, but if it is not passed, plenty of children—perhaps younger versions of myself—will be denied access to the school of their choice, because the local authority or the school can say that it is too expensive to put in the necessary ramps or lift, or that it is too difficult to find a way round the barriers that exist in the school. I therefore hope that the Opposition will think again and reconsider the Bill.
  I had intended to concentrate on part II, and I shall do so now. Much has been said about whether the Government listen. I can attest, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), that the Government have listened to those representing the Scottish dimension. RNIB Scotland and Children in Scotland were concerned that the model of English special educational needs provision would be used as a delivery mechanism in Scotland. They felt that that might be inappropriate if rolled out in Scotland.
  The Bill is interesting because it is, I think, the first of its kind—it will put the devolution settlement to the test. We are legislating on a reserved matter—anti-discrimination legislation—but it will be applied to a devolved matter, education. The test is to find out whether the right relationships exist between the House and the

  275
  Scottish Parliament, and between the officials at the Department for Education and Employment and those at the Scottish Executive.
  Initially, charities in Scotland, such as Children in Scotland and RNIB Scotland, were concerned that perhaps the relationship was not right, but many of their anxieties were laid to rest after a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has responsibilities for disabled people. They were anxious about two matters: the code of practice and the planning duties.
  I shall deal first with the planning duties. The Bill states:
  "The duty to produce an accessibility strategy or plan will not extend to Scotland."
  That rang alarm bells at the charities, as they thought, "Well, if the Bill is not going to extend to Scotland, LEAs will have no duty to provide proper access and auxiliary help." However, that is the devolved element of the Bill, so it will be up to the Scottish Executive to produce their version of that provision to ensure that the accessibility strategy is in place. There will not be a planning duty, because that is not how such things are done in Scotland.
  It is interesting that the Scottish Minister who will be in charge of implementing those provisions is the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Aberdeen, South—a Liberal Democrat, working in a Labour-led coalition. I spoke to him yesterday, and he is very well aware of the issues. I am sure that the Scottish children's charities will be in touch with him to ensure that, if the Bill is passed, the time scale for implementation in Scotland is in line with that in England, and that that is done speedily and timeously, as I hope it will be in England.
  I seek the Minister's assurance that the Government will continue to work with Ministers in the Scottish Executive and their officials. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun has already paid tribute to the officials at the Department for Education and Employment. I should like to add my thanks to them and the Minister for listening and for taking those concerns seriously.
  I appreciate that, whether in Scotland or England and Wales, there must be a rolling programme within the strategic development plan that will make schools accessible. I understand that we cannot do everything at once. We cannot suddenly make all schools accessible to every child overnight, and the needs that should be met first are those in schools with children who have real needs; they should he foremost on any plan. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister that we shall try to speed up that process to make it as rapid as possible. It is not just pupils who use schools. Parents have to visit them for parents evenings, and I hope that there are more disabled teachers than there were when 1 left the profession four short years ago. I hope that I will not have to go back into the profession—although I must say that that would not be a problem for me. I really enjoyed my time in it, but "Not just yet, please" is my plea to my constituents in Aberdeen, South.
  276
  Parents, teachers, relatives and visitors all use schools. When I was a teacher, I used to coach the debating team in my school and I had enormous problems getting into other schools when I visited them with the debating team. I would not like to tell the House how many flights of stairs I had to be carried up to reach debating halls. It was ridiculous and no teacher would have wanted that to happen, but that was often the only way in which I could get to the halls.
  Matters are improving, and such problems do not exist in every school and local authority. Things have moved on dramatically in 30 years, and there are examples of good practice, but the time has come to legislate to ensure that those problems that still exist are properly addressed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun also referred to the need for a Scottish code of practice. I reiterate that point because it is important. The code of practice is not just about physical adjustments, as the example of Julia shows. She arrived in Arbroath aged 11 with her mother, having gone to special schools throughout her primary career. Her mother wanted to put her into mainstream education, so she looked for a secondary school and Julia arrived at the school in which I taught before I was elected.
  Julia had severe cerebral palsy. Although she had good oral skills, she could not move much of her body. She had an electric wheelchair and, with an auxiliary, she was happy at school. Her mother told me that, for the first time in Julia's life, people would say hello to her and ask her how she was when she went down the street on a Saturday morning. She had never been part of a community before. Attending school was good for Julia and good for the other children. The worst scallywag in the class bought her a box of chocolates for her birthday. We think, but are not sure, that he bought them; they came in a brown paper parcel.
  The interesting point about Julia's story is not that she went to a mainstream school, but how she ended up at the school in which I taught. There are two schools in Arbroath: the one in which I taught is a 1960s monstrosity with glass, many different levels and lots of stairs; the other is a brand-new school that is properly adapted with wheelchair access everywhere. Julia lived in the catchment area of the new school, so why did she end up at the school with worse access?
  The school was not a problem for me. I was an English teacher on the ground floor and the pupils came to me, but there were problems in the school. Julia came to my school because, when her mother visited the two schools, she found that their attitudes were totally different. One said, "Oh, I'm not sure how we can cope with that; that might be quite difficult" while the other said, "Yes, I see that that might be a problem, but I am sure that we shall find a solution." It found a solution and Julia was able to get upstairs even though there was no lift. The local education authority bought a brand new, super-duper, stair-climbing wheelchair. It cost £6,000 and it belonged not to Julia but to the LEA. However, that piece of lateral thinking got Julia round the school relatively cheaply. The solution was certainly much cheaper than installing lifts. I echo the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: that was seeing a way round the problem rather than seeing the problem.

  277
  Education is the basis for ensuring that young people are given equality of opportunity. It is crucial if we are to raise their expectations and aspirations. We must give them goals to aim for, hope for the future and the opportunity to realise their potential.
  Young people with disabilities need those opportunities as much as their peer group. If the education system discriminates against them, that discrimination will follow them throughout their lives, denying them the chance to succeed and to be all that they can be Discrimination has no place in education, which is why I am pleased that the Labour Government will outlaw it. I make a last minute plea to the Opposition: please withdraw your amendment. Some matters can be argued in Committee, and it would be inappropriate to vote against Second Reading tonight.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: The debate has been fascinating and was enlivened by a range of distinguished contributions. I sat through nearly all the proceedings missing only, I think, the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). I found myself sympathising with many of the points made, not least—if I may say so without invidiousness—those by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). There has been a leitmotif—I do not know why—that has cast the Opposition in the role of the bad guys because we have dared to move a reasoned amendment. The hon. Lady will appreciate that it is outwith my power to bestow a last minute change of heart, even at her blandishment. Perhaps the usual channels will reflection the possibility that were we not to proceed with our reasoned amendment, they might drop their programme motion.
  The implication is that we are not acting in good faith, yet the Government are requiring us to conclude the Bill's consideration in Committee by 5 April. I do not think that we can have a full discussion about the proper issues unless we put down a marker of dissent and then persist in that dissent by tabling amendments in Committee. Incidentally, that is the role of the Opposition and part of the democratic process. I will award a small prize—not, of course, a pecuniary one—to any Labour Member who is prepared to tell me when the Government have been defeated in the past four years as a result of an Opposition amendment on Second Reading. If they are as worried as they say, it makes me wonder whether they are beginning to run scared of the fate that they will shortly meet.
  The debate has been good natured, for all the noises off. It has been informed by passion and commitment on both sides of the Chamber to the cause of special education in its widest sense. In general, hon. Members who contributed felt for children with special educational needs, their parents and—this was eloquently put—their teachers and those who resource them.
  The Opposition approach the Bill with three general principles in mind. First, there
  "is no substantial disagreement…with the broad objectives of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 645.]
  Those were the words of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch on Second Reading. That has been our consistent position, and it remains so.
  Secondly, I have no objection in principle to inclusion as such. There are plenty of excellent examples of inclusion in secondary schools and some rural primary
  278
  schools in my constituency. I have also seen some good examples of what one might loosely call blended provision. For example, a primary school near my constituency, to which some of my constituents send their children, perfectly blends dedicated special provision with other provision. If we were really in the business of the third way, we could follow that example rather than others that I might suggest another time.
  Looking at the legislative framework, I consider the Education Act 1996, which consolidated measures and is the basis on which the Bill amends provisions. It reflects legislation that I helped to pass through the House when I had just become a Minister late in 1992. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) will remember debating it. Looking back, I was surprised to find it is a little stronger on inclusion than I remembered it to be. We should say that there is no ideological objection to inclusion, nor is there any objection in principle to the extension of disability rights. Much has been said about why education was not incorporated in the 1996 Act. There were difficulties, including those with resources, which have cropped up in other areas, and the attitude of vice-chancellors, who might not have taken kindly to what they saw as an imposition on their territory and academic freedom.
  Leaving aside the judgment that was made at that time, we can say that for a variety of reasons, such as good leadership in the Disability Rights Commission, which we also support, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has bedded down and shown that it can work without unduly disturbing consequences, so this is an appropriate time to extend it to education. However, enough has been said tonight to make it clear that even if the Bill is not party politically controversial, there is a good deal to discuss and argue about.
  I, too, met the Gloucestershire parents and children from Alderman Knight school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and I realise that they feel very strongly. I understand that 32,000 people have signed a petition to the LEA in protest at what is being proposed for that school.
  There is controversy, and the place to deal with it is here. Clearly, the Bill has already been improved by detailed scrutiny in another place. In fact, if I may mix my metaphors, the walls of Jericho fell without a shot having been fired because the Government withdrew the objectionable proposal to replace the word "specify" in the proposed code on statements with the words "set out". We felt that the original proposed change was unacceptable, and the Government withdrew the proposal before it was ever debated.
  A good deal has been done by noble Lords from different parties to put the Bill right, but that does not absolve us—or, dare I say, with respect, Ministers—from the task of taking it through Committee in this place and considering it properly on its merits. It is in that spirit that we tabled the reasoned amendment on which we will invite the House to divide. Principally, it highlights our concern that the educational interests of the child should come first.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said--I particularly noted this phrase—coercive social inclusion could be counter-productive. The principle of putting the child first is surely unexceptionable in all quarters of the House and

  279
  occasionally even begins to stray into the speech of Ministers; yet that principle or caveat is apparently being deleted because it is alleged, even by the Special Educational Consortium, to which we have talked, to have damaged the interests of children. The idea that removing a right makes it easier to uphold that right is counter-intuitive. Even if we are wrong, the matter needs to be properly debated. We have all heard flip political statements, notably from current Ministers, in which the phrase, "I have no intention of means "I will". In all events, we need to consider the apparent mismatch between principle and practice.
  Our second concern relates to the implied agenda for tilting the balance of special education towards inclusion only. We believe that if parents and children are to exercise an informed choice, they need a range of providers in which to exercise that choice. If, for example, an LEA has closed all its special schools—a case in London was cited—there is simply no choice. An LEA in a rural, dispersed shire such as my own may have special schools grouped in inconvenient places that might be as much as 30 or 40 miles away from the residence of the child concerned, so there is no effective choice.
  If the local education authority fights consistently in principle against referring pupils out of area, whether to maintained or, if appropriate, independent special schools, there is at best a restricted choice. Alternatively, an LEA could be driven—possibly by tacit resource complaints—to opt for inclusion on the cheap, with a fanfare of trumpets to say how modern it is being, but without proper resourcing or teacher training in mainstream schools.
  Having commented earlier on the schools access initiative, I must point out that it is not only the capital side that matters, as the report has shown. The back-up with current expenditure and the resourcing of teachers and curriculum access also matter. If that proper resourcing cannot be provided, the choice left to parents is an unappealing one.
  I am particularly concerned about reviews. When counties such as Gloucestershire, about which we have heard a great deal today, or my own county of Northamptonshire, which has given rise to a little apprehension, review their provision, they might be doing so not out of a genuine concern to reappraise, improve or—dare I say—modernise the pattern of provision. They might be following a hidden agenda.
  The problem with hidden agendas is that we never know what they are until it is too late to do anything about them. Such a hidden agenda as I have described could reflect the fact that either the accountants or the ideologues have been sent in to wipe out the special schools. It would be welcome if Ministers could calm our fears, but those points will need careful examination before we can go out and say that, after all, it is all clear and there is no danger. However, I fear that there is danger, in some cases.
  Beyond those issues, there is still a great deal more in the Bill to talk about. A matter that I have already raised implicitly was also raised in another place by my noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who said eloquently, with the authority of an ex-Secretary of State, that there was a problem with resources. It is self-evident that if inclusion
  280
  is to be properly resourced, it will be an expensive matter. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke eloquently about that earlier.
  Mr. Willisindicated assent.
  Mr. Boswell: I note that the hon. Gentleman is now nodding in agreement with what I have said.
  It is incontestable that the number of children with statements has risen sharply as a proportion of total pupil numbers. There has been an increase of about 25 per cent. over five years, compared with an overall increase of only 5 per cent. in pupil numbers during that time. The cost directly attributable to statements—only a small proportion of the overall cost of special needs—rose in the comparable period from £290 million annually to £370 million.
  On the wider expenditure front, the Audit Commission has estimated that 15 per cent. of the total spend on education is allocated to special educational needs. Dr. John Marks, working on a wider definition, has suggested a spend of roughly double that percentage. In any event, we need greater transparency in the delivery of provision. We also need to ensure that the resources earmarked for special educational needs go through and end up with the children, about whom we all say we care most.
  I shall not let this occasion pass without referring to the comments in the brief provided by the National Union of Teachers, which states:
  "The positive measures in the Bill will only be successful if they are backed by adequate funding. The SEN provisions in the Bill are not without significant resource implications. The Union believes that the Government should audit all the costs involved in implementing"
  those provisions. The NUT has also expressed concern about the need to obtain an assurance in the House of Commons
  "that special schools have a continuing role and future."
  It has been suggested that opposition to the Bill has disappeared. However, l must say in all seriousness to Ministers that there ire still concerns about many points. Those concerns need to be raised and to be answered. With respect to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, I should not like the disability clauses to pass without further comment. I am not a real lawyer but a lawyer manqué, and have always taken a certain interest in human rights and judicial review issues.
  It is remarkable and a little disturbing that, in a different context, the Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out that many thousands of cases under part II of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 have already been taken to tribunals, which are the recourse under that provision, but the number of cases involving breaches or alleged breaches of part III duties, although they cannot quite be counted on the fingers of one hand, are under 50, as they have to go to court. Having a background in further and higher education, I am disturbed by the fact that such students, although they have the same nominal rights as school pupils, have to take their cases to court, not the tribunal, as school students do.
  The point is made even more sharply if we consider the case of identical twins with identical special educational needs who are over 16, the statutory school-leaving age. One might remain in school and avail himself of rights

  281
  which he could press at a tribunal; the other, after leaving school, might go to further education college and would have to assert his rights in court. That amounts to a functional discrimination which, in turn, may well find its way to the courts, when decisions and situations are well traced by legal experts.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): What would the hon. Gentleman do?
  Mr. Boswell: With respect, the hon. Lady is a member of the Government, and she and her colleagues need to decide what they are going to do about those legitimate issues. They might even spend a little time in Committee explaining to us what they propose to do.
  All those matters give rise to genuine concern among parents and others.
  Mr. Levitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, even when it has the right to do so, the Disability Rights Commission prides itself on not going all the way to court and resolving cases before they reach court?
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman graciously allowed me to intervene twice during his speech, so I am ready to allow him to participate, even though time is short. He is aware that I am in close touch with the Disability Rights Commission. I admire very much the good sense of Bert Massie and the way in which the commission has set about its business. I am sure that litigation should be the last, not the first, recourse. However, once one starts granting legal rights, litigation will not be confined to the commission; the odd barrack room lawyer, who may have nothing to do with the commission, may wish to take a case to court and create difficulties. All I am asking, quite reasonably, is that Ministers think about the possibility and come up with some answers.
  In conclusion, those matters all give rise to genuine concerns among parents; they cannot simply be shrugged off. In a moment, we are going on to debate a motion on the handling of the Bill. I fear that I he House will hear from me again on that subject and I do not intend to rehearse my remarks here. All that I would say is that we owe it to parents, children and special education providers in this most sensitive of educational sectors to give the Bill—whatever its objectives, aspirations, and highly acceptable aspects, and however improved by a helpful definition of how the Secretary of State will approach statementing and how local authorities are to tackle it—proper consideration. We need to explore the concerns which we have expressed in good faith and to which others have added.
  We need to be sympathetic to the case and need to handle it sensitively. We need common sense; in fact, we might say that we need sound sense, rather than soundbites. The children, for whom we are all concerned, deserve no less.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members have used their considerable experience of and interest in the subject to make important
  282
  and well-argued contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who are doughty campaigners on these matters. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) made thoughtful contributions, drawing on their expertise as former Ministers. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made good use of his family links, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), in a moving and thoughtful speech, used her personal experience to good effect. Other hon. Members made important contributions, to which I shall refer in my response.
  I am pleased that there has been general support from Government Members for the broad thrust of the Bill. However, I am disappointed that the Opposition will vote against the Bill. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) seemed to suggest that because it is not possible for the Opposition to muster enough votes to defeat the Government, it somehow does not matter that the Opposition intend to vote against Second Reading. People outside who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood pointed out, are keen to see the Bill get through, will note the attitude of the Opposition this evening.
  Through the Bill, we will give our attention to the needs of pupils with special educational needs and the rights of disabled pupils, students and adult learners to access education. To put that in context, one in five pupils will be identified as having a special educational need at some point in his or her school career. There are more than 1 million young people aged 24 and under who meet the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition, there are more than 60,000 adult learners with disabilities. Those are the people whom the Bill will benefit directly.
  The Bill in its present form reflects the changes that we made after considering representations made to us and amendments tabled in another place. We believe that the Bill is better for that. As regards the operation of the new duties in the Bill, we are not interested in a dogmatic or a one-size-fits-all approach; rather, we are concerned with what works in practice. We want an inclusive education system that offers excellence and choice.
  Opposition Members made much of their concern to safeguard the needs and interests of children with special educational needs. It was implied by several Opposition Members that the Government were not concerned about those needs. In fact, as several Government Members pointed out, the entire SEN framework supports the best interests of children. Our concern is that the requirement to recognise the needs of the child as a caveat in the inclusion clause has been gravely misused.
  For example, a boy with a physical and hearing impairment was successfully included in a mainstream nursery school. When the time came for him to transfer to primary school, the local education authority directed him to a special school, miles away. The LEA said that a mainstream school would never be able to cope. It never considered what could be done to facilitate his continuing inclusion.

  283
  The child's parents had to battle to persuade the LEA that a mainstream school could cope. After an appeal to the SEN tribunal, the boy was welcomed into a mainstream school, where he is thriving. The parents should not have had to fight for their child's inclusion. The retention of the "needs of the child" caveat would mean that children who could and should benefit from inclusion would continue to be denied a mainstream place.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. For the record, can she tell us whether that was under the present regime, where the "rights of the child" caveat is embodied? If the decision had been left to the LEA exclusively, would there have been a change? Is it not the case that the rights of the child were embodied and were eventually enforced by the tribunal, and that that effected the change in provision?
  Jacqui Smith: No. The point is that the parents had to fight for the child to get into a mainstream school. We want a positive commitment to inclusion. Clause 1 is supported by the Special Educational Consortium, an umbrella for 250 organisations. It is also supported by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Mencap and the National Autistic Society, even if it is not supported by the Opposition. I know to which of those bodies I would rather listen.
  The Opposition have also suggested that the Bill prevents LEAs from funding independent placements, but that is completely wrong. The abilities and duties of LEAs in respect of funding such placements, which are set out in section 348 of the Education Act 1996, are specifically preserved by proposed new section 316A(3), which is contained in clause 1. They also argued that clause 1 would make it harder for parents whose children have statements to gain special school places. Again, that is simply untrue. We have always argued that one size does not fit all, which is why we keep signalling an important and continuing role for special schools.
  Clause 1 strengthens the right of children with statements to obtain mainstream places and fully preserves parents' rights to object to mainstream provision. It does not make it harder for parents to gain special school places for children with statements. The Bill underlines the fact that parents' wishes should be listened to.
  It has also been argued that the Bill is an attack on special schools. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, we want mainstream and special schools to work together and we see an important and continuing role for them. The overall size of the specialist sector has not reduced. Since 1996, it has remained broadly static and has catered for about 1.2 per cent. of children, or about 97,000 of them. Changes will continue to be made to ensure that provision reflects local circumstances and needs, as has always been the case.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No; I am short of time.
  284
  The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) spoke about the special school in his constituency. I am sorry that he chose to attack Ministers personally for not turning up at his meeting. I must tell him that I received his invitation only this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), who has lobbied hard, will confirm my willingness to meet those concerned. The delegation that she brought to me represented a special school in her constituency, and I was happy to meet its members and discuss their concerns. I told them that we are committed to a buoyant and vibrant specialist sector, which explains why funding per pupil for maintained special schools has increased by 20 per cent. in real terms under the current Government. It is also why we have made available to non-maintained special schools direct grants, the standards fund, information and communications technology training, devolved formula funding, funding for teachers to pass thresholds and laptops. All that provision was not available under the previous Government.
  The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) rightly raised the issue of resources. Of course, not everything needs money to change. Much of the change that is needed will be brought about by shifting attitudes, but resources are important, which is why the £500 more per pupil that the Government have put into schools and the increase in the standards fund from £55 million this year to £82 million next :year are so significant. It also explains why the schools access initiative has increased to £220 million over the next three years. That comes on top of the general increase in capital spend, which has risen threefold on the amount that we inherited from the previous Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke passionately about her constituents and has lobbied hard for investment in her constituency, so I am pleased that children in special and mainstream schools will see the benefit. We have made money available for excess in further and higher education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced £25 million more for early years. We learned today that the Conservatives are still unclear about whether they will match our funding for those purposes. The reality of their policies is that the money that LEAs currently spend on placements in independent schools would not be safeguarded under their spending plans. We have also heard that they are unclear about their free schools policy. Having said that all the money for special educational needs would go to schools, we now hear that it would stay in the local authority. Presumably the sign on the SEN officer's door would be changed from "local education authority" to "local authority". The Conservatives cannot have it both ways: they cannot promise more money to schools and then do U-turns sun as tonight's.
  My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak raised important issues about early years education and my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and for Aberdeen, South discussed Scottish Executive responsibilities and particular issues for Scotland. As they said, I have written to the Scottish Executive because it is for Scottish Executive Ministers to decide how to respond to the disability rights taskforce recommendation on the statutory duty to plan to increase access. I am sure that their call for quick action has been heard.

  285
  The codes of practice were also mentioned. The Bill will confer powers on the Disability Rights Commission to produce either Great Britain-wide codes, separate codes for England and Wales and for Scotland or Great Britain-wide codes with Scottish chapters. Although the education and legal systems in which the new duties will apply differ, the duties themselves will be the same. When my hon. Friends met the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), she made it clear that we would be careful about Using experts from Scotland on the drafting groups for the code. There will be a GB-wide consultation and we shall consider separate chapters for Scotland.
  The Bill will strengthen the SEN framework to improve the education services provided to children with SEN and their parents, and it will put right the previous Government's omission by removing the unjust exemption of education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. No longer will an education provider be able to discriminate against a disabled pupil, student or adult learner on the ground of disability.
  Education is the key to ensuring that everyone, regardless of individual needs and whatever their background, has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Attitudes have shifted a long way from the days when disabled children often had little choice but to attend special schools or institutions and were frequently separated from their families and friends. Schools, colleges and universities are increasingly inclusive, but we are determined to maintain that progress and to support good work such as that which I saw last week at George Green's school in Tower Hamlets, which is an excellent example of a school where inclusion and high standards work together.
  The school is unfazed by the diverse needs of the pupils it serves, including six who use wheelchairs and several with limited mobility, complex medical needs, severe communication difficulties and learning difficulties. The school's belief in inclusive education, like that of the Government, comes first. Everything else is then a challenge that can be surmounted. When that can-do ethos is combined with a strong focus on to teaching and learning, visionary leadership and, increasingly financial support from a Government who share its vision and are willing to invest in it, the result is a successful and popular school that achieves despite difficult circumstances.
  The Bill and the Government's insvestment will ensure that many more schools can develop like George Green's and that many more children can benefit from what schools like it have to offer. As we said in our recent Green Paper, inclusion and equality of opportunity are an important part of our drive to promote higher standards. They represent the start of lifelong learning opportunities open to all, regardless of disability.
  The Bill, which the Opposition oppose, demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that pupils, students and adult learners have the opportunity to meet their potential. It will ensure that we move one step closer to a society in which all are valued for what they can do, rather than judged for what they cannot, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 332.

  Division No. 160]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Loughton, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Luff, Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Baldry, Tony

  McCrea, Dr William

  Beggs, Roy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin Body,

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sir Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Boswell, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maples, John

  Brady, Graham

  Mates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  May, Mrs Theresa Moss.

  Burns, Simon

  Malcolm

  Butterfill, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Norman, Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Clappison, James

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Paterson, Owen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Pickles, Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Prior, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fallon, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Flight, Howard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Garnier, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Gibb, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Gill, Christopher

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Ian (Esher&Walton)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic Gummer,

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Hamilton. Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick Hayes,

  Tyrie, Andrew

  John

  Wafter, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wells, Bowen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard Key,

  Wilkinson, John Willetts

  Robert

  David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Lidington,David

  Mr.James Gray

  287

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crausby, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Coy'try NE)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

  Alan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ballard, Jackie

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

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Begg, Miss Anne Bell,

  Dismore, Andrew

  Martin (Talton)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Drew, David

  Benton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Berry. Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Ellman,Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Flynn. Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George Fyfe, Maria

  Brown. Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burgon, Cohn

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burnett, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burstow, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hain, Peter

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David(S Shields)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker,Vernon

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, lain

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  288

  Hughes Ms Beverley (Stretfold)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster. N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

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

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John(Aberavon)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin. Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Neill. Martin

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Opik, Lembit

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardif)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pickthall. Cohn

  Joyce, Eric

  Pike, Peter L

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  LIwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Love, Andrew

  Roy,Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sanders, Adrian

  McDonnell, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McFall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Abd'ns)

  Marshall, David (Shettleson)

  Snape, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson. George

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  289

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Vaz, Keith

  Stringer, Graham

  Walley, Ms. Joan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Watts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Plt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Williams,Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wills, Michael

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tonge,Dr Jenny

  Woodward, Shaun

  Touhig, Don

  Woolas,Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Tynan, Bill

  Mr Gerry Sutcliffe.

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

  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords] (Programme)
  10.14 pm
  Jacqui Smith: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]:
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Jacqui Smith: There will be ample time for debate after I have spoken to the motion.
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. Members did not shout at the Minister; that is an instruction.
  Jacqui Smith: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has shown no interest in the Bill up until now.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not going to give way.
  Jacqui Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make his points after I have finished.

  291
  We believe that the motion proposes ample time to consider a Bill of this size, whose principles are generally supported by Members on all sides of the House—even if some vote against them—and by voluntary organisations.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Boswell: My immediate reaction to that speech was, frankly, "Oh dear." I must confess a certain liking for the late Frankie Howerd, a fine comedian—particularly on television. Some of the more mature of our colleagues may remember him appearing in what might loosely be called the Roman follies. He always built up the case in the forum and then, at a certain point, he would turn aside, remember himself and say, "And now, the prologue." Tonight, it was, "And now, the programme motion."
  Frankly, this would all be a farce—it has been treated as such by the Under-Secretary—if it were not so serious.
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful that my hon. Friend gives way, when the Minister did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that this House should be asked to approve a programme motion on the basis that there will be enough time to consider the Bill in Committee, when we have not been told when the Committee will meet, how often it will meet or the total length of time for which it will meet?
  Mr. Boswell: Not for the first time, I find myself entirely in sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend. He may not have been able to attend the whole of the previous debate—I understand the reasons for that—so I remind him that I made an offer. I said that we might consider withdrawing our opposition on the reasoned amendment if the Government took away their absurd programme motion tonight.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way, as it was obvious that the Minister was not prepared to do so. Will there be enough time to clarify one aspect of the Bill? In part 3, clause 43(12) says:
  "Parts 2 and 3 do not extend to Northern Ireland."
  By inference, one would suspect that part 1 does, yet I understood education to be a devolved matter in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Boswell: As I am no longer a Minister, I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member an authoritative and ministerial reply; the Minister clearly cannot. That point exemplifies the need for proper discussion of the Bill in a full Committee stage. That has nothing to do with subverting the Government, let alone subverting the intentions of the Bill, which may be admirable.
  Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): They are.
  Mr. Boswell: Lots of people have fine intentions. The Government Whip alarms me by suggesting that his intentions are entirely honourable.
  Even if the intentions are good, there are still points to be raised. Sadly, tonight's motion—moved so peremptorily by the Under-Secretary—suggests that the
  292
  Government are exactly like the Bourbons; they have neither learned anything nor forgotten anything from recent events. Instead of adopting a wise course of action and taking on board the genuine sense of anger and grievance aroused by the Criminal Justice and Police Bill last week—it was almost a disaster—the Government have come back to the House all fresh faced as if nothing had happened. They pop up again as insouciant recidivists.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend said that the Criminal Justice and Police Bill was almost a disaster, but I am sorry that I must take issue with him. It was not almost a disaster, it was a disaster. There were 50 clauses that were not examined in Committee. If that is not a disaster for the people of this country, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for that reproof. My characteristic moderation got the better of me, as ever.
  The Government offer no time for debate because, in their book, only soundbites matter. The Bill does not matter to them. I may be old fashioned—and I am mortified that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is not here tonight, as he would probably clash swords with me on the matter—but I think Bills are the core business of the House. We should debate them and get them right, but the Government persist in their belief that the Opposition are a nuisance to be crushed and not persuaded.
  At all events, the only defence offered by the Government is that they will table no amendments in Committee. That is the triumph of hope over experience: I have never come across a Government who did not table amendments in Committee. If the Government have closed their mind to tabling amendments, it suggests that they will not take seriously what the Opposition have to say. I am sure till t they will say that, although they understand the objective behind half of the amendments that we put forward, the wording is defective or not in order. However, it is not sufficient for them to say in advance, "Sorry, no dice: we're not going to change a thing, whatever you say."
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Government have said that they will not table any amendments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if it turns out that they do table amendments, it would be logical for the Government to extend the period covered by the programme motion?
  Mr. Boswell: I agree. I cannot speculate on the conduct of the Committee, but we could find ourselves in a real dilemma. We would not want the Government to break one of their pledges. If they produced an amendment—even if it were a good one that I might wish I had devised myself—the Committee would have to decide whether to vote against it so as to fulfil the Government's pledge not to introduce any amendments.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that precedent suggests that to suppose that the Government will not table amendments to the Bill would represent a triumph of optimism over reality and a victory for complacency over common sense? Even if the apologists for mediocrity that pepper the Government Benches choose not to table amendments to the Bill, Conservative Members and other

  293
  hon. Members might choose to do so. Should not those amendments be deliberated on comprehensively, enthusiastically, in detail and, if necessary, at length?
  Mr. Boswell: I am fond of my hon. Friend, not least because he is a constituency neighbour, and we share the same newspapers. His intervention was a triumph of clarity and alliteration. I regard him as a one-person walking amendment himself. It we were to fail in Committee, I am sure that he would be able to remedy any deficiencies in the Bill when it returns to the House for further consideration. However, I know other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall make progress.
  We need to remember the genesis of the Bill. It was promised in the Gracious Speech of 1999. The Bill is a promise from the last century that only now the Government are seeking to honour. Earlier, the Bill was, sadly, dropped from the legislative process, allegedly because of delays in consultation. One wonders what occasioned those delays in consultation. A draft Bill was promised last summer, but we never saw it; then this Bill was introduced in another place.
  The Government seem to faster the no doubt agreeable myth that because the Bill is not party politically contentious, it contains nothing to talk about. They seem to believe that the Bill is absolutely straightforward, designed by central casting and that it should immediately be accepted and nominated for an Oscar. However, the Bill needed detailed analysis in another place, and unless the Prime Minister decides to alter the timetable—no doubt for purposes other than saving the Bill or the embarrassment of his Ministers—I strongly believe that it requires proper consideration in this place. The two Houses are complementary, not alternative.
  The proposal that we heard tonight from the Under-Secretary, albeit briefly, is entirely of a piece with earlier events. The first of many Bills that I have considered in Committee during this Parliament was the very first Finance Bill. Indeed, the hon. Lady also served on that Committee. The sentence in those days was five days on the trot, guillotined to midnight every night. That was not a very good way of doing business, but the Government have learned nothing from it.
  We are being offered, in practice, four days of sittings. The Whip will seek to establish reasonableness, but first let me remind him about the Learning and Skills Bill, which was not without its contentious aspects. That Bill was introduced in another place. Conservative Members tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading in this place, and we then spent two months and more than 20 sittings considering the Bill. It was a longer Bill than this one. If the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), would like to make me a pro rata offer on the time required for this Bill, it would take us up to around 5 May, but I have not heard that offered so far.
  A compressed timetable makes it impossible for organisations to consider the debates and the arguments put by Ministers and to lobby for changes. Indeed, in my experience, it is difficult for Ministers to brief themselves. I have always found that the most constructive dialogue on Bills is the one that no one ever hears—the part of the iceberg below the surface where Ministers are briefed by officials. They say, "What is he rabbiting on about that for?", or "Does he have a point about this?" All that will go by the board because the timetable will make this a simple exercise in speeding the Bill through the House.
  294
  It will be difficult for Back Benchers, and even Front Benchers, to meet any timetable of consecutive sittings. For example, I have certain obligations to my constituents, who are tearing their hair about the foot and mouth epidemic. I deal with a number of constituency cases every day. Frankly, even if we went into purdah for a fortnight, we would still have great difficulty in giving the Bill the consideration that the subject matter and its complexity require.
  The situation is a perfect parable of new Labour. They care more for the soundbite than for sound sense. They would rather pursue another initiative than consider legislation sensibly. To them, dissent is the ultimate sin, yet we believe that democracy is about debate and debate will, from time to time, require consent.
  In conclusion, the chances are that before too long—possibly even in conformity with the entirely inadequate timetable that the Government have set—democracy will speak, and I cannot wait. Those on the Treasury Bench may find that the boot is on the other foot. When we are in government, we will have to make sure that we do not abuse the trust that has been put in us.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Once again, I rise to oppose a timetable motion, as I found myself doing last night. It is about the eighth or ninth time that I have spoken in such debates, and I shall carry on intervening in them for as long as we have to consider these timetable motions.
  The motion is wholly inappropriate for the Bill. It is substantial: 57 pages, 43 clauses and nine schedules. The idea that such a Bill can be rattled through in four consecutive sittings is for the birds—the proposition is absurd. Apparently, we are to have the Bill out of Committee by 5 April. There will be five hours maximum for Report—perhaps much less—and one hour for Third Reading. That is complete nonsense, of course
  The House really must understand that in considering a Bill, it needs to perform at least two purposes. The first relates to policy and the second relates to the language in which that policy is framed. Both are equally important. I do not pretend to have followed the Bill with great particularity, so it may be that there is general agreement about the policy. That, however, is not conclusive of the issue.
  We are, after all, talking about legislation. When we do that, we talk about burdens, obligations and penalties. We must ask what the authorities and the courts will make of legislation. The House must address those questions in the Standing Committee—that means proper scrutiny of the Bill.
  The Committee has to undertake a further function which is not always recognised—the redress of grievances. In the context of any Bill—this one is no exception—particular cases, known to right hon. and hon. Members, may be highlighted. One of the ways hon. Members can do that is by tabling amendments directed at a particular grievance or abuse. If the Committee stage is so timetabled as to provide only four sittings, or whatever, hon. Members are prevented from pursuing their historical task—the redress of grievances.
  We are told by the Government that they will not table amendments. I am prepared to accept that the Under-Secretary believes that as she stands at the Dispatch Box.

  295
  However, in my time I was responsible for the passage of 14 or 15 Bills through the House and I was never so imprudent as to say, "There are going to be no amendments". It is probable that someone—perhaps her legal advisers—will tell the Under-Secretary that she has got it wrong. If she does not table amendments in Committee, surely she will have to contemplate doing so on Report or she will be in considerable difficulty.
  In any event, the idea that just because the hon. Lady does not want to table amendments the matter is concluded is arrogance of a high order. Many hon. Members may want to table amendments. Are we really to be told, on the say-so of some Under-Secretary, that we are to be shut out from that?
  Mr. Boswell: My right hon. and learned Friend is a distinguished lawyer—I am not. Will he clarify, for my information, the importance of holding debates in Standing Committee? Since Pepper v. Hart, such debates may be taken into account by the courts in the interpretation of the intentions of legislation. Does that not presuppose that nice points and difficulties—for example, the application of section 316, or of 316A, on the provision of finance to independent special schools—need proper elucidation in Committee? That requires a Committee stage.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Under the ruling in Pepper v. Hart, the courts consider what is said in the House as an interpretation of a Bill's purpose. So it is important that in addressing the construction and interpretation of clauses, Ministers give themselves adequate time properly to explain what they mean, because those explanations are relevant to the interpretation subsequently put on the legislation. It is wrong artificially to compress the debate so that such interpretation cannot be given if requested.
  All those are arguments against artificially compressing the debate in Committee, but the arguments against compressing the debate on Report are even more potent. We all know that but three or four Opposition Members will serve on the Committee; thus some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wish to make a contribution will be unable to do so. Incidentally, it should be noted that the Opposition Benches are pretty densely populated tonight.
  Mr. Bercow: Unlike the Government Benches.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right.
  The first occasion when the whole House will have an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail is on Report. We have been told that five hours of debate will be sufficient, but there may be 30, 40 or 50 amendments in six, seven or eight groups. In the past few months during this Session, there have been countless occasions when Bills have passed that have been but partly discussed on Report. It is wrong that the debate on Report is so constructed that, in reality, Bills go undiscussed. We give those in the other place a role that they should not have.
  Mr. Bercow: Of course what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the insufferable arrogance of the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Education
  296
  and Employment is beyond dispute among Conservative Members, but does he agree that it is entirely possible that, in the event of a statement after business questions on 5 April, we shall end up with under an hour to debate each clause? Is it not right that, even if few Members table amendments, every Member who wishes to contribute to the debate should have the opportunity to speak to the amendments?
  Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree.
  May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, perfectly rightly, Mr. Speaker allowed the discussion on today's foot and mouth disease statement, which was very important, to continue for an hour and 20 minutes? If there had been another statement of similar importance, about two hours or so would have been subtracted from the available time. That is simply not a proper way to address the manner in which the House conducts itself.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) also made an important point when he said that the process of compressing timetables shuts out external representation. He will have great difficulty in taking the opinion of outside interest groups as the Committee rattles through its consideration. Although I do not know whether this happens now in government, the Government will have difficulty in gathering the views of outside interests. Moreover, they will have difficulty in taking the views of their own officials.
  I return to the plain fact that I have conducted through the House as many Bills as most Ministers have, and more than most, and I know that it is important to have regular and close briefings with officials to consider the points being made. The officials should not be shut out simply because the Government are rattling along. That would be very wrong indeed.
  Mr. Bercow: The Ministers are chattering to each other.
  Mr. Hogg: I am used to Ministers chattering to each other.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) should keep quiet when in a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend was helping me, and I am most grateful to him for doing so.
  I want to make two further points. I am sorry to make a point that I have made on numerous previous occasions, but it goes to the root of parliamentary government. There is an implied bargain in a democracy between the electorate and Parliament. Parliament imposes obligations, liabilities and duties and requires the population as a whole to adhere to legislation. The electorate, in return, makes an assumption that the House properly performs its duties of scrutiny. If we are deprived of our ability to perform that duty, the elements in the bargain fail.
  What happens when the public really begin to understand not just that the House is not performing its duty, but that it is being prevented from performing it? At that point the House and democracy itself will be seen to be a fraud. If we care about these things, we have to go on saying that it is the duty of the House properly to

  297
  scrutinise legislation. Those who prevent that and who chatter and giggle like little girls on the Front Bench are, in the end, denying democracy. Ultimately—thank God—they will be rumbled.
  10.41 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief. As I said in the debate on the programme motion last night, I am not in principle against programming. I want the House to use the time that is available to it to the very best advantage so that we ensure that the legislation that the Government of the day put through is properly scrutinised and that both sides of the House have an opportunity to participate in the debates.
  Will the Under-Secretary, who moved the motion briefly, assure the House that, given the time that the Government have allocated to the Bill in Standing Committee, the Committee will have extra sittings if they are necessary? Will she assure us that the Government will not use their majority on the Committee to frustrate its having extra sittings that would be necessary to ensure that every part of the Bill is properly and fully discussed? Does the Minister wish to intervene to give that assurance to the House? I would be delighted to give way, but clearly she does not wish to intervene [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I say to the hon. Member for Buckingham that I have given him one warning and I do not expect to have to give him another We are trying to conduct a debate.
  Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not much hope of obtaining from the Minister a reply guaranteeing extra time to scrutinise the Bill? Last week, the Committee considering the International Development Bill was deprived of seven minutes of scrutiny time because of the inadvertent absence of the Chairman. When the Government and the Chair were asked to reinstate that time so that the Bill could be scrutinised for the full time stipulated in the programme motion, the request was denied. What hope is there that the Minister will grant my hon. Friend's reasonable request when such a denial was made last week?
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend, who is an experienced Member of the House, makes a point that I hope those on the Government Front Bench will have taken on board.
  I am a member of the Modernisation Committee, which sits under the distinguished chairmanship of the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. Since the Committee published its first report, which made the proposal for programming, the House has discovered that the programming structure that was proposed has not properly worked. If this Parliament sits long enough—I doubt that it will—there is no doubt that the Modernisation Committee will table amendments to the way we currently deal with business. I think that it would take on board the concerns that are felt by
  298
  Conservatives Members and shared by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke eloquently and positively in the debate on the programme motion last night.
  There is no doubt that hon. Members—including Labour Members who sometimes do not agree with aspects of the Government's policy—are not able to argue their case fully. Programme motions deny the House a proper opportunity to debate an issue. I have received many representations on special educational needs and disability, most of which I have passed on to the Minister. Those matters are of great importance to our constituents, especially to the parents of children who are affected by them. They are deeply worried.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the Report stage. Newer Members of the House, including some Ministers, may not understand that that is the only time when all Members have an opportunity to participate in a debate on a Bill. That is not possible on Second Reading because of the limited time and many of them are not appointed to the Standing Committee. The real opportunity to debate issues that deeply concern them and their constituents is on Report.
  My right hon. and learned Friend told us how many clauses and schedules the Bill contains. The Government should reconsider the five hours that they have allocated, in particular the time for debate on Report. The Bill is important to many people. I do not think that the Minister is unsympathetic to my request to have additional sittings if that is necessary.
  Mr. David Winnick: Although I arrived in the Chamber only five minutes ago, I am aware of the issues. Although there is a case for programme motions, I agree that it is important for the Opposition to have time for scrutiny. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, prior to such motions, our late night sittings were not appreciated by the public? If there is a willingness in the new Parliament for the Government and Opposition to reach a compromise, it will be possible to have some programme motions and to give the Opposition what they want without sitting late into the night. I hope that the business of late night sittings has gone for good.
  Mr. Winterton: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I greatly respect his role and his immense experience in this place. Had he arrived at the beginning of my speech, he would have heard me say that, in principle, I am not against programming. In fact, I am in favour of it and want it to work. The House should use its time to the very best effect so that legislation is fully discussed. He has opposed some of his Government's policies and must realise that Opposition and Labour Members should have an opportunity to have a say on important Bills. We are old hands. He knows that we are sent here not to speed legislation on its way, but to ensure that it meets people's needs and is properly scrutinised.
  The Minister has been effective in the four years that she has been in the House. She must appreciate the Opposition's valuable role as part of our democratic process. Although she has not responded to my challenge, I note that she indicated from a sedentary position that the Standing Committee could have additional sittings. Perhaps the Government will consider allocating

  299
  additional time for the Report stage, which is the only time when all Back Benchers have a chance to participate in debates on important legislation.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), except for his opening observation. My hon. Friend is extraordinarily sanguine in supposing that if the Government found in Committee that more time were needed to debate a clause or the whole Bill, they would ever have the slightest inclination to return to the House and change their programme motion to allow the Committee more time. I would literally eat my hat if the Government ever did such a thing.
  We now come here night after night to debate these programme motions, and it is the most extraordinary state of affairs. It is now considered quite natural that the Government, who after all have a responsibility for drafting legislation and presenting it to Parliament, should systematically feel that they are able to assume in advance how long Parliament will take to do its share of the legislative work in examining a Bill. That is a fundamental contradiction. There should be a balance between the role of the Executive and that of the legislature—the Executive proposing and the legislature deliberating and agreeing or otherwise. The way in which the Government are conducting these matters with their enormous majority makes it obvious that they do not accept that.
  The arguments this evening and on other occasions amount simply to the Government saying, "We can predict exactly what will happen in Committee and on Report. You have no surprises for us." There is a logical slippage into the next position, which is to say, "The parliamentary stage is a complete waste of time. It is just a ritual and a nuisance for us and it makes not the slightest difference to the legislation." To act in this way is not only to treat Parliament with contempt"—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in an extremely powerful speech, it is to treat the wider public with contempt, because their one opportunity to influence legislation is through Parliament. We are but the mouthpieces of those who send us here.
  Back Benchers on a Committee play an important role in listening to representations from individuals or groups outside the House who may be affected by the legislation in question or who may be taking an entirely disinterested view of its consequences. Having considered the merits of those representations, Members must decide whether to take them up, perhaps in the form of amendments. That process, by definition, cannot be predicted in advance. The Government, by saying high-handedly that they know in advance how long proceedings will take, are essentially saying that no such process exists and that they are not open to representations made by the wider public. The Government are treating the whole country with contempt. This is an extremely worrying process because it is not far to the end of the road, which is saying that legislation is what the Government draft and nothing else. By definition, we will then have legislative despotism. I am not using hyperbole. This is government by fear, by
  300
  bureaucracy and by Ministers for the four or five years for which the Government have a majority in the House and can continue to govern the country.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not because we have little time left for the debate. I hope that he will recognise that that is not my fault, and will make representations to his Front-Bench colleagues.
  That is the direction in which the House is moving as the 21st century opens, and it is extremely worrying. At the moment, we speak entirely impotently, and the Government laugh at us and pay no attention at all. The two Ministers here this evening have studiously avoided listening to a single word that has been said on the subject by anybody during the debate. First, they may be personally embarrassed to hear the strictures of Conservative Members. Secondly, they know that those strictures do not matter anyway, because they trust their cannon fodder on the Back Benches to go into the Lobbies after the debate and override all those considerations and ensure that no account is taken of them. That is the situation that we face, and if the public seriously want it to continue, and seriously want to go further down the road that I have just described, they will soon have the opportunity to take that decision. I do not believe that they will take that road.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I have not participated in one of these programme motion debates before. I come to the debate as a member of the all-party Select Committee on Education and Employment, which has reached consensus on the issue of special educational needs. It is a mystery to me that there is a need for any sort of programme motion when, broadly speaking, there is consensus about the need for new legislation and about the direction that policy is taking. Surely—given the enthusiasm and support that the Bill should be generating outside the House—the Government would not need a programme motion if they were confident about the Bill.
  The conclusion that we must draw from the fact that we have a programme motion is that the Government are far from confident about the validity and strength of the Bill. They are far from confident that the Bill is free from the kind of flaws from which the Opposition fear it suffers. Indeed, we are not the only ones who fear the effects of the mistakes that the Government have made in the drafting of the Bill. I have received a letter from the National Union of Teachers, stating that the union has "particular concerns" about the Bill. I have also received a letter from the National Association of Head Teachers, stating:
  "We do have reservations … We hope that the Bill will not lead to a headlong rush".
  We are worried that we are being led into a headlong rush by Ministers under this procedure.

  301
  In our experience, it is a far better approach to give a Bill such as this plenty of time to mature in Committee. I have known cases, on previous education Bills, of unions saying that they had not realised how the Bill would affect their representatives until it was in Committee. We wanted to table amendments but found that, because of the programme motions that were in place, it was too late to do so. Here we have a case of a Bill starting in another place. The Conservative spokesman there, Baroness Blatch, was most prescient in her comments. She said that she feared that the Bill would be:
  "severely guillotined in another place. We know that the plan in another place is for the Bill to be shoved through in a day."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 20 February 2001; Vol. 622, c. 774]
  She might well have said "in a day", because we do not even have a day's worth of time in which to debate the Bill in Committee.
  Furthermore, in another place, the Committee met in the Moses Room, where procedure dictates that there shall be no Divisions. Anything remotely contentious could not, therefore, be put to a vote in another place, whereas in this House, there will not be time to put such matters to a vote. That is an example of how the Government are grossly distorting the role of the House, and denying us from acting in accordance with the sense of responsibility that we all feel towards our constituents to deliver a decent Bill for those with special educational needs.
  That is why we must oppose the programme motion. That is also why those on the other side of the House who really care about special educational needs—
  It being forty-five minutes after that commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000] .
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 122.

  Division No. 161]

  [10.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, At Hon Ms Hilary

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell,Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell,Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cann, Jamie

  Beckett, At Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caton, Martin

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, At Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, At Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Clelland, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coaker, Vermon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blunkett, At Hon David

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, At Hon Paul

  Coleman,Iain

  Borrow, David

  Colman, Tony

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Connarty, Michael

  302

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, At Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, At Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Jowell, At Hon Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Joyce, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, At Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

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

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kidney, David

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman. Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Drew, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards. Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, R Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)

  Foulkes, George

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonnell, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McFall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Goggins, Paul

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hain, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hanson, David

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Maxton, John

  Heppell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morley. Elliot

  Howells, Dr Kim

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

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John(Aberavon)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hutton, John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith. Dr Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Haffield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  303

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pearson. Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stevenson, George

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pond, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd

  Todd, Mark

  Raynsford, Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Trickett, Jon

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Roy Frank

  Tynan, Bill

  Ruane, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Ruddock, Joan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, At Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woolas, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Mr.Gerry Sutcliffe

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Evans, Nigel

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, At Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Boswell, Tim

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gray, James

  Butterfill, John

  Green, Damian

  Cash, William

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Hammond, Philip

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemptice)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  304

  Lansley, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lidington, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Loughton, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  McCrea, Dr William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Steen, Anthony

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Madel, Sir David

  Syms, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Whittingdale, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following, provisions shall apply to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]

  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords] (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day it meets.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 5th April.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
    The programme motion proposes that the Standing Committee he brought to a conclusion on 5 April. We consider that to be a reasonable time, and we hope that the motion meets the Opposition's reasonable expectations. Although the exact time in Committee will of course depend on the Programming Sub-Committee, I can say that the Government do not intend to table further amendments to the Bill. Even Conservative Members will agree that the programme proposed should give ample time to consider a Bill of this size—43 clauses and eight schedules.

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day it meets.
    3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 5th April.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    5 Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Lords messages
    7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

    SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AND DISABILITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act —[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to

    Church of England (General Synod) (Measure):
    11.10 pm
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
    That the Churchwardens Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
    Although the Measure is important for the life of the Church, I hope to introduce it fairly briefly. I should like to do so partly because of the lateness of the hour, and partly because I can assure the House that although concerns were expressed about a provision that was previously included in the Measure—I shall say more about that in a moment—it has now been deleted and the Ecclesiastical Committee has reported that the Measure is expedient in its present form.
    The Measure contains a comprehensive set of rules about the appointment of churchwardens and their tenure of office. The office of churchwarden is an ancient and honourable one. I understand that it dates back to the early 12th century. but it is still very much alive. Churchwardens play a vital part in the life of the Church of England in parishes throughout the country. That is why the General Synod decided to remove some of the problems that had arisen in relation to the existing law, which was set out in a 1964 Measure. For example. the procedure in cases involving contested election for the office was not as clear as it should have been, and was therefore capable of causing a great deal of hurt and division among loyal church members.
    The new Measure seeks to rectify that problem by providing a carefully thought-out and much clearer procedure. However, the choice of the churchwardens of the parish has never been a matter solely for the parish priest, minister or regular churchgoers. Everyone who is resident in a parish and whose name is on the register of local government electors is a parishioner and is entitled to take part. That principle is part of the unique relationship between Church and state in this country, and it is preserved by the Measure.
    That provision, and almost all the others contained in the Measure—hon. Members will see that there are 16 clauses—cause no controversy. The one matter that caused particular concern when the Measure came before the General Synod was the principle that a churchwarden should serve without a break for only six years. That was included in the Measure because parishes and dioceses had asked for it. In some cases, however excellent the churchwardens, parishioners feel that it is time to give someone else an opportunity to serve, but find it difficult to say so tactfully and without hurting any feelings.
    Other parishes have pointed out, however, that the office of churchwarden is onerous. In rural and inner-city parishes, often only a very limited number of people are willing and able to carry out the duties involved. There may be other reasons why a churchwarden should serve for more than six years. For example, the parish could be in a position in which experienced churchwardens are essential to keeping the show on the road. That is why the Synod decided that, although the rule about six-years' service should be the norm, it should be possible for the

    307
    parishioners of any parish to decide for any reason that that rule should not apply to them, with the freedom to change their minds later if they want to do so. Thus, the parish will remain in control, which is how the Synod agreed it should be. In any case, the six years would not start to run until the Measure came into force, so there would be ample time for every parish to make up its mind.
    The issue that caused the Ecclesiastical Committee a great deal of concern was different—namely, the power that the original Measure would have given to the bishops to suspend a churchwarden from exercising his or her duties. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have received correspondence about that, and the Ecclesiastical Committee and the Synod have spent a great deal of time considering the matter.
    All I need say tonight is that, first, the power was not included in the Measure at the request of the bishops. The bishops and everyone else in the Synod always anticipated that it would be used only on rare occasions. Secondly, there was a great deal of anxiety, which was strongly expressed in the Ecclesiastical Committee, that the power could he used in a way that would override the rights of the parishioners and be unfair to the churchwarden.
    In the light of the Ecclesiastical Committee's concerns, the Synod finally decided to delete the power from the Measure in the hope that it would proceed without further controversy. I can therefore assure right hon. and hon. Members who have received anxious letters about the power of suspension that there is no trace of it in the Measure before the House.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not true that, had the power not been withdrawn, the Ecclesiastical Committee would almost certainly not have found the Measure expedient and would not have approved its coming before the House and the other place?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He knows that the role of the Ecclesiastical Committee in the established Church and the relationship between Church and state were amply discussed at the time. The Ecclesiastical Committee, representing the House in the other place, rendered a signal service on behalf of parishioners.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say, with all humility, that the Ecclesiastical Committee may have been wrong? The Committee and the House ought to say to the Synod, "We are very grateful for your tolerance of the fact that we took a view that may or may not have been right."
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman put that view forcefully in the Ecclesiastical Committee, and I was grateful that he did so. It might have been useful in particular circumstances for the bishop to have power over a churchwarden, but the overwhelming feeling in the Committee and among parishioners was that giving an unelected bishop power over an elected churchwarden would not be successful. The consequence was that the matter returned to the Synod, which gracefully yielded on that particular point, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. Therefore, the Measure is before the House.
    Mr. James Gray: I was one of those who lobbied long and hard, partly on behalf of my wife,
    308
    who is a churchwarden and is worried about the Measure. I am concerned to read clause 10(1)(e), which states that the bishop shall have power:
    "in any case in which any difficulty arises, to give any directions which he may consider expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty."
    Can the hon. Gentleman advise us what that difficulty might be and what the bishop might have to do to remove it should it arise?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman draws my attention to a particular clause, and I thank him for being so alert so late in the evening I cannot give him the answer he requires, so I shall write to him. If my response is of sufficient importance, I shall put a copy in the Library so that those Members who are not here tonight can rush to the Library to read it in due course. I assure right hon. and hon. Members .who received letters on the power of suspension that there is no trace of that in the Measure before the House.
    I hope that the House will pass this Measure, and that the other place will be content, so that it can pass into law in the near future. I However, Church authorities are well aware that parishes are about to hold their annual election of churchwardens. Indeed, a few have already done so. It would not be right to introduce the new rules at short notice in the middle of that process without giving parishes time to absorb them. Because of that, those who are responsible for advising the archbishops on when to exercise their power under clause 16(2) to bring the measure into force do not propose to do so until after the present annual round of meetings to choose churchwardens is over. It is equally important that those who will draw up guidance on the new rules for the parishes should be able to begin work as soon as possible. I urge the House to approve the Measure and to support the motion.
    11.21 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I declare an interest, or at least, a potential interest, as I am a deputy churchwarden by virtue of the fact that my parish has more than one parish church. Should I still be in that post when the Measure comes into effect, I may become a full-blown churchwarden and subject to its provisions.
    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has set out fully the circumstances behind the Measure, and I do not wish to detain the House, save to say that it is welcome. Particularly welcome is the flexibility that has been shown in response to numerous letters that were received about removing the bishop's right relating to suspension.
    I noted with interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said. He was unsure whether the Committee had acted properly in this matter, or had come to the right decision. The Church is undoubtedly going through considerable changes. In particular, an increasing number of parishes are held by priests in charge, not by incumbents. Many parishes and parishioners feel that their independence is being progressively eroded.
    I am quite convinced that, in the Measure's original form, the power of the bishop would have been invoked so sparingly and for such good and sufficient reasons that no one would ever hive criticised its use. However, it was:

    309
    received with hostility and awoke a sense of unease that the independence of parishes, which had previously been exemplified in the independence of the incumbent, was disappearing and that this Measure w as yet another nail in the coffin.
    Mr. David Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems was the Synod's apparent inability to communicate exactly why it wanted the Measure? In my diocese, my parochial church council never once discussed this issue. People picked up innuendo and rumour.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman's comments sound familiar—I remember the discussion that we had in my parish. He highlights a matter that is for the Church to decide for itself. Many parishes tend to be rather detached from the process of governance in the Church. Beyond deanery Synod level, there is often a sense that what goes on has little relevance. People worry that higher powers constantly want to change accepted practices that work well for them.
    The proposal seems sensible and has provided reassurance. Clearly, this Measure was badly needed. It clarifies many areas, and should beneficial. After all, if it turns out that a mistake was made—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West suggests—and examples suddenly reach the tabloid press of churchwardens hideously misusing their office and bishops in a frenzy of anxiety that they can do nothing about it, I dare say that this matter will come back before the Synod, and probably before the House. Chances are, however, that the Measure will be invoked so rarely anyway that we may well succeed in lasting a century or two more without having to revisit it.
    I am happy to welcome the Measure.
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank churchwardens throughout the Church of England for the way in which they fulfil their responsibilities. They are generally unthanked; they are unpaid; they have immense burdens to bear; and, almost without exception, they carry out their duties with fervour—if that is a proper term to use in a religious context—and with a great deal of practical common sense.
    We are grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he represents the authority of the established Church in the House, and for the good humour with which—
    Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to contradict what I am saying about his hon. Friend. I want to complete my tribute: I live in fear that I may at some stage be asked to carry out the responsibilities currently undertaken by his hon. Friend—in which event I would certainly say no, because I do not think I am half the person he is.
    Now I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman care to include in his tribute to churchwardens throughout the land—I
    310
    declare an interest, as one of them—recognition of the increasing burden that they carry as a result of the greater number of longer interregnums that we have seen in Anglican parishes throughout the land?
    Mr. Bottomley: I agree that there are difficulties. One way of approaching them is by recognising the non-stipendiary ministry.
    I also think that perhaps the Church of England should copy what I believe to be the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in Ireland. Many more people find and fulfil vocations by going into that Church as ordained priests or vicars when they are older. The idea that people should start training for ordination immediately after obtaining a theology degree implies a bias that is not necessarily justified. I believe that many people who had previously been police officers, teachers or social workers, or had worked in business, would be welcomed into the ministry.
    I hope that we can reach a point at which bishops do not feel the need to "rotate" people around their parishes, planning a six-to-nine-month interregnum. That can destabilise both the families of incumbents and the parishes that those incumbents serve.
    As has been said, the Measure is basically uncontroversial. I shall not dwell on the fuss about the parts that have now gone. If I ever wrote my memoirs it would make an interesting chapter, but for reasons of parliamentary as well as religious charity I think it best to leave aside my view on the collection of interests—most opposed to each other—that combined to make it expedient for the Synod, very kindly, to drop those sections.
    I think the analysis given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) of the number of times when the power involved would have been needed is slender. I trust that any churchwardens who fell into the category—hopefully as a result of error rather than on purpose—in which the power might have been useful would do the honourable thing and suspend themselves. In most cases, if there is a problem, churchwardens know their duty perfectly well and will fulfil it: they will park themselves while the matter is being resolved. I hope that, on the rare occasions on which they attempted to do otherwise, they would follow advice and do what might otherwise have been compulsory.
    Finally, let me make a more general point. Although I agree with Robert Runcie, who said that using the Synod for the earlier stages of parliamentary Measures was not entirely satisfactory, it is probably more satisfactory than a system involving the two Houses dealing with Second Reading, Committee stage and Report. In practice, the Ecclesiastical Committee must bring a Measure that has gone through its earlier stages in the Synod to the House of Commons for what is, in effect, Third Reading. That is surely a better system than one involving fighting the whole thing through from the beginning. I hope that we can reach a stage at which those who might be described as traditionalists—I am not a traditionalist; I am more of an inclusive Christian and member of the Church of England—
    Mr. Drew: An Anglo-Catholic.
    Mr. Bottomley: I shall accept any compliment or criticism. However, I believe that the arrangements are better now than they were before the Synod dealt with the earlier stages.

    311
    Last week, in St. Margaret's, the Archbishop of Canterbury installed the new worldwide president of the Mothers Union. I wish that all hon. Members had been able to see how another part of the Church of England—not only from the United Kingdom, but from around the world—was able to come together in recognising the contribution of many people in our churches. Those people understand that the Church realises that it has a vibrant and responsible role to play, and that it plays that role with a fervour that could be commended to many people who are outside our churches.
    I would like people outside our churches to know that, if they come to our churches, not only the churchwardens—or the Mothers Union, of which I am proud to be a member—will welcome them, but all the people in the pews will say, "There is plenty of room for more people here. You do not have to be particularly good to be a member of the Church of England."
    11.31 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like first to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) that I was not in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate, as I was attending an event in my constituency. However, I have followed the story of the Measure—
    Mr. Drew: The saga.
    Mr. Hughes: Yes. As I have followed it for many years, I think that I am as well aware as anyone of the arguments and the history.
    I join colleagues on both sides of the House in paying tribute to churchwardens. I specifically endorse the additional reason for paying tribute to them mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor). The Church of England now has longer interregnums between incumbencies, not least to save money, and churchwardens effectively take responsibility for running the entire parish for quite long periods. Therefore, they perform not only all their other duties, but that extremely responsible work. The work certainly has its burdens, but it is very well done, and I think that all hon. Members respect churchwardens for doing it.
    This Measure is the most controversial one that the Ecclesiastical Committee has considered perhaps in the 18 years in which I have been an hon. Member, but certainly in all the time that I have been a member of the Committee. Although there was controversy in our debates on the ordination of women Measure—which was the other big Measure that the Committee has considered—and the Legislative Committee invited the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York to meet us to discuss it, ultimately there was agreement on it between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the General Synod. We went through all those procedures on the Churchwardens Measure, but we still could agree on it.
    As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, and as hon. Members will be aware, through its representatives on the Ecclesiastical Committee this place took a view on the Churchwardens Measure, and I believe that we were right to do so. As the right hon. Member for
    312
    Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has often reminded the House, for as long as the United Kingdom constitution requires Parliament to have a say in Church of England matters—how long that arrangement should continue is a different debate—we have above all one job to do: to ensure that the normal principles of justice and fair treatment that apply in civic society apply also within the Church.
    The Ecclesiastical Committee absolutely rightly said to the Church, "The powers that you were originally proposing to give to bishops to suspend people from office when they were under suspicion but nothing has been proven are not powers that should reside in bishops." We said that because of the simple premise on which churchwardens' authority rests. They are not only a bishop's appointees but the people's choice. It is a very unusual position. Churchwardens have two masters—the people and the bishop. The Committee, which is composed almost entirely of lay people, made it clear that we wanted the principles of justice to apply in the Church as they apply in civil society. I am sure that we were right, and it is a good thing that the Church of England General Synod gave in to that.
    There is for another day—perhaps another Parliament—the debate about whether it is right for us to go on in the new century with the present relationship. I have made my position clear. I speak for the Liberal Democrats on Church of England matters, and I am happy to do so. By baptism and confirmation, I am a member of the Anglican Church; coincidentally, I was confirmed into the Church in Wales. l believe in disestablishment, as does my party. We think that, as soon as it can happen, we should disestablish the Church of England, just as the Church in Wales has been disestablished, the Church in Ireland has been disestablished and—in a different way—the Anglican Church in Scotland has been partly disestablished.
    Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman is trying to widen this debate. However, while we have the present system, the Ecclesiastical Committee in this House cannot just be a rubber stamp. If the Committee has a role to play, it must do it properly, as it has tried to do with this Measure.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman—who is also a friend of mine—and others who have played an entirely consistent, effective and observant role in the Committee over many years have always taken that view. For the time being, we have an established Church and certain matters have to come to Parliament. We will do our job properly for as long as that is the position.
    Other colleagues may make a self-denying ordinance not to take part in such debates. They are entitled to do so; it is the same issue as whether one takes part in Scottish business if one is an English Member, or vice versa. Constitutionally, every Member of Parliament has a role. Nobody has to serve on the Ecclesiastical Committee, but those of us from both Houses who do serve on it take our job extremely seriously. Those who serve us as officers have always been extremely diligent. Those who come from the Church of England to brief us and to answer questions have been always been extremely courteous and entirely helpful in trying to deal with our concerns.
    It is still worth reminding people that churchwardens are chosen annually by the parish meeting, but all parishioners are entitled to vote for them. One of the

    313
    things that still troubles me is that most churches do not invite all parishioners to choose their churchwardens. This is not just a token matter. There are many people who will admit to coming to church only on Christmas eve, for the carol service or for baptisms, marriages or funerals. One of the jobs of the Church of England—if it is to be the national Church—is to be available for people without lots of preconditions; for example, someone should not have to turn up so many limes over so many weeks to take part.
    One of the ways in which the Church of England can continue its links into each parish in the country is to make sure that everybody knows that, once a year, there is a meeting to which all parishioners can come. They do not have to have darkened the doors of the church between meetings and they will not be judged on their attendance, or on other things—it is their church. I would hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can pass on to those in charge of the Church that they should make it their business to make sure it is not just the people on the electoral roll of the church or the normal congregation of the church who are invited to the meeting.
    All adult parishioners should be told about the annual meeting, and invited to take part in the election of the people to represent the parish. I hope that we can get to that point because, at the moment, some churches find it more comfortable only to invite their own to the meeting. There is a great opportunity here, rot just in terms of democracy but in terms of evangelisation and outreach from the church to the people.
    Mr. David Taylor: Many church electoral rolls contain the names of people who live outside the parish. Would the hon. Gentleman expect that a by product of a future move to disestablish the Church would be to remove what many see as an antiquated right for parishioners in general to contribute towards the selection of churchwardens?
    Mr. Hughes: I do not want to get waylaid, but the debate is about churchwardens so the question is proper. The role of parish representatives in the Church would not continue after full disestablishment, but two sorts of disestablishment are on the table, in effect. One centres on whether members of the Church of England can be in Parliament, whether bishops should be in the House of Lords and whether the Prime Minister should appoint the bishops. In that model, there is an argument about whether the monarch should be both head of the Church and the head of state. The other sort of disestablishment centres on the arrangement of the parish structure. Disestablishment from Parliament—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, who came late to the debate, is being extraordinarily discursive.
    Mr. Hughes: I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
    Mr. Grieve: I do not want to widen the point, but it would place a considerable burden on parishes if they had to advertise their annual meeting as the hon. Gentleman proposes. In the parish where I worship, it is clearly stated on public notices that everyone can come to the meeting
    314
    and vote. The meeting is split into two parts for that purpose. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that his proposal is unrealistic in terms of cost?
    Mr. Hughes: Any good parish communicates with all its parishioners on a regular basis. The message will therefore get pushed through doors and pinned on the notice boards in church and throughout the parish at no unusual or additional cost. Good churches tell people what is going on, and I hope that every Church of England church would want to do that and find the necessary resources.
    There is unity on the issue because the Church accepted the advice of Parliament. The relationship therefore works, and the Measure will put churchwardens' relationship with the Church on a firmer and better footing. They, and we, will be grateful for that.
    11.42 pm
    Mr. Stuart Bell: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points that have been made.
    I shall begin by thanking the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his contribution. I shall follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and avoid the intricacies and interstices of the disestablishment argument: I hope that we will have that debate in the not-too-distant future.
    The hon. Gentleman was right about the controversy surrounding the Measure, but, in the end, Church and state came together in the proper fashion. The House, in the shape of the Ecclesiastical Committee, exercised its judgment and responded to the concerns of churchwardens and parishioners. An expression of will went back to the Synod, which was sufficiently flexible and understanding to accept that the power of the bishops should be removed from the Measure.
    The hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey both referred to the role of churchwardens, and commended the people who do such a sterling job up and down the land. The House will know that Canon El provides that churchwardens are to be the officers of the bishop, and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point about their dual capacity. It also states that they are to be foremost in representing the laity and co-operating with the incumbent. It states that they:
    "shall use their best endeavours by example and precept to encourage the parishioners in the practice of true religion and to promote unity and peace among them".
    That shows the importance and significance of the role of the churchwarden. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West said, the nature of the sort of people who take on the role of churchwarden means that they might well step aside if a difficulty arose.
    In a very important intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) pointed out that this House and the Ecclesiastical Committee are not rubber stamps and never can be in relation to the legislation that comes from the Synod on to the statute book via proceedings here.
    I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for his graceful encapsulation of what the Measure contains, for sharing with us his experiences as a

    315
    churchwarden and for his support for the Measure. It is important that when the House deals with Church matters it reaches a consensus, without the sort of hostility and controversy seen elsewhere, so I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support.
    The hon. Member for Worthing, West was extremely helpful in the Ecclesiastical Committee. His was a lone voice, sometimes, but he articulated a view that others might well have held. He was very graceful in his comments about me, and I am grateful to him for that. When I took on the role of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Lord Dixon said that I was the Church's shop steward. As a fellow trade unionist, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand and appreciate that.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he might write his memoirs one of these days and that there would be a chapter dealing with the Churchwardens Measure. He might, in the meantime, like to read "The Churchwarden's Handbook—A Practical Guide", written by Ven. Ian Russell, recently retired as the Archdeacon of Coventry, who was a member of the steering committee on churchwardens. The book has been so popular that the first edition has sold out. The second edition will remove the contentious issue of whether the bishops should have power over a churchwarden. It reads rather like a Jeffrey Archer novel, with the ending changed according to the audience.
    Mr. David Taylor: Will the author be sent to prison?
    Mr. Bell: We will not go into that particular controversy.
    If the hon. Member for Worthing, West does get around to writing his memoirs, the practical guide to churchwardens will be a very sound base.
    I commend the motion to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Churchwardens Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
    That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 2001. which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

    POSTAL SERVICES
    That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
    That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications No. 1) 0rder 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

    GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
    That the draft Defence Aviation Repair Agency Trading Fund Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Question agreed to.

    LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)
    Motion made,
    That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
    Line 31, at end add—
    () The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
    () The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
    () The quorum of the sub-committee shall he three.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
    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. Betts.].
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
    Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
    '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    South London Rail Services (GoVia)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
    11.47 pm
    Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate on train services in the south of London. The Minister has expressed some surprise that we should be having yet another debate on this subject, but I assure him that things have moved on since the last debate a couple of months ago.
    A new start for the south central rail franchise is very welcome. I am afraid that services have deteriorated over the past year. As we have had many debates on Connex South Central services, I do not think that it will be necessary to go over this old and rather stony ground again. However, a recent survey that I conducted at stations in my constituency shows that a substantial majority of respondents—no less than 78 per cent.—feel that services have deteriorated over the past year. No one who responded said that they had improved. This is the scale of the challenge faced by GoVia.
    Before I discuss GoVia's proposals, I should like to know what efforts the Government are making to ensure that standards are maintained on existing services to stop further slippage. I draw the Minister's attention to one area of innovation—that of colourful excuses.
    One of my constituents contacted Connex to ask why his train had been delayed, and was informed, in an e-mail, that a pheasant had been caught in the shoe gear of the train. That is certainly a radical departure from leaves on the line or the wrong kind of snow. Perhaps pheasants being caught in the shoe gear is a common problem in rural areas, but it is certainly not usual in urban areas.
    Not all the problems of the train service are the sole responsibility of Connex—the current operator. Since privatisation, people have experienced horrendous problems with rail services everywhere—partly due to privatisation itself but also because of previous underinvestment in the rail infrastructure.
    Local rail users want change and they want it soon, so a rapid and clean transition of the franchise from Connex to GoVia is desirable. If the Minister has any information as to when that transition might finally take place, I should welcome it. Such information will be of considerable interest to my constituents.
    However, just because a franchise is being passed to a new company does not mean that my constituents or I will accept that any change is a change for the better. Recent public meetings in my constituency show that local commuters are extremely concerned about what will happen to their rail services. I should point out that GoVia was extremely co-operative in sending representatives to those meetings. To ensure that rail users get the service they deserve, it is important that the company keeps open the lines of communication to their customers to ensure that they remain part of the process. I am grateful to GoVia for that continued co-operation.
    Unfortunately, my constituents are concerned about one particular change proposed by GoVia; I shall refer to that shortly. Many of GoVia's proposals are welcome. Over the 20-year franchise, the investment programme is
    318
    valued at £1.5 billion. That planned investment includes £900 million for rolling stock; £325 million for infrastructure; £200 million for stations; and £50 million for depots.
    There have also been encouraging signs in response to the 10-point plan proposed to GoVia by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and me. The plan is based on key concerns raised by our constituents and was the subject of a previous debate. GoVia has addressed seven of those 10 points and has expressed general enthusiasm for the plan.
    I should still like solid progress to be made on three of those points. First, there should be a guarantee of clean trains and stations. Secondly, a plan should be published and displayed in stations, setting out the major works to be undertaken in the area and the date of their completion—so that when passengers suffer disruption, they can see a light at the end of the tunnel and know that there will be a solution at a given date. Finally, opportunities should be investigated for the provision of orbital rail services for direct services to places such as Bromley and Twickenham—an issue raised by my hon. Friend.
    I do not want to be churlish about GoVia's proposals—they are promising. The company's eagerness to keep the paying passenger involved in the process is encouraging. For that reason, I do not want to jump to conclusions about the particular proposal that panicked me and my constituents, although it could disadvantage many local residents. As it is only a proposal, it is appropriate to raise it now—before it is set in stone.
    It is proposed that direct trains to Victoria station would no longer run from Carshalton Beeches, Wallington and Waddon—three of the six stations used by my constituents. Under Go Via's proposals those trains would run direct only to London Bridge; people would have to change at West Croydon for a connection to Victoria.
    I have some concern about the openness and clarity of the proposal. The matter has come to light only as a result of the public meetings organised by myself and my hon. Friend.
    GoVia included a map outlining the proposals in its presentation document, but only by studying the map carefully can one get an indication that such changes are afoot. For instance, Carshalton Beeches. Wallington and Waddon stations are not even listed on the map, so it is difficult to determine what effect the proposals might have.
    GoVia has sought to clarify matters in correspondence with me and has confirmed that, under its proposals, there would be four trains an hour to London Bridge station from places such as Carshalton Beeches station. The decision has apparently not yet been made and public discussions are continuing, which is a relief as there may be an opportunity for it to change its mind.
    I am concerned that matters have been made worse by rail privatisation. It is difficult to find out about GoVia's proposals from the Strategic Rail Authority, because some of the proposals are commercially confidential. For example, it is impossible to find out whether the stations served by the different train operating companies come under the SRA' s jurisdiction. Again, because of commercial confidentiality, the SRA was unable, or unwilling, to reveal whether that came within its remit, so we seem to have lost accountability in relation to the

    319
    public railways. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us how he intends to ensure more open government in the franchise bidding process, so that the public can influence it.
    We are certain from the proposals that GoVia will increase the frequency of train services, but, as I have said, it will do so at the expense of sending trains to two terminals in London. I wonder whether the SRA was aware that that was one of the implications of GoVia's proposals. I also wonder whether the SRA considers the bids in that detail and whether it considers the impact that such proposal can have on commuters. Certainly, the response that I have received to the proposals is one of great alarm. People have told me that they chose to live in a certain place because they want quick and relatively reliable access to Victoria station. People are worried about the impact on house prices and so on if the rail services alter.
    I understand why GoVia has made those proposals: more slots are available at London Bridge station, so there are more opportunities to provide a greater number of trains. However, the local view is that people would prefer to forgo the advantages provided by a more frequent train service, preferring to keep the flexibility of travelling either to Victoria or London Bridge.
    To remove the direct train service to Victoria station would constitute great inconvenience to local rail users and they would not accept that that would be offset by providing more frequent train services. We are not able to look at GoVia's planned timetable because we have not yet been given a copy, but it seems that the impact of its proposals, and this is being optimistic, would be an extra six minutes on the journey of passengers who wanted to go to Victoria station, and thus had to get out at West Croydon station.
    Considering the fact that the survey results showed that 57 per cent. of commuters felt that current travelling conditions were poor or appalling, I suspect that many of them would prefer to wait on the platform for a less frequent train service, rather than have to endure a lengthier journey. A number of people have written to tell me that, if they want to change trains at Clapham Junction station, that would add yet another complication—yet another changing point—to their journey.
    The proposals will not affect only a small number of my constituents. In the survey, Victoria station was the destination of 38 per cent. of customers, compared to 32 per cent. who travelled to London Bridge station, so there is clearly strong demand for trains to Victoria.
    I do not believe that GoVia and the SRA have considered adequately the full implications of the proposals, so will the Minister tell us whether the SRA was aware of the implications of the proposed changes to the service? Does it take into account specific commuter needs when it makes its strategic decisions on train services?
    Once upon a time our railways were a public service, not just a business. Privatisation has changed that, and we have seen the consequences. The nature of business means that GoVia wants to encourage the most customers to use its services, so that it can make the most profit. However, it has promised a "people first" culture that has given local rail users hope that they will have a real service for their
    320
    money. That means that GoVia must embrace the needs of a minority and provide a service that caters for all. I urge it to live up to the hope that local people have placed in it and to be careful to weigh up all the options before it cuts off the direct services.
    12.1 am
    Mr. Paul Burstow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects many of my constituents as well as his.
    I want to put two issues to the Minister, and they both go to the heart of the services provided to my constituents. The first relates to the legacy of investment in the infrastructure at Sutton station and Cheam station by Connex, the current train operating company. The Minister will know that I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. Other Ministers have given welcome undertakings and the SRA has been monitoring that work.
    The problem is that, at Sutton station, the work would have been finished last November if Connex had delivered on Ministers' undertakings. The work to upgrade Cheam station and to reopen the toilets and the waiting room should also have finished last year, but it has not even been started. I hope that the Minister will ask the SRA to chase Connex up on those matters, because we have not seen any improvements in the conditions at either station.
    The work at Sutton station is now nearing completion, but it seems to be a matter of churlishness on the part of Connex—because it has lost the franchise—that it will not apply a lick of paint to the old fabric to bring it up to the standard of the new fabric that has been installed. I hope that that churlishness will be dealt with and that Sutton will have a decent station in the near future.
    My second point deals with the experience that we have had from GoVia's running of the Thameslink franchise—the running times of Thameslink trains are truly appalling. GoVia is the worst provider of rail services in London. Out of the 10 train operating companies in London, it runs more trains late all day than any other company. More than half the trains do not arrive on time. Even at peak times, it is the ninth worst out of 10. That does not bode well if the company takes over the south central franchise and provides those services.
    I hope that the Minister will tell us that Thameslink will soon be subject to the close attention of a refranchising process and that we will soon see the benefits of the trains running on time and that long-term investment will be made to improve the services. At present, services on the Wimbledon loop, which covers Sutton Common, Sutton West and Sutton stations, are not up to scratch. My constituents—including Sheila Bullock and Debbie Shepperd—write to me frequently about such matters and they make it clear to me that hundreds of my constituents suffer from an appalling service day in, day out. They do not want that when GoVia takes over the south central franchise nor do they want the current service on Thameslink to continue. I hope that the Minister will be able to give them some reassurance.
    12.4 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) on securing this debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss GoVia's proposals for south London rail services. I was a little surprised that he has managed to obtain yet another Adjournment debate on fundamentally the same issue; he will have to tell me how he; does it. If he tells other Back Benchers how he does it, he may find his style a little cramped.
    The hon. Gentleman secured similar debates on 11 April and 15 November last year. Although there is little new to report since the announcements that were made when the south central franchise was awarded to GoVia, I welcome the opportunity to remind the House of what the deal represents in terms of investment and service improvements for passengers.
    Before I speak about future proposals, I should like to mention current performance. The performance of Connex South Central services has improved over recent weeks. There was a serious decline in punctuality following the emergency speed restrictions that were imposed by Railtrack for safety reasons in the aftermath of the tragic accident at Hatfield. However, latest figures show that, in the four weeks to 6 January, there was a 9.3 per cent. improvement over the previous four week period on the number of trains reaching their destination within five minutes of the timetable. I expect that upward trend to continue and very much hope that the industry continues to co-operate to improve services across the national rail network.
    The hon. Gentleman is concerned about how passenger views are gauged. The Strategic Rail Authority carries out a national passenger survey twice a year. It asks for comments on punctuality, reliability and frequency of trains, on the standards of rolling stock, including comfort and seating, and on information about train times. He asked whether people were consulted during the refranchisement process. Consultation does take place in those circumstances. Local authorities, passenger committees and other stakeholders are encouraged to get involved. However, some aspect of the process will always be commercially confidential. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that in last autumn's national passenger survey, only 67 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers were satisfied with their journey and 17 per cent. were dissatisfied. Only 37 per cent. of Connex South Central passengers thought the company offered value for money, however.
    It is evident from the previous debate on 15 November that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the chief executive's announcement on 24 October that the Strategic Rail Authority had signed heads of terms with GoVia and that the current operators of the Thameslink franchise were the preferred counterpart for the new replacement south central franchise. The aim of the franchise replacement is to secure a sustained improvement in performance and a step change in customer service through increased levels of investment. The proposals by GoVia and Connex Transport UK Ltd. offered substantial improvements over current standards of service. However, the chief executive decided that GoVia had demonstrated that it had the vision to bring about a step change; in quality and the capacity to deliver, while offering better value for money.
    322
    As the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), reported to the House in the debate on 15 November, GoVia plans to brand the services that run to south London, Gatwick airport, Brighton and the south coast as the new southern railway. GoVia is expected to run the business for 20 years and over that period is expected to implement an investment programme valued at up to £1.5 billion. Of that investment, £900 million is for rolling stock, £325 million is for infrastructure, £200 million is for stations and £50 million is for depots.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the early benefits that are expected from the new franchise, which I shall not repeat. However, GoVia has undertaken to support all forthcoming industry safety initiatives and comply with all relevant recommendations of current inquiries.
    The company has undertaken to ensure that all new trains in service after December 2003 will be fitted with the train protection warning system and provision will be made for European rail traffic management systems. It plans to invest £1.2 million per year in training and development for staff, including, for train drivers, the use of simulators and other forms of improved training procedures.
    The hon. Gentleman is concerned about future service levels, especially for services to and from London that serve stations in his constituency. At this stage GoVia can only work on the indicative timetable. The south London metro concept, which I will discuss in more detail later, will also have an affect on the current service pattern. However, GoVia is obligated to engage in formal consultation with consultees as the timetable develops.
    The hon. Gentleman raised the concerns of many of his constituents about the fact that the desire to increase the frequency of trains into London appears to affect the company's ability to be flexible about which station those trains arrive at. I know that he has raised that matter at a public meeting. Consultation continues and no decision has yet been taken. I am told that there are operational problems in increasing the frequency and achieving the right mix of stations. The hon. Gentleman probably understands that better than I do, because of his meetings with the train company. No decision has been taken as to whether the trains would run into Victoria or London Bridge if their frequency were increased. Problems occur if they try to go to both, as the hon. Gentleman understands. I hope that he will continue to discuss that matter with the train company and consider carefully what is in his constituents' interests. I understand that change to their travel arrangements can be upsetting, but increased frequency might bring benefits that they do not fully appreciate at the moment.
    Mr. Brake: It is important that I reflect my constituents' views, as well as talking to the train company. It is clear that the constituents who have contacted me are unhappy with the current proposals.
    Mr. Ainsworth: That debate will obviously continue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that service provision will be based on existing passenger service requirements, which provide a specified minimum service level. In some cases where new services on new routes have been introduced and become a valued part of the network, passenger service requirements will be extended to cover them.

    323
    Where the passenger service requirement is currently augmented by higher levels of service, the Strategic Rail Authority requires the aggregate additional train mileage to be incorporated in the replacement franchise agreement as a separate contractual obligation. The Strategic Rail Authority will consult the relevant rail passengers committees and local authorities on any proposed changes to passenger service requirements.
    I mentioned the south London metro, which is a concept jointly developed by the Strategic Rail Authority, train operating companies, Transport for London, Railtrack, the London Users Transport Committee, and the London borough-led partnerships, Seltrans and Sweltrac. Rail passengers can look forward to a "turn up and go" metro service similar to the London underground. Key features will be consistently high standards of station environment, information provision, passenger facilities, security and accessibility, with frequent, regular train services, including improvements to the level of service provision at weekends and in the evenings. The network will be branded and marketed as a single entity, even though services will be provided by a number of franchisees. A simplified fares and ticketing system, integrated with the tube and buses, is also an aspiration towards which progress is being made.
    The emphasis on improving interchange with other modes of transport and the development of orbital routes will bring much needed relief to the London terminals. The south London metro concept will use sections of the existing Connex, South West Trains and Thameslink networks. Many of the features of the metro can be established within a three-year horizon, although achieving all the desired service improvements may take as long as 10 years where major infrastructure projects are required to relieve pressure on the network. Much of
    324
    the financing will be provided through the Strategic Rail Authority's programme of franchise replacement, but significant contributions are also expected to come from the London boroughs, Railtrack and Transport for London.
    The current Convex South Central franchise agreement is not due to expire until May 2003. However, it is expected that a date for formal change of control will be agreed shortly, to come into effect within the next few months. That will allow GoVia to assume control of and responsibility for south central services under the same terms as those presently provided by Connex. Final negotiation and signature of the new agreement with GoVia will then follow as soon as possible. Until the early transfer can be agreed, Connex is required to meet the terms of its existing franchise agreement, including service provision, performance regimes, station standards and customer satisfaction requirements. Failure to comply will result in a breach of its contract.
    The Government are committed to delivering a better, bigger, safer railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of customer services. Our 10-year transport plan provides £180 billion, which includes £60 billion for railways. The Strategic Rail Authority has recently published its strategic agenda, which will be followed by its more detailed strategic plan in the autumn. The agenda is essentially a situation report, describing the main issues that the industry faces and the actions that the Strategic Rail Authority has taken, to date, to tackle them.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that passengers in and around his constituency, as well as in the rest of the country, will benefit from the improved rail services that these initiatives will generate.
    Question put and .agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Food Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.30 am>
Mr. David Drew: I welcome the opportunity to introduce this debate. Although it is being held in the midst of another food crisis, I do not want to dwell for too long on foot and mouth. The Minister of Agriculture is coming to the Select Committee on Agriculture tomorrow, and no doubt he will give us an update on events.
I would like to examine four key themes. First, one cannot ignore the difficulties that we are having with our food chain, and their implications not just for the immediate future but for the longer term. Secondly, I would like to examine possible alternative strategies for bringing some balance back into the production and consumption of food. Principally, that would involve the localisation of production and, let us hope, of consumption, following on from some of the excellent work that has been done through the farmers markets. My farmers market in Stroud was, until recently, flourishing. Like every other farmers market, apart from a couple in London, it has had to shut down. I will say more about the implications of that, and the markets' future prospects, later. Thirdly. I want to examine food poverty, which is sometimes talked about without being understood. Significant moves have not been made to eradicate it. Last, but not least, I shall make some comments on the animal by-products industry—I think that the Minister of State would expect nothing less of me.
In putting those ideas together, I have gratefully drawn on the expertise of various people. At a national level, my principal sources have been Tim Lang, for whom I have great respect, Erik Millstone, Toby Peters and Mike Rayner. Locally, I have talked to the key person involved in introducing the farmers market in Stroud—Clare Gerbrands—as well as Robert Rees and Carol Endicott, who have worked with her and have pursued the educational benefits of the scheme through the education business partnership. I want to discuss education, because that is the key not just to what we eat but to what we think about what we eat, and what the next generation will think about what they eat.
We meet at a grave time. Two farmers in my constituency have been affected by foot and mouth, and I pass on my condolences to them. More than anything, I hope that we can learn from some of the problems that have arisen in regard not just to this particular crisis but to others. It is wrong to say that there is one overriding cause for all the problems. The situation cannot be explained by a conspiracy theory; it has arisen through a combination of different factors
However, we must learn from what has happened. The events can be interpreted in different ways. There are the gradualists, who stress the need for small
2WH
changes—more regulation in one area and less in another, perhaps. Then there are the structuralists, who would like much more fundamental change in the evolution of our food chain. I tend towards the second camp, but I accept that it is not always easy to implement radical reform in the midst of a crisis, or over short periods. Nevertheless, we have a number of problems. I think not only of the well-known problems of BSE, bovine TB, classical swine fever and foot and mouth but of other problems that we have suffered over the years, including salmonella and E. coli 0157.
We must remember also that people do not want their food to contain additives such as BST—bovine somatotrophin—or other hormones. I know that the Government and I have slightly different views on the subject, but consumers are starting to question what is in their food. The vast majority want to eat good, wholesome food, although we must cater for the fact that some people are still attracted to junk food. All manner of issues arise from that, including environmental factors, food poverty, health and allowing people to exercise choice.
The number of food poisoning cases has risen dramatically in recent times, and estimates suggest that it costs us about £1 billion a year. That may be more to do with how food is prepared than with how it was grown or produced, but it is clearly telling us that something is going wrong. On the back of that, much of our food, by its very nature, is not as healthy as we would want it to be. We continually receive guidance—not lectures, but thoughtful guidance—from the Minister for Public Health on what we must to do to overcome some of the poor eating habits that still kill people. I shall discuss the figures later, but there is evidence of a link between poor diet and cardiovascular problems. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is here. He will doubtless want to say more about such health problems.
I believe that the Government are fit and able to take up the challenge of evolving a more coherent and clear-cut food policy. After all, it was a Labour Government who set up the post-second world war agricultural system. I know that that system has been fundamentally changed by the common agricultural policy, but aspects of it still exist.
We started to grasp the nettle in our manifesto for the 1997 general election. We made some important pledges, the most obvious and most successful of which was the introduction of the Food Standards Agency. People have strong views about how it is grappling with the way in which we move around food that is produced not only here but internationally, and some would like to see the role of the FSA widened. For instance, if it was a food agency, it could deal also with education and nutrition, matters on which it seems to have only a watching brief. Unfortunately, because the agency has been hived off to the Department of Health, the Minister cannot answer on behalf of the FSA; we need joined-up responses as well as joined-up thinking and action
Last September, the Government and 50 other countries signed up to the World Health Organisation European region's four-year programme, which is based on the three pillars of nutrition, food safety and sustainable food supplies. We must make sure that those three subjects are to the fore in our policy evolution.

3WH
Everyone agrees that the overhaul of the CAP is long overdue; we must ensure that it becomes more of a food policy than a purely agricultural policy. Many farmers would now support such a change because, although the CAP principally supports farmers, it is not the best way of doing so. We must ask some serious questions. Is the subsidy regime right? Do subsidies go to the right people? Are there better ways in which support can be developed?
Tackling food poverty will be another of my key themes. All the research suggests that poor people's food costs are high, for reasons of what they buy and where they buy it. It might be a question of education or of lack of access to quality food. The system militates against their having access to the right food in the right way.
Any reform of the common agricultural policy should aim towards more sustainable farming practices. I am not here to take onward the baton of organic farming. I am on record as supporting the Organic Targets Bill, and I argued vigorously in favour of organic farming when the Select Committee on Agriculture last reviewed it, but that does not necessarily mean that other forms of farming should be precluded. It is the way that the consumer wants to go, and we must provide a mechanism to facilitate it. If that means improving food quality, so be it. It is important that it be based on local food production, as I can foresee that, if organic farming is allowed to become just another ratcheting-up of the globalisation of the supply chain, the basic opportunity to grow, to supply and to consume food on a more localised basis will be missed.
It is said that there is no possibility of re-engineering a system of localised food production. I do not believe that. There are many indications that people want to source locally and to buy in farmers markets. Anything that we can do to help in what Tim Lang calls "reducing food miles", to lessen the environmental damage involved and give people access to the food that they want, is a jolly good thing. We must make it happen.
Local retailing is about joined-up government. It is about providing alternatives that people seem to want. It is, if we are honest, about protecting the rural way of life, which has been undermined by the centralisation of the food chain, by the placing of supermarkets and by supermarkets' demands. I am not necessarily here to attack supermarkets, but I would, at least, like them all to clear some of their shelves tomorrow and to put local produce on sale, as happens in other parts of the world. The centralised food chain has evolved, in part, at the cost of the healthy and sustainable rural quality of life that most of us want.
We should recognise that there is a policy vacuum. We must fill it with action, not just local but regional. Regional development agencies can play a key role, and I am pleased to see that they are already trying to make money available to deal with the current crisis. They could become key drivers for change. They could use some of their investment streams to go into the food production and processing industries to ensure that local food chains operate.
It is time that we stopped sticking plasters on the problems and looked for more radical solutions. We should not talk glibly about local shopping and local
4WH
food chains, but should put time, money and effort into rebuilding neighbourhood stores and looking at ways in which we can lock into developments such as farmers markets.
I am grateful to Clare Gerbrands who was the driving force behind the Stroud farmers market. The joy of the enterprise is that, as yell as recycling funds in a localised area, it ensures that farmers receive a true share of the value-added economy. The profits are channelled directly back, which should not be underestimated as a benefit to farmers. The money enables them to go on to market more effectively and to provide consumers with even more choice.
What is being done is a question of access to fresh food and of economic benefits. Many changes can follow from it. An estimated 30 to 40 per cent. additional footfall comes to Stroud on farmers market days. That is a hint of what might be possible in the future. There is a belief—although it may not in every case be justified—that we can further improve animal welfare standards. People want to know how food is sourced, and to learn more about the countryside and animal rearing. I do not suggest that they should go out to do that at present for obvious reasons, but there are ways to achieve the benefits in question.
In Stroud, we have built on our achievement, by trying to make some of the relevant knowledge more applicable and available to younger people. We have a flourishing education-business partnership. Among the activities of young people in the past year has been a study of the food chain, and evaluation of the benefits of local food chains and farmers markets, as against more centralised food chains. The great benefit of that is that it educates people about the countryside and about the realities of food. It makes them think not just about where they buy food and where it comes from, but about what they do with it.
I have worked with Robert Rees, a chef who has worked closely with Carol Endicott, who leads the education-business partnership in Stroud. They have done innovative work, involving not merely talking about the food chain as a general concept but getting children to prepare food and think about its natural cycles. Such work makes the children think much harder about what they eat and its effect on them, in the context of healthy eating. The distinctiveness of local produce and the effect of that on the local economy, as well as consumers, is another issue to be considered. The project is exciting and deserves high praise. It shows that there is life in the localised food chain. However, as always, work on that idea must start with the next generation, in view of some of the mistakes that we have made.
Public health priorities certainly arise in this context. I referred earlier to the work of Dr. Mike Rayner of the university of Oxford. He alleges that there is a considerable correlation between the incidence of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular problems and poor eating. About 250,000 deaths result from those conditions, and it has been proved that that is to a great extent due to diet. There is an enormous monetary cost, but more importantly there is a cost in people's lives. We should encourage people to think more about what they eat and what it does to them.

5WH
We need also to think about the structures of the industry. I do not intend to argue against supermarkets or caterers, but we should realise that some of the poorest paid jobs are those in the food business. That fact implies that we do not invest sufficiently in those who are being trained for such work, or in the industry itself. The minimum wage has had an enormous impact—and jolly good, too—but we must dwell on the need for future action.
I could say more about science, consumer protection and competition policy, but I shall pass quickly over those topics to give other hon. Members a chance to speak. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows, because of the somewhat hard time that I gave her in a European Standing Committee debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, that I think that we need to look hard at the animal by-products industry. The more that I have considered that industry in relation to the problems of BSE and of foot and mouth, the more that it appears not to be marginal to the production of food but to be something that must be properly evaluated in its own right. The Government have cottoned on to that; they have been working closely with our colleagues in Europe, but we must recognise the need not for less regulation but for better regulation. If we propose a bonfire of controls—unfortunately, other things are in bonfires at the moment—that will be at our long-term cost. We must be careful about how we monitor the food chain, because unfortunately, it takes only one or two people doing silly things to have not only an enormous economic cost but, more important, an enormous cost in people's lives, which is totally unacceptable.
I was lobbied effectively by a constituent who works for the Meat Hygiene Service, who was unhappy with proposals coming from Europe for hazard analysis and critical control points in local abattoirs to be at the cost of the role of the Meat Hygiene Service. My right hon. Friend may want to comment on that, but that must be carefully considered.
In conclusion, it is not that current food policies are not working, but we could haw, the best of both worlds—we could introduce alternative ways for people to buy food. We must consider what we do in this country in relation to the rest of the world. Although it is easy to talk about problems coming from abroad, I know someone who was recently on a trade delegation to the Netherlands, which I always thought was a moderate country. Besides meeting lots of nice people who were interested in what he had to sell—this was before foot and mouth—he receive d abuse from people saying, "You're the country that gave us BSE." We are not without our problems in selling our message internationally.
We need to consider price and what is introduced into the food chain. I hope that we can have joined-up thinking, consider opportunities and revisit different ways in which the food chain can operate. If that process starts now, that will be one advantageous thing to come from the depths of a deep crisis.
9.53 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: We meet today to
discuss food policy in the most difficult and testing of circumstances. We have a national emergency, a
6WH
national crisis, with the epidemic of foot and mouth. We all share in having foremost in our thoughts the anxieties and distress of farmers and all those concerned with the rural economy and the British countryside. If it were in order, which it clearly is not, I would ask for us to observe a minute's silence for all those who are going through such a difficult time. I am sure that that sentiment will be shared throughout the Chamber today.
Farmers in Eddisbury and across wider Cheshire were devastated by the foot and mouth outbreak in 1967. It is with them in mind that I have been keen since I entered the House 18 months ago to find the food policy issues that tie together the interests of producers and consumers. It has become clear that consumers properly demand quality, choice, reliability and a fulsome supply of the food that they need and enjoy, which forms part of their standard of life, as well as being a staple of life.
In addition, there are public safety and public health issues, but it is important to stress at this difficult time in the countryside that foot and mouth is not a public health issue and not a disease that is a danger to human beings. In trying to tackle these difficult issues as best we can—I am at one with the whole House on this—we must be careful to dissect the issues so that we do not send out any alarmist messages.
In focusing on food policy, we must recognise that we live in a country where, by any relative test, the highest quality of food is produced and made available to consumers. We can be proud of that, but it is no accident; there has always been a commitment in this country to producing the highest quality food. However, our debate would not be completely honest if I did not record that I believe that the Government are generally inimical to tying together the interests of consumers and producers. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, who has made time to be here to reply to the debate when, as part of the Executive team dealing with the foot and mouth crisis, she has so much on her plate. However, while the subject of food remains in the title of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Government have assigned the Food Standards Agency and food policy generally to the Department of Health. Why, therefore, has a Health Minister not come to reply to the debate? I can only suppose that, although responsibility for the FSA as a quango has been assigned to the Department of Health, there is a lack of expertise and knowledge in that Department about the issues surrounding the responsibilities of the FSA. That would make it right for the Government to send an Agriculture Minister, who is likely to have received the best briefing and to have most knowledge. Of course, we met in the House in March last year when I promoted the Food Labelling Bill as a private Member's Bill.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister's justification, not for being here but for why the Government have deployed someone from MAFF rather than from the Department of Health, given the changes that have taken place in responsibility for this area of policy. If the subject is hybrid, we need clarification of who in Government has responsibility for food policy. Is it MAFF or the Department of Health? Is the Department of Health focused on the more alarmist danger signals relating to food and public health and MAFF more concerned with the supply chain? If so, that reinforces my point—this has certainly

7WH
been my experience in dealing with such issues on behalf of my constituents—about the essential need to tie together the interests of consumers and producers, in order not only to maintain the high quality of food in this country but to ensure accountability. Accountability is the key to confidence—an important word—on the part of the consumer and producer in the food industry. That may be at the ultimate end, when the purchasers make decisions, or initially, when the relevant issues are for farmers and others. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made farmers' reasons for wanting a rural way of life clear, but that must be based on economic justification. That is why some producers take investment decisions. Their interests must be protected.
As part of our important considerations of the country's food policy, I intend to review the position that we have reached on food labelling. I was able to promote a private Member's Bill on food labelling, so, naturally, I have studied the subject greatly. When I framed the Bill, I was glad to gain the support of the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association. The Bill proved not only that honesty in food labelling is of high public interest, but that it is important to tie together the interests of producers and consumers on food labelling, rather than to drive a wedge between them.
The Bill called for labelling to state both country of origin—that should be clear, simple and honest—and standards of production. Of course, there were all sorts of complications. As we said on the Floor of the House late last night, when we were discussing the Select Committees on European Scrutiny and on Defence, the devil is in the devil not that we received many answers. Pre-prepared foods are likely to combine ingredients of different origins. How is a regime to deal with that? We tackled it in the Bill by saying that the country of origin would have to reflect all the ingredients that constituted more than 25 per cent. in weight of a product. I accept that it became clear during the debate on 3 March last year that the Bill needed amending if it was to become law, but it had the right strategy and employed the right series of policies.
We are not yet clear about the source of the current foot and mouth outbreak, and—who knows?—my Bill might have helped to prevent it. It would have recorded constituent ingredients sourced from another country if they made up more than 25 per cent. by weight of any product. It is well known that our armed forces have changed their policy of being supplied exclusively with British food and are allowed to be supplied with food from abroad. Questions are being asked as to whether scraps from food fed to the forces at Catterick were in pigswill that ended up at the farm at Heddon-on-the Wall. That could be a source, given that some of the food came from South Africa. We know that foot and mouth disease is endemic in parts of South Africa. That is supposition, and I am anxious that none of us should be alarmist. However, had there been a better regime on labelling the country of origin and production standards of food, we might have had the necessary information and certification on foodstuffs, in the private or public sector, to have had a chance to prevent foot and mouth from entering the country. Of course, that is pure speculation.
8WH
As the Minister recalls—she was present—the Government chose to talk out my Food Labelling Bill. We all know that hon. Members sometimes speak at great length on private Members' Bills so that they run out of time, and my judgment was that it was better to ensure that all the points were made. I made a fairly long speech because I was anxious not to give the time to those who had no interest in seeing my Bill on the statute book. The Minister dealt with some of the points that I made. She argued that the proposals on country of origin did not need the force of law, but subsequent events have shown that there is an issue of confidence for consumers and producers because country of origin labelling is inadequate. The proposals on standards of production raise mare intricate details and difficulties. The Minister argued that that was fully covered by a series of regulations because it had been delegated to wider European Union responsibilities, and that the Government were seeking urgently to negotiate and advance the matter in those councils. It is worrying that we have heard little more about it, although there have been a number of reports.
An easy regime would be to display the country of origin simply with a letter, perhaps in large print. Such information appears on some products, but not clearly and obviously. On standard of production, there could be some form of kite mark certification. Some product labels include an essay of information on ingredients, including whether they are genetically modified, contain nuts and so on. That is confusing and unhelpful for consumers at the point of decision in a supermarket or a local shop. That is why the kite mark analogy was raised. It would be possible to arrange certification, and many European Union member states have an equal interest in the matter because they want to protect their regional markets. There are derogations in regulations and legislation to enable regional origin of products to be certified, but the only result to date is from the National Farmers Union, which, laudably, initiated the red tractor logo. Many consumers who want to buy British farm-assured duality food welcomed that. Many genuinely British food products sport the union jack on the packaging and m my consumers prefer, if they have the chance, to focus their purchasing on such products.
I do not want to denigrate the NFU's red tractor logo. It has been extensively applied in many supermarkets and other outlets, but it does not guarantee that the product is British. It demonstrates that the food has been produced to British farm produce standards and many producers of imported foods have insisted through the distribution chain that their foods are labelled with that logo, so its meaning has been thrown into doubt. I shall not pursue the point too heavily because the logo should be encouraged rather than diminished, but it is lot the same as a true country of origin label and it is not what can be achieved under the current law and regulations.
In the enactment of the Food Standards Act 1999, which led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency, we saw that this country has enormous expertise in food labelling and certification, but this has not been brought to bear domestically to the extent to which it should. That is part of the reason why I introduced my Food Labelling Bill, and why I argued a year ago that we should show leadership in the field. European member states are hungry to see us take leadership, as they

9WH
recognise our enormous expertise, as shown by the speed at which we have developed the quality choice that is available in supermarkets and other outlets. I join the hon. Member for Stroud in celebrating the farmers markets and all the other outlets for high-quality food. There could be a joint enterprise with the EU to ensure that our leadership and understanding of the issues is brought to bear.
I fear that there is a reluctance to go faster than the slowest pace set in the EU in achieving a significant uprating in honesty in food labelling in this country. After my Bill failed to be enacted, I had discussions with the Food Standards Agency, and although I received an extremely sympathetic hearing to the aspects of the Bill on country of origin labelling, there was considerable suspicion. indeed doubt, about my proposal on standards of production. It would be both irresponsible and inappropriate to try to introduce improvements in our food policy without introducing measures on standards of production. Our approach to food labelling would allow consumers to be confident about food, and farmers would know how the high-quality food that they produced was represented.
The importance of my proposal on standards of production was most clearly evidenced in the enormous concern expressed about the stall-and-tether method of farming pigs. There has been an admirable move away from that method, at huge investment cost to many pig farmers. That change has not been matched by our key European competitors. Denmark is a case in point. This country is a great consumer of Danish bacon. We do not denigrate its quality or availability, but there is concern at the lack of speed at which Denmark is abolishing stalls and tethers in pig farming. Denmark has sought a derogation under the EU directive.
It is important to note that we seem to be going at the pace of the slowest member state on certain issues, although we are going faster than other member states in policing the EU directives that apply to domestic marketplaces. That is why there is deep concern, and why we would do well to consider framing a law that reflects our domestic needs, rather than relying simply on EU regulations that are subject to interminable negotiations without result.
What has been done since we debated my private Member's Bill on food labelling a year ago? It is not apparent what has been achieved. I accept that the Minister cannot be blamed, but there is a sense that the Government have found themselves in hock to the supermarkets to a degree. At the same time, as soon as the going gets tough, the Prime Minister says that the supermarkets have the farmers in an arm lock. This is not a battle between two sides and it is unhelpful to regard it as such. As I have said, we must try to unite producers and consumers, and the Prime Minister was ill-advised in using the phrase "arm lock", even though it doubtless struck a sympathetic chord with the many farmers who continue to feel desperately blighted and let down by this Government.
Even though the Prime Minister 's spokesman sought to backtrack on the use of that phrase the following day, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he used it in relation to supermarkets and farmers. I am reminded of the debate surrounding community health councils. The Prime Minister said that there had been no consultation
10WH
on scrapping community health councils, but then asserted that in fact there had. He had to write to me to make it clear that the Government had already decided to scrap them.
One issue raised by the hon. Member for Stroud was greater public education on food policy. The Select Committee on Education and Employment produced a report on school meals and the availability of fruit and other suitable foods. In the light of it and the evidence taken, we must remember that there is no point in producing food for any sector of the population—particularly children and young people—that is not attractive to them. Food that they cannot be persuaded to eat, however worthy and nutritious, is simply not acceptable, and alternatives that are perhaps not as healthy must be used.
A local Labour councillor in my area successfully undertook a cross-party initiative, which I supported fully and publicly, to encourage the availability of free milk in schools. However, it is disappointing to note that very few parish councils have taken up the initiative. The problem is not a lack of will or initiative on the part of the local town councillor or, indeed, the local Member of Parliament, but the reluctance of parish councils and others to respond positively. To our great surprise, the few replies that we received were ambivalent. We must look again at how to make the right food attractive to young people and other elements of the community.
I am conscious that time is running out, and I shall try to bring my remarks to a close. The Conservative policy on honesty in food labelling picks up on the proposals in my Food Labelling Bill, although I recognise that those proposals need amending to some extent. We should not worry about the hurdles that we encounter. Like the hon. Member for Stroud, I have spoken to organisations such as i-Label, which has considerable expertise in respect of consumer access to ingredients, and to those who know how to put together a standard of production certificate that includes the country of origin.
One has only to access the internet and type a phrase such as "Swedishsafemeat.com" to discover that it is possible to trace every single pig, sheep and cow product in Sweden. Those who buy a joint of meat in a Swedish shop can determine from which animal it came by accessing the relevant website, and we should all copy that approach. If Sweden can manage that, it is surely not beyond the wit of this country, given our great expertise in food products and food regimes. It is important to tie together consumer and producer interests, including supermarkets, distributors, restaurateurs and those involved in public procurement, as well as securing the support of everyone involved in the rural economy, including farmers and producers.
The hon. Member for Stroud referred to joined-up government. The Government's proposals must be based on joined-up thinking. There is a proposal afoot to introduce a law on corporate manslaughter. If some absolute outrage took place in the food chain, the last thing that a director of a supermarket chain or distribution company would want is to find themselves liable for an offence of corporate manslaughter as a result of inadequate information and inadequate labelling. Every constituent member of the food chain should be required to have the relevant information about food, including its origins and standards of

11WH
production. Perhaps the foot and mouth outbreak would not have occurred had that been implemented through domestic law rather than treated as a matter for negotiation under our obligations to the EU.
One saving grace about honesty in food labelling—which I should have thought that other parties, as well as the Conservative party, would wish to recognise—is that it is a completely cost-free option to the public purse. The burden could properly fall on those at the retail end of the food chainx—not, for once, putting the squeeze on the farm gate.
I have spoken at length. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the points that I have made.
10.21 am
Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his excellent introduction; I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree with a word of what he said. I congratulate him and the people of Stroud on their local initiatives, which are a beacon that the rest of us might well follow.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) made an interesting point about the common interest between producers and consumers. However, over the years, the processes of distribution have come between producers and consumers. In respect of food labelling, I am afraid that the party that he supports so loyally spent 18 years actively destroying the local link between producers and consumers by allowing regulations to be used in such a way that local abattoirs and packing plants were frozen out, forcing producers to deal with one or two big players in their region. It is no accident that those involved in the big business end of the food sector supported the then Government. It is all very well to say now that labelling is the answer to everything. Of course, we all support labelling. One of the big issues in the debates on the Food Standards Bill was the remit of the Food Standards Agency. Many of us wanted the Bill to cover labelling.
I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here after her trips around the country. Food policy is a public health matter. However, we should not concentrate purely on the producer end of the food chain. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, food policy necessitates joined-up action by the Government. He saw that as a threat; I see it as a challenge and an opportunity. If we do not do something, we will end up like the Americans. There are two types of American: those who need three chairs to sit on because they are so grossly obese and those who are neurotically thin and eat hardly anything because they are so worried about their weight. I am concerned that we are drifting in the direction of larger seat sizes. It is not right to continue with the token actions that are being taken, because, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, food policy affects heart disease, cancers, and people's general fitness and productivity.
Despite the bad press that supermarkets have received, they have made a good job of delivering consistent quality at a reasonable price for most people. It is sad, however, that a small group of people cannot afford the bus fare to the big supermarket or to buy larger packs. Such people are trapped into using corner
12WH
shops, which often sell goods of lower quality at higher prices, and are thereby put at a tremendous disadvantage. My home village is not unique in having to run a breakfast club at the primary school to ensure that children are given at least one decent meal a day. In the 21st century, that is not acceptable in a country as wealthy as ours.
However, unlike supermarkets on the continent, supermarkets here have not taken on board the idea of using local products. French supermarkets always source vegetables, meat and bakery items locally. Perhaps we could encourage that here, through negative taxation or tax breaks.
Every year, I speak to a combined meeting of members of the Country Landowners Association and the NFU on the Isle of Wight. Every year, I tell them that we need to move away from subsidising production through the common agricultural policy and towards supporting farmers in their stewardship of land and encouraging them to produce quality, identifiable produce to be marketed locally. On the whole, they listen to me tolerantly. This year, I spoke to them two weeks before the foot and mouth outbreak. They wrote to me saying, "Thank you very much. We had a stimulating evening. It is good for us to hear things that we do not necessarily want to hear."
It is interesting that since the foot and mouth outbreak, everyone is talking about the importance of keeping matters local. That will be difficult for some farmers. A pig breeder told me, "It's all very well having a local abattoir for some purposes, but we cannot sell all our products locally." It costs money to ship out refrigerated meat; it is much cheaper to ship livestock—on the hoof—across the country, or across Europe. That situation is unacceptable. There should be a way of influencing movement patterns to the benefit of animal welfare and quality of product. The less stress that an animal suffers before it is slaughtered, the better the product, and the better it is for us all. I will try to keep my remarks brief, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider referring to the Chair as Mr. Deputy. Speaker.
Dr. Brand: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not caught up with the late night ramblings of the House. I sincerely apologise because I have been caught out in the other direction previously.
The issue of labelling has been covered by the hon. Member for Eddisbury and we agree that an initiative is essential. We also need to examine the producer end and consider giving more positive support to local co-operative efforts, for example, for dairy production or milk distribution. It does not make sense to shift bulk milk 200 miles, then shift the empty bottles back again.
We also need to consider whether our tax regimes are helping producers. My local glasshouse industry is unsure about the effects of regulations on combined heat and power plants. It needs them to produce carbon dioxide to grow its product and it uses the surplus energy to produce electricity. The regime to protect the glasshouse industry against unfair competition from abroad is unsatisfactory, which is not the case in other European Community countries.
Mr. Drew: I must declare an interest. I am both a Co-operative and a Labour Member of Parliament. Will

13WH
the hon. Gentleman accept that one good result of the new initiatives is the attempt to rebuild co-operation in terms of both the immediate food chain and its adjuncts?
Dr. Brand: Matters are progressing, but I am frustrated that they are not moving fast enough.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government chose to overturn the recommendations of what was the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its milk report. It recommended that there should be value added opportunities on milk products for effective co-operatives. However, the Government chose to split up the collection of mil, so I have six lorries going past my gate at home in Cheshire, rather than one. Co-operatives are now allowed to take value added opportunities, but there have been massive increases in the cost of distribution. The decision by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to overturn that recommendation was wrongheaded and the hon. Gentleman will know its effect on difficulties that he is exposing.
Dr. Brand: The Government sadly chose to go in neither of those directions. The current set-up does not allow true local co-operatives to function. Local farmers are still tied in because they fear that co-operatives will be established over which they will have no effective influence.
The Government's scheme to introduce fruit and vegetables in schools is laudable. However, schools also receive commercial sponsorship from the manufacturers of fizzy drinks and crisps, which sends a peculiar message to young people. We must restore domestic science and practical subjects to the classroom for boys and girls because many people cannot boil the proverbial egg. A whole generation finds the preparation of a Pot Noodle challenging, which is unhelpful if one is trying to promote good diet and sensible food policy.
This is proving to be an interesting debate because our minds have been concentrated by the emergence of problems caused by an over-centralised supply chain. I thank the Minister for making time to debate these problems because they lie within he; remit. However, I hope that her presence does not mean that the Department of Health does not recognise the Government's broad responsibilities. Food policy affects the Treasury, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Education and Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in addition to the Department of Health.
10.33 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his success in obtaining this important debate. However, the number of hon. Members who want to participate will disappoint him. Food quality has been a high-profile issue for many years and it is disappointing that more hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members—
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Opposition?
Mr. Moss: I mean Government Members, who are opposite us.
14WH
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Stroud talked about difficulties in the food chain. He mentioned BSE, swine fever, bovine TB, foot and mouth and hormones in beef. Those affect the quality of meat products and bovine TB also affects milk. We could look beyond animals and consider pesticide levels in fruit and vegetables. Controls on the growing number of genetically modified crop trials and standards for organic food could also be mentioned.
Dr. Brand: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that food-related concerns may relate to GM crops?
Mr. Moss: I am talking about food production in general. The debate is about the end product and the quality of food. I am not saying that the food produced from GM crops will necessarily injure individuals' health.
The matters that I have mentioned are all within the remit of the Minister. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still retains that title. However, no representative from the Food Standards Agency is here. I would also have expected a Minister, or other representative, from the Department of Health to be present today, as responsibility for the issue has been transferred to that Department from MAFF.
That lack of representation allows us to focus on a problematic dichotomy: the dissociation of food production from the end product in the shops. The process of control and regulation—from the farmer, through the farm gate, to the processor and the supermarkets—should be continuous and integrated. If we separate its stages too much, we do it a disservice. I would like the debate to take account of the fact that the process should be an harmonious whole. We should not isolate its different stages into pigeonholes.
Foot and mouth has been mentioned. I follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) in reiterating that foot and mouth has no implications for the quality of beef, lamb and pork, or any knock-on effect on human health. That important message must be conveyed. However, the causes of the terrible outbreak have ramifications for animal welfare and, therefore, for food safety.
The closure of abattoirs, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) mentioned, and moves to slaughter animals in larger and more diverse geographic units, has caused greater movement of animals. When the report on the outbreak is published, it may indicate that that has been an ingredient in the more rapid spread of this especially malevolent disease. Following comments that other hon. Members have made, I welcome the Minister, and thank her for her presence at a time when she and her Department are deeply involved in the terrible crisis. We look forward to her remarks.
Milk prices have been mentioned. It seems unreasonable that farmers at the farm gate sometimes get a price for their milk that is lower than their production costs. Will the Minister comment on any plans that the Government might have to introduce legislation to prohibit products being sold in supermarkets at prices that are lower than producers' costs?
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has talked brilliantly on labelling, about which he .knows a great deal. I will not cover the same ground, but I urge the

15WH
Minister to answer my hon. Friend's questions as he brought great expertise to bear on the subject. Although the Government pay some lip service to labelling, they have not, in the opinion of Conservative Members, done what they need to do to rectify the problems associated with it.
I will concentrate my remarks in the next few minutes on imports. Conservative Members feel that our farmers and producers are subject to greater regulation and red tape than many of their counterparts in the EU, to say nothing of the rest of the world. We feel that those regulations and that red tape should not bear down on them disproportionately so as to disadvantage them. We believe that food imports that do not meet the standards required by law for British farmers must not be allowed to undercut British produce and undermine British standards.
When we return to government, we intend to use article 36 of the treaty of Rome, which defines the circumstances in which cross-border trade can be restricted, to ban unfair agricultural imports. The obstruction of British beef exports by France and Germany has shown just how other EU procedures can be used to disadvantage unfairly British farmers. The Government have repeatedly refused to subject imports to the same standards that they impose on British farmers. Instead, they have assumed, without foundation, that restricting imports on the basis of animal welfare would not be admissible under article 36.
In 1995, when the Labour party was in opposition, the then spokesman on agriculture, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), spoke on the "Today" programme about Labour's plans to halt the export of veal calves. He said:
"We don't doubt that this would lead to a legal challenge. But we believe the British public would rather see this argued through the courts and a real attempt made to end this system."
Of course, in government, the Labour party has failed to take any action of that kind, on the basis of animal welfare or on that of other food standards, such as safety and hygiene.
One of the examples that we put to the Government was that of the French sewage scandal. A European Commission report exposed France as a nation in which animal and possibly human waste had been routinely and illegally used in farm feedstuffs. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quoted in The Daily Telegraph of 26 October 1999 as saying:
"The EU's report describes practices which are illegal, highly undesirable and needed to be stopped but there is no immediate justification on safety grounds to engage in the withdrawal of products."
The Government chose to ignore the scientific advice at the time. Professor Hugh Pennington, who conducted the investigation into the Lanarkshire E. coli outbreak was quoted in the Daily Mail on 26 October 1999 as saying
"If you are padding out animal feed with treated sewage, the likelihood is that the gunge will also include ground-up animal waste including nervous tissue. This means that there is danger of BSE in addition to the very real possibility of bacterial infections."
Then there is the more recent risk of BSE in French beef. The French Government have consistently excused their illegal ban on British beef on the grounds
16WH
that BSE is common in Britain but rare in France. It is true that the epidemic in Britain has been much greater than anywhere else in Europe, but infection rates are now rising in France, at the same time as they are falling in this country.
For some time, British farmers have had their suspicions that cases of BSE in France have been underreported. Those suspicions were spectacularly confirmed when the European Commission published a damning investigation into the failure of the French authorities either to contain or honestly to report their growing BSE epidemic. The Commission released the results of that investigation in February 2000. The final report exposed a catalogue of lax procedures that would be unthinkable in Britain, and which almost certainly resulted in massive under-reporting of BSE in France.
I shall cite five conclusions of the report. First, technicians rather than veterinarians performed inspections of suspect animals before slaughter. Secondly, there was poor compliance with rules demanding special certificates for possible BSE cases. Thirdly, animals with neurological disorders were instantly diagnosed as victims of non-BSE diseases. Fourthly, animals that died before slaughter were admitted to the food chain without inspection. Finally, cattle feed routinely showed traces of meat and bone meal—there is, of course, an EU-wide ban on the use of animal protein in cattle feed. So we have said for some time that we should carefully inspect the quality of beef imports from Franc and other countries in which the BSE problem is now increasing.
The Food Standards Agency has become something of a fig leaf. When during Agriculture questions we ask Ministers about any matter relating to food, the answer comes back, "That's not our remit; that's nothing to do with us. That is the Food Standards Agency's responsibility." However, never since the Food Standards Agency has been in operation has a question about food been asked during Health questions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food tMs Joyce Quin: So table one.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: We have tried.
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend says that we have tried, but we are getting no clear answers.
Mr. O'Brien: It has been difficult to frame questions that the Table Office has been prepared to accept. Since a form of words on the Food Standards Agency for Health questions has been agreed with the Table Office, it just happens that. despite desperate attempts, we have been unlucky in the shuffle.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying on so many occasions to ask such questions. We must keep trying because the Minister concerned admitted to me privately that she has not been asked one question on the FSA since she took over her responsibilities. That cannot be right.
In conclusion, two issues relate to the quality of beef imports. Cattle more than 30 months old are now routinely tested, we are told, in those EU countries that have BSE. It is admitted that the test is not foolproof, so

17WH
it is likely that over-30-month meat is still being imported in carcass form—and that, crucially, for many years, it has been admitted in processed form. Although we introduced the rule that no over-30-month-old animal would enter our food chain, we have discovered—I have questioned Ministers on this many times—that processed meat has been allowed into this country during the past few years that must have contained meat from over-30-month cattle. It may well be argued that now that over-30-month testing is being introduced in Europe, that problem will disappear, but that does not answer the question of why such processed meat has been allowed in during the past few years.
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has several times denied that arty over-30-month-old processed meat ever entered the food chain. The Department no longer claims that, but the last time that the Minister of State was challenged on the Floor of the House to say what was the truth, she ducked the question. I trust that she will not duck it today
10.48 am
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) introduced the debate with a characteristically thoughtful speech that reflected the keen interest that he has taken in agriculture and food in his constituency and in his work on the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In case anyone reading the Hansard report of our debate gets a misleading impression from the comments about attendance made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), I should make it clear that three Labour Members, two official Opposition Members and one Liberal Democrat Member have been present. Otherwise, the impression that hordes of Opposition Members attended might falsely be given.
The debate takes place against the serious backcloth of foot and mouth disease. It is not surprising that all Members who have spoken have expressed their deep concern and strong support for those most affected by the dreadful outbreak. The Government are tackling the disease, first and foremost by slaughtering and destroying large numbers of animals. Also, we are already paying compensation to farmers and allowing movement of some animals, both to slaughter and on welfare grounds. I know that there is agreement on such matters among all Members.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury I Mr. O'Brien) said that we should not be alarmist on food safety issues and foot and mouth disease. I strongly agree, and other Members also referred to that. It is wise to report on the gravity of the foot and mouth situation, but to avoid alarmist comments that could worry people unnecessarily. I feel that especially strongly, having been in Cumbria at the weekend. Some of the press reports, that all the skies were black, and that towns and villages were ghost places to which no one would want to go, were deeply inaccurate. Many in Cumbria said that they found such reporting upsetting and unhelpful as they coped with the actual situation.
I am sure that foot and mouth disease is already reinvigorating the debate on food policy, and more widely on agriculture policy. That comment fits with the broad thrust of the arguments and ideas proposed by my
18WH
hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. However, we must recognise that a great deal of work has already been done. The Government have been actively engaged in devising a forward-looking strategy for agriculture, in seeing agriculture as a key part of the rural economy, and in seeing the link between agriculture and other parts of the economy. My Ministry takes co-operation and dialogue across the food chain seriously, and we have been considering the important issues that also affect other Departments and Government bodies. I commend that work. It has taken the domestic agenda on the issues forward, as it has the work that must go on at a European and a wider international level. When the foot and mouth crisis is overcome, I hope that some recognition will be given to the work that has already taken place. We can build a thoughtful debate for the future on it.
Understandably, the Food Standards Agency has been referred to a great deal during the debate. I do not accept that it is used as a fig leaf by Ministers, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire alleged. It is important that Ministers highlight the agency's work and responsibility, and where the ministerial line of accountability should be in relation to the FSA. That is simply to stress to the public that the creation of the FSA met a real need, and that we are keen that its work should be properly appreciated and understood.
I can think of no subject that can be neatly contained within the work of one Department of State. The problems of joined-up government, referred to by several hon. Members, are real. For example, I have been involved in the active promotion of the Department of Health's free fruit scheme for school children. I have tremendous enthusiasm for it, not only because it sends out an important message about healthy eating and nutrition, but because it offers help to the horticulture industry in finding new markets and customers. It makes perfect sense to take a joined-up approach. I was pleased to take part in promotional efforts at Hill Mead school in south London and other schools in the area; not only did they stress the importance of healthy eating but they increased awareness of rural issues in urban areas. That sort of joined-up work is important.
Mr. Moss: We are all in favour of joined-up government, but the Minister has not yet explained why she and not the Minister for Public Health, who is responsible for the FSA, is answering a debate on food policy
Ms Quin: The subject of the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud includes a good many issues that are the responsibility of my Department, including the food chain initiative referred to by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), and reform of the common agricultural policy. The latter is a key element, because we are not divorced from Europe on agricultural matters. Those questions are extremely important for my Department. In the context of my hon. Friend's remarks, I must conclude that it was right for an Agriculture Minister to respond. In preparing for the debate,I have had contact with other Departments. Such matters are not hermetically sealed; nor should they be.

19WH
The hon. Member for Eddisbury took me to task once again over his labelling Bill. A number of points need to be made in response. I find it rather odd still to be accused of talking out a Bill when less than a third of the time was made available to me—the rest of it was taken by the hon. Gentleman himself—and I did not have enough time to respond to the valid points raised in that debate. If he were to ask whether the Government were in favour of a Bill in that form, the answer would be no. It would have taken us directly into illegality in Europe. However, I hope that I can give him some reassurance.
Having promoted the idea of labelling to show country of origin in conjunction with the Italian agriculture Minister at a recent Agriculture Council meeting, I assure the hon. Member for Eddisbury that we are actively considering the matter. It is time to overhaul European Union labelling arrangements, because various directives are causing confusion. Fruit and vegetables have country-of-origin labelling, which is extremely helpful to consumers. Beef and wine are also now labelled with their country of origin. We also have regional appellations, which give more information to consumers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the next debate.

Planning Appeals
10.59 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I express my appreciation for the opportunity to debate this issue. As might be suspected. I have a hidden agenda, although I am not using the debate as a ramp to raise issues relating to specific planning applications—there is a time and a place for that. However, much of what I shall say is inspired by my experiences in my constituency.
Planning procedure is not only an arcane but a difficult area for politicians. I was told recently that there is a parliamentary convention that MPs do not get involved in individual planning applications. That was news to me because for a quarter of a century my predecessor diligently intervened in every planning application that arose in my constituency, and my constituents expected me to follow in that tradition.
Planning procedure is difficult for another, more subtle, but important reason: the problem is at the interface between law and politics. Most local councils are engaged in what is sometimes referred to as a quasi-judicial process, Which few local people understand. They expect their councillors to respond to political pressures and do not understand that councillors are constrained by planning guidance and complex legal obligations. I appreciate that the Minister is bound by the same constraints, being both the guardian of the appeal process and the one who issues policy. One of the key policies that is germane to the debate is contained in planning guidance. Planning policy guidance 1, the predisposition to development, is probably the most important piece of guidance issued to my local authority, so conflict sometimes arises between policy and judicial constraints.
Before I embark on the essence of my speech, I shall take a slight detour while we are dealing with planning processes and appeals and ask the Minister for some clarification on a major departure in policy over the past few days. From reports in the press, I understand that the Minister for Housing and Planning has issued a new set of guidance relating to mobile phone masts. That will be of enormous interest to many hon. Members who have campaigned on that issue, either in general or in relation to specific applications. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify what will happen about that, given that I understand that no other ministerial statement on the subject will be made.
I understand that the scope of planning controls will be widened to encompass small masts of less than 15 m, which have hitherto been exempt from controls, and that public concern, presumably reflecting health considerations, will be taken into account. How important will public concern about health be in the new planning guidelines? Will that be a valid criterion for planning objections? If the balance has decisively shifted towards allowing public concern to weigh heavily in a planning decision, clearly, the Minister's desk will be flooded with appeals from developers in the mobile phone industry, which has invested massively in new technology. If the balance still lies with traditional planning constraints and if people may apply only on grounds of visual amenity, many people will be disappointed. I would be grateful for some clarification of where the balance will lie because it is germane to the sort of appeals that will be launched.

21WH
Finally on mobile phones, an enormous number of applications have been accepted and many masts have been erected without planning permission as a result of the size limitation. I assume that the new ruling will have no retrospective effect, but should be grateful for confirmation because many masts have been erected close to schools and blocks of housing.
The essence of my argument is the way in which the planning appeal process operates in suburban contexts such as Twickenham. Some of the problems that I shall outline may be particular to Twickenham, but in many other suburban areas of London and other big cities there is tremendous pressure for what we would call overdevelopment, although that might not be an accurate, scientific description. The false dichotomy between brownfield and greenfield development misses the problems associated with suburban areas. Those areas have lower density and are under tremendous pressure to increase it and to develop.
Developers are often blocked from greenfield activity, but there is growing demand for houses and, frequently, they do not want to build blocks of housing in inner-city areas, so they concentrate their activities on the suburbs, which often have distinct planning problems. In Twickenham and, I am sure, in many similar areas, no more major pieces of land can be occupied by large developments. However, the Government have set very tough housing targets and I understand that local authorities have little discretion to refuse them. They are obliged to incorporate them in their unitary development plans.
My borough has a target of 240 new houses a year. over 20 years. That is a relaxation of the target of 300 that applied under the previous Government. Nevertheless, it is still a demanding target when there are no vacant sites. It means that developers buy bungalows and houses with large gardens. They do whatever is possible to pack more houses on to a piece of land. That often results in extreme tension.
I received an e-mail a couple of days ago from a group of residents in Hampton road in Teddington, in the middle of my constituency. A gentleman went out one morning and found someone walking around his property, photographing it and taking measurements. He asked, "Why are you in my garden? What are you doing?" and was told, "We have been sent by the developer. We are preparing to buy your house." His reply was that he did not want to sell his house, but was happy where he was. The developer's representative said, "I have already agreed with your neighbours to buy, and either you sell to us for a good price or we are going to make your life rather miserable, because a development is going to go up next door that you may not like." My constituent checked with his neighbours and found next door that a very frightened old lady had been, if not exactly threatened, certainly intimidated, into the clear understanding that she had little option but to sell.
The same thing is going on throughout the area. Everyone with a bungalow is being approached by developers and encouraged, sometimes politely, and sometimes less politely, to sell. The economics are plain. Someone who buys a bungalow with a large garden for £500,000—which is probably the current cost—and is able to obtain planning consent for a block of six or eight flats, which will be described is "exclusive" or
22WH
"luxury", will be able to sell the site for 3£ million. There is a lot of money to be made. Under our tax system, there is no mechanism other than normal business taxation for taxing developers' profits.
There is an enormous amount at stake. Real pressures are being brought to bear and it is not overstating the case to describe what is now happening as a form of suburban Rachmanism. People are being winkled out of their property to enable such intensification of development to go on. Sometimes, it can be very unpleasant. A bitter conflict recently took place over a small infill development called Teddington Park. Following hostility between the developers and residents, the residents went out one night and found that their trees had been chopped down in an act of vandalism and malice. The police have not yet been able to track down precisely who did it, but clearly emotions are high and a lot of pressure is being brought to bear.
Mr. David Drew: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of another problem; I do not know how matters stand in his constituency. In my constituency, a problem arose over a covenant for non-development of a piece of land. In order to buy out that covenant, developers threw the telephone book at people. It came to silly money.
Dr. Cable: That is a helpful intervention. I am glad of confirmation that the problems that I have described occur elsewhere, albeit in a different context. The hon. Gentleman is right. A sophisticated industry is being developed by people who fully understand the legal loopholes through which they have to crawl, and are perfecting techniques to intimidate residents into complying with their wishes.
How does that feed into the planning proc`ess? Assuming that residents have been persuaded to sell their back gardens, their bungalows, or the little patch of land adjacent to them, an application will go to a local planning committee. Residents might object, perhaps because of the pressure on local infrastructure. A problem in my area is that schools are massively overcrowded. When new residents arrive and the demand for school places increases, there is no more land. In a typical, controversial case last week, a bit of playing field from one school had to be taken away to provide land for a new school.
There is pressure on infrastructure. There is pressure on streets. It would be desirable if everyone used public transport and pooled their cars, but they do not. A development of six or a dozen new houses brings six, 12 or 15 new cars into a street that is already choc-a-bloc with cars. It is difficult to see any social gain from that development.
It would be desirable for such developments to include affordable housing. I should like to see more. My council would certainly like to see more. We need a better housing mix; low-income working people should be able to have homes in the suburbs, but they are not. The Government's planning guidelines, which provide for developments of over 15 houses to include an affordable element, do not address the problem: the developments that I am describing are often deliberately under the 15 limit. There is a rash of applications for 14-house developments, so that they can be called "luxury and exclusive".

23WH
Therefore, there is very little social benefit from those developments and many of them impose severe pressure on the local infrastructure. Local council committees consider them, knowing that they are under pressure from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to meet housing targets. There is a planning guideline, giving predisposition to development, and the councils are often on weak ground if they try to resist applications. The matter then becomes highly politicised.
The hottest political topic in my part of London is planning. It is about infill development. Local Conservatives-although it could be another party elsewhere in the country-denounce the local council for being hand in glove with the developers and for promoting infill development. Of course, when they were in government, they had even more demanding housing targets. It is entirely opportunistic. Nevertheless, the pressures are there and the tensions exist.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I cannot resist the bait that the hon. Gentleman was dangling before me. Is he aware that it is Conservative policy to abolish national house-building targets in the first week of the next Conservative Government?
Dr. Cable: I was not aware of that. I know that the Conservatives' manifesto is a rolling programme, but it is difficult to see how they would do that while accommodating the other pressures for housing, especially in the south-east of England. There is enormous demographic change. There is pressure for more housing units. I understand that the Conservatives have lined up in opposition to greenfield developments, so where will the houses go? If targets are to be abolished, by what mechanism will the houses be built? There seems to be a lack of clarity and logic, which the Conservative spokesman will, no doubt, explain in due course.
I would like some feedback from the Minister about how the planning process, and particularly the appeal process, might be modified in order to achieve a better balance. How can we avoid the phenomenon that I experienced—namely, that residents widely believe that all the aces are in the hands of the developer and that they have few legitimate grounds for objection to developments that damage the local community and put it under pressure?
I have several suggestions to make. First, there is an eight-week rule on planning applications, which pressures local authorities to complete their work within eight weeks. It arose because people who want a modest house extension or their loft converted should not have to wait months and months for local planning officials to clear their application. That should happen speedily and efficiently and I understand why the Government have set relevant targets. However, there is a distinction between modest home improvements, which should take place quickly and be subject to a demanding target of perhaps even six weeks, and controversial middle and large-scale developments, which have a wide impact, but cannot be handled within a short time scale.
24WH
There is a cynical process by which developers submit applications in duplicate knowing that local authorities cannot cover the complexity of a major application such as a dozen houses within the time scale. They know that the local planning committee will not cover their application and that it will go to appeal, which sidelines the democratic process. I understand the origins of the eight-week rule and accept that the DETR must set efficiency targets for local government, but the process should be more sophisticated. There should be a more demanding target for house conversions and minor developments, which should be processed more quickly, and a relaxed target for substantial developments that have a wide impact on the community. Those are not unreasonable requests.
Secondly—I realise that this is better-travelled and perhaps more controversial ground—there is the issue of third-party appeals. A developer can currently appeal against a local council planning committee judgment. Indeed, some developers appeal time and again. Several developments in my area have involved a half dozen separate applications, all of which have gone to appeal. It may be that the process of resubmission and appeal produces a better application and I hope that that is the case. However, there is more than a suspicion that developers with deep pockets try to grind down the resistance of overstretched councils. The developers' motive is clear beck use enormous sums of money can be made out of building projects.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Another issue that I should like my hon. Friend to consider is the pressure exerted on planning authorities by planning officers who fear that members will overturn their recommendations. They argue that there will be punitive costs against the local authority should it lose an appeal. When a local elected member feels that there are good grounds for refusal, but planning officers have worked with a developer over a long period to cultivate an application that they consider to be acceptable, members are pushed into a no-win situation—refuse and be damned, which leaves the local authority with a huge bill of costs. or give way and back the officers' recommendation. Members are clearly subjected to unfair pressure.
Dr. Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he has eloquently described the process. A system of third-party appeals would introduce a better balance because it would relieve the pressure on council members. A resident who is currently concerned by pressure on local infrastructure, schools and traffic has no grounds for appeal. He or she could go to the ombudsman, but the ombudsman has a specific frame of reference focused on maladministration and cannot overturn a planning decision. He or she could go to judicial review, but that is complex and requires sophisticated legal advice. A better device would be to allow third parties to appeal under certain circumstances.
I appreciate that that could open the floodgates to many vexatious, trivial objections and I should not want the Minister's desk to be flooded by an enormous number of appeals. There would have to be a screening process to ensure that third-party appeals were not being abused, and preliminary tests to find out whether a genuine issue of principle was involved and whether

25WH
there were major planning concerns, as opposed to trivial objections. The principle of the third-party appeal, if properly constrained in that way, would be a useful addition to the planning process and would introduce a much better balance.
My third suggestion concerns retrospective applications. I have found that large numbers of developments are proceeding without approval or outside the approval that they have been given, exceeding the norms. That sometimes happens with good reason. Many people involved in small developments do not understand planning law, do not know when they have to seek permission and make honest mistakes. They should not be penalised for that. Sometimes, if they get it terribly wrong, they suffer the penalty of having their property pulled down, which causes a lot of expense and misery.
Notwithstanding that, many developers are making increasingly cynical use of the existing process whereby every case of retrospective approval is treated in precisely the same way as a new application. They often ignore the rules altogether, calculating that a relatively small breach of the planning rules is unlikely to bring the wrath of the development control officers down on to their heads. Moreover, those officers are severely overstretched and enforcement involves costs and complexities. As a result, developers often get away with it, further sowing the increasing cynicism that residents feel about the planning process.
I want to throw a couple of larger ideas at the Minister. Underlying many of the difficulties is the ministerial guidance, with its predisposition to development. It might help if the DETR were to employ a subtle variation on that—a predisposition to sustainable development. That would encompass many of the concerns that residents have about amenity, pressure on infrastructure and overdevelopment. "Sustainability" is an amorphous word, but so is "development". We should build into the principle the concept that the environment matters and ensure that all the aces are not stacked in the hands of the developers. I should be grateful for some feedback on whether that idea is being actively considered and what it might mean in practice.
My final point relates to the way in which the debate about the quasi-judicial role of planning authorities is evolving in the light of the recent High Court ruling. I realise that that will eventually have to be resolved in the courts, but it is not premature to ask the Minister how far the human rights considerations that are being brought to bear on the planning process are affecting the way in which future planning appeals might be considered. I know that there is much debate about the Minister's role and that, in future, she may have to step aside from the planning process in order to comply with human rights legislation. Such matters may have to be dealt with by an environmental court rather than by ministerial intervention.
A similar debate is beginning to open up about the effects on the roles of democratically elected councils. Can they continue to operate in the twilight world of the quasi-judicial function? Should they act politically or legally? Should they be pulled in one way or the other? I believe that it is important for planning to remain within the process of democratic control; for the same reason, I support the Government's initiative in
26WH
bringing licensing within the ambit of local councils. The issue needs to be reconciled with the new legal rulings of the High Court. It would be useful if the Minister gave some preliminary indications of how that will be achieved.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a further problem in respect of the appeal process? The degree of legalistic knowledge that an ordinary member of the public needs to have in order to grasp what is going on during appeals seriously disadvantages them in trying to oppose a development or a developer.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is why, as far as possible, we should try to keep the planning process within a democratic, rather than a purely legal, framework, and to build in safeguards such as those that I have described to enable objectors to have a proper say without the necessity for sophisticated and expensive advice.
11.24 am
Sir Sydney Chapman: Hon. Members will be grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for securing the debate at such a relevant time. I echo many of the points that he made. which ranged through a veritable pot pourri of planning issues.
I begin by declaring an interest. I am a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute, although 1 have not received any fees, or undertaken any work for some decades—I regard my duties in the House as a full-time occupation. I could even declare an inverse interest because I pay the institute more than £200 a year to remain a member.
I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. to the hon. Member for Twickenham and to the Minister because I have a long-standing engagement with a constituent that will require me to leave just after 12 o'clock. That happens to hon. Members of all parties from time to time.
I turn to the High Court decision on the role of the Secretary of State in determining planning appeals. Even if the House of Lords says that the present system is not affected by human rights issues, I can envisage that someone would take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights when the procedures of national law had been exhausted.
I suggest to the Minister that the Government consider whether the time is coming to make the planning inspectorate totally independent of the Government. I feel that it might be better if the Secretary of State had no fingers in the pie. That is not to deny that, at present, he observes honourably the fact that planning appeals come to him as sub judice cases and deals with them accordingly.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned telecommunications masts. Will the Minister confirm that the proposal, on which there will be consultation, is not a material change in the law, but that planning authorities will have 56 days, rather than 28 or 42, to deal with applications? That is to allow better and fuller public consultation.

27WH
It is also proposed that school governors will have to be consulted about applications near to their schools or colleges. Another proposed change intrigues me. The local planning authority will be able to turn down an application for a telecommunications mast if it violates amenity grounds— I think that that is the phrase that is used in the document. I echo the question of the hon. Member for Twickenham: does that mean health grounds, visual grounds, or both
The period for considering an application for a telecommunications mast is the same as that for a planning application. If such an application is turned down, will the applicant have the right of appeal?
Overdevelopment, or crowded development, in suburban areas is a problem in Chipping Barnet as well as in Twickenham. I do not oppose the policy of higher housing densities in certain areas. Housing can be well designed when its density is greater. However, I caution against overdevelopment, particularly in suburban areas—the late Sir John Betjeman referred to them as "Metroland" areas—which is destroying their suburban character.
Too many good Victorian family homes have been pulled down and replaced with characterless—I put it no less politely than that—blocks of flats. What is worse, in pulling down nice Victorian houses, for which there is great demand, developers too often put up blocks of flats and tarmacadam over the acre or so of green and pleasant back gardens that make an important contribution to such areas, simply because on-street parking is insufficient or is banned. We should have special measures and special powers to deal with applications that destroy the innate pleasant character of particular areas.
In talking about the need to develop brownfield sites or to recycle urban derelict land, we get into a numbers game that is typical of politicians. The watchword ought to be that we develop greenfield sites only as a last resort. We must concentrate on providing incentives to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield sites and that can be achieved only through significant tax incentives.
Section 106 agreements—in my younger days, they were section 52 agreements—enable local planning authorities to receive, before planning permission is granted, financial contributions to tackle infrastructure here or environmental improvement there that does not necessarily relate to the site in question. In this age of concern about sleaze or impropriety, that verges on the corrupt in that, if one hands over a bundle of money, one will get planning permission for something else.
I would far rather that the process were open. Where a greenfield site is developed as a last resort, a tax should be paid to meet the extra costs associated with decontaminating brownfield sites. It is essential that the Government give such incentives to get builders off greenfield sites and on to brownfield sites. The view has too often been taken that it does not matter if one cannot build on a brownfield site because greenfield site land is available. Perhaps local planning authorities should be required to permit building on greenfield sites only where no brownfield sites are available.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Barry Jones): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced hon. Member, is about to discuss procedures for planning appeals.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Indeed. I was trying to point out—I shall cease from now on—that such issues will result in planning, appeals. As well as getting the procedures right, I suspect that the Minister would like to know why such issues might result in planning appeals. However I thank you for your comment, because I was beginning to run away with the subject.
So that the people of our country know where they stand, the policy of this Government, the next Government or any Government should be encapsulated in an easily understood slogan: "We ought to build as much as possible on brownfield sites, we ought to build as little as possible on greenfield sites, and we ought never to build on greenbelt land."
11.34 am
Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on selecting for debate the interesting and topical subject of planning appeals and the problems associated with them. I should be in a bit of a mess if I followed the suggestion that Members of Parliament should not get involved in planning matters. Not a day goes by without someone in Portsmouth writing to me about one of the many planning applications that the city is considering.
I have been a member of Portsmouth city council for 30 years and was a member of Hampshire county council for 25. I have served on the planning authorities of both councils and was chairman of the city planning authority for some time. I therefore have a wealth of experience in dealing with both large and small planning applications. I remember meetings in which 100 planning applications had to be discussed. Such meetings could take 10 or 12 hours and sometimes spread over several days.
I was interested in the intervention of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) about Conservative policy. It is interesting to note that the Conservative policy for planning in Hampshire was not to have neighbour notification, not to support deputations to the planning committee and not to delegate by minority order, thereby allowing a planning application to be considered by one or two members before being taken to a larger group of members. All those policies went some way towards curbing the enthusiasm for planning appeals.
As a planning committee member, I had not only to exercise my responsibilities under the planning regulations, but to consider what was reasonable. I had to balance the planning responsibility against reasonableness. Would I want to live next door to, in front of, alongside, or down the street from a development that would inflict damage on my environment and life style, or that of my neighbours? I always tried to exercise that key element of reasonableness when considering planning applications.
There is now great pressure on members of planning authorities from developers who spend a long time talking to council officers to get their applications in

29WH
good order. They do so not necessarily for the benefit of planning authority members, but to get the nod from planning officials such as the planning officer, the development control officer, the environmental health officer and the city engineer.
The members are then faced with a difficult decision. If the application is controversial, many will have been lobbied by the people who oppose to it. Their colleagues will put on pressure by speaking against an application, but members will be told repeatedly "The officers are recommending approval. The fact that you don't like it or think it is unreasonable is not sufficient ground to vote against it. We need good reasons."I have been in more than one planning meeting where members have voted against something and decided their reasons afterwards, in conjunction with the officers. They needed to prepare the groundwork for the appeal that would undoubtedly come.
In the past 10 years, the first suggestion or hint that members might vote against an application has been met with the legal officer saying, "Of course, without really strong grounds for refusal, we'll be on a sticky wicket in an appeal and there could be substantial costs. You know that this applicant has a track record of taking us on." I do not know whether that shows an officer's lack of confidence about winning, or whether he genuinely believes that members have made a bad decision. If we are giving local councillors responsibility, we must trust them to make decisions for the right reasons. They should be enthusiastic about an appeal because the democratic process allows such appeals to take place.
I shall deviate for a moment to refer to a couple of points that have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) talked about section 106 agreements as if they were immoral. A developer must pay—must be made to pay—if the development has a knock-on effect on the community. It should not be for local council tax payers, the Government or anyone else to pay for road infrastructure and alterations. The cost should be borne by the developers, whether the work required is within their development or half a mile up the road.
Section 106 agreements have been used to good effect in the main. In many instances, they are a mechanism to prevent planning appeals: the development might have been refused had the developer not signed the agreement. I do not view that as blackmail. The developer must understand that, in a planning process, to prevent an appeal, one must sometimes go a little further down the line and deal with parts of a site that are not directly involved with the application. In many cases, if the section 106 agreement is properly brought together, it can prevent planning appeals from taking place and achieve a better decision for an area.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I do not disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He has raised the key issue: the procedure should be open and seen to be open, and it should be regularised.
Mr. Hancock: I have no problem with that. In 20 years of experience, I cannot remember a situation in which a section 106 agreement has not been openly displayed at the planning committee stage and, more important, as a public notice before it is discussed in the
30WH
committee. There is a degree of transparency, which is a good thing. It helps during appeals if people's grounds for objections and the information that is required to put a planning application together are publicly available to anyone who wants to see them. That is to be welcomed.
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet about the need for the Government to be one step removed from the process. Like him, I have long held the view that we should have an independent planning inspectorate. When I led the largest local authority in Britain, we faced huge planning decisions on new towns and the redevelopment of a sizeable chunk of the south-east, including two big cities. Many good decisions were overturned by Government involvement.
The Library's note on the Human Rights Act 1998 and planning is interesting. Although it agrees that the Secretary of State does not have the power to get involved, a little further on it says that there is no choice but for him to exercise that role. If the Government are to deal with the issue of human rights and planning applications, they must find a mechanism for divorcing the Secretary of State from the situation. Under current legislation, the Secretary of State is bound to act as he or she chooses. Our judges should not be in a position to say that the Secretary of State was wrong to get involved, but that he had to do so because there was no alternative. That is not the way forward.
It is about time the Government got off the fence over the issue of phone masts. They should make phone masts, whatever their purpose, subject to the normal planning regulation and appeals procedure. A company should not simply have to notify a planning authority; we ought to have the opportunity to say no. I want to say no to a phone mast in my constituency. As a member of the city council, I believe that I have a democratic right to say that placing a mast there would be bad planning. If I believe that it is bad on health grounds, why should I, as an elected official, not have the right to say no? If the applicant wants to take that decision to appeal, let him fight it out and prove that phone masts and radio communication masts are not harmful to the environment or to the health of the individual. A planning appeal should take account of those factors. The Government should not tinker with the law, but make fundamental changes to the law governing phone masts. Many hon. Members have campaigned for such changes.
I have examined planning applications in my city over recent months and have found widespread objections to applications. One application was for a McDonald's drive-through, which was very controversial. It attracted local opposition and 58 letters of objection were received at the planning stage. The objectors were given neighbourhood notification and many were given the opportunity to speak against the application. The city council made it clear that it opposed the application, but it was allowed on appeal.
The problem is that, once an appeal is allowed, it is the end of the game for the objectors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said, the planning system is stacked heavily in favour of the developer and always has been. McDonald's, or whoever was fronting the application, appealed and won. The drive-through has been open for some time and nothing has changed. It is appalling for the local community to have to live with it.

31WH
People are justified in feeling let down by the planning appeal procedure. They have to live next door to it, but that was never considered.
Another problem concerns an application for change of use to an amusement arcade, to which 494 people objected and about which 42 letters were sent. Local Conservatives in Portsmouth, South campaigned against it and the city council was unanimously opposed to it, but the decision was overturned on appeal and planning permission was granted. How can the planning system have any credibility when an application to which there is so much objection is allowed on appeal and the inspector fails to take account of objections? Reasonableness must be exercised in the planning appeal process, which, sadly, is deficient. It fails to grasp the real issue that local people must be given the same rights as developers.
Developers come armed with QCs and other expensive help to face perhaps half a dozen residents with no background knowledge of planning law to defend their rights. I sometimes wish that local authorities had the power to fund their case, or that the Government would allow opposition to developers to be publicly funded. There should be a legal aid system to allow local people to fight the supermarket giants and over-enthusiastic developers who want to rape our countryside and build on every piece of green space.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is moving closer to procedures for planning appeals.
Mr. Hancock: I thought that I was more than edging my way. I was suggesting significant changes to the Minister because a catalogue of issues must be dealt with.
I referred to the Conservative association in Portsmouth. It was suggested that councillors felt pressurised by the involvement of a political party and that they could have been in trouble under the code of conduct for local government, which the applicant could have used in his appeal. It is wrong that politicians cannot listen to the wider community and have a dialogue with developers; they should be given the opportunity to listen and to make judgments for themselves. Unfortunately, planning authorities are being pressurised by the way in which the appeal system currently operates, so bad planning applications are being granted. That cannot be in anyone's interests, least of all those of the local community, and it is unforgivable that Members of Parliament recognise that, but fail to do anything about it collectively. The Government will fail yet again if they do not deal with the matter.
I live in the second most densely populated city in Europe. It is highly overdeveloped in terms of the motor car, and it is now unreasonable for a planning application to be refused on car parking grounds. We have what is generally recognised as saturation car parking. Therefore, an issue that can be used in most planning appeals is no longer appropriate in Portsmouth because the city council has recognised that it has no solution to saturation car parking—either it
32WH
turns down every application from now on or it does not exercise reasonableness. We want to try to exercise reasonableness.
A current application subject to a planning appeal is about a former club. It happened to be called the Landport Liberal club, but was nothing to do with the Liberal party. It went out of business, has been derelict for several years and is now in the hands of the receiver. There has been a spate of fires there, including a serious one last week at which I was on site. The divisional commander of the fire service told me that the building was so unsafe that he did not want his officers to go into it as that would put their lives at risk.
In such a case, one would make representations to the city council, as I did. I asked that the building be demolished. The response from the agent for the receiver was that the building would be knocked down if no reasonableness was exercised and the city council agreed to the planning application. Members of the council are being threatened and intimidated because the appeal process allows developers always to have the whip hand. That is unforgivable and unacceptable.
Later this week, the final Government decision on housing figures for the south-east will be brought into the public domain. It will probably be highly controversial and will undoubtedly lead to a number of appeals. I hope that the Minister will promise that the Government recognise flaws in the current system, whether on radio masts, on individual planning applications or on where development takes place. There must be changes. The one change that is crying out to be made is to take some of the power on planning applications away from developers and to give some of it to those who arc objecting. Unless that happens, the planning system will be totally discredited and will continue to cause a lot of annoyance, anger and unnecessary heartache.
11.52 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: It is a great pleasure to participate in the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing. The subject is important and it is slightly surprising that more hon. Members from all parties have not clamoured to take part.
We worry a lot about falling voter participation in local government elections. There is one solid and proven way to increase it, which is to have a controversial planning application in a ward or division. We are all prone to the concerns of our constituents on such serious planning issues.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the slight dichotomy between the quasi-judicial nature of planning committees and the fact that they are populated with politicians and so may be subject to political pressure He rightly touched on the current issue of mobile phone masts, as well as health concerns and changes in the planning system. I am delighted that, to some extent, the Government appear to have taken note of the Conservative campaign on the matter, in particular the way in which Conservative-controlled councils such as Kent county council have taken the issue by the scruff of the neck in the absence of clear guidance from the Government. Perhaps we will hear more about that in a moment.

33WH
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who is a fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute. We are all indebted to him for his experience and knowledge of these matters, and I am personally grateful for his guidance on the formulation of our planning policy. He rightly spoke about the role of the Secretary of State and how it had been brought into play by a recent High Court decision, to which I shall return.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke with experience of the pressures on planning committees and reminded us of the sterling role played by the Portsmouth, South Conservatives in major planning matters in his area. His speech gave us a clue as to why his planning committees might have lasted 10 to 12 hours on occasion. None the less, he spoke with some authority.
The hon. Member for Twickenham rightly made the point that, in areas such as Twickenham, Eastbourne and Portsmouth, there are considerable pressures for overdevelopment. One of the major problems in planning is the retention of nation house-building targets. Although the Government have changed the description of the targets' purpose from "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage", the reality on the ground is not much different.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the house-building targets for the south-east. The Government may well be trying to fudge the issue until after the next election, but those of us who represent constituencies in that region are dealing with the fall-out from an apparent insistence on anything up to 900,000 new houses in the region over the next few years. We can all point to examples in our constituencies of the consequences of that insistence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 240 new houses for which space had to be found in Twickenham.
In my own area, on the border between Willingdon and Polegate, it is said that space will have to be found for 1,000 new houses. I find that difficult to support and have spoken against it at all levels. I already have a mailbag full of letters from people corn plaining that they cannot get their children into the school of their choice, that the roads are inadequate and that the local health service is under pressure. The question of how essential services will be provided to the people who live in those 1,000 new homes is a major issue in our area.
It is one of those typical situations, of which we have heard a number described today. The Government demand that space be found for the new houses, and the decision percolates through the system and translates into X new houses in a particular area or constituency. The local planning authority is under orders from the Secretary of State. The authority is in the process of drafting its new local plan. As someone who is an expert in these matters once said, there are only two sorts of local plan: those that are in preparation and those that are out of date. The shifting target for new housing in the area will somehow have to be fitted into the local plan.
I have heard no fewer than two Liberal Democrat Members speak this morning. Locally, the Liberal Democrats are talking tough on the threat to a large playing field and green space called Hindsland in my constituency. However, when the chips were down at a meeting of Serplan—the south-east regional planning
34WH
committee—a few months ago, they voted with the Government for the higher target figures. That is an example of the pressures that are brought to bear because of planning applications.
One of the key issues to come out of the debate is the question of cross-appeals or third-party appeals. Conservative Members feel that that is a nettle that the Government have so far signally failed to grasp. There is no doubt that, sooner or later, under the human rights legislation and something called the Aarhus declaration, the system will have to recognise third-party appeals. The Government have already fallen foul of that problem in the High Court; the case has already been mentioned. The Minister should update us today on that case. I believe that the Government are appealing to the House of Lords. It would be interesting to hear when they expect the matter to be heard.
The role of the Secretary of State in the planning appeal system has already been brought into question because of human rights legislation. The Opposition are several steps ahead of the Government and, by definition, even more steps ahead of the Liberal Democrats in our planning policy. We believe that cross-appeals or third-party appeals are inevitable, so why do the Government not recognise the fact and allow them?
Other hon. Members have eloquently set out the apparent injustice to those who are not planning specialists of allowing wealthy, powerful developers to appeal against decisions, but not allowing local residents to appeal against the granting of what they consider to be wholly inappropriate planning applications. It is a familiar experience for those who serve on planning committees to be told by planning officers that it is possible to refuse a highly controversial application, but that the refusal will be appealed against, that the developers will probably win and that it will result in considerable cost to council tax payers. Those are the sort of pressures that are brought to bear on planning committees. We believe that cross-appeals should be permissible and that the number of appeals should be dramatically reduced.
We would remove the Secretary of State from the equation because it is a fiction. I would like to think of the Minister or her boss, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, sitting up for hours on end poring over the minutiae of such appeals, but we all know that a nice man from Bristol holds an inquiry and that, when he eventually reaches a decision, it is said to be the decision of the Secretary of State. I do not suggest any impropriety, but the system has been in force since the 1940s, is visibly and audibly creaking and fails to reflect local views. The Secretary of State should be removed from the appeal process and the planning inspectorate scrapped. Fewer decisions should be appealed against and those appeals should be heard by an independent appeal tribunal.
The majority of planning decisions should be made by the elected representatives of local people. I know the arguments that have been advanced about nimbyism—some people prefer to call it positive parochialism—and about political pressures, but at the moment we have the worst of all worlds. Local residents do not have ownership of their local plans. Nor do they feel involved in their preparation. The first that they may know of a planning application is a small sign stuck on a lamp

35WH
post—and they may not see that until it is too late. They may decide that the application genuinely affects them and their way of life, but all too often their attempts to object are frustrated by the system. A planning system in which most local people have no influence and that makes local councillors feel powerless in the face of applications—often multiple applications—by large, well-funded developers is no longer sustainable.
Those are the ways in which the planning system should be changed. Local communities should have a clear right to decide whether to allow new developments. Those making applications should know in advance whether they are likely to receive permission. There should be a limited right of appeal. Appeals should be made only on narrow grounds. The right of appeal should also be available to local residents.
This has been an excellent debate and one that will resonate with all right hon. and hon. Members. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham for securing it.
12.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to consider this subject. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said—this is probably the only point on which I agree with him—it is not a subject that many of our colleagues regard as the most politically exciting, but it is important in determining land use and the quality of the environment of our electors.
We have heard several criticisms of the planning system. I remind hon. Members that, at all levels, the planning system must take decisions on issues that are often hotly contested on all sides, trying to find the best resolution and taking into account policy, development plans and the competing views of the different interested parties. It is an arena with potential for enormous conflict, for different views and for difficult decisions. On balance, we have a system that, although by no means perfect—we have been trying to improve it—does its best in what is a difficult and emotional area for people.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: No, I shall make a little progress first. The hon. Gentleman spoke for some time and I want to set out some of my main points first. I shall certainly give way to him later.
The hon. Member for Twickenham feels that Government policy on housing and planning does not reflect the situation of people in suburbs, as opposed to towns and city centres. I disagree. Our policy to achieve a better quality of urban life speaks closely to the different needs of different areas.
I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman's claim, repeated in a political context by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, that the Government are ascribing housing numbers to local authorities. That is untrue. We have insisted that, at the regional level, there be a target—
36WH
although it is subject to periodic review—but how that target is achieved and the contribution of each local planning authority to meet housing need over time are matters for local authorities, together with the regional planning body.
That is not an imposition by central Government. In fact, the whole thrust of our approach to housing need and to the planning system to provide houses to meet that need is that it should be a shared and corporate responsibility among the regional and local bodies charged with that duty. That differs from the policy of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who would abdicate all responsibility and leave every local authority to do its own thing, with no shared ownership of the region's housing problems.
Dr. Cable: I recognise that the Minister is trying to summarise what she regards as a balanced arrangement, but, if a local authority's unitary development plan does not provide sufficient housing, cannot the Department's inspector reject the, plan? At the end of the day, power lies with the Department, rather than with the local authority.
Ms Hughes: As I explained, that falls within the framework of the system requiring every local authority, in so far as it is able and taking into account a range of factors, to share ownership of the overall issue—to take responsibility with other local authorities for meeting the overall need for housing in a region. Clearly, if a local inspector feels that an authority is not fulfilling that responsibility to the degree that it might, he or she can say so, and rightly so.
The hon. Member for Twickenham told a story of predatory developers in his constituency trying to persuade local residents, by dubious means, to sell houses that could be converted or knocked down in order to build flats. Clearly, no one would support such activity. Such practice is not supported by Government policy and is to be abhorred. I accept his point that some residents are vulnerable, but they do not have to sell. Furthermore, the local authority does not have to grant planning permission, as he assumed.
Several hon. Members have painted a pejorative picture of all development as negative and unwelcome, but we must take a broader perspective. Much development is positive. It improves the quality of life and provides opportunity in areas; for example, suburban areas. The provision of smaller accommodation units can enable older people or younger single people to stay in an area, which they would not be able to do if only large houses were available. Development also has a beneficial impact on jobs, on the quality of the environment and in stimulating the local economy. The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to sustainable development. Such results assist sustainable development in many ways.
Mr. Hancock: The Minister is missing the point. We were talking about planning appeals, and applications that had already been turned down at local level. In general, 80 per cent. of planning applications are permitted and an not subject to appeal, a development

37WH
that is welcomed by local people. However, the problem is that the appeal process is weighted heavily in favour of the developer.
Ms Hughes: With due respect to the hon. Member for Twickenham, the debate has slid some way from the subject of planning appeals. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will acknowledge that he talked specifically about the ability, willingness and capacity of local authorities, in the first instance, to turn down some applications because of perceived pressure from subsequent appeals. He talked about initial decisions.
Several hon. Members have claimed that the planning system is biased in favour of developers. We should acknowledge that we have a plan-led system, which requires the deposit of draft development plans and requires some decisions about the uses to which parcels of land will be put in principle to be made at local level. Applications will be sought in line with those policy decisions.
As we have a plan-led system, the charge of bias in favour of one set of interests does not hold water and must be qualified. The system is not based on a general presumption in favour of any party car interest. We are committed to a plan-led system that is given statutory force by legislation. In the context of development control, the system requires that, unless material considerations—I remind hon. Members that material considerations include the relevant considerations of third parties—indicate otherwise, local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan.
The framework is not a free-for-all, or a system in which the rights of developers supersede those of everyone else. It represents a systematic approach to making decisions in principle about land use in the development plan and making development control decisions in accordance with that previously determined set of policies. In that way, an attempt is made through the system to strike a right and fair balance between the community's needs and individuals' rights.
People who apply for planning permission have a statutory right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the local planning authority refuses permission. An appeal can also be made if the authority fails to determine the application within eight weeks or if conditions are thought to be unwarranted. That statutory right has been a fundamental part of our planning system for more than half a century.
There has been a supposition in the debate—there may even have been an explicit statement—that most appeals are decided in favour of the developer. For the last year for which statistics are available, 1999–2000, almost 13,000 planning appeals were decided, but only 36 per cent. were allowed on appeal: two in one were not allowed. Decisions are not going in favour of developers. That rather challenges hon. Members' views. The appeals related to a wide variety of developments, with particular emphasis on household development, small-scale residential properties and change of use, the same issues that hon. Members have raised this morning.
38WH
Hon. Members will know that planning appeals are decided in one of three ways: following an exchange of written representations, an inquiry or a hearing. The appellant and the local planning authority have the right to have the appeal heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
We have introduced new rules and procedures for planning appeals received after 1 August 2000. Most respondents have welcomed those proposals, which we expect to ensure greater transparency and clarity in the system. Concern has been expressed about the time scales in the new procedures. I do not accept that they will affect the quality of decisions. Clear time scales that parties, whether developers or others, cannot drag out by not submitting evidence on time are in local people's interests. As a result of the new procedures, more evidence has been submitted on time.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned a couple of devices that he thinks developers sometimes use to circumvent the spirit of the appeal and planning processes. He mentioned the practice of twin-tracking, whereby two identical applications are submitted to the local authority at the same time. The applicant takes one to appeal as soon as the eight-week period has expired and continues to negotiate with the authority on the other. That is a safety-net approach. We have tried to make it a less attractive option. Twin-tracking used to enjoy a concession for the duplicate application. We have withdrawn that benefit. Both applications must now be accompanied by the full fee, reflecting our view that the submission of two applications involves a lot of work and deliberation.
Other hon. Members raised the practice of repetitive applications with respect to a particular site. The current legislation gives local planning authorities the power to turn away planning applications within two years of a similar, or substantially similar, application being rejected by the Secretary of State on appeal or following call-in, if there has been no significant change in the material circumstances.
The hon. Member for Twickenham made several suggestions. He talked about the ability of local people to put their point of view independently. Our present planning system and the system of development control are predicated on the assumption that the local authority is the best forum for such decisions.
I support the principle that elected members should both oversee the process by which planning decisions are made and be involved in individual development control decisions. Some hon. Members have had experience of those matters at local authority level, as I have. However, they have underestimated both the ability of council members to take difficult decisions and the jealousy with which such people guard their authority to make quasi-judicial decisions.
The suggestion that council members either have been browbeaten by officers or are afraid of going against the recommendations in officers' reports to planning committees does not square with my experience. Elected members take their role seriously. They realise that there are difficult decisions—that sometimes it is difficult to marry competing interests. In many instances, local people are being invited to planning committee meetings. It happens less in Conservative-controlled authorities, but it certainly happens in Labour and

39WH
Liberal Democrat-controlled ones. They are given the opportunity to express their views. It is interesting that, in Tory authorities, the councillors have more difficulty with that concept, which contradicts the policy that the hon. Member for Eastbourne said his party stood for, at least at national level.
Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hughes: Certainly. The hon. Gentleman has risen to the bait.
Mr. Waterson: The Minister has only herself to blame. Is she now going to come to cross-appeals? It is no good inviting people to attend local planning committee meetings to let off steam if, at the end of the process, they feel that they have no control over whether a decision is made, or whether it can be overturned on appeal by them, rather than by the unsuccessful developer.
Ms Hughes: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to the point that I was making, but went on to the next issue that I was about to raise. I know that, in some quarters, there is pressure for the introduction of some form of third-party right of appeal. Some people believe that that is an inevitable consequence of the Human Rights Act 1998. I agree that people affected by, or with an interest in, the development of an area should have an opportunity to make their views known before decisions are taken. The planning system should operate fairly and should be seen to do so. It should give people the chance to comment, as it does on development plans and on individual planning applications. It is also right that there should be an opportunity to challenge the granting of planning permission by a local authority through the judicial review process.
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned one of the difficulties that could arise from a universal third-party right of appeal: the impact that it could have on the decision-making process and the fact that it might be used as a device to delay or to veto applications that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable and bring jobs and regeneration to local communities. It is a difficult issue. I am not persuaded that a universal third-party right of appeal is either desirable in principle or an inevitable consequence of the Human Rights Act, but I am aware that there is pressure for it and I am sure that that pressure will continue.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned retrospective appeals, whereby a developer does not apply for permission, but simply does something and then goes back to the local authority. That is reprehensible; it is always so. The hon. Gentleman said that occasionally there are reasons for it—perhaps reasons not of intent, but of omission. Local authorities should take a strong line when that occurs. Indeed, they have the power to do so. They must use their power not only to make individual decisions, but to send the right message to developers that they will not tolerate people who ride roughshod over the planning process.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a predisposition to sustainable development, rather than what he regarded as a predisposition to development, was
40WH
important. I do not accept that distinction. In my earlier remarks, I tried to convey that development is an important issue, which need not necessarily be a negative one.
The issue of human rights was raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others. It is correct that, in four test cases, the divisional court found that various planning processes might not be compatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The court also found that the Secretary of State was not acting unlawfully, which is important. The judgment was directed to the House of Lords on appeal, which heard the case at the end of February. We are awaiting judgment and expert it to be announced in May or early June. I can comment no further for that reason.
On telecommunications, I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that this Government established the Stewart inquiry and that we are continuing to support substantial research on health and other issues. An announcement was made last Friday. which the Minister for Housing and Planning communicated to all hon. Members with constituencies in England, as well as to all council leaders and chief planning officers, so everyone is fully informed.
The series of important changes to the planning system for telecommunications masts significantly strengthen the current arrangements. We shall strengthen public consultation requirements on proposals for masts of 15 m and under, so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. We shall increase the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 42 to 56 days, which is the same period as that for a full planning application. We have underlined that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college. We have increased the fees to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
We shall introduce those changes and revised planning policy guidance at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister clarify what she means by "on or near"? Apparently, there is no effect outside a certain distance.
Ms Hughes: There will be further information about that. From the Stewart report, "on" means "on the premises" and "near" would normally relate to the beam of greatest intensity falling on some part of the school premises. Stewart raised those issues and those are the parameters.
Hon. Members' views have been less than rounded on the importance of development. Although I acknowledge that there may be individual issues, they should take a wider view. They have been unnecessarily critical of the planning system, which involves difficult issues. We inherited a seriously flawed system and have spent a lot of time modernising it. Many of the changes have been introduced to ensure that all those involved, especially local people, get a fair say. The process needs to be transparent and one with which people can engage more easily. I believe that the planning system pays heed as far as possible to all points of view in relation to development control decisions.

Lorayne Buckley
12.30 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I want to talk about the case of the late Lorayne Buckley, a former constituent of mine, who I believe died because of inappropriate treatment and wrong assessment of her medical condition while an NHS patient. Although lengthy, the case is fairly straightforward.
Lorayne Buckley was born on 21 December 1956, and she was a normal, healthy baby. Aged approximately three months, she was injected with a vaccine against whooping cough by her local doctor—an action that was widely advised by the Government of the day—to ensure her better health in later years. In the following months, her parents noticed that she did not respond to sound and noise, and they duly notified their doctor, who referred Lorayne for various tests. After the tests were completed she was diagnosed, at the age of 14 months, as profoundly deaf.
Lorayne's parents were loving and caring, and they did their best in very difficult circumstances. However, at the age of eight or nine she developed epilepsy, and her family were subsequently informed that that was a result of the injection. According to NHS statistics, the chances of that happening were three in a million. From that age onwards, Lorayne was reliant on anticonvulsant drugs, which were used on many occasions over the years. Nevertheless, she had fits every day of her life.
Some of the drugs caused serious side effects such as swollen joints and hyperactivity, which are common among youngsters who suffer from epilepsy. By the mid-1990s, Lorayne was being prescribed Epilim, Rivotril and Frisium, which limited her fits to about three or four a day. As her parents pointed out, thanks to the excellent attention of NHS staff she had some semblance of life, even though she needed attendance 24 hours a day. Of course, she could not go out alone or do anything unattended. She had to be taken to the toilet, washed and given her medication, and was unable to do any kind of work. For example, she could not go anywhere near a kitchen in case she had an epileptic spasm near a hot kettle or oven.
I have outlined the background to give some idea of Lorayne's condition and the reasons why she needed, and received, constant attention. Like most caring parents with a sick child, Lorayne's mother and father were open to advice from professionals. At an early stage, they took the advice of NHS professionals and bought a book entitled "A Consumer's Guide to Prescription Medicines". They followed its advice meticulously, and it enabled them to be aware of any side effects of any drug prescribed for Lorayne. It proved invaluable, in that on many occasions it enabled them to inform Lorayne's doctor of such side effects. Indeed, all the consultants to whom I have spoken continue openly and actively to encourage parents to obtain the book.
However, having a child with many day-to-day health and other problems carries a cost. As we all know, in many cases respite care is needed not just for patients but for their carers. In February 1997, while Mr. and Mrs. Buckley were on holiday taking a break, Lorayne
42WH
attended the respite care centre in Lyndsey close in my constituency. Lorayne had an epileptic spasm during her short stay, which caused her to suffer an accidental fall. She was taken to King's Mill hospital in Mansfield where she received stitches to a head wound. Unfortunately, while she was in hospital, staff did not examine her notes properly. She was given inappropriate drugs, which resulted in her medication going haywire, and she became dramatically over-drugged. King's Mill hospital later admitted that there had been a communication breakdown and duly apologised. The family accepted that the situation was the result of a genuine mistake.
Lorayne was introduced to three new sedatives during her stay at the hospital in 1997. However, she was already taking three anti-convulsant drugs, all of which came with strict warnings that caution would be needed if they were taken with other sedatives: the sedatives came with warnings that caution would be needed if they were taken with anti-convulsant drugs. Lorayne was taking three anti-convulsant drugs and three sedatives-a dangerous scenario. The situation alerted her parents to the problems that would occur if she were prescribed the same or similar combinations of drugs. It took months to wean Lorayne from those drugs, during which time she became severely destabilised.
Dr. Mukherjee was in charge of Lorayne's care during that period. As her condition worsened, Dr. Mukherjee continued the combination of drugs, despite several weeks of protest from her parents. When hospital staff informed Dr. Mukherjee that Lorayne's condition deteriorated when she took her medicine, Dr. Mukherjee said that that was "not clinically proven". When Lorayne's parents asked Dr. Mukherjee to explain that terminology, she said proof that the treatment caused the effects was unavailable. They found that exasperating. The extra drugs were taken away from Lorayne when she transferred back to the respite care centre in Lyndsey close, which caused her condition to improve dramatically.
Obviously. Lorayne's family did not want Dr. Mukherjee involved with her care, because it had taken months to wean her from the wrong drugs. That the drugs were wrong was proved on 21 July 1999 when, following consultation between Dr. Sands and Dr. Houghton of the King's Mill centre—both of whom were previous consultants to Lorayne—and her parents, it was decided to return to the medication that Lorayne had been receiving before she was admitted to hospital. At a further meeting on 4 August 1999, Dr. Houghton and Lorayne's parents agreed to a 28-day trial period on new medication, on the understanding that if her condition worsened they were to contact him immediately.
Lorayne's condition had deteriorated rapidly by 23 August 1999. She was having up to 10 fits at a time and her parents had to administer a suppository of up to 10 mg of diazepam twice nightly. They therefore went, as advised, to see the nurse, who had access to the consultant. Unfortunately, Dr. Houghton was on holiday, and because of the family's previous experiences they refused to see Dr. Mukherjee, who they were informed was the duty doctor. They opted instead to see Dr. Narayana, who said that he would be available on 24 August.

43WH
My inquiries have revealed that Dr. Mukherjee was not the doctor on call when Mr. and Mrs. Buckley went for help on 23 August. Dr. Narayana was on call, but unfortunately he had to attend a funeral that afternoon. Nevertheless, he agreed to make himself available on the following morning. However, because of the scale of the problems, Lorayne's parents, while agreeing to the consultation on the following day, suggested to the nurse on duty that Lorayne needed a small amount of the drug Frisium to calm her down, plus more Epilim to control her fits. Both those drugs were known to help her condition.
On the morning of 24 August 1999, the nurse on duty telephoned to say that although Dr. Narayana agreed with what Mr. and Mrs. Buckley had suggested, he refused to alter another doctor's medication prescription. Bewildered, confused and angry, Mr. and Mrs. Buckley told the nurse that they were going to give Lorayne more Frisium, as she was still below her 1996 levels. After consultation, the nurse informed them by telephone that Dr. Narayana agreed with that, but he again refused to authorise it. One has to ask oneself what kind of an answer that was to give to two extremely distressed parents. He asked them instead to await Dr. Houghton's return seven days later. Amazingly, although Lorayne's fits had increased, he did not consider the situation to be an emergency.
What makes Dr. Narayana's decision especially strange is the fact that he was personally familiar with Lorayne's condition, having been one of her consultants over the years. Her case was well known to him. Indeed, such was Mr. and Mrs. Buckley's status that he agreed that, whenever Lorayne's condition worsened, they should immediately telephone his nurse or secretary for advice on any new medication or actions to aid her. In view of Lorayne's condition, it was standard practice for her parents to bypass their own GP and contact Dr. Narayana's nurse directly—which they had done on many previous occasions.
Sadly,.by 5 am on Sunday 29 August 1999, Lorayne was having so many spasms that her parents rushed her to the King's Mill centre, where she was given an injection by a doctor on duty to stop her fits. Her dosage of Epilim was increased to 500 mg a day, which was later confirmed by the hospital as exactly what should have been done in the circumstances. On this occasion, the admitting doctor on duty at the. King's Mill centre said that the extra Epilim would take five days to build up in her system and, as she was stabilising, he discharged her on Sunday 29 August.
Unfortunately, on the morning of Tuesday 31 August, Lorayne started to have more fits, and she was readmitted to the King's Mill centre. On Wednesday 1 September, her spasms had built up to one every two minutes, and the doctor on duty at the King's Mill centre said that he did not know what on earth to do. He sought advice from the Queen's medical centre in Nottingham, which is the largest teaching hospital in the county, and was told to administer a drug called Phenytoin—which was experimental in terms of dealing with epilepsy and was known to have major side effects—in three separate doses, at three to four hour intervals. That medication was administered at 3 pm
44WH
and 9 pm on 1 September and at 3 am on 2 September by a junior doctor as both the centre's senior doctors were still away on holiday.
What followed was devastating. Lorayne developed a red skin. At first, her parents were told that the symptom would disappear, and she was discharged on Friday 3 September. They were instructed to continue to administer 300 mg of Phenytoin per day to their daughter. By Saturday 4 September, Lorayne's skin was so red and irritated that the couple called out the emergency doctor. They were then told to reduce the phenytoin to 100 mg a day, which they did. On Sunday 5 September, they had to call the emergency doctor again, who immediately admitted Lorayne to the King's Mill centre, Her skin had started to blister, and she was given paracetamol as a painkiller.
It is amazing, given the circumstances, that it took two days for a dermatologist to come to examine Lorayne. On 7 September 1999, he transferred her to the intensive care bunts unit at Nottingham city hospital. She was immediately given the maximum dose of morphine, which was continued until she died on Saturday 11 September 1999.
By the time of her death, all Lorayne Buckley's vital internal organs had collapsed. She had 11 machines attached to her body to keep her alive. One was to keep her heart beating and another to keep her lungs working. One machine kept up her blood pressure and another replaced her immune system. Worse still—if that were possible—the Phenytoin therapy had caused her skin to blister and fall off her body. She had 100 per cent. infected burrs.
Lorayne's parents and the junior doctor involved had been advised only that Phenytoin might cause some adverse reactions. The truth is somewhat different, and can be found in medical records. I have established that Phenytoin can decrease co-ordination. It can cause mental confusion, transient nervousness, motor twitchings, headaches, nausea, vomiting and liver damage. All such effects are worrying factors where epilepsy is concerned. It can also cause dermatological manifestations, including fatal rashes such as bullous exfoliative, or Purpuric dermatitis, erythematosus, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis.
Hemopoietic complications, some fatal, have also been reported as associated with the use of Phenytoin. Explicit warnings have been attached to the use of the drug for particular patients, such as those who are on other medication. Those include diazepam, which, as her records clearly stated, Lorayne had been prescribed for many years. A specific warning is also given to substitute alternative therapy in the event of an allergic reaction. That did not happen in Lorayne's case. Phenytoin continued to be administered until its effects were irreversible. Her skin moved from a state of blushing to a state of intensive burns.
Lorayne Buckley died without any skin on her body—it had either fallen off, or had had to be cut off in strips by hospital staff. She could not be given antibiotics, only morphine to ease her horrendous pain. Lorayne knew no language to describe that pain because she was profoundly deaf. She could only be comforted by her loving parents, who held her hand through the

45WH
torturous time until, at 11 am on 22 September, the decision was taken to stop the machines that had been keeping her alive, and she died.
At the inquest, the questions raised by the coroner included what treatment Lorayne should have received in the latter period of her life. The answers given only raise further questions about her sad demise.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions about this very serious case. Why did Dr. Mukherjee insist that Lorayne's drug regime be changed in the first place? Why did Dr. Houghton ask for a further 28-day trial period? Why did Dr. Narayana refuse to alter Lorayne's medical treatment when he was aware of the problems and the analysis of her drug needs? Why did the consultant at Queen's medical centre prescribe Phenytoin, and did he or she fully explain its dangers to the junior doctor on duty at King's Mill centre that day? Why did the treatment not cease when the first rash appeared on Lorayne's skin while she was in hospital? Why was she discharged while under the therapy and with a rash on her body? Why was Phenytoin continued after her discharge and why did a dermatologist not examine her for two days, by which time her burns were so severe that she had to be rushed to an intensive care burns unit? Why has a public or independent inquiry into the case not been granted, particularly following the coroner's report? Last, but not least why are drugs such as Phenytoin still being prescribed for epileptics by consultants employed by the national health service?
Amazingly, Lorayne's parents hold no anger against the national health service, which they believe helped her throughout her difficult and tormented life. They still talk proudly of the hospital staff who regularly cared for their daughter for many years, particularly those in the national health service King's Mill centre. However, the crux of the matter is that when they applied for an independent review of what happened to their daughter, they were refused. When I raised the matter with the local health authority and the ombudsman, I received a polite refusal. They even refused to listen to the coroner's tapes of the inquest. I have raised the case with the local hospital, which has been helpful, but still there has been no investigation.
My constituents—Lorayne's parents—are elderly and not interested in vengeance or financial compensation. They have told me that either of those, particularly financial compensation, would be an insult to their daughter's memory. They simply want justice, openness and honesty. They want to know how and why the mistakes were made, and to warn others about the dangers connected with drugs, particularly Phenytoin. That is the least we should give them, and I beg the Minister, in the spirit of openness that the Government are so proud to espouse, to use her office to achieve that, by ordering an inquiry as soon as possible.
12.52
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on obtaining a debate on this important matter. I know that he has taken a personal interest in Lorayne Buckley's case and is anxious that lessons should be learned from her tragic death, which he described so poignantly.
Lorayne Buckley had experienced physical and mental health problems, including epilepsy, throughout her childhood. Neurological conditions such as epilepsy
46WH
are life-long and their impact often extends far beyond the individual concerned to family members. I know that Lorayne's parents devoted their lives to caring for her and their devotion enabled Lorayne to live at home, apart from short spells of respite care. I know that the Chamber recognises her parents' commitment and the selfless way in which they strived to meet her complex needs.
My hon. Friend raised a series of points about Lorayne's care at different stages of her life, and I shall respond to some of those in turn. First, concerning the treatment and care that Lorayne was given during the months before 31 August 1999, I know that Mr. Buckley has made a formal complaint to the trust, and that it followed the NHS complaints procedures. I want to examine how many of the points made by my hon. Friend were considered under the complaints procedure, and I will write to him with a detailed response on the points that were not considered.
I know that some of those issues were referred to the health service ombudsman. As he will know, the ombudsman is independent of the NHS and of Ministers. It is his job to decide whether and when to investigate particular cases. I understand that he has considered the particular issues that were raised by Mr. Buckley, taken independent clinical advice and decided that no further action is needed. Clearly, that is a matter for the ombudsman, but I will look into precisely which issues were taken up with him, and into those to which further response is needed.
Other issues were raised concerning the immediate and urgent medical intervention that took place once Lorayne's condition deteriorated. As I understand it, those issues were not considered by the NHS ombudsman or through the NHS complaints procedure, and it is true that some questions need to be answered. On 31 August 1999, Lorayne was admitted to the King's Mill centre in Sutton in Ashfield so that her condition could be stabilised, and she was given Phenytoin. Phenytoin is a commonly prescribed anti-convulsant that has been used since the early 1960s to treat most types of seizure disorders, and it is widely used in the treatment of grand mal epilepsy and partial seizures. Lorayne was discharged on 3 September, but was readmitted two days later with a rash and oedema to her whole body. Her condition deteriorated, and as my hon. Friend said, she was transferred to the burns unit.
Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for her willingness to re-examine all the matters that I raised in my speech. However, I am worried by what I have found out about this drug through the internet. Many senior medical consultants still do not know its effects. A new drug was given to someone who was clearly listed as in receipt of a range of other drugs, even though all medical evidence, including that on the internet, makes it clear that those drugs should not be mixed. One possible immediate effect is a rash, which can easily be fatal. Although I am grateful to the Minister for what she has done, I am worried that the same might happen to other patients, and I ask her to examine the matter urgently.
Yvette Cooper: Phenytoin is not a new drug—it has been in common use for about 40 years. My hon. Friend

47WH
will know that on issues such as this we take the advice of the Medicines Control Agency, which informed me that serious skin reactions to Phenytoin result in hospitalisation in less than one in 100,000 cases. Phenytoin is used to treat epilepsy, which itself can be a life-threatening condition. Other treatments for epilepsy also have rare but serious side effects.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about whether Phenytoin should have been used in this particular case, and I accept that questions arise in that regard. The advice that was given to the parents on what reactions to look out for, and the point at which serious reactions should have been spotted and addressed are matters that need to be dealt with. They go beyond the broader question of the use of Phenytoin, which has been in use for many years. However, I accept that the matter should be investigated by the King's Mill centre.
The normal NHS complaints procedure is time-limited, and this complaint would normally be out of time. However, if Mr. Buckley and his family wish, I shall ask the trust to investigate the use of that drug in that case, and the treatment and care that Lorayne was given at Kings Mill during those critical hours. It is important that those issues are addressed and resolved, for the families concerned.
Mr. Meale: I thank the Minister for her response.
Yvette Cooper: And I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that that the investigation will go some way to resolving the understandable concerns of families who have lost a child in such devastating circumstances.

Fish Stocks
1 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I preface my remarks by placing on the record my sincere thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for his unfailing courtesy during all of our debates during this Parliament? He and I have never agreed on fisheries policy, but nevertheless, I appreciate the manner in which he has responded to my frequent speeches on the subject. This will be probably my last opportunity to say that, because I am standing down at the next election.
I am sad to have to point out the error of Ministers' ways once again. I am sure that they are wrong not out of ignorance but out of an adherence to a profoundly mistaken and dangerous ideology. Fishing policy is determined by the political imperative of European integration; of that I have no doubt. The objective is to create an EU fishing fleet catching EU fish in EU waters under an EU permit system controlled by Brussels. That is the price that the British fishing industry must pay as its contribution towards the realisation of European political union, and nothing, not even the conservation of fish stocks, must be allowed to stand in the way of achieving the nirvana—nirvana being defined as the state of perfect bliss attained by the extinction of individuality. In the context of the fishing industry, we are talking about the extinction not of individuality but of fish stocks.
In previous fisheries debates, I have covered many other aspects of the niquitous common fisheries policy, but today I want to concentrate exclusively on the question of feedstocks: the sand eel—which for the benefit of the Minister in another place I should point out lives on the bottom of the sea, not on the surface—the pout and the sprat. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow me if I refer to those species as being at the base of the pyramid of life. At the top of the pyramid are the bigger fish species, such as cod and haddock, which are sought after for human consumption. The bigger fish are dependent on smaller fish for their food. It follows, therefore, that if the stocks of smaller fish are drastically reduced by the continuation of industrial fishing, cod, haddock and the like will starve. That is a self-evident fact, but what does the European Community do?
As I pointed out in a debate this time last year:
"the sand eel total allowable catch was increased from 1 million tonnes to 1,020,000 tonnes."—[0fficial Report, Westminster Hall, 9 February 2000; Vol. 344, c 80WH]
During this year's round of quota setting, far from reducing the sand eel total allowable catch, the Council of Ministers agreed to set it at the same level. When there is real concern about the future viability of cod stocks, it is more than a little ironic that the hoovering up of feedstocks continues apace. It is a further irony that whole sea areas have been closed to cod fishing, but not to fishing for industrial purposes—in other words, fishing for feedstock continues, as if Ministers and their advisers were totally ignorant of the dependence of the larger species on the smaller ones that are regularly removed from the sea for land-based purposes, including feeding pigs and poultry. If quotas for sand eels and pout had been reduced to match matched

49WH
reductions in the total allowable catches for cod, for example, they would now be at about 250,000 tonnes for sand eels instead of 1 million tonnes, and 30,000 tonnes for pout instead of 200,000 tonnes.
Ministers know those facts as well as I do, but what action do they take? They ignore the facts of life—the dependency of cod and other species on the availability of adequate feedstocks—and blame the shortage of mature fish on the idea that too many vessels are chasing too few fish. What a travesty of the truth. It is a sad reflection on Ministers of the Crown that they are prepared to be party to that monstrous and wicked deception. That is especially true of this Fisheries Minister, who professes such a commitment to animal welfare. When he answers on the day of judgment, as will we all in time, the saving of the lives of a few foxes or a handful of badgers will look small beer compared to the mass destruction of the marine resource over which he has presided.
For the past four years, the Minister has been responsible for implementing policies whose result has been that as many fish are thrown back dead into the sea as are landed. His policies are systematically destroying the basis of the marine pyramid of life. The same Minister has acquiesced in the abandonment of the minimum landing size for no fewer than 11 species. They are now legally caught before they have had the chance to spawn even once. He has at long last agreed technical measures but, perversely, they have been implemented in such a cack-handed way as to defeat the object of the exercise.
The pyramid of life has been t turned upside down. However charitable one might want to be to the Minister, there is no denying that this totally unacceptable and irresponsible state of affairs has been brought about by the conscious and deliberate action of Ministers, aided and abetted by others who should also know better. For example, I find it extraordinary that Professor Tony Hawkins, senior administrator of Fisheries Research Services at Aberdeen, should have stated last December that growth rates always tend to slow down when a big year class is recruited. If the current abundance of young haddock are not growing, that is not because of a big recruitment, but because the feedstock are being plundered. That plunder is the result of a deliberate political decision.
An increase in fish population requires an increase in food sources. The exemption of industrial fishing for sand eels and the like ensures that the opposite occurs. I must keep stressing the point to the Minister: it occurs because of a deliberate political decision taken in the Council of Ministers.
Two weeks ago, Dr. Paul Brady, the head of the Scottish fisheries group, stated that in the opinion of some of his scientists a cull of young haddock would not necessarily be a bad thing. That point of view is clearly not shared by the fishermen, who, in an unprecedented display of solidarity, kept their vessels in harbour in protest rather than go to sea to catch tonnes of immature haddock only to have to throw them back dead into the sea. The Minister will have seen that recent editions of Fishing News demonstrate the strength of feeling among fishermen on that issue.
Fishermen are often accused of irresponsibility towards the fish stocks on which their livelihoods depend. However, the events of the past fortnight
50WH
demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are very responsible, and are conscious of the effects of treating the fish stocks in an unsatisfactory way. That is why they are keeping their vessels in harbour rather than going into the fishing grounds that they are being driven into by the closure of certain areas of cod fishing.
Last week, when I asked the Minister in a question for written answer:
"what assessment he has made of the impact upon haddock stocks resulting from the closure of North Sea cod areas"
he replied:"Given the prevalence of juvenile haddock in the northern North Sea urgent consideration is being given to improve technical conservation measures."—[Official Report, 12 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 483W.]
The answer to practically every fisheries problem is to talk about conservation, yet almost invariably, the action taken is to the detriment of conservation. The Minister repeated the mantra of sound conservation in his article in The Western Morning News of 12 March.
Conservation is simply the smokecreen behind which ruthless and ever more desperate measures are taken to ensure that by 1 January 2003, the real common fisheries policy—of equal access to the common resource—can be fully implemented. In pursuit of that political objective, not only are the fishermen expendable—that has been known for 30 years or more—but now the very fish themselves must be sacrificed on the high altar of European integration.
However, despite all the obstacles that have been put in their way, such has been the resilience of British fishermen that in the eyes of the EC there are still too many of them. Fanciful as this may seem, the decimation of their stock in trade is now the official policy by which the British fishermen are to be brought to heel.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley) > indicated dissent.
Mr. Gill: The Minister shakes his head, but that is what the debate is all about, and that is the point that I have consistently put to him throughout this Parliament. On occasions, of course, he has said that I have been consistently wrong. I take the other view. I think that I have been consistently right, and that events have proved me so.
However, I understand that the Minister is bound by the collective responsibility of his Government—to deliver European integration. They will not let a few thousand fishermen stand in the way of that. The fishermen have, in effect, to be driven off the waters to make way for other fishermen from other EU countries as from the end of next year, when the real CFP begins.
One Scottish fisherman recently remarked:
"If only you'd listened to Tom Hay 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation today."However, we are in this situation, and in response to the Minister's challenge, published on 12 March in The Western Morning News, I will again tell the House what the alternative is. It is for the control of fisheries policy to be repatriated. There is no alternative to that, because it is a fact of life, human nature being what it is, that

51WH
something that belongs to everybody belongs to nobody. If nobody has the sense of ownership of a thing, it is not treated in the responsible way in which our fish stocks need to be treated. Unfortunately, that does not suit the political aspirations of a Labour Government. least of all one so wholeheartedly in favour of European integration, as evidenced by their recent surrender of 39 out of 45 vetoes at the Nice summit.
My friends in the fishing industry and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the House surely recognise that the collectivisation of the British fishing industry is inimical both to their commercial interests and to their political instincts. Telling the fisherman what he may catch, where he may catch it and in what quantities, where he may land—and, with smaller ports, when he may land—is as close to communism as one can get. That the ultimate collectivisation of the fishing industry should lead to the destruction of the fish stocks is wicked beyond belief. If the Minister had a grain of conscience, he would resign rather than be party to a regime that professes conservation yet permits mesh sizes of less than 16 mm. To speak of too many vessels chasing too few fish, to speak of the need to conserve fish stocks, to say that fish know no boundaries, yet at the same time to protect the seal and allow industrial fishermen to hoover up the fish on which our stocks depend, is indefensible. All that is for the sake of a political ideology that is bound to fail in western Europe as surely as it failed in the former USSR.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on obtaining this debate. I am pleased that he did so, because it gives me the opportunity to deal with some aspects of industrial fishing, particularly those raised in a recent newspaper article by Mr. Christopher Booker, which was full of half truths and did not address the real problem.
The hon. Gentleman said some kind words about me—before starting the assassination job—and I shall miss him when he goes. Although he does not represent a fishing constituency, no one can doubt his sincere interest in fishing matters. Although some of his hon. Friends initially showed an interest in fishing, they soon disappeared from the scene, but the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his attendance at fishery debates and his involvement in the arguments. I respect him for that even, though, as he stated, I do not agree with him.
The common fisheries policy is not without its faults. No one pretends otherwise. The Commission's Green Paper gives us a good opportunity to address some of those weaknesses and to try to improve matters. The CFP is not a great conspiracy designed to allow an integrated Europe in through the back door. The fishing policy is a European Union measure, but it allows a great element of national discretion. Its overwhelming priority is conservation. We can, of course, argue about how it should be applied, but the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise some basic facts.
The argument that the CFP is all about sweeping the seas clear of British fishermen to make way for other European fleets is nonsense. We have our national
52WH
quota, which is now fixed on the principle of relative stability. I do not say, as the hon. Gentleman tries to claim I do, that this is a question of too many boats catching too few fish. He and others in the fishing industry point to convenient scapegoats such as industrial fishing, or seals, and say that they are responsible for the decline in fish stocks, but that is not supported by scientific evidence. During the past 10 years, the UK fleet has been reduced by about 30 per cent., but at the same time, landings have increased as a result of greater effort improved technology and better design. That is what is affecting fish stocks. The reason for the dramatic decline in fish stocks is pure and simple. It is over-fishing.
Mr. Gill: I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the answer that he gave me a month ago in response to a written question. He pointed out that the total amount of cod and haddock landed had drastically fallen during our 30-year membership of the European Union. Catches of haddock of 176,000 tonnes in 1971 had been reduced to approximately 75,000 tonnes last year. That is a dramatic redaction in landings and a sad commentary on the efficacy of the common fisheries policy.
Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that there has been such a decline in cod and haddock stocks. Of course, fishermen have switched to catching other species and other fisheries have developed. That is all part of the new challenge for fisheries management. However, it is wrong to suggest that that is all the fault of the common fisheries policy. The hon. Gentleman could argue that the common fisheries policy had dealt inadequately with management issues, and I believe that such an argument can be made. However, on the subject of discards, I have thrown down the challenge many times by inquiring about the alternatives. I am keen to pursue alternatives because there is a problem with discards. It is not a new problem; it has been around for a long time. The bulk of discards—undersized and unmarketable fish—are a by-product of normal fishing. We should not lose sight of that fact.
No one has defined national control, except as withdrawing completely from the CFP, tearing up the treaty of Rome and withdrawing from the European Union. Some people argue, as is their democratic right, that we should do that—but they should argue from that viewpoint rather than trying to pretend that we can make fundamental changes to the treaty without those consequences. Even if we had complete national control, there would still be a need to control effort on fish stocks and to set a biological limit on what fishermen may catch and land. It would still be necessary to decide how to divide fish stocks within the industry.
Every other fishing state, including those outside the CFP, has a quota management regime. Every fishing state has the problem of discards. Some approach the problem in a different way, such as requiring vessels to land all discards. Indeed, I do not rule out that approach, although it has its problems. First, such a requirement is difficult to enforce. Secondly, landing all discards does not solve the problem, because we should be reducing the amount of fish discarded. Those are serious issues, which we intend to address.

53WH
On minimum landing sizes—something that we have argued about before—there is a logic in what the Commission is saying. If fishermen are not prepared to increase mesh sizes, a great many fish will be killed. In that respect, there is a brutal logic in lowering the minimum landing size, although that is not the approach that we support in the United Kingdom, or the approach that I supported in the Council of Ministers, because it sends the wrong signals to the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I argued successfully for increasing the minimum landing size of plaice—a change that was supported by other member states, and which has now been established.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that I have never supported industrial fishing. In fact, I have consistently argued against it. I have argued that human consumption of fish should always take precedence over industrial fisheries for non-human use. This is the first Government to have made progress in tackling the issue of industrial fishing. For example, I secured agreement at the Council of Ministers to a three-year total closure of the sand eel fisheries off the north-east coast of Britain, in the light of scientific advice that sand eel fishing was damaging the rate at which small seabirds, such as kittiwakes, were able to reproduce. In the case of kittiwakes, we can measure breeding success. In relation to that three-year closure, we are applying scientific principles and discussing with the Danes the impact on the ecosystem of catching sand eels for industrial fishing. That is a great step forward, and as achieved with the co-operation of the Danes, which I very much appreciate.
Mr. Gill: Surely the Minister recognises that if we were to repatriate control over our own fisheries, we would be able to determine the ground rules—for example, those relating to industrial fishing. At the moment, as he knows, he must go back to Brussels to consult the Council of Ministers, and it is always jam tomorrow. It is not possible to continue on that basis, because there is great danger of losing the feedstocks. If that happens, the mature fish will be lost. We do not need a scientific inquiry. We just need to talk to the trawler deck hands who gut the fish and find in their stomachs ever fewer of the sand eels on which the mature fish depend.
Mr. Morley: I shall come to those points in a moment, but that argument is flawed. The hon. Gentleman is right. If we had absolute national control we could, theoretically, ban industrial fishing in our waters—although I should point out that we have a small industrial fishery of our own. However, if industrial fishing is producing the dire consequences that the hon. Gentleman describes, and given that we could control only half the North sea-at the approach to the English Channel that amounts to a very small proportion of the sea—and as the industrial fishing would presumably continue unabated, or perhaps even more intensively, just over the boundary line, it is nonsense to pretend that there would be no effect on our stocks or our fishery.
An advantage of an EU-wide fisheries policy is that the United Kingdom is making progress with arguments for restrictions on industrial fishing across all EU waters
54WH
and the entire EU fleet. At the previous Council, I reached agreement with the Danes on beginning official talks to establish whether the total allowable catch that the hon. Gentleman mentioned for sand eels was too high—as I think it is—and to consider what would be a more appropriate level. Those talks are getting under way. It is also agreed that UK scientists and discard experts should, at the invitation of the Danish Government, sail on Danish industrial vessels to see at I first hand the landing and by-catch sampling arrangements. Those visits have been agreed and will happen between now and June. No one else has managed to obtain such an agreement. Our scientists will be on board Danish vessels, working with Danish scientists, to study the issue of by-catch, to see what the fishery is taking and to consider its impact.
Our scientific advice on the sand eel fishery is that the by-catch is less than 2 per cent. of cod. We can examine that advice. There are disputes about it. I have spoken to our own skippers who say that a clean sand eel fishery is possible. Things are not the same with respect to the Norwegian pout fishery, which has a much higher level of by-catch. It is for that reason that it is not allowed in the closed areas. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that, according to our scientists, sand eels make up only a small part of the cod's diet—about 4 per cent. A scientific paper on that is due to be published shortly.
Mr. Gill: The Minister spoke about further talks and inquiries. What happened to the inquiry that was set up in 1996? Where is its result? We do not want to have to repeat inquiries endlessly. We want results.
Mr. Morley: I am not familiar with the 1996 inquiry, because I was not a Minister at the time and we were not in government. However, I do not think that any attempt has previously been made to deal with the matter in the depth that we are going into, or with the co-operation of the Danes. To be fair to them, if it is possible to demonstrate scientifically that there is a problem with the fishery in question, we shall take that seriously and approach the matter accordingly. We are working with the Danes to identify the relevant issues. We did not receive much support from other member states in doing that. It is the UK and the Danes who are proceeding with joint studies, because we take the issue seriously.
As for the haddock fishery in Scotland, there are ways of reducing haddock juvenile by-catch. We have already had quite a long debate about that in Westminster Hall. The Scottish Executive are introducing a range of amended technical measures, on matters such as reducing net extensions, the positioning of square mesh panels and the banning of lifting bags. The industry is also considering other matters, such as twine thickness.
I pay tribute to the industry's efforts to engage seriously with the issue. We are working with the industry, which has been involved to an unprecedented degree in decision making. However, I should comment on that part of the industry that was recently sitting in ports, involved in a campaign for tie-up grants that amounted to telling us, to put it crudely, "Give us the money, or the haddock get it." We need a more sophisticated approach to fisheries management. A common EU approach is the way forward. The UK has

55WH
influence on this issue, and people listen to us. We are pursuing the matter for the future, in a way that will benefit fisheries conservation.
Mr. Gill: The Minister knows that the industry has suggested all sorts of technical improvements in the past, yet the situation remains as he described.
Mr. Morley: A long process must be delivered, and that is what we intend to do.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Trooper Christopher Young
1.30 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me this debate on the issues raised by the inquiry into the death of Trooper Christopher Young.
On 24 February 1999, on behalf of Christopher's parents, his mother, Heather, and stepfather, Terry, I asked several questions in an Adjournment debate in the House. As background, I shall give a brief outline of the facts that led up to Christopher's tragic death.
From joining the Army, Christopher was recognised as a first-class solider, and he was well thought of by both his superiors and his peers. He matured into a confident and decent young man of whom his parents were justifiably proud.
Christopher changed dramatically after his return from a tour of duty in Bosnia in 1993. On his way home for leave at Christmas, at the end of what was for him a terrible tour of duty, his wallet containing his identification was stolen, and he was involved in a fight with another soldier He was arrested and received 28 days' detention and loss of leave and pay as punishment.
During his detention, at Hohne, in Germany, Christopher asked to see a Women's Royal Voluntary Service volunteer attached to the Light Dragoons. I am informed that she subsequently told Christopher's parents that it was obvious that Christopher had a recognisable fear of returning to Bosnia. She was so worried about Christopher's psychological condition that she made strenuous representations to his commanding officer, asking that Christopher be granted a period of unscheduled leave as a respite. She felt that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Christopher was granted home leave at the conclusion of his punishment. On seeing him, his parents were shocked at the change in him. He wanted to leave the Army, and he told his parents that if he were successful in requesting a discharge, it would be complete by August 1994.
Christopher returned home to his parents in July 1994. Nothing then or in the following months suggested to his parents that there was anything irregular about the way in which he had left the Army. He was in fact absent without leave. Having left his regiment without authority, he failed to report to Bovington camp for final clearance and documentation.
Christopher made no attempt to hide the fact that he was living in the family home. He registered with the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, giving his parents' address as his own. His driving licence, car registration and medical records were registered to that address. It came as a complete surprise to Christopher's stepfather, who was then and still is a serving police officer with the Northumbria force, to discover that Ashington police had received a fax from the Royal Military Police in Chichester on Monday 19 June 1995. The fax listed Christopher as absent without leave from the Army since 2 August 1994—nearly 11 months.
Christopher was made aware of the police inquiry and the warrant for his arrest on the evening of 19 June. He confessed to his mother that he was absent without leave and owed money. He gave no other details, but was

57WH
worried that he would, in his words, do "serious Army time". He was adamant that he would not return to his unit in Germany, as he feared that he would be sent back to Bosnia. He told his mother that he would rather be dead than return to the Army.
Christopher left the house saying, that he wanted time to himself to think things through. That was, sadly, the last time that anyone saw him alive. His body was found on the east coast main line near the village of Acklington. He had committed suicide. He was 23 years of age.
In replying to the many questions that I asked in the Adjournment debate, the then Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), gave an undertaking to hold an inquiry into the events surrounding Christopher's death. His response concluded:
"The Army has a clear responsibility to retrieve documents, to settle possible outstanding wages and to ensure that proper procedures had been followed in any discharge…we have a duty to explain all the circumstances to the family of Christopher Young. I recognise that it is important in that explanation to make the most direct contact possible and I undertake to do that".—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 354.] That inquiry was conducted, and on 16 December 1999 I received a letter from the then Minister for the Armed Forces containing the inquiry's conclusions. I met Christopher's parents, who were disappointed that the inquiry had not addressed the issues that they had raised. We subsequently requested a full copy of the investigating officer's report, which was sent. However, there were several omissions, primarily of witness statements. I wrote back to the then Minister for the Armed Forces on 19 July requesting copies of those statements. In his reply on 4 August 2000, he informed me that his officials would write to the people concerned asking permission for the release of their statements. He said that, understandably, that would take some time, and asked for patience while the matter was being addressed. We have been patient for more than eight months.
Several issues are still outstanding from the inquiry's conclusions, of which we have only a summary dated 16 December 1999. On page 1 of the letter, the then Minister for the Armed Forces concedes that the first entry made by the central criminal records and information office of the Royal Military Police was on 26 January 1995, six months after Christopher was officially listed as absent without leave. He states that CCRIO archives have been searched and that there is no trace of any signals having been received that would normally be issued in connection with an Army absentee. That is the first admission that, despite all the assurances in previous letters that such action would have been taken, it was not taken. Normal procedures were not carried out.
On page 2 of the letter, the responsibility is passed to the garrison administration staff, who, we are assured, made inquiries into Christopher's whereabouts after he failed to report there for discharge on 1 August 1994. I presume that their first inquiry would have been to his unit in Germany, which would have informed them that he left there on 11 July 1994, two weeks before his orders allowed him to do so. At that moment, there should have been confirmation of an army absentee and a missing person. Astonishingly, however, that
58WH
information does not appear to have been serious enough to instigate normal army operating procedures, as, on its admission, no signal was sent to CCRIO.
The last recorded address on Christopher's unit personal address record, dated 22 June 1994, which is shown under the heading of family details and next of kin, is:
"46 Acklington village, Acklington, Morpeth"
which was then the home of his parents. It beggars belief that an inquiry into the whereabouts of a missing person would not start at this address, which would have immediately located Christopher. The letter then refers to an officer from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow, who allegedly remembers speaking to three different police stations in the Ashington area, at which I presume that he made similar inquiries, although he cannot identify the police stations by name. I find that incredible because it is not possible to ring individual police stations. All calls are routed through Northumbria police control centre at Ponteland. Any official organisation seeking to locate a missing person would be put through to the police station covering the address concerned. For the record, there is only one police station in Ashington.
The Minister's letter refers to the issuing of a locate and trace order by CCRIO as a result of information received from the DSS on 19 June 1995 giving a new contact address. It is important that the Army explain why it took so long to access the DSS information. As I have already stated, Christopher registered at his parents' address in September 1994, so the information would have been available to CCRIO from that date.
The inference of the letter dated 16 December 1998 contradicts the letter dated 10 March 1998. The latter stated
"When a soldier has been absent for a period of six months the case is automatically reviewed by CCRIO, RMP. It is standard practice during this review to seek assistance from the DSS to see if they can provide a current address ie. if the individual is claiming financial support.
It was through this action that it was established that Christopher had been living with his mother and had been doing so since October 1994. On the 19th June as a result of this new information a signal was sent to the civil Police in Ashington who would have been expected to visit the address and if Christopher was present arrest him."
That raises the following question. If, by its own admission, the Army's review of Christopher's case was held on 30 January 1995, why did it take another five months before a positive attempt was made to locate him? The Minister's letter focuses on the records on Christopher on the police national computer. There are no records remaining on the police national computer because any file relating to a deceased person is automatically erased 12 months after death.
However, in this instance, historic intelligence on Christopher exists on Northumbria police's criminal intelligence system. It includes details of stop checks made by traffic officers on two separate occasions, which resulted in the production of driving documents at police stations and the placing of those details—including a full postal address—on the CIS. It shows no record of any locate trace marker for Christopher having been created before 19 June 1995. The responsibility for that omission rests solely with CCRIO.

59WH
The role that the WRVS volunteer played in the affair is important. If she had not called Christopher's parents, they would not have embarked on their quest for the truth. His parents told me that she was the catalyst that provoked their questions and fuelled doubts about whether Christopher had received the care to which he was entitled from the Army. Although the family were clearly distressed and upset at Christopher's death, they did not look to apportion blame or responsibility to any individual or organisation, but the conversation that the volunteer initiated with them set alarm bells ringing.
Terry Haley, Christopher's stepfather, is a police officer with more than 20 years' experience. He is trained to collect, evaluate, record and disseminate information. He has a distinguished and commended career and is a holder of the Queen's medal for long and exemplary police service—it is unlikely that he would misinterpret his conversation with the WRVS volunteer. We were therefore astonished to read that the volunteer had informed the Royal Military Police investigator and made a statement retracting everything that she told Mr. Haley during their telephone conversations. I have been informed that at no time during those conversations did she mention domestic problems between Christopher and his girlfriend, even though Christopher's problems must have been grave to warrant such leave being granted. I have also been told that that information and the reasons for granting leave would, no doubt, be recorded on file.
Mr. Haley is sceptical about that explanation. First, the WRVS volunteer was a complete stranger to him and until he spoke to her over the telephone, he did not know that she existed. He is clear about the detail of their conversation, and says that it was she who mentioned post-traumatic stress disorder. It was she who first raised concerns about Christopher's psychological state, resulting from his tour of duty in Bosnia, and she who was so concerned about him that she persuaded the commanding officer to allow him compassionate leave.
Christopher's parents are rightly concerned that the first mention of alleged domestic problems was made almost six years after his death. At the time, Christopher was engaged to be married. Letters that were written by Christopher at that time are in his parents' possession. They contain no hints of domestic grief. Indeed, the opposite is the case; he writes fondly and enthusiastically of his and his fiancee's plans for their future. Their relationship began to deteriorate after he returned from Germany, and the engagement was broken off six months later.
It is significant that, only weeks after Christopher's death, Mr. Haley wrote a letter to Christopher's commanding officer in which he recounted details of his conversation with the WRVS volunteer. The commanding officer could have spoken to her, as she was still attached to the regiment in Germany at that time and had refuted the allegations.
The commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Webb-Bowen, made no mention of domestic problems, nor did he attempt to refute Mr. Haley's accusation that Christopher was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He merely rubbished the WRVS volunteer as
60WH
unqualified. That has been a consistent theme in response to subsequent letters on the matter written by Christopher's parents and me. Mr. Haley was so concerned about the commanding officer's reply that he attempted to telephone the lady in Germany. He was told that she was unavailable. Unsatisfied with that response, he contacted the WRVS headquarters in London and spoke with a retired Army officer who said that he knew the lady concerned, and promised to contact her on his behalf. The retired Army officer rang back and said that she could not speak to Mr. Haley because she was the subject of some form of judicial army inquiry or review. That was confirmed to Mr. Haley when he contacted a member of RMP at Catterick who was involved in the initial investigation into Christopher's death and implied that an inquiry was on-going.
A letter dated 16 December states that a senior member of the Army medical directorate had examined Christopher's medical records and had found no evidence of psychiatric or psychological problems. All the entries related to minor physical problems associated with thy, rigours of soldiering and, regrettably, a "fit for detention" certificate was not found. The lack of a certificate suggests that Christopher was not examined at that crucial time and that it is improper of the Army to suggest that all was well when it cannot confirm that he was fit to be detained.
The lack of supporting documentation from the Army—an organisation that prides itself on and is famed throughout the world for its efficiency—is a prominent feature of the Ministry of Defence's case. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, based on procedures that were presumed to have been carried out, and does not bear close scrutiny. The Army admits that it failed in its duty of care to Christopher by not locating him immediately after he went absent without leave. There is no evidence that the Army followed its procedures, although there is considerable evidence that it did not.
In the years since Christopher's death, his parents have searched for the simple truth. They feel that the Army betrayed them by failing in its duty of care to Christopher. There are too many contradictions and unacceptable omissions in the inquiry document. Nobody admits to making mistakes, although it is clear that many were made. How can Christopher's parents have confidence in a system that has let them down so badly?
I met Christopher's:, parents on Saturday. They are still seeking the truth. They have not received any assurances that the systems have been improved or that new safeguards haw been introduced to prevent another tragedy. Therefore, I ask that my hon. Friend the Minister hand the inquiry over to an independent body. A third party should examine the evidence, interview witnesses and, crucially, make recommendations, if necessary, to improve the system.
I represent an area that supplies more young men and women to the armed forces than any other. We have a duty to those young people to ensure that systems are in place to protect them. The inquiry has not satisfied me that protective systems are in place, and I urge my hon. Friend to carry out a speedy, independent inquiry.
1.49 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) for the opportunity to discuss further the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trooper Christopher Young, following the response given in the House by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), on 24 February 1999.
First, and most importantly, I wish to take this opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Christopher's family for their very sad loss. Mr. and Mrs. Haley are clearly concerned about the circumstances surrounding his death, and their desire to obtain a detailed explanation is both natural and understandable. I have carefully noted the points made in my hon. Friend's speech. I am worried about the details of the case and the questions that it raises about some of the general procedures. Accordingly, I am arranging a meeting between my hon. Friend and the Army authorities to consider both aspects and to prepare a report for Ministers.
Mr. Murphy: Would it be possible for the Minister to invite either one or both of Christopher's parents to that meeting?
Mr. Spellar: I undertake to give Serious consideration to that request and to write to my hon. Friend about it.
I wish to place on record the information that we have on the case, and I shall begin by giving an insight into the young man's career in the Army. Christopher Young joined the Army on 11 January 1901. He served with his regiment, the Light Dragoons, in the United Kingdom, Germany, Cyprus and Bosnia. Throughout that time, as my hon. Friend said, he was highly regarded by his superiors and well liked by his peers. He was a hardworking, efficient and capable young man who had been singled out for possible promotion to junior non-commissioned officer. Christopher was a fit and active member of the troop, who boxed for the squadron. A promising career seemed to lie ahead for him.
However, after three years of service he decided to leave the Army, and applied to be discharged. That was to become effective on 2 August 1994. Later in 1993, Christopher's unit began a tour of duty in Bosnia. In December 1993, during a period of rest and recuperation and, while in transit to his home, Christopher was involved in an incident with another soldier. As a result, he was awarded a period of 28 days' detention, which he served in the Hohne guardroom. While in detention, he asked to speak to the Women's Royal Voluntary Service representative who regularly visited the guardroom to talk to all detainees. It was during their confidential discussion that Christopher said that he did not want to return to Bosnia after his release. It was, and continues to be, usual practice for soldiers given periods of detention to return to their parent unit on completion of their sentence. Were it otherwise, it would be possible for some to use it as an excuse to avoid operational service. There is nothing to suggest that Christopher saw his incarceration as a method of avoiding service in Bosnia.
It was also usual practice. in accordance with the Imprisonment and Detention (Army) Rules 1979, for all soldiers undergoing detention to be medically
62WH
examined. During their examination, soldiers have every opportunity to express any worries that they may have. As may be expected, the WRVS representative expressed her views about Christopher to the commanding officer—as she did about all the other soldiers who were held in detention. Not being medically qualified, she did not offer any comment or opinion on Christopher's psychological well-being. However, she remembered that he was upset at having to spend the festive season in the guardroom and was worried that that would prevent him from returning home to discuss relationship problems with his girlfriend.
Christopher was also given a further opportunity to make known any personal worries that he may have had. His commanding officer, through the WRVS representative, advised all the soldiers held in the guardroom at Hohne at that time that if they were upset or believed that they were suffering from stress, they should make their concerns known by reporting sick and discussing their situation with a medical officer. Christopher did not report sick, and chose not to say anything about how he was feeling.
When speaking further to the commanding officer about the detainees, the WRVS representative mentioned specifically that Christopher had some worries about his leave. I understand that he was worried that, because he was detained for an offence committed while on leave, he would lose what leave entitlement he had left. As a result of that conversation, the regiment decided that it was appropriate to grant Christopher an additional period of unscheduled leave at the end of his detention before his return to Bosnia.
I should emphasise that at no time did Trooper Young give his chain of command any cause to be concerned about his behaviour. In fact, he conducted himself well and displayed no signs of severe stress, or, as my hon. Friend suggested, post-traumatic stress disorder. If Christopher was psychologically disturbed, it was not apparent to the regiment or the Army medical authorities.
Christopher spoke to the WRVS representative on a number of occasions, and he could have asked to see the medical officer or the community psychiatric nurse, but seems to have chosen not to do so. Either could have arranged for him to be properly assessed and treated if necessary. I assure my hon. Friend that if there had been any doubt about his mental state, he would have been referred immediately to the medical officer. As Christopher did not choose to ask for medical advice, and showed no signs of stress or obvious psychological problems, he returned to Bosnia, after a short period of leave, to complete his tour with his unit. That was completed without further incident. He was, of course, offered counselling before, and on his return from, his tour, as are all service personnel.
On 24 June 1994, Christopher underwent a full pre-release medical, in which he was assessed to be fully fit. He was due to attend a final, more informal release medical on the last day of his service, and that was scheduled for 1 August 1994. On 11 July 1994, having completed the documentation required at that time, Christopher returned to his parents' home and told them that he had been discharged from the Army. It

63WH
seems that he did not explain that he had to report to Bovington camp on 1 August 1994 to complete the release process and undertake his final release medical.
I am advised that when Christopher failed to return to Bovington on 1 August 1994, the garrison administration office tried to contact him at his home address, which was listed on his documentation and shown on his discharge instruction. Unfortunately, when it telephoned to speak to Christopher it was told, for some unaccountable reason, that Christopher had not been heard of at that address, so he was posted absent without leave. I am advised that the civilian police were informed. After failing to reach Christopher at the address shown on his records, the garrison administrative office at Bovington camp contacted the manning and records office for help. It provided a further address from his vetting forms—that of his natural father—but Christopher had not been heard of at that address for the previous two years.
On 15 December 1994, the manning and records office contacted his regiment, the Light Dragoons, asking for further assistance. Although not normal practice, on 7 January 1995 the regiment contacted a close friend of Christopher who had been discharged the previous year, asking him to pass on a message to report to Bovington camp, with an assurance that he would not be in any trouble on his return. His friend confirmed to the regiment that he had seen Christopher, who had acknowledged the request. Unfortunately, he did not report to Bovington.
The House may know that when a solider has been unlawfully absent, a board of inquiry is normally convened to investigate the matter. A board of inquiry into Christopher's absence was convened in Hohne on 30 January 1995. It concluded that Christopher may not
64WH
have known that he had been required to report to Bovington camp for final discharge procedures, or that he had simply forgotten during the three weeks that had elapsed between his return home and the reporting date.
Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend not consider it unusual that, if the board of inquiry concluded in January that Christopher was absent without leave, it took a further five months to contact him?
Mr. Spellar: I understand that that may have been due to a move within the police system, which was transferring from one location to another, so communication between the two authorities was difficult. However, that is one of the matters that I hope will be discussed at the meeting between my hon. Friend and the Army authorities.
The board of inquiry recommended that in the circumstances, Christopher should not have any disciplinary action taken against him for his failure to report, and that all possible efforts should be made to allow him to report to collect his last salary payment.
It is not current practice, after the initial contact to the individual's last known address, for the civilian or military police to be proactive in locating absentees unless they are in receipt of new information about their possible whereabouts. Attempts were made by personnel in the manning and records office to locate Christopher during his period of absence, but to no avail.
When a soldier hay been absent for six months, the case is automatically reviewed by the central criminal records and information office of the Royal Military Police. It was through that action that the Army became aware that Christopher was living with his mother—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the price of the DFM contract for the first three type 45 destroyers awarded to BAE Systems assumes(a) the involvement of BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft in developing a single design definition for the type 45 destroyer and (b) that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft; [153706]

  (2) if it is his policy that a single design definition for the type 45 destroyer should be developed involving BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft and that the first and third ships will be assembled by BAE Systems Marine and the second ship by Vosper Thornycroft; [153705]

  (3) if the DFM contract for the first three type 45 destroyers awarded to BAE Systems (a) requires BAE Systems to develop a single design definition for the type 45 destroyer involving BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft and (b) requires the first and third ships to be built by BAE Systems Marine and the second by Vosper Thornycroft. [153707]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 January 2001,Official Report, column 99W. I can confirm that the type 45 DFM contract assumes, and is priced on the basis of, the procurement strategy for this Programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 July 2000, Official Report, columns 701–02. Under this, the first ship would be assembled by BAE Systems Marine with a substantial contribution by Vosper Thornycroft (VT), the second by VT and the third by BAE Systems.

  Armed Forces (Sierra Leone)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the components are of the welfare package for forces serving in Sierra Leone. [154581]

  Mr. Hoon
  The components of the Operational Welfare Package (OWP) for Op Silkman are as follows:

  Leave

  (a) Additional Carry Over of Leave. The right to carry forward annual privilege leave entitlements in excess of the existing 14 days maximum—subject to the proviso that the exigencies of the service may make it impractical for this leave to be taken—is granted for those on tours in excess of six months.

  (b) Post Operational Tour Leave (POTL). POTL, which is granted in accordance with single service guidelines.

  Family travel concessions

  Welfare concessions for families' travel, as follows:

  (a) Service Personnel Stationed in the UK. Dependants of married service personnel stationed in the UK but serving in
  106W
  theatre for four months or more are entitled to two extra UK leave warrants, to enable families to visit their next of kin, or parents, children at boarding school or close relatives.

  (b) Personnel Stationed Overseas (in north west Europe).

  (i) Four-month tours. Dependants of married accompanied personnel who serve in theatre for four months or more are entitled to one return journey at public expense to an address in UK for the purpose of visiting NOK or close relatives.

  (ii) Six-month tours. Dependants of married accompanied personnel who are serving in theatre for six months or more are entitled to two return journeys at public expense to an address in the UK for the purposes of visiting NOK or close relatives.

  (c) Transfer of entitlement. Any or all of these warrants may be transferred to up to two close relatives for reverse travel from the UK.

  Rest and Recuperation (R&R)

  Personnel in theatre for more than four months are granted one period of R&R. A second period of R&R is authorised for personnel who have an expectation of serving between seven to 10 months inclusive and a third period for those with an expectation of serving more than 11 months.

  Welfare telephones

  Twenty minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week, using welfare telephone facilities provided by Project Welcome.

  Forces free aerogrammes (blueys)/concessionary parcel rates

  Free "blueys" (aerogrammes) and concessionary parcel rates, authorised in both directions.

  Electronic bluey

  Free access to an "e-bluey" system.

  E-mail/internet

  Free access to e-mail and internet facilities.

  News media

  Forces deployed receive free newspapers and access to BFBS TV and radio facilities.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) e-mail terminals, (b) telephones and (c) mail drops per week are available for Her Majesty's forces serving in Sierra Leone. [154580]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Operational Welfare Package (OWP) for Op Silkman includes internet access, telephones and mail drops. The numbers are as follows:

  (a) There are currently four e-mail terminals, with a further eight on order. Access to e-mails and the internet is free.

  (b) There are 12 welfare telephones provided under Project Welcome. Service personnel are allowed 20 minutes of publicly funded telephone calls per week.

  (c) There is one resupply flight a week that brings in and takes out mail. Free `blueys' (aerogrammes) and concessionary parcel rates are authorised in both directions.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 509W, on nuclear submarines, where his Department plans to situate the land storage facility for redundant nuclear submarines. [154494]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 March 2001,Official Report. columns 601–02W, to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed).

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 536W, on depleted uranium (a) when he expects to send his letter and (b) what are the reasons for the delay. [152820]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have replied today to my hon. Friend. The delay in replying was caused by the need to obtain information from sources outside the Ministry of Defence.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will give a substantive reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire on behalf of his constituent Mr. Coakes, following preliminary responses on 22 November 2000 and 6 January 2001. [154724]

  Mr. Hoon
  In my letters, I explained that research into the issues raised was continuing. This has involved research into records dating back 10 years and contacting key personnel in the unit to which Mr. Coakes was attached. Our inquiries are now complete and I hope to write to the right hon. Member within the next week.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civil servants and (b) other personnel from his Department have attended sessions of the Saville inquiry. [154050]

  Mr. Spellar
  Sessions of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry have been attended variously by nine Ministry of Defence officials and one Army officer.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many persons, from which divisions and with which specialisms comprise the Bloody Sunday Inquiry Unit in his Department; [154051]

  (2) what the composition is of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry Unit in terms of (a) perceived community origin and (b) gender. [154052]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Bloody Sunday Inquiry Unit is an integral part of the Ministry of Defence and comprises five officials who are dedicated full-time to supporting the work of the Inquiry. They are all administrators; currently three are men and two are women; none of them come from Northern Ireland.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the pension provision for officers who were in service before their 21st birthdays but whose service before those dates is not counted for service pension purposes. [154295]

  Mr. Spellar
  The recently published Ministry of Defence Consultation Document on a new Armed Forces Pension Scheme includes the proposal that pension benefits should begin to accrue from the date of entry to the armed forces for both officers and other ranks. This compares with the current scheme under which benefits accrue from age 21 for officers and age 18 for other ranks. In line with usual practice in public sector pension schemes, these changes would not be retrospective.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what statutory powers he appoints members of the MOD Police Committee. [154579]

  Mr. Spellar
  Members of the Ministry of Defence Police Committee are appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 1(5) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many meetings of the Church Commissioners there were in 2000; and what the attendance record was of each commissioner. [153768]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners' Board of Governors, of which all but six of the 33 Commissioners are members, met five times in 2000. The Annual General Meeting of the Church Commissioners was also held. Average attendance at Board meetings was 70 per cent.

  The Church Commissioners' six committees, whose members include Commissioners and others, met throughout the year to transact the business for which they have separate responsibility. Attendance was broadly in the region of 65 per cent. to 80 per cent.

  The committees' membership and remit are detailed in the Church Commissioners' annual report and accounts, of which my hon. Friend will have received a copy. It is not the Commissioners' practice to publicise the attendance details of individual members.

WALES

  Corus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on assistance to Corus workers. [154085]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the First Secretary, including the assistance available to help those facing job losses in Corus.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the, television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153410]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]My Department has run no television, newspaper, radio advertising or any other kind of promotional campaign since its creation in July 1999. It has no agencies or departmental public bodies within its responsibilities. Its predecessor Department, the Welsh Office, spent
  109W
  £1,795,000 in 1996–97, £2,661,000 in 1997–98, and £2,685,000 in 1998–99 on a variety of advertising campaigns and projects.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his Danish counterpart on the exercise of Denmark's automatic opt-out in relation to the EU Rapid Reaction Force under the terms of the Edinburgh agreement. [153502]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the European Security and Defence Policy and Denmark's opt-out when he met his Danish counterpart in London on 17 January 2001.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers signed the provisional Treaty of Nice on 26 February; and what press statements were released in connection with this event. [153501]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Treaty of Nice was signed on 26 February by the Foreign Ministers of all 15 member states of the European Union. This event was highlighted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) daily bulletin of 23 February, available on the website at www.fco.gov.uk. An FCO press release was sent to various national newspapers, and the FCO published a pamphlet setting out the main features of the Nice Treaty.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to publish the text of the Treaty of Nice as signed on 26 February. [154929]

  Mr. Vaz
  A Command Paper containing the Treaty of Nice as signed on 26 February was published today as Cm 5090. Copies are available from the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

  For the first time in generations, there is a real prospect of uniting Europe. The Treaty of Nice brings this goal closer by reforming the EU's institutions to enable them to operate effectively after the accession of up to 12 new member states.

  The Treaty increases the relative weight of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers and raises the threshold for a qualified majority. The democratic legitimacy of decisions taken by qualified majority voting is assured by the addition of a population threshold, which means that the three largest member states (including the UK) can still block decisions together. In addition a qualified majority must have the support of at least the majority of member states.

  The Treaty delivers a reformed Commission, with one Commissioner per member state from 2005 up to a maximum of 27. It proposes more qualified majority voting where this is in Britain's interests, and preserves the veto in areas where the Government said we would.
  110W
  It allows groups of member states to move ahead faster in some areas where it is clear that not all are ready to, provided that this co-operation meets the conditions we secured to protect the Single Market, prevent discrimination in trade between member states, ensure compatibility with existing agreements, and guarantee that co-operation is open to all.

  A Declaration to the Treaty looks forward to a wide public debate about the future of the European Union. A further Intergovernmental Conference will be held in 2004 to make changes arising from this debate. Public consultation was launched on 7 March.

  In making the institutional changes necessary for the accession of new member states, the Nice Treaty opens the way for enlargement of the EU. This has been the goal of successive Governments for the sake of the peace, stability, and prosperity of Europe.

  The Nice Treaty cannot enter into force until all member states have ratified it in accordance with their national procedures. The Government intend to introduce legislation to enable the UK to ratify the Nice Treaty as soon as it is practically possible.

  Shageldy Atakov
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he will make to the Government of Turkmenistan on behalf of Shageldy Atakov. [153724]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 23 February the British Government, with EU Partners and the US issued a demarche to the Turkmen Foreign Minister regarding the detention of Shageldy Atakov and called for his release on humanitarian grounds. The Foreign Minister took note, and undertook to pursue the issue. We still await a formal response but will continue to remind the Turkmen authorities of our concern.

  Balkans
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the progress made in implementing the Dayton Peace Accords. [154018]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 March 2001,Official Report, column 397W. I also refer him to the letter I sent him on 16 March.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the granting of financial aid to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia conditional upon its Government co-operating with The Hague concerning the tribunal case against Slobodan Milosevic. [154055]

  Mr. Vaz
  No conditionality relating to the International Criminal Tribunal on the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was attached to the 200 million euro package of humanitarian and emergency assistance to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) agreed by the EU in October 2000, nor to UK bilateral assistance programmes over the winter (amounting to over £13 million).
  111W
  Future assistance to the FRY will need to take full account where appropriate of the FRY's progress towards political and economic reform and its legal obligation to co-operate with the ICTY.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's position is on the future status of Montenegro. [154019]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK and the EU would prefer to see a renegotiation of the relationship between Montenegro and Serbia take place within the framework of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The EU set out this preference in the Conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 22 January. Decisions on status will need to be taken in an open, democratic and consensual manner, taking full account of the need to preserve the internal stability of the FRY and the regional stability of south eastern Europe.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the future status of Vojvodina. [154013]

  Mr. Vaz
  Vojvodina is a province of the Republic of Serbia. We support the efforts of the democratically-elected authorities in Novi Sad and Belgrade to reach political agreement on a redefinition of the autonomous powers of Vojvodina within that framework.

  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in southern Serbia and Macedonia. [154930]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Yugoslav Army (VJ) and ethnic Albanian extremist groups in southern Serbia agreed a ceasefire brokered by NATO on 12 March. The agreement provides for the unconditional cessation of all military activities and use of force by either side. The Commander of KFOR (COMKFOR) retains his authority over the 5 km ground safety zone on the Kosovo/Serbia boundary. On Macedonia the situation remains tense. KFOR is providing support to the Macedonian authorities.

  UN Commission on Human Rights
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister will attend the UN Commission on human rights in Geneva this month; and for how long. [154014]

  Mr. Battle
  I will visit Geneva on 20–22 March, and deliver the UK national statement to the plenary session of the Commission on Human Rights on 22 March.

  During my stay, I will also meet the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (Mrs. Mary Robinson), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (Mr. Rudd Lubbers), the Director of the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (Dr. Peter Piot), and the Director-Generals of the International Labour Organisation (Mr. Juan Somavia), the UN Office at Geneva (Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky), the International Organisation of Migration (Mr. Brunson McKinley) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (Mr. Paul Grossrieder).

  Minister for Europe
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional
  112W
  responsibilities that have been allocated to the Minister for Europe since 1 May 1997, indicating the dates of, and the reasons for, the changes. [154053]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The allocation of responsibilities between Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a matter for my discretion.

  On 7 May 1997, the Minister for Europe, then my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), was allocated responsibility for Europe, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  On 28 July 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) was appointed Minister for Europe. The portfolio was not amended.

  On 29 July 1999, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoo) was appointed Minister for Europe. He was allocated responsibility for Europe, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and Defence.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was appointed Minister for Europe on 12 October 1999. He was allocated responsibility for Europe, Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, Defence and Entry Clearance.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions the enfranchisement of citizens of Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections has been raised at meetings of the European Council in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [153996]

  Mr. Vaz [holding answer 16 March 2001]
  The enfranchisement of Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections has never been raised at European Council. However it has been raised at General Affairs Council and remains on the agenda of the relevant Council working group.

  HMG unequivocally accepts the obligation, arising out of the Matthews judgment, to secure the European parliamentary franchise for Gibraltar. We are carefully considering all possible options for achieving this objective before the 2004 European parliamentary elections.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Spain on the enfranchisement of citizens of Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections. [153995]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Foreign Secretary last raised the issue of the enfranchisement of Gibraltar for European parliamentary elections with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Sr. Pique, in London on 24 January.

  Police Service (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from the Holy See concerning discussions with Catholic bishops in Northern Ireland on the future of the Police Service in Northern Ireland. [154076]
  113W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have had discussions with the Catholic Bishops about policing arrangements in Northern Ireland and believe that this is consistent with the Good Friday agreement, which calls for new arrangements to be"unambiguously accepted and actively supported by the whole community".

  The Government have, however, received no communication from the Holy See concerning these discussions.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Barriers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on safety standards for road barriers. [152920]

  Mr. Prescott
  Safety barriers on roads are designed to contain and then deflect along the line of the barrier a typical car colliding with it at a shallow angle. The safety barrier at Great Heck was 42.7 metres long. The minimum standard required is 30 metres at full height. Pending the report of the police into the tragic accident at Great Heck near Selby on 28 February, I have asked the Highways Agency to review the standards for safety barriers.

  Cycle Lanes (London)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the creation of bicycle lanes in central London. [152921]

  Mr. Hill
  This is now a matter for the Mayor of London and the relevant local highway authorities. My Department allocates an annual transport grant to the Greater London Authority to help maintain and improve transport in London. Over the next three financial years, this grant will amount to some £3.2 billion.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on road safety. [152922]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government launched their new road safety strategy for Great Britain, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", in March 2000. This included targets to reduce overall deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and to reduce child deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010, compared with the average for 1994 to 1998,together with details of many policies and initiatives that will help to achieve them.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make further funds available to enable the provision of additional traffic calming road safety schemes. [152941]

  Mr. Hill
  We have made £8.4 billion available for local transport improvements over the next five years with £2.8 billion available for small-scale measures. In 2001–02 the total allocation, from which spending on traffic calming could be made, is £559 million. It is for individual
  114W
  authorities to decide expenditure on traffic calming schemes. I see no reason at present to provide additional funds.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make a statement about his proposals on the reform of local government finance. [152923]

  Ms Armstrong
  A White Paper setting out our decisions on the way forward will be published later this year.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take to reform the local government grant system to reflect the importance of the services provided by local authorities. [153849]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]Ensuring the availability of high quality services is a primary objective for local authorities depends in part on the resources each authority receives through the grant system.

  Last September's local government finance Green Paper consulted on options for making the current grant distribution system for local authorities fairer. A White Paper will be published later this year setting out our decisions on the way forward.

  Local Transport Plans
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on local transport plans. [152924]

  Mr. Hill
  Authorities submitted their first full Local Transport Plans last July. In December we announced an £8.4 billion package for local transport improvements over the next five years to help deliver what local people want. Authorities will be submitting their first annual progress reports later this year and we shall be closely monitoring the delivery of schemes on the ground.

  Shipping Industry
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government support for the UK's shipping industry. [152925]

  Mr. Hill
  We have a tonnage tax option for shipping companies, and a capital allowances measure for those not in tonnage tax.

  The Government support seafarer training.

  We also pay crew relief cost grant. And seafarers spending more than half the year abroad pay no income tax. We have removed excess regulation.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of neighbourhood wardens. [152926]
  115W
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the neighbourhood wardens programme. [152938]

  Ms Armstrong
  DETR and the Home Office have jointly allocated £18.5 million until 2003–04 towards the Neighbourhood Warden programme. 86 Neighbourhood Warden schemes are receiving funding across England and Wales. Neighbourhood Wardens have a number of different roles depending on local need. Their overall purpose is to tackle anti-social behaviour, racial harassment, litter and graffiti. They will help to reduce crime and the fear of crime and will contribute to environmental and quality of life improvements.

  Civil Aviation (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of civil aviation in Wales. [152927]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The study of regional airports and air services in Wales announced in the 1998 Transport White Paper was completed last year. Its findings are currently being reviewed as part of a UK wide Regional Co-ordination Study. This will provide a basis for a series of Regional Air Services Consultation Documents to be published later on this year. One of these documents will cover Wales and will provide a framework for discussion of the future of civil aviation within Wales. Responses will be considered alongside those on "The Future of Aviation" national document, on which we are currently consulting, providing a key input to the Air Transport White Paper.

  Transport (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on measures to improve access for disabled people to transport services. [152928]

  Mr. Hill
  We have made significant progress over recent years towards a transport system that is accessible to all our citizens, including those who are disabled.

  Accessibility regulations for new trains, and more recently, for new buses and coaches used on local and scheduled services have been introduced under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which set technical standards for accessibility, including wheelchair access. Similar regulations for taxis will follow.

  Access to public transport infrastructure is also being addressed under Part III of the DDA.

  In addition, the 10 Year Transport Plan, published last summer, introduced a new commitment to ensuring that access for disabled people is a condition of all new public investment in transport.

  Taken together such initiatives will ensure that in future disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs, have the same opportunities for mobility as everyone else.

  Municipal Parks
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide assistance to improve local municipal parks. [152929]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Since 1997–98, Government grant to local government has gone up by 13.6 per cent. in real terms. Local authority spending on the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services Block which covers spending on parks, will increase each year by an average 1.8 per cent. in real terms up to 2003–04. We are also encouraging more effective use of resources and promoting better practice, by developing more specific Best Value performance indicators and a new Beacon Council theme for 'Improving Urban Green Spaces'

  Last November, we published our Urban White Paper—"Our towns and cities: the future", which sets out our comprehensive proposals for improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. In January we set up the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, which has begun its work to drive forward the implementation of our commitments. We will set up a Working Group of the Taskforce to examine resource issues and how to make best use of the funding streams that are available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the operation of the council tax system. [152930]

  Ms Armstrong
  An assessment of the council tax system was included in our Green Paper on modernising local government finance which we published in September 2000. We have recently published a summary of responses to the Green Paper on the DETR website and will announce our policy intentions for the local government finance system, including council tax, in a White Paper later this year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many local authorities are over 50 per cent. of homes in band A for council tax. [152931]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  According to the Valuation List for each local authority on 16 October 2000, 57 billing authorities have over 50 per cent. of their homes in council tax band A.

  Asylum Seekers (Housing)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in projecting housing needs, what assumption he has made of the number of asylum seekers who will remain in the UK in each year up to 2016. [152932]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Household projections, and population projections on which they are based, are one piece of the evidence used to assess housing requirements. In forming projections of population growth the Government Actuary's Department includes projections of asylum seekers allowed to remain per annum based on information from the Home Office.
  117W
  The UK national 1996-based population projections included a long-term assumption of 5,000 asylum seekers allowed to remain per annum. Figures for England are not available. The latest 1996-based household projections for England were based on these population projections.

  More recent information from the Home Office has enabled the Government Actuary's Department to incorporate a higher long-term projection of 20,000 asylum seekers allowed to remain per annum in the latest 1998-based population projections for the UK.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the initiation of the public-private partnership for the London underground within two months. [152934]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made towards a public-private partnership for the London underground. [152946]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to conclude the public-private partnership arrangements for the London underground. [152933]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced last month that he had agreed to work together with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, and with London Underground, on developing mutually acceptable modifications to the public-private partnership. Mr. Kiley has said in discussions with the Government that he seeks the unified management control of key Underground operations, mainly through keeping the maintenance of track and signalling within London Underground. The 55-point plan that he is now discussing with us provides for that control within the overall structure of the PPP.

  There are inevitably some technical issues still to be worked out but I believe that there is now a real basis for an agreement to allow the PPP competitions to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion. Discussions are being taken forward as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the PPP competitions and the massive investment which the Underground so urgently needs.

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about the introduction of the landfill tax. [152936]

  Mr. Meacher
  The tax was introduced in 1996. Since then we have had comments on the level and coverage of the tax from various individuals and bodies.

  Planning
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the requirement for impartiality laid on his Department for considering planning applications which have been called in by his Department. [152937]
  118W
  Mr. Raynsford
  General guidance is given to all Ministers in the "Ministerial Code—A Code of Conduct on Procedures for Ministers". The activities of officials in handling planning casework and providing advice to Ministers are governed by the "Civil Service Code" and the "Staff Handbook". There is also specific "Guidance on Propriety Issues in the Handling of Planning Casework in DETR". A copy of the "Guidance" may be found on the Department's website. The guidance which applies to Ministers also applies to Parliamentary Private Secretaries in DETR.

  The "Guidance" includes the advice that any Planning Minister should
  "act, and he seen to act, fairly and evenhandedly, by bringing an unbiased, properly directed and independent mind to his consideration of the matter."

  The advice in the "Guidance" also applies, where relevant, to officials concerned with planning decisions.

  The principles enshrined in the "Guidance" also apply to other decisions of a quasi-judicial nature taken by DETR Ministers.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the number of incinerators which convert waste into energy which are to be built over the next 10 years. [152939]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government set out their aims and objectives for sustainable waste management in "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000.

  The choice of waste facilities is a matter for local councils to take, in consultation with their local communities. The Government have no plan for any particular number of incinerators, but recognise that the recovery of energy from waste may have a role to play, alongside recycling and composting, in an integrated waste management plan.

  BCC Pipeworks, Clay Cross
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will re-assess the needs of the North-East Derbyshire district council following the closure of the BCC pipeworks at Clay Cross. [152940]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We continue to work with North-East Derbyshire district council, and other local partners in the BCC Response Group, to assess how best to meet the needs of those affected by the closure and its wider economic impact.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on the subject of bringing Railtrack back into(a) full public ownership and (b) part-public ownership; and if he will make a statement. [152943]

  Mr. Hill
  I have received representations on both issues. The Government have no plans to implement options which entail reorganisation, upheaval and loss of
  119W
  management focus; and which would divert resources away from the investment programme envisaged in our Ten Year Plan for Transport.

  Regional Funding (South-West)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much Government funding has been given to the(a) south-west regional development agency and (b) Government office of the south-west in the 2000–01 financial year. [152944]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The south-west RDA out-turn allocation for 2000–01 is £81.3 million. The Agency expects to generate income of £20.3 million during 2000–01, leaving net Government funding of £61.0 million. Running costs stand at £8.6 million.

  Government office for the south west has funded a wide range of programmes in the 2000–01 year with a total value of £446.8 million. The running cost allocation to Government Office for the south west in 2000–01 totalled £8,721,830.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on planning permission for mobile phone masts. [152945]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 March 2001,Official Report, columns 748–51W by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith).

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152658]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The main departmental or agency logo and brand development costs that can be separately identified since 1 May 1997 are £176,690.

  This figure covers development of the following logos:

  DETR corporate

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency corporate

  Driving Standards Agency corporate

  The Rent Service Agency corporate

  Think! Road Safety campaign

  Sustainable Development

  Beacon Councils

  Best Value

  National Land Use database

  English House Condition Survey

  Supporting People (which promotes housing-related services to improve the quality of life for vulnerable people).

  Expenditure on departmental logos and branding is sometimes part of advertising and publicity campaigns. In a few cases expenditure cannot easily be separated out. It is, however, included in replies to Parliamentary questions about advertising expenditure, the most recent of which can be found in my answer of 15 February 2001, Official Report, column 222W.

  Climate Change Programme (Air Conditioning Equipment)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he takes to ensure that the environmental commitments of Her Majesty's Government through the Kyoto Protocol and the UK Climate Change Programme are reflected in the EU's determination of European standards for air conditioning equipment; and if he will make a statement. [153618]

  Mr. Meacher
  European Standards (ENs) are determined by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). The British Standards Institution (BSI) is the United Kingdom member of that Committee and carries out public consultations on draft ENs. In developing any proposal for standards on air conditioning equipment, the Government would expect BSI, CEN and industry to take account of the commitments given by the UK Government and the European Union as a whole to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, responsibility for these standards and resolving any technical issues, ultimately falls to the BSI.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken since 1997 to improve services for passengers travelling into Euston from Hatch End, Headstone Lane, and Harrow and Wealdstone stations. [153567]

  Mr. Hill
  On the route between Hatch End, Headstone Lane and Harrow and Wealdstone stations, there have been track renewals and drainage improvements, which helped to improve performance. The SRA are currently considering an extension to the Silverlink franchise, providing it offers tangible improvements for passengers and value for money.

  The Government are committed to developing an integrated transport system. We have created the Strategic Rail Authority and announced our Ten Year Transport Plan which provides for long term investment in transport of £180 billion to cut congestion and modernise the nation's transport system. This includes £60 billion for railways.

  Regional Governance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will(a) publish green and white papers on regional governance and (b) introduce referendums to allow the creation of directly-elected regional assemblies. [153770]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We remain committed to move to directly-elected regional assemblies where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. As a first step, we would expect to undertake a public consultation exercise on the way forward.

  Community Initiatives
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers local councils have to establish community initiatives. [153936]
  121W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authorities have a broad new power which enables them to take action to promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area, including establishing and supporting local community initiatives. In deciding how to exercise the power, authorities must have regard to their community strategy, which should reflect local communities' priorities and long-term aspirations. Local authorities must work through local strategic partnerships to develop and implement their community strategies, to integrate the work of the council with that of other public, private, voluntary and community organisations.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy on restoring the business rate to the control of local councils. [153802]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In our White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" (July 1998), we said that the present system of a national business rate had some advantages and we would therefore retain it. However we said that we would also give local authorities a limited freedom to vary the business rate in their areas. In our Green Paper, Modernising Local Government Finance (September 2000), we sought views on how this might work in detail. A summary of the responses to the Green Paper has been published on the DETR website. We will publish our conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Council Housing (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses for rent were held on 21 April 1991 by each of(a) Cannock Chase, (b) East Staffordshire, (c) Lichfield, (d) Newcastle-Under-Lyme, (e) South Staffordshire, (f) Stafford, (g) Staffordshire, Moorlands, (h) Stoke-on-Trent and (i) Tamworth; and what the current figures are. [154146]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The latest available information provided by local authorities on their annual Housing Investment Programme returns is as follows:

  Total local authority stock on 1 April

  1991

  2000

  Cannock Chase

  7,743

  6,858

  East Staffordshire

  6,232

  5,756

  Lichfield

  5,686

  0

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  10,621

  0

  South Staffordshire

  5,732

  0

  Stafford

  7,441

  6,528

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  3,674

  3,168

  Stoke-on-Trent

  25,412

  22,606

  Tamworth

  6,399

  5,634

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many council houses for rent in each of(a) Cannock Chase, (b) East Staffordshire, (c) Lichfield, (d) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (e) South Staffordshire, (f) Stafford, (g) Staffordshire, Moorlands, (h) Stoke-on-Trent and (i) Tamworth local
  122W
  authorities were transferred by a large scale voluntary transfer in each authority before 1 May 1997 and after 1 May 1997. [154145]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The authorities in Staffordshire which have transferred all or part of their housing stock under Large Scale Voluntary Transfer arrangements are as follows:

  Number of

  Authority

  Date

  dwellings1

  Transfers before 1 May 1997

  South Staffordshire

  7 March 1997

  5,273

  Lichfield

  19 March 1997

  4,921

  Transfers after 1 May 1997

  Stoke-on-Trent

  31 March 1998

  2917

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  31 January 2000

  9,887

  Staffordshire, Moorlands

  26 February 2001

  3,132

  1The number of dwellings specified in the consent letter includes dwellings held on long leaseholds (eg flats sold under Right to Buy provisions) where the authority had retained the freehold

  2Partial transfer

  In addition, East Staffordshire has sought the Secretary of State's consent to the transfer of its housing stock, which if granted, will enable the transfer of 5,637 homes at or before the end of this month.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of NATS' air traffic controllers are eligible to retire under the early retirement agreement; how many of these are watch supervisors; how many are involved in training for the NERC; how many his Department estimates will exercise their option to retire if Serco is selected as NATS' strategic partner; and what impact this would have on the capacity of the air traffic control system. [153964]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Flexible Retirement Scheme for NATS Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs) was introduced on 1 April 1998. Since the scheme was introduced, 106 Controllers have become eligible to retire early, of whom 25 have exercised their right to do so. Of the remaining 81, 52 remain in employment and could exercise their right to retire. Controllers wishing to retire under the scheme are required to give a minimum of"12 months notice of intention to retire".

  This "notice of intention" was specifically built into the agreement to minimise the impact on the operational service of controllers wishing to retire under the scheme.

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, a further 56 NATS Controllers become eligible to retire under the scheme, of whom two are watch managers and 18 work on the activity to be transferred to NERC.

  It is not possible to estimate whether any more air traffic controllers might opt to retire early as a result of the selection of a Strategic Partner for the NATS PPP.

  As regards the impact on capacity, the training programme for the transfer of air traffic operations from West Drayton to Swanwick is in progress and the overall staffing position is currently tight but manageable. If a
  123W
  significant number of controllers chose to retire early this coming year, there would be a corresponding impact on the capacity of the air traffic control system.

  A74
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to improve the A74 between Carlisle and the Scottish border. [154229]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 20 March 2001

  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill. has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to improve the A74 between Carlisle and the Scottish border.

  The design agents appointed last September are currently assessing route options for a dual three-lane motorway using as much of the existing route as possible. We are aiming to consult the public next summer on the proposals that emerge. Progress thereafter will depend on the outcome of the consultations and how quickly we can then complete the necessary statutory procedures. As with all schemes in the Targeted Programme of Improvements announced in 1998, the aim is to start work within seven years, although we will better that if we can.

  If you would like any further information about this matter, you may wish to contact the Agency's Project Sponsor for the scheme, John Hornagold, at Sunley Tower, Piccadilly Plaza. Manchester, M1 4BE (telephone 0161 930 5725).

  Aviation Fuels
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has carried out to develop alternative fuels for aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [154008]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  None. We are aware of industry research which has identified several potential alternative fuels. For technical, economic or environmental reasons, singly or in combination, none seems viable at present. The possible exception is hydrogen, which is being examined further.

  Environment Ministers Meeting (Trieste)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of G8 environment ministers in Trieste. [154208]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased with the outcome of the recent G8 Environment Ministers' meeting, which I attended in Trieste. On Climate Change, all Ministers—including the US—expressed the view. that a successful outcome at COP6 bis was necessary to allow early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. Ministers also confirmed their support for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio+10) in 2002 and the importance of improving existing environmental governance structures. We also re-affirmed our continued support for the development of common environmental guidelines for Environmental Credit Agencies. Food safety and the links between the environment and health were also discussed. Ministers also agreed unanimously to condemn the
  124W
  destruction of statues and shrines in Afghanistan. I am placing a copy of the Communiqué in the House of Commons Library.

  Section 28
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [154022]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following the vote by the House of Lords against the repeal of section 28 during the passage of the Local Government Act 2000 last summer, the Government reluctantly concluded that it could not pursue the repeal in that Act without jeopardising the other important reforms it contained.

  The Government remain committed to the repeal of this unnecessary and div sive piece of legislation at the earliest opportunity to do so effectively.

  EU Structural Funding
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the funding for objective 2 grants for the East of England was received from the EU; and where the money is at present located. [153977]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The European Commission is expected to formally approve the East of England Objective 2 Programme by the end of March and to release the first block of funds in April.

  Ministerial Visit (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will explain the reasons behind, and apologise to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford for, breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct by failing to give him advance warning of his visit to Chelmsford on Tuesday 13 March. [154323]

  Mr. Prescott [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  Paragraph 79 of the Ministerial Code says that it is the custom for MPs to be informed when a Minister visits their constituency. My office is under strict instructions to inform constituency MPs of all Government or Departmental visits. My visit to Chelmsford was to attend a private Labour Party function and under those circumstances I did not consider it necessary or indeed appropriate to inform the constituency MP.

  Bellwin Scheme Payments (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a payment to Lewes district council in respect of the application made under the Bellwin Scheme. [154493]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has received an interim claim dated 28 February 2001 from Lewes district council in respect of costs arising out of flooding between October and December 2000. In accordance with arrangements to which I referred in answers given to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 642W and
  125W
  12 February 2001, Official Report, column 6W, payment was authorised within 15 working days of receipt of the claim.

  GNER Timetable
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he receives from Railtrack about its approval of rail company timetables; and if he will make a statement about GNER timetables after 6 April. [154664]

  Mr. Hill
  None. The passenger railway timetable is agreed between the train operator and Railtrack. I understand from GNER that a nearly normal timetable will be introduced in early April.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what purpose financial surpluses from the Driving Standards Agency are put. [154736]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driving Standards Agency operates under a trading fund regime and is required to generate a financial surplus equivalent to 6 per cent. of its average net assets in order to cover the cost of the public resources being used by the organisation. This 6 per cent. return is paid to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the form of dividends plus loan repayments and interest.

  Where the Agency makes a financial surplus above the 6 per cent. requirement, this is retained by the Agency as a reserve and may be used to offset future fee increases.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what process the Driving Standards Agency informs is test applicants of a vehicle recall. [154737]

  Mr. Hill
  Motor manufacturers are responsible for advising owners of vehicle recalls. If the Driving Standards Agency becomes aware of a vehicle problem that could affect the safety of the candidate, the examiner and other road users, the Agency would display information on posters in driving test centres and on the Agency's website. The Agency would also tell driving instructors via its newsletter "Despatch".

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if Scottish and North of England en-route services will be provided from the new air traffic control centre at Prestwick; and if Oceanic services for the North East Atlantic will continue to be served from Prestwich; [154717]

  £million

  2001–02

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (where known)

  Lincoln city council

  Revenue support grant

  5.285

  5.048

  5.000

  4.867

  5.208

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  2.674

  2.678

  2.861

  3.151

  3.117

  Housing investment programme

  1.665

  1.642

  1.733

  5.269

  16.914

  Housing revenue account subsidy (manager rent and

  £826.19 per

  £836.63 per

  £866.39 per

  £902.07 per

  £934.72 per

  maintenance allowance)

  property

  property

  property

  property

  property

  126W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the capability of the Prestwick air traffic control centre to pick up replica services in the event of a catastrophe at Swanwick. [154722]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The NSC, as part of NATS' two centre strategy for the provision of en route air navigation services endorsed by the Government, is expected to have the capacity to service the Scottish FIR, the Oceanic region and provide a significant contingency in the case of catastrophic failure of the Swanwick or West Drayton centres. The latest review of the two centre strategy, carried out in 1997, proposed the transfer of the services provided by the Manchester Area Control Centre to Swanwick, although the NATS Strategic Partner may wish to review this.

  NATS has informed the Government that a New Scottish Centre with around half the number of workstations that Swanwick will have should be able to handle up to about 70 per cent. of normal traffic levels in the event of the Swanwick centre going out of action.

  Rail Travellers Survey (C2C)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason passengers from Tilbury Town Station were not invited by the Strategic Rail Authority to complete the UK Rail Travellers Survey on 15 March; in which stations(a) in the borough of Thurrock and (b) outside Thurrock on the c2c line to Surrey the survey was distributed; and if he will make a statement. [154667]

  Mr. Hill
  In the latest wave of National Passenger Survey, all but one of C2C's stations, Dagenham Dock, have been or will be covered between 3 March and 23 March. Tilbury Town was covered on 8 March and 13 March.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  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 Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152979]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The majority of Lincoln constituency lies within the city of Lincoln and the district of North Kesteven. The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to the local authorities between 1997–98 and 2001–02 are shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money Lincolnshire county council and North Kesteven district council have spent on Lincoln constituency. It is for the local authorities to decide where within their boundary these resources are applied. The city of Lincoln lies entirely within the Lincoln constituency.
  127W

  £million

  2001–02

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (where known)

  Capital receipts initiative

  —

  1.128

  1.021

  —

  —

  SRB funding2

  1.128

  1.545

  2.118

  32.318

  42.439

  Neighbourhood renewal funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  North Kesteven district council

  Revenue support grant

  2.040

  1.927

  1.838

  1.612

  1.841

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  2.694

  2.779

  2.986

  3.337

  3.394

  Standard spending assessment reduction grant

  0.057

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing investment programme

  0.805

  0.614

  0.680

  1.829

  12.686

  Housing revenue account subsidy (management and

  £702.60 per

  £710.46 per

  £735.77 per

  £765.05 per

  £757.40 per

  maintenance allowance)

  property

  property

  property

  property

  property

  Capital receipts initiative

  —

  0.513

  0.480

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire county council

  Transport supplementary grant

  3.565

  1.669

  1.966

  0.043

  —

  Transport annual capital guideline

  3.565

  1.669

  1.966

  0.043

  —

  Transport block supplementary credit approval

  0.777

  0.825

  2.140

  6.148

  16.362

  Rural bus challenge grant5 (from 1999–2000)

  —

  —

  1.220

  1.622

  0.547

  Rural bus subsidy grant (from 1998–99)

  —

  1.194

  1.194

  1.194

  1.525

  1Includes major repairs allowance

  2SRB schemes include a 10 year project led by Lincoln city council and Lincolnshire Development which concentrates on investment and physical regeneration of dereliction in the city centre and on the University of Lincolnshire by Brayford Pool and a 5 year project targeting Abbey and Park wards in Lincoln aiming to develop tourism, improve skills and support communities by tackling barriers to opportunities, capacity building and social regeneration.

  3Forecast figure

  4Does not include potential spend from the SRB6 programme as forecast expenditure is not yet available.

  5Figures are for total project costs and refer to schemes for which approval was announced in the December or January preceding the financial year shown.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154572]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal kinds of funding

  £million

  Nature of Funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant

  2—

  36.023

  35.205

  33.867

  38.760

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  2—

  33.874

  36.819

  41.541

  40.669

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit

  Approval

  3—

  3—

  2.643

  3.740

  —

  Housing Investment Programme

  0.299

  0.253

  0.269

  1.317

  0.604

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.087

  0.274

  0.277

  —

  —

  ERDF Funding

  0.895

  0.179

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.675

  0.234

  0.600

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.675

  0.234

  0.600

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.481

  0.370

  0.650

  1.819

  2.885

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  —

  0.033

  0.076

  0.102

  —

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  —

  0.233

  0.233

  0.233

  0.297

  1Where known

  2Not available

  3No bid made

  Notes:

  Revenue Support Grant and Income from National Non-Domestic Rates—figures not available for 1997–98 owing to local government re-organisation.

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval—ends after 2000–01; the figure for 2000–01 is a bid, which will be assessed August/September this year.

  Capital Receipts Initiative—ended 1999–2000.

  ERDF Funding—KONVER funding allocated. This is a European scheme to help areas where the local economy depends on military bases—Greenham Common in the Newbury area. Funding provided retrospectively.

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant—not available in 1997–98 and no entry for 2001—02 yet as it is calculated retrospectively.

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant—not available in 1997–98.
  128W
  this Department has provided to west Berkshire in 1997–98,1998–99, l999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on the Newbury constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applies

  Local Government Commission
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to transfer the functions of the Local Government Commission for England to the Electoral Commission; what the consequences for the programme of periodic electoral reviews will be; and if he will make a statement. [154900]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), told the House on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 830, we intend, subject to the approval of the House and the other place, to make an Order under section 18 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, transferring the functions of the Local Government Commission for England (LGC) to the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 April 2002. We also intend, provided for in the 2000 Act, to include provisions in the Order to modify and to transfer to the independent Electoral Commission the Secretary of State's current functions relating to the implementation of the LGC's recommendations on electoral reviews. The proposed modifications are to take account of the constitution of the independent Electoral Commission and its statutory Boundary Committee for England, and to improve the procedures for conducting and implementing reviews, including allowing the Commission's Boundary Committee, after undertaking a review, to undertake a further review of the electoral arrangements of part of the local authority's area.

  On this basis, from 1 April 2002, the programme of periodic electoral reviews and their implementation would become the responsibility of the Electoral Commission.

  Electoral reviews are implemented, on a normal election day for the council concerned, by the making of an electoral changes order prior to that date. We intend that it will be for the Electoral Commission to make all the electoral change orders for reviews implemented on the normal election day in 2004 and subsequent normal election days. Electoral change orders for reviews to be implemented on the normal election day in 2003 will also be made by the Electoral Commission, except where a review is completed sufficiently prior to April 2002 that it is practicable for the Secretary of State to make the Order to assist the Electoral Commission as it takes on its new functions transferred from the LGC.

  This approach means that it will be for the Electoral Commission, on or after 1 April 2002, to decide whether or not to give effect to the LGC's current review recommendations for the counties of Derbyshire, Devon, Durham and Surrey which are due to be implemented on the normal election day in 2005 under the programme of reviews announced to the House on 2 July 1999, Official Report, column 356.

  Road Charges (Disabled People)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the exemptions or concessions he will prescribe for disabled people from road user charges and the workplace parking levy in England. [154902]
  130W
  Mr. Hill
  The Government are at present reviewing the operation of the Blue Badge scheme for parking concessions for disabled people. As part of the review we will be seeking views on whether there should be a link between that scheme and the exemption or concession arrangements for disabled motorists from road user charges and workplace parking levies. We expect to complete this review by the end of this year, and we then plan to consult on the scope of England-wide exemptions or concessions from road user charges and workplace parking levies.

  The aim will be to provide a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and/or concessions throughout England including Greater London, subject to considering whether an exception should be made for the unique circumstances of central London. It will be open to individual charging authorities to give exemptions and/or concessions above the minimum if they wish.

  If in due course the Government decide on an England-wide exemption or concession which is greater than one included by a charging authority in a charging scheme, we will give the authority adequate time to bring its scheme into line with the national requirements.

  Barford Bypass
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date construction work on the Barford bypass in Warwickshire is expected to start. [154723]

  Mr. Hill
  The Barford bypass was provisionally accepted for funding in the Local Transport Settlement announced on 14 December 2000. Warwickshire county council are now progressing the £6.9 million scheme with the aim of starting construction in 2003.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much high activity liquid waste is projected to arise from reprocessing at the Thorp plant at Sellafield; and what plans there are to condition this radioactive waste for long-term management. [154198]

  Mr. Hain
  I have been asked to reply.

  The 1998 United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory indicates total arisings of 2,350 m3 of high level liquid radioactive waste from Thorp.

  BNFL currently plans to vitrify these wastes for long-term management, as described in the report the storage of liquid high level waste at BNFL, Sellafield, published by the Health and Safety Executive in February 2000.

HEALTH

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce routine checks for spongiform encephalopathy in all animals slaughtered for human consumption. [141645]
  131W
  Ms Stuart
  Following discussion by the European Union Council of Ministers, member states agreed to introduce the testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of animals slaughtered at over-30-months old, both those dying on the farm or in transport and those subject to normal slaughter, so that only meat from those animals with a negative test result may enter the human chain. All member states have been required to carry out this testing since 1 January 2001. In the United Kingdom, since we prohibit the sale for human consumption of beef from cattle aged over-30-months at slaughter, this testing requirement only applies to cattle slaughtered aged up to 42 months under the Beef Assurance Scheme, which covers registered herds with very low risk of BSE. Fallen stock is also being tested as required, although these do not go into the food chain. There are no plans routinely to test animals slaughtered at 30 months of age or younger.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment the Government have made of the threat to human health posed by the illegal sale of imported over-30-month beef; and when that assessment was made. [144250]

  Ms Stuart [holding answer 8 January 2001]
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it assessed, in December 2000, that any illegal sale of imported over-30-month (OTM) old beef from countries where there have been cases of BSE would pose a slightly higher risk than legally sold carcase meat imported from those countries. It should be borne in mind that the OTM rule is only the first defence against BSE and that the most risky parts of the animal, the specified risk material, such as the brain and spinal cord, are removed at slaughter. This greatly reduces the amount of infective material from older cattle.

  In addition, from 1 January 2001 cattle aged over-30-months that are slaughtered in the European Union must test negative for BSE before being allowed into the food chain. This provides consumers with some additional protection, though the tests are limited in their sensitivity to pre-clinical infection.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies the Government have conducted of the impact on health of eating French beef products. [144389]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 January 2001,Official Report, columns 149–50W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to inform consumers about the inclusion of processed meat products in the ban on sales of imported over-30-months meat. [144492]

  Ms Stuart [holding answer 8 January 2001]
  The Food Standards Agency issued a statement advising on imported beef and beef products on 22 December 2000. This is available on the Agency's BSE controls review website, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Ministry has responsibility for preparations to enforce a ban on the import of beef. [146403]
  132W
  Ms Stuart [holding answer 22 January 2001]
  No such ban is envisaged, for the reasons given in the reply to the hon. Member on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 436W.

  Children's Rights Director
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the draft regulations covering the work of the Children's Rights Director; and if he will list the organisations and individuals he intends to consult about them. [146515]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 23 January 2001]
  We plan to publish the draft regulations covering the work of the Children's Rights Director later this year. There will then be a full public consultation.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions there have been in respect of imported food that has been repacked or processed in the UK and sold as British. [150987]

  Ms Stuart
  Information is not collected in the form requested.

  Local authority enforcement data for 1999, collected under Article 14 of the Official Controls of Foodstuffs Directive 89/397/EEC, does not distinguish prosecutions taken in respect of imported food repacked or processed in the UK.

  A copy of the full return for 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available, is in the Library.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those countries in Europe and North America which license the MMR and those which license single vaccinations for mumps, measles and rubella. [149345]

  Yvette Cooper
  All European Union member states and the United Stales of America recommend a two dose vaccination schedule with MMR vaccine.

  There is no comprehensive list available of measles, mumps and rubella combination vaccines, two-component vaccines or single component vaccines that are currently licensed in Europe and North America. The Medicines Control Agency has obtained the following information from The European Drug Index (1997 edition), from national compendia of licensed medicinal products in France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden (1998 to 2000 editions), from the 2001 edition of the USA Physician's Desk Reference, and from two companies. While these references indicate that such products are currently licensed as listed in the named countries, it is not known whether or not they are on the market at the present time.

  In the EU and Swi zerland

  There are combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines currently licensed in all countries in the EU. including the United Kingdom.
  133W
  Measles plus rubella vaccines are licensed in at least Italy, Switzerland and the UK.

  Measles plus mumps vaccines are licensed in at least Germany, Portugal and Switzerland.

  At least one measles single component vaccine is licensed in Italy, Belgium, France, Germany. Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Greece and the UK.

  At least one single component mumps vaccine is licensed in Italy, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland. Portugal and the UK.

  There are numerous single component rubella vaccines licensed across the EU, including the UK.

  In the USA

  There is one combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine listed in the 2001 edition of the USA Physician's Desk Reference.

  Also licensed are a measles plus rubella vaccine, a measles plus mumps vaccine and single component vaccines for each of measles, mumps and rubella.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 430W, on MMR vaccine, which measles and mumps vaccines meet the specifications of the extant licences for those vaccines; and under what circumstances those vaccines can be imported. [149362]

  Yvette Cooper
  None of the single measles and mumps vaccines licensed in the United Kingdom is manufactured for, or marketed in the UK, and the licence holders advise that the products they manufacture outside the UK for other countries do not fully comply with their UK licences. None of the single measles and mumps vaccines imported into the UK are licensed for use in the UK, or in full compliance with an extant UK product licence. Consequently, as unlicensed vaccines, they may only be imported and supplied to fulfil special needs, in response to the prescription of a doctor, and for use by his/her individual patients on his/her direct personal responsibility.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the unit cost of an injection of(a) MMR and (b) each of its constituent it vaccines if given separately. [150096]

  Yvette Cooper
  The United Kingdom is supplied by two manufacturers of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and by one supplier of rubella vaccine. The cost to the Department of purchasing MMR and rubella vaccines is commercially confidential. However, the price of a single dose of MMR vaccine as listed in the British National

  £million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Ambulance Services

  0.40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  —

  0.17

  —

  Blood Donation

  0.38

  0.60

  1.70

  20.22

  —

  Children's Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.60

  Drugs

  —

  —

  —

  0.34

  —

  Flu

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.23

  Maternity

  0.10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NHS including Nurse Recruitment

  1.43

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  NHS Direct

  —

  0.12

  0.78

  1.20

  1.15

  Organ Donation

  —

  —

  0.77

  0.47

  0.49

  Prescription Fraud

  —

  —

  0.38

  —

  1.40

  Sexwise/Teenage Pregnancy

  —

  —

  —

  0.39

  1.01

  134W
  Formulary is £6.23 for that manufactured by SmithKline Beecham and £10.17 for that manufactured by Aventis Pasteur. The list price for rubella vaccine, manufactured by SmithKline Beecham, is £2.53 per vial.

  Children are recommended to receive two doses of MMR vaccine. Rubella vaccine is recommended for non-immune women. No licensed single component mumps or measles vaccines are manufactured for or marketed in the UK.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of children aged between 12 and 15 months who have not received their MMR vaccination in each of the last six months. [150383]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not available in the format requested. At 31 March 2000, the latest date for which figures are available, 87.6 per cent. of children in England aged two had received the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. 12.4 per cent. of children aged two had, therefore, not received the MMR vaccine. This means that approximately 75,000 children aged two at 31 March 2000 had not been immunised with the MMR vaccine by their 2nd birthday.

  Public Relations (Expenditure)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure was in his Department for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000, and what the planned expenditure and breakdown of expenditure for 2000–01 is on (i) public opinion research, (ii) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (iii) direct mail. [149265]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]The figures for the total spend on advertising for the Department for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01 are shown in the table.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Advertising expenditure

  1996–97

  2.50

  1997–98

  2.27

  1998–99

  8.63

  1999–2000

  14.83

  2000–01 (planned)

  21.09

  Major advertising spend on individual campaigns is shown in the table.
  135W

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Smoking

  —

  —

  —

  36.18

  8.66

  Travel Safe

  0.85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walk-In Centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.30

  Winter

  —

  —

  —

  1.07

  2.35

  1Planned

  2The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 because most of this activity was funded directly by the National Blood Authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority

  Mental Health
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children and adolescents are waiting for treatment for mental health problems in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [149675]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]Patients in England receive treatment for mental health problems in a wide range of health care settings, particularly primary care, and we do not collect waiting list information for most of these. We are aware that in some places waiting times for treatment for mental health problems are unacceptably long.

  The development of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) is an important part of the work we will be taking forward in implementing the National Health Service Plan. The £30 million we have made available for CAMHS in 2000–01, and which will be available again in 2001–02, will help reduce waiting times for these services.

  Information for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for the devolved Administrations.

  SSA (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the standard spending assessment allocation for social services and the expenditure are per head of population in Stoke-on-Trent was for each year from 1996–97 to date. [150182]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table:

  Gross current expenditure and personal social services (PSS)standard spending assessment (SSA) per capita for Stoke-on-Trent.1997–98 to 2000–011

  £

  Gross current

  expenditure per capita

  PSS SSA per capita

  1997–98

  228.52

  150.46

  1998–99

  240.38

  163.79

  1999–20002

  252.39

  186.57

  2000–013

  204.77

  195.71

  1Data for Stoke-on-Trent are not available for 1996–97 as it did not become a unitary authority until 1 April 1997

  2Gross current expenditure figures are based on provisional outturn

  3Gross current expenditure figures are not comparable with figures for earlier years as these figures are net of income from client contributions etc

  Heart Research
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proposals he has to match fund charitable funding of(a) heart research and (b) medical research; [152617]

  (2) what (a) his Department's and (b) charitable organisations' expenditure on heart research was in each of the last 10 years and what the projected expenditure is in each category over the next three years. [152626]

  Yvette Cooper
  Government funding for research on heart disease, as for other areas of medical research, is provided through a number of routes:

  The research councils, who receive their funding from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)—the Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease; the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council also supports basic research relevant to health.

  The Department of Health funds research to support policy and practice in health and social care.

  Health Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also provide support for research on health.

  The Higher Education Funding Councils fund the research infrastructure in medical schools and other relevant research groups in higher education institutions. Funding for the Higher Education Funding Council for England is provided by the Department for Education and Employment.

  The figures for the Department of Health's annual expenditure on heart research over the last ten years are not available in the form requested. In 1999–2000 the Department of Health spent approximately £49.6 million on research for cardiovascular disease and stroke. The MRC spent approximately £10.5 million on cardiovascular disease in the same year. It is not possible to predict what the future level of Department expenditure will be on specific areas of research as new research is regularly being commissioned.

  Figures for annual expenditure by charities on heart disease research are not held centrally. According to their entry in the Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) Handbook 2000, the British Heart Foundation, one of the largest charities involved in supporting heart disease research, anticipated research expenditure of £45 million in 1999–2000.

  The Department of Health's research funding for cardiovascular disease includes support for the work of research councils and charities that takes place in the National Health Service. The Department is working more closely with relevant charities to improve the support for and co-ordination of research on heart disease. A cardiovascular research funders forum has been established, which aims to bring together the major funding
  137W
  bodies in this area to address research issues, ranging from basic and clinical research through to epidemiological studies related to prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment, and to consider areas that would benefit from a co-ordinated approach. The forum will also help to improve information about on-going research, facilitate partnerships between funders and researchers, consider how to accelerate recruitment for clinical trials and how best to exploit the findings from research to develop new approaches to diagnosis and disease. The membership currently consists of the four United Kingdom Health Departments, the MRC and three charities: the Wellcome Trust, the British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK. The work of the forum will inform the future pattern of Department of Health Research and Development expenditure on cardiovascular disease

  Government expenditure on all medical and health related research is currently estimated at £1 billion per annum. The AMRC estimates that their member charities make a financial contribution to medical research of about £540 million a year. The Government seek to work closely with the medical charities to ensure the best use of all research resources for the benefit of patients.

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to public Funds of(a) reducing the maximum payment for a course of NHS dental charges paid by the patient to 50 per cent., (b) reducing the maximum payment for a course of NHS dental treatment to £100, (c) reducing the percentage of NHS dental charges paid by the patient to 50 per cent. and reducing the maximum payment for a course of NHS dental treatment to £100, (d) extending free dental check-ups to people aged 60 years and over, and (e) exempting people aged over 60 years from all dental charges. [153063]

  Mr. Hutton
  The estimated costs of making changes to the percentage of dental fees paid by charge paying patients and the maximum patient charge for the General Dental Service in England based on 1999–2000 figures are:

  £million

  Change in maximum/patient charge

  Annual cost

  (a) reducing the percentage of dental charge paid by the patient for a course of treatment under the National Health Service to 50 per cent. with unchanged maximum patient charge

  155

  (b) reducing the maximum payment paid by, the patient for a course of treatment under the NHS to £100 with unchanged percentage of dental fees paid by charge paying patients

  35

  (c) reducing the percentage of dental charge paid by the patient for a course of treatment under the NHS to 50 per cent. and reducing the maximum charge to £100

  170

  (d) extending free dental examinations to people aged 60 and over

  19

  (e) exempting people aged 60 and over from all dental charges

  85

  138W
  These estimates would be higher if the changes stimulated greater demand for dental examinations and dental treatment.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adult courses of NHS dental treatment cost(a) under £100, (b) £100 to £199.99, (c) £200 to £200.99 and (d) £300 or over in the last year for which figures are available. [153064]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of courses of dental treatment for patients aged 18 and over with gross cost in the ranges; under £100, £100 to £199.99, £200 to £299.99 and £300 or more in the General Dental Services for England in 1999—2000. Gross cost is the fee paid to the dentist for the dental treatment and it includes patient charge where applicable.

  General Dental Service: number of courses of treatment for patients aged 18 and over by cost of dental treatment for year ending 31 March 2000 in England

  Total number of courses of treatment1

  Cost of treatment

  (thousand)

  Under £100

  24,036.2

  £100 to £199.99

  1,544.1

  £200 to £200.99

  306.7

  £300 or more

  171.4

  Total

  26,058.4

  1Numbers include about 140 thousand correction records for resubmitted claims

  Orthodontic Treatment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for changes to regulations relating to charging for orthodontic treatment; and if he will make a statement. [153675]

  Mr. Hutton
  Reforms to the provision of National Health Service orthodontic treatment and the associated dentists' fee scales were announced in "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" which was published in September 2000. Proposals are being discussed with the profession. The aim of the reforms is to ensure that those who need treatment are able to get quality orthodontic care without undue delay. We are aiming to introduce the changes later this year. There are no plans to change the existing arrangements for patients' charges.

  Incontinence
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of urinary incontinence products(a) to the NHS, including surgery and appliances, and (b) to the social services, including cost of carers, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [153547]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service spent £35.9 million on various continence appliances and products in 1999–2000. We are not able, however, to allocate this expenditure between urinary and faecal incontinence products. Information on the costs of urinary incontinence products in terms of surgery and costs to social services is not collected centrally.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the process for appealing a decision of the Prescription Pricing Authority regarding a claim for health costs covered under the NHS low income scheme. [153937]

  Ms Stuart
  As forms HC1 (claim form) and HC3 (which conveys a decision that a person is not entitled to full help under the National Health Service low income scheme) make clear, anyone who wants the decision reviewed has only to write and request this. That review will be dealt with by the Prescription Pricing Authority's (PPA) independent review section, which is not involved in the day to day calculation of low income scheme entitlement.

  If it is clear to the independent review section that an error has been made in the original calculation, this will be corrected. In all cases, an explanation will be given of how the decision has been reached. If the explanation is not acceptable, a detailed commentary on the legal provisions used to calculate entitlement will be provided on request. If, after this, the explanation remains unacceptable, it is open to the person making the claim to seek a judicial review of the PPA's decision.

  Suicide
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to reduce the suicide rates in young males. [153974]

  Mr. Hutton
  We know that it is young men who are at most risk of suicide. In December 1997 the Department launched the Campaign Against Living Miserably telephone helpline in Manchester. The helpline, aimed at young men, offers advice, guidance, information and counselling at the onset of depression. CALM has been extended to Merseyside and Cumbria and we are looking to make it available in other areas in partnership with local agencies. Ultimately, we hope that the helpline will help to bring down the suicide rate in young men.

  Also, as a result of new investment and new services outlined in the National Health Service Plan, we expect that every young person who develops a serious mental illness will benefit from specialist teams who can offer them the help and treatment they require. In addition, work in prisons and improved community crisis resolution services will target the particular needs of high suicide risk areas, as well as making the mental health system more responsive.

  Kathleen Smith
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek from the Chief Executive of the Central Manchester Healthcare NHS trust an explanation for his failure to reply to the letters sent to him on 5 December 2000 and 15 January and 15 February 2001 by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Kathleen Smith. [154586]

  Ms Stuart
  The chief executive of Central Manchester Healthcare National Health Service Trust wrote to the family of the late Kathleen Smith on 5 March 2001.
  140W
  I understand that a copy of that letter was also sent both to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

  Nursing Care Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what processes and procedures he is planning to put in place to reimburse care homes for nursing care provided to residents in accordance with the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill. [152906]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, the registered nurse input to care in any setting will be the responsibility of the National Health Service. People's need for nursing care will be assessed as part of a single health and social care assessment and the contribution of a registered nurse to their care will be determined.

  Where care is received in a care home, the NHS will arrange for the registered nurse input to be provided, either by nursing staff in the home or by NHS staff visiting the home.

  We plan to issue detailed guidance on implementation in May.

  Patient Representation
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve arrangements for patient representation within the NHS. [151904]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Plan sets out the framework for improvements to patient and public involvement in the NHS and the Health and Social Care Bill continues its passage through Parliament to ensure the necessary legislation. Debates have addressed many issues including those of independence and accountability in the new system. Further discussions will continue in the House of Lords.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategies he has in place to improve services for people with learning disabilities. [154823]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am today publishing "Valuing People: A New Strategy For Learning Disability For the 21st Century", which sets out cross-Government proposals for improving the life chances of people with learning disabilities. This is the first White Paper on learning disability for 30 years and sets out an ambitious and challenging programme of action for improving services for a particularly vulnerable and socially excluded group in our society. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Our proposals are based on four key principles: civil rights, independence, choice, and inclusion. Valuing People takes a life-long approach, beginning with an integrated approach to services for disabled children and their families and then providing new opportunities for a full and purposeful adult life. It has cross-Government backing and its proposals are intended to result in improvements in education, social services, health, employment, housing, and support for people with learning disabilities aid their families and carers.
  141W
  We are establishing a new Learning Disability Development Fund of up to £50 million a year to support the proposals for adults in the White Paper. Up to £30 million a year of this will be revenue funding and £20 million capital. The fund will be introduced from April 2002 and will be targeted on the priorities set out in the White Paper. We are also setting up an Implementation Support Fund of £2 3 million a year for three years from April 2001 to provide central support for key aspects of the White Paper. Priorities for the Implementation Fund, which includes £300,000 a year from the Home Office Active Community budget, include developing independent advocacy services and establishing a National Learning Disability Information Centre and Helpline in partnership with Mencap.

  We will be setting up a Learning Disability Taskforce to take forward the implementation of the White Paper and an Implementation Support Team to promote good practice and share practical experience.

  We are also publishing: an accessible version of the White Paper; "Nothing About Us Without Us", a report from the Learning Disability Service Users Advisory Group; "Learning Difficulties and Ethnicity", a report commissioned from the Centre for Research in Primary Care, University of Leeds; and "Family Matters, Counting Families In", a report on the particular needs of family carers. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  I should like to pay particular tribute to the people with learning disabilities who helped us develop "Valuing People". This is the first occasion on which people with learning disabilities have taken part in developing Government policy; their contribution has been invaluable and has helped us understand the problems they and their families face every day.

  Police strength

  Police strength

  (all ranks) as at 30

  (constables) as at

  Police officers per

  Police constables per

  Force

  September 2000

  30 September 2000

  1,000 of population

  1,000 of population

  Avon and Somerset

  2,941

  2,293.9

  1.96

  1.53

  Bedfordshire

  1,006

  783.3

  1.79

  1.39

  Cambridgeshire

  1,266

  989.2

  1.75

  1.36

  Cheshire

  2,000

  1,521.5

  2.04

  1.55

  City of London

  720

  557.3

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  1,421

  1,129.1

  2.56

  2.03

  Cumbria

  1,048

  816.6

  2.13

  1.66

  Derbyshire

  1,780

  1,363.0

  1.83

  1.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,873

  2,261.3

  1.83

  1.44

  Dorset

  1,299

  999.5

  1.88

  1.44

  Durham

  1,581

  1,243.7

  2.61

  2.05

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,045

  779.0

  2.17

  1.62

  Essex

  2,780

  2,147.4

  1.72

  1.33

  Gloucestershire

  1,142

  887.3

  2.03

  1.58

  Greater Manchester

  6,767

  5,284.8

  2.63

  2.05

  Gwent

  1,271

  980.6

  2.28

  1.76

  Hampshire

  3,435

  2,663.2

  1.93

  1.49

  Hertfordshire

  1,961

  1,530.0

  1.88

  1.47

  Humberside

  1,905

  1,486.1

  2.16

  1.69

  Kent

  3,239

  2,544.0

  2.04

  1.60

  Lancashire

  3,215

  2,463.3

  2.25

  1.73

  Leicestershire

  2,010

  1,613.8

  2.15

  1.73

  Lincolnshire

  1,162

  888.3

  1.85

  1.41

  Merseyside

  4,081

  3203.4

  2.91

  2.28

  Metropolitan Police

  24,695

  18,981.0

  3.49

  2.68

  Norfolk

  1,387

  1,062.3

  1.74

  1.33

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  925.0

  1.88

  1.49

  Northumbria

  3,885

  3,037.2

  2.74

  2.14

  North Wales

  1,393

  1,066.0

  2.12

  1.62

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Film Subtitles
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if feature films, to which subtitles for deaf and hard of hearing people have been added, are required to be re-submitted to the British Board of Film Classification prior to being screened in cinemas. [154752]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the cinema licensing regime provided by the Cinemas Act 1985, local authorities have the power to determine whether particular films may be shown in cinemas in their area. I understand that local authorities generally require cinemas to abide by the classification certificate issued by the British Board of Film Classification.

  With regard to the issue of separate classification of films for which subtitles have been added, I understand that the Board are currently working with the Industry Disability Working Group on this matter and they have confirmed that they are happy to waive their normal fee for script reading, if the script for sub-titling is supplied to them at the same time as the film.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate, for each constabulary in Britain, the number of(a) police officers and (b) constables per 1,000 of population [154718]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information for England and Wales is given in the table. The Scottish Executive have responsibility for the police service in Scotland.
  143W

  Police strength

  Police strength

  (all ranks) as at 30

  (constables) as at

  Police officers per

  Police constables per

  Force

  September 2000

  30 September 2000

  1,000 of population

  1,000 of population

  North Yorkshire

  1,293

  990.7

  1.73

  1.32

  Nottinghamshire

  2,232

  1,762.4

  2.16

  1.71

  South Wales

  3,029

  2,343.0

  2.44

  1.89

  South Yorkshire

  3,184

  2,420.3

  2.44

  1.86

  Staffordshire

  2,157

  1,672.3

  2.03

  1.58

  Suffolk

  1,115

  859.6

  1.65

  1.27

  Surrey

  2,113

  1,673.0

  1.96

  1.55

  Sussex

  2,812

  2,118.5

  1.86

  1.40

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  2,905.5

  1.77

  1.37

  Warwickshire

  912

  728.1

  1.79

  1.43

  West Mercia

  1,906

  1,470.7

  1.67

  1.29

  West Midlands

  7,350

  5,931.4

  2.80

  2.26

  West Yorkshire

  4,806

  3,792.6

  2.27

  1.79

  Wiltshire

  1.099

  828.6

  1.80

  1.36

  1Figures for City of London and Metropolitan police are combined.

  Note:

  The figures provided in the table are the police numbers for the 43 forces in England and Wales and do not include secondments. Further information on police numbers at 30 September 2000 can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletin No 2/01 "Police Service Strength (England and Wales)" which was published on 16 January. A copy is available in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152977]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

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

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  One scheme in St. Giles Estate, Lincoln was awarded £60,000 under the Reducing Burglary Initiative which will include the employment of a Civilian Crime Reduction Officer. A multi-agency approach (Crime Prevention Officer, Police, Housing Department) will be taken to tackle issues including: anti-social tenants; community policing; targeting unemployment; social exclusion; substance misuse and extending Neighbourhood watch. The scheme will also concentrate on target hardening of houses that have been burgled and intelligence-led policing.
  144W
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Under round one of the Crime Reduction Programme's CCTV initiative, the Lincoln Crime Reduction Executive was awarded £76,000 for the Shuttleworth House CCTV Initiative. The scheme covers a multi-storey block of flats in the Abbey Ward area of Lincoln. The main aims of the scheme are to combat fear of crime and to directly impact upon the incidence of racist graffiti.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)

  In response to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, key agencies came together in partnership to initially set up the Youth Offending Service (YOS) in Lincolnshire. This group has now evolved into Lincolnshire in Partnership and oversees the YOS (Drug Action Team) (DAT), Road Safety Partnership, Domestic Violence Project etc. The group comprises the Chief Officers of Social Services, Health, Education, Police, Probation, Health, Highways and Planning, Director of Community Safety, Chief Crown Prosecutor, Chief Executive of Magistrates Courts Committee and a Chief Executive representing the District Councils. There is a very strong emphasis placed on working in Partnership in Lincolnshire, which is also reflected in the fact that Lincolnshire and Rutland will have one of the first Connexions Services in the country as of April 2000. There are three area YOTs covering the east, south and west of the county. The west YOT covers the City of Lincoln. Each team has representatives from the five key agencies and provides services predominantly to Young People in trouble, their families, the Police and the Courts. Lincoln City Council has a very active Crime Reduction Partnership Group and the YOS are involved in this group and the other six district council groups within the County. A range of new orders are available to the Courts including Reparation Orders, Action Plan Orders, Parenting Orders which the YOS are providing along with other Community sentences. Although it is too early to assess the full impact of the YOTs in Lincolnshire early indications are Promising. For example out of a total of 146 young offenders who have received an intervention from the YOS between October and December 2000, 86 per cent. or 130 young people have not been charged or convicted of a further offence.
  145W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Lincoln to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  he asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000;
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

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

  Fraud
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he collects on the proportion of expenditure spent by the police in relation to fraud(a) in total and (b) by each police force. [154585]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on expenditure by the police in relation to fraud is not collected centrally.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason G. P. Hinduja's passport application was considered more rapidly than the average. [154319]

  Mrs. Roche [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  I presume that the right hon. Member is referring to the application for naturalisation made by Mr. G. P. Hinduja.

  The full circumstances of the naturalisation application are detailed in Sir Anthony Hammond's Review, which was published on 9 March 2001.

  The detail of the priority afforded to the application is given at paragraphs 4.2, 4.9, 5.166 and 5.169 of the Review.

  The general guidance for the handling of requests for priority treatment of citizenship applications is given at Annex D of the Review.

  Having been granted British citizenship, Mr. Hinduja was then eligible to apply for a British passport.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154574]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000 is available in the Library. The latest report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also
  146W
  published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

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

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
  West Berkshire Council was awarded £16,500 under round 1 of the CCTV Initiative for a Mobile Unit. The scheme will assist with specific problems, particularly car crime and anti-social behaviour in rural areas and on various housing estates.

  Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)
  The West Berkshire YOT offers all young people receiving Final Warnings an assessment and intervention programme. The ASSET assessment tool is used at the beginning and end of all YOT interventions. Work has been done with the victim liaison project to maximise consultation with victims of youth crime and maximise opportunities for direct reparation to victims. A range of parenting groups has been organised across West Berkshire for parents of young people at risk of offending. With the assistance of police and courts targets for timescales from arrest to sentence of young offenders are consistently being met and intensive packages for supervision of young people at most risk of offending are being developed.
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) are currently funding two Intervention Schemes and one Bail Supervision Scheme in Newbury and west Berkshire. The YJB are contributing approximately £41,000 to the West Berkshire Parenting, Education and Support Project. This project works towards developing an effective process to meet the expectations of the Crime and Disorder Act in relation to meeting the needs of the victim. It develops the principles of restorative justice establishing effective participant involvement, preparation, reparation agreements and evaluation. Almost £72,000 is being used to fund another intervention scheme: Developing Skills Accredited Community Service (Education, Training and Employment). This project develops and delivers support to families of children who may be offending or at risk of offending. A Bail Support Scheme to develop systems and interventions to prevent re-offending while on bail has been awarded nearly £44,000. The funding for these schemes runs from April 1999 until March 2002.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Newbury to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

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

  Departmental Policies (Walthamstow)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the
  147W
  constituency, the effect on the Walthamstow constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154176]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library. The next report will be published shortly. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

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

  Youth Offending

  The area of Waltham Forest (Chingford Hall) has been involved in the Youth Justice Board Easter and Summer Splash scheme in 2000 and 2001. During school holiday periods in summer 2000, 102 Summer Splash projects were run in England and Wales in disadvantaged neighbourhoods to address offending by young people (especially 13 to 17-year-olds). Each project was awarded up to £25,000. The results have been extremely encouraging. The five areas traditionally associated with youth crime—burglary, motor crime, criminal damage, street robbery and juvenile nuisance—all showed significant reductions compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. The combined drop for these crimes was 14 per cent. and the Home Secretary recently agreed a further £2.1 million from the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme to run 150 Easter and summer school holiday Splash programmes in 2001.

  Drug Action Team (DAT)

  As of November 2000, Redbridge and Waltham Forest Drug Action Team split into two borough based DATs. Waltham Forest now has its own DAT that met for the first time on 2 March 2001. The DATs have local targets to meet the National Drugs Strategy. Objectives for young people include: to increase drug education and decrease drug-related incidents in Waltham Forest primary and secondary schools; develop service agreements with the local Youth Offending Team regarding drugs education for high risk young people; explore the development of drug referral programmes for first time offenders; co-ordinate and increase the access to treatment services for under-18s. Other interventions for adults include: the establishment of Arrest Referral, which aims to reduce drug-related crime by increasing numbers of arrested problem drug users attending treatment; extend the Redbridge Court Referral project to Waltham Forest;
  148W
  roll-out of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs). Since roll-out of DTTOs in October 2000, seven Orders have been made (six male, one female) and two of these are receiving residential treatment and five participated in a Day Programme based in Walthamstow. Information sharing protocols have been established between police, probation and housing services, and a collaborative approach against raising awareness has been undertaken between Safer Clubbing, Community Drug Awareness Project and treatment services.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Walthamstow to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 66,195 by the end of December 2000; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

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

  Shotguns
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had since 1 October 2000 with the Association of Chief Police Officers and representatives of shooting organisations, on the criteria for having a good reason for possessing shotguns; and if he will make a statement. [153970]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government believe that it is right in principle that a person wishing to own a shotgun should have a good reason for doing so. However, we acknowledge that this is a complex area of law and practice and we would wish to consult widely on this issue.

  For this reason I have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC), the independent statutory body that advises the Government on firearms matters, to consider this matter further and to report back later this year. The FCC itself includes members of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and of the main shooting organisations. The FCC in turn has sought the views of a wide variety of shooting and other organisations and convened a working group to discuss this issue in detail.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use has been made of the power in Rule 5(1) of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 to vary the list of prisons set out in the schedule to these Rules. [154822]
  149W
  Mr. Ingram
  The power has been exercised on one occasion to remove Belfast and Maze prisons from the list and to extend the boundaries of Maghaberry Prison to include these two sites. In practice, these sites have been under the control of the Governor of Maghaberry Prison for some time and the variation simply regularises the situation.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152654]

  Dr. Reid
  The Northern Ireland Office accounts structure does not record expenditure in a way that would allow spending on departmental and agency logos and associated branding to be easily identified.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much certified timber has been purchased by his Department over the past six months; and what proportion of total timber purchases this represents. [152107]

  Scottish domiciled entrants, aged under 21, to vocational further and higher education in Scotland, 1997–98 to 1998–991

  Population of

  Percentage

  Students at HEIs and FECs

  Total

  HE

  FE

  16–21 year olds2

  in HE and FE

  1997–98

  Total

  141,091

  40,734

  100,357

  384,009

  37

  Aberdeenshire

  7,327

  2,465

  4,862

  17,257

  42

  Angus

  3,488

  1,410

  2,078

  7,354

  47

  Argyll and Bute

  1,896

  780

  1,116

  6,331

  30

  City of Aberdeen

  5,317

  1,797

  3,520

  17,867

  30

  City of Dundee

  5,120

  438

  4,682

  12,856

  40

  City of Edinburgh

  13,093

  2,553

  10,540

  34,830

  38

  City of Glasgow

  17,097

  4,101

  12,996

  48,122

  36

  Clackmannanshire

  1,680

  416

  1,264

  3,303

  51

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,700

  903

  1,797

  9,196

  29

  East Ayrshire

  2,444

  775

  1,669

  8,190

  30

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,688

  1,352

  1,336

  8,750

  31

  East Lothian

  2,362

  470

  1,892

  5,784

  41

  East Renfrewshire

  1,709

  875

  834

  6,610

  26

  Falkirk

  4,586

  1,088

  3,498

  9,997

  46

  Fife

  12,372

  3,141

  9,231

  26,753

  46

  Highland

  5,434

  1,799

  3,635

  14,348

  38

  Inverclyde

  2,549

  824

  1,725

  6,220

  41

  Midlothian

  2,652

  519

  2,133

  6,085

  44

  Moray

  2,077

  556

  1,521

  6,389

  33

  North Ayrshire

  3,327

  1,217

  2,110

  10,518

  32

  North Lanarkshire

  6,671

  2,265

  4,406

  25,857

  26

  Orkney

  672

  168

  504

  1,176

  57

  Perth and Kinross

  3,346

  1,042

  2,304

  8,707

  38

  Renfrewshire

  5,913

  1,605

  4,308

  12,862

  46

  Scottish Borders

  3,714

  685

  3,029

  6,482

  57

  Shetland

  474

  171

  303

  1,713

  28

  South Ayrshire

  2,544

  979

  1,565

  8,332

  31

  South Lanarkshire

  5,978

  2,681

  3,297

  23,471

  25

  Stirling

  2,093

  692

  1,401

  7,772

  27

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,403

  503

  900

  7,219

  19

  West Lothian

  5,857

  1,043

  4,814

  11,552

  51

  Western Isles

  1,417

  332

  1,085

  2,106

  67

  Scotland Unknown

  1,091

  1,089

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  150W
  Dr. Reid
  The Northern Ireland Office does not have a system in place to provide data on the proportion of certified timber purchased.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department's annual report on timber procurement to the Committee of Green Ministers will be published. [152148]

  Dr. Reid
  The key information on timber procurement will he published in the Green Minister's annual report.

SCOTLAND

  Further and Higher Education
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of young people in each constituency in Scotland went on to further and higher education in each year since 1997. [152466]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]The information is not available in the format requested. The table details for each local authority area in Scotland the number of young people, also shown by proportion, who have entered into vocational further and higher education in 1997–98 to 1998–99. Further and higher education in Scotland have been devolved since July 1999.
  151W

  Scottish domiciled entrants, aged under 21, to vocational further and higher education n Scotland, 1997–98 to 1998–991

  Population of

  Percentage

  Students at HEIs and FECs

  Total

  HE

  FE

  16–21 year olds2

  in HE and FE

  1998–99

  Total

  141,775

  41,618

  100,157

  383,648

  37

  Aberdeenshire

  7,050

  2,565

  4,485

  16,274

  43

  Angus

  3,370

  1,602

  1,768

  7,352

  46

  Argyll and Bute

  1,724

  740

  984

  6,167

  28

  City of Aberdeen

  5,193

  1,959

  3,234

  17,703

  29

  City of Dundee

  4,824

  498

  4,326

  12,478

  39

  City of Edinburgh

  14,059

  2,791

  11,268

  35,689

  39

  City of Glasgow

  18,117

  4,427

  13,690

  50,674

  36

  Clackmannanshire

  1,367

  407

  960

  3,121

  44

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,869

  834

  2,035

  9,024

  32

  East Ayrshire

  2,351

  849

  1,502

  8,189

  29

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,351

  1,265

  1,086

  8,585

  27

  East Lothian

  2,660

  500

  2,160

  5,854

  45

  East Renfrewshire

  1,883

  949

  934

  6,552

  29

  Falkirk

  3,418

  1,047

  2,371

  10,078

  34

  Fife

  13,779

  3,120

  10,659

  26,462

  52

  Highland

  5,572

  1,897

  3,675

  13,893

  40

  Inverclyde

  2,778

  779

  1,999

  6,228

  45

  Midlothian

  2,895

  504

  2,391

  6,120

  47

  Moray

  2,180

  632

  1,548

  6,309

  35

  North Ayrshire

  3,368

  1,227

  2,141

  10,572

  32

  North Lanarkshire

  6,812

  2,521

  4,291

  25,947

  26

  Orkney

  721

  176

  545

  1,195

  60

  Perth and Kinross

  2,916

  1,076

  1,840

  8,566

  34

  Renfrewshire

  6,372

  1,578

  4,794

  12,669

  50

  Scottish Borders

  3,227

  854

  2,373

  6,323

  51

  Shetland

  457

  203

  254

  1,715

  27

  South Ayrshire

  2,288

  969

  1,319

  8,370

  27

  South Lanarkshire

  5,860

  2,696

  3,14

  23,111

  25

  Stirling

  1,989

  701

  1,288

  7,787

  26

  West Dunbartonshire

  652

  386

  266

  7,383

  9

  West Lothian

  6,838

  1,132

  5,706

  11,385

  60

  Western Isles

  1,448

  347

  1,101

  1,873

  77

  Scotland Unknown

  387

  387

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1A student may be enrolled on more than one course

  2Taken from 1996 GRO population projections

  3Taken from 1998 GRO population estimates

  Non-powered Craft
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Scottish Parliament about plans to increase access to water for non-powered craft; and if she will make a statement. [153683]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently out to public consultation, contains provisions for creating a right of responsible access to inland waters for non-powered craft.

  This is a devolved matter and, while I have seen the Scottish Executive's consultation paper on the draft Bill, this is not a matter within my responsibility.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education Entrants
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of pupils left secondary school to take up university courses in(a) 1971, (b) 1977, (c) 1987, (d) 1997, (e) 1998, (f) 1999 and (g) 2000. [152160]
  152W
  Mr. Wicks
  The available data, showing the proportion of under 21-year-olds who enter higher education, are shown in the following table. There was an increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1996–97 and 1999–2000, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 76,000.

  Age participation index (API)1

  Academic year

  Percentage

  1971–72

  14

  1977–78

  13

  1987–88

  15

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–012

  32–34

  1The API is defined as the number of home domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population.

  2Projected: data on initial entrants are not yet available.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cash resources to be paid directly to Stroud schools, by sector, in 2001–02 on the basis of proposals in the pre-Budget report; and if he will list the schools to benefit, giving the sum in each case. [152179]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer March 2001]The following table shows the estimated allocations made to schools in the Stroud constituency for additional devolved formula capital in 2000–01, following the pre-Budget report. This funding was made available in 2000–01 rather than 2001–02. Gloucestershire local education authority will be able to confirm the final allocations made to non-Voluntary Aided schools. A total of £4.346 million devolved formula capital has been made available to schools in Gloucestershire in 2000–01.

  Schools in Gloucestershire will benefit from over £11.5 million through New Deal for Schools Devolved formula capital over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04, plus a share of the £300 million of additional funds made available by the Chancellor for the programme in his Budget of 7 March.

  Overall, central Government support for capital investment in school buildings in England has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.5 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £8.5 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Additional devolved formula capital announced in the pre-Budget report November 2000. Allocations to schools in Stroud Constituency

  Allocation

  to school

  School name

  School type

  (£)

  Thomas Keble School

  Non-VA

  9,139

  Maidenhill School

  Non-VA

  11,258

  Archway School

  Non-VA

  17,039

  Berkeley Vale Community School

  Non-VA

  7,203

  Rednock School

  Non-VA

  20,924

  Parliament Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,642

  Cam Woodfield Infant

  Non-VA

  4,997

  Marling School

  Non-VA

  13,638

  Stroud High School

  Non-VA

  14,083

  Berkeley Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,415

  Eastcombe Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,116

  Chalford Hill Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,276

  Eastington Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,796

  Sharpness Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,622

  Sheepscombe Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,037

  Slimbridge Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,343

  Stroud Valley Community School

  Non-VA

  6,095

  Uplands Community Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,534

  The Thrupp School

  Non-VA

  4,569

  Whiteshill Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,238

  Cashes Green Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,988

  Rodborough Community Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,310

  The Croft School

  Non-VA

  4,630

  Callowell Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,258

  Foxmoor Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,912

  Gastrells Community Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,119

  Cam Everlands Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,546

  Bisley Blue CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,098

  Coaley CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,125

  Dursley CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  6,139

  Frampton-on-Severn CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,273

  Saul CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,404

  154W

  Additional devolved formula capital announced in the pre-Budget report November 2000. Allocations to schools in Stroud Constituency

  Allocation

  to school

  School name

  School type

  (£)

  Stone with Woodford CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,177

  Haresfield CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,395

  Longley CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,543

  Nailsworth CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  5,685

  Randwick CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,142

  Uley CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,404

  Upton St. Leonards CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  6,762

  Whitminster Endowed CE Primary School

  Non-VA

  4,194

  Minchinhampton School

  Non-VA

  5,851

  King's Stanley CE Infant School

  Non-VA

  4,212

  The Park Infant School

  Non-VA

  5,476

  Park Junior School

  Non-VA

  6,374

  King's Stanley CE Junior School

  Non-VA

  4,561

  The Cam Woodfield Junior School

  Non-VA

  5,485

  The Whitminster Centre

  Non-VA

  3,933

  Cam House Special School

  Non-VA

  4,927

  Amberley Ridge School

  Non-VA

  5,267

  Bownham Park School

  Non-VA

  5,869

  The Shrubberies School

  Non-VA

  5,267

  LEA Liabilities at VA Schools

  16.976

  Total allocation to Non-VA Schools

  328,263

  Oakridge Parochial School

  VA

  3,149

  Cam Hopton CE Primary School

  VA

  4,258

  Christ Church CE Primary School

  VA

  3,115

  Bussage CE Primary School

  VA

  4,139

  Cranham CE Primary School

  VA

  3,066

  Hardwicke Parochial Primary School

  VA

  5,526

  Horsley CE Primary School

  VA

  3,442

  Leonard Stanley CE Primary School

  VA

  3,944

  Amberely Parochial School

  VA

  3,547

  Brimscombe CE Primary School

  VA

  3,372

  Miserden CE Primary School

  VA

  3,219

  North Nibley CE Primary School

  VA

  3,491

  Sapperton CE Primary School

  VA

  3,198

  St. Matthew's CE Primary School

  VA

  4,801

  Woodchester Endowed CE Primary School

  VA

  3,930

  St. Dominic's RC Primary School

  VA

  3,435

  St. Joseph's RC Primary School

  VA

  3,930

  The Rosary RC Primary School

  VA

  4,292

  Total allocation to VA Schools

  67,854

  Total additional allocation to schools

  396,117

  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the cash resources paid to schools, by phase, in(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) Wakefield district in each financial year since 2 May 1997; and if he will list the schools that benefited and indicate the sum in each case. [153005]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The first table shows amounts payable to schools for School Standards Grant and devolved capital allocations in the financial year 2000–01. Neither grant was payable before that year. The amounts payable by phase are as follows:

  £

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  PRU

  Hemsworth

  School Standards Grant

  —

  279,000

  320,000

  30,000

  3,000

  Devolved capital

  —

  440,319

  296,664

  22,052

  5,476

  Wakefield

  School Standards Grant

  15,000

  1,005,000

  780,000

  135,000

  6,000

  Devolved capital

  15,543

  1,563,764

  720,064

  103,054

  11,135

  155W
  The following table shows funding allocations for Wakefield LEA since 1997–98 for Standard Spending Assessment, Standards Fund (including class size grant from 1999–2000) and NDS capital:

  £ million

  SSA

  Standards Fund

  NDS

  1997–98

  111.5

  2.960

  0.600

  1998–99

  122.9

  5.045

  1.924

  1999–2000

  129.0

  7.503

  2.382

  2000–01

  135.5

  12.466

  4.422

  2001–02

  141.0

  112.156

  21.997

  1Allocation not finalised and likely to increase

  2NDS Condition and NDS Devolved Formula; not related to NDS4 in 2000–01

  The amounts payable to each school for School Standards Grant and devolved capital are contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The increase in funding in Wakefield LEA between 1997–98 and 2000–01 is £340 per pupil in real terms.

  Lone Parents (Wansbeck)
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents in Wansbeck have entered employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents in the last year. [153142]

  Ms Hodge
  In the year January to December 2000, 45 lone parents in Wansbeck have entered employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents. Since this New Deal was introduced in October 1998, 89 lone parents in Wansbeck have found jobs.

  Youth Parliament
  Mr. Õpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will meet representatives of the UK Youth Parliament to discuss its Youth Manifesto; and if he will make a statement; [153150]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the proceedings of the UK Youth Parliament held in London on 25 February; and if he will make a statement; [153151]

  (3) how he plans to develop the relationship between the Home Office and the UK Youth Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [153152]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 614W. I was pleased to attend the first sitting of the UK Youth Parliament; however, no formal assessment of the first sitting has been made by my Department in advance of the publication of the UKYP Youth Manifesto. Relationships between the Home Office and the UK Youth Parliament are properly the business of the Home Office and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent by the Minister of State, Home Office with responsibilities for young people, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 15 March 2001, Official Report, column 692W.

  ONE Service
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when a decision will be made on the future of the ONE Project. [153223]
  156W
  Ms Jowell
  The 12 existing ONE pilots are due to run until March 2002, and we are investing considerable resources in a thorough evaluation. Clearly, we do not want to prejudge the results of the full evaluation, but the lessons we are learning front the pilots are helping to inform the development of the service to be delivered by the Working Age Agency, which will bring together the services of the Employment Service and working age-related elements of the Benefits Agency. On 14 March of this year, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and the Secretary of State for Social Security, together announced the establishment from October this year of around 50 Pathfinder sites for the Working Age Agency. The Government's commitment to expanding the approach tested in ONE is being taken forward through these Pathfinders, which will deliver a ONE-style service to all working age benefit claimants. This will form the basis for the service we expect the Working Age Agency to deliver, over time, across the country.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153419]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 18 January 2001,Official Report, columns 330–33W and on 26 February 2001, Official Report, column 380W.

  Advertising campaigns undertaken by the Employment Service in the past five years are:

  1996–97
  Just the Job: To advise unemployed people of the range of opportunities available and to encourage them to use Jobcentre services—£700,709
  Employer Campaign: To encourage employers to use Jobcentre services to recruit unemployed jobseekers—£1,076,000

  1998—99
  Launch of Employment Service Direct: To promote the launch of the Agency's new telephone job finding service—£2,500,000

  1999—2000
  One in a Millennium: To encourage employers and jobseekers to use Jobcentre services —£500,000.

  Information on expenditure by Non-Departmental Public Bodies is not held centrally.

  Further Education Colleges (Concessionary Fees)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has given to colleges of further education about the age at which men may be offered concessionary fees where women are offered such fees at the age of 60 years. [154056]

  Mr. Wicks
  Colleges of further education are generally free to vary or waive fees as they wish. The Further Education Funding Council (which is succeeded, from 1 April 2001, by the Learning and Skills Council) will
  157W
  compensate them where they remit fees to certain groups of individuals, but these groups do not automatically include those aged 60 years and over

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to the Learning and Skills Council regarding the minimum size for a school sixth form to be considered viable. [154156]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue such guidance. Viability is a matter for schools and local education authorities, not the Learning and Skills Council. The LSC only has a role in respect of sixth forms which fail two consecutive Ofsted inspections.

  University Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding requirement identified by the final report from the Funding Options Review Group of Universities UK; and what plans he has to meet this requirement. [154026]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Government welcome the report from the Funding Options Review Group of Universities UK as a helpful contribution to the debate about the funding of higher education. The Government are increasing funding to universities and higher education colleges in England by £1.7 billion over the six years to 2003–04; funding per full-time equivalent student will increase in real terms in 2001–02 for the first time in over a decade. The funding shortfall identified in the Universities UK report is for 2003–04. The Government will address the funding needs of the sector from 2003–04 in the next Spending Review.

  Science A-levels
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many candidates have entered for A-level(a) mathematics, (b) physics and (c) chemistry in each of the last five years. [154158]

  Mr. Wicks [holding answer 16 March 2001]
  The number of candidates entered for A-level mathematics, physics and chemistry in each of the last five years is given in the following table:

  Mathematics

  Physics

  Chemistry

  All subjects

  1995–96

  51,862

  24,847

  29,800

  178,328

  1996–97

  54,000

  25,652

  31,669

  192,425

  1997–98

  54,980

  26,440

  32,269

  198,479

  1998–99

  54,111

  26,277

  31,039

  196,969

  1999–2000

  52,811

  25,469

  31,385

  197,583

  The number of candidates entered for the specified subjects expressed as a percentage of all candidates is given in the following table.

  Percentage

  Mathematics

  Physics

  Chemistry

  1995–96

  29

  14

  17

  1996–97

  28

  13

  16

  1997–98

  28

  13

  16

  1998–99

  27

  13

  16

  1999–2000

  27

  13

  16

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the net change in the number of specialist schools which will arise from the proposals in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [Lords]. [154155]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Government want an inclusive education service to offer excellence and choice. Where parents want a mainstream place for their child everything reasonably possible should be done to provide one. Equally where more specialist provision is what is sought, it is important and right that the wishes of parents are listened to.

  There is a continuing and vital role for special schools. As has always been the case there will be changes to provision to reflect local needs and circumstances. While some special schools have closed, others have been enlarged and new special schools have opened. The overall size of the special school sector has remained broadly the same since 1996 and caters for 1.2 per cent. of all pupils. The Government do not envisage this will change dramatically.

  Sundorne Secondary School
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding of a replacement playground for Sundorne Secondary School in Shrewsbury. [154460]

  Jacqui Smith
  This is a matter for Shropshire local education authority (LEA) to manage, working with the school. I understand that the school has made representations to the authority to secure funding for this project.

  Several possible sources of funding exist for this project. In January this year, we announced New Deal for Schools (NDS) Condition and New Deal for Schools (NDS) Devolved formula funding for the next three years to 2003–04. From that funding, Shropshire LEA and its schools will receive around £4.08 million NDS Condition funding and £5.82 million NDS Devolved formula funding over the period. The NDS Devolved formula allocation will be increased by the extra funding announced in the Chancellor's Budget statement on 7 March. As a result, I estimate that Sundorne Secondary School will receive over £16,000 in total next year under the NDS Devolved capital funding programme, with increased amounts in later years, for it to use on priority capital work.

  New Deal for Schools (NDS) Modernisation funding, totalling £555 million for schools in England, will further increase funding available to Shropshire LEA from 2002–03.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) agency teachers and (b) teachers on contracts of one term or less are employed in schools in England and Wales. [154153]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]There were 4,800 agency supply teachers on a contract of less than one month in the maintained schools sector in
  159W
  England working for the whole of the survey date of 20 January 2000. There were a further 11,860 non-agency supply teachers on contracts of less than one month.

  At January 2000 there were 750 full-time teachers (including agency teachers) employed on a fixed term contract of one month and less than one term in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England. Agency teachers on contracts of one month or more are not identified centrally.

  Information for Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  A number of factors may have affected the demand for short term supply teachers in January 2000 including the requirement for schools to give teachers in their induction year a 10 per cent. reduction in timetable, and a flu epidemic that some education authorities reported.

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short term supply teachers) in the maintained schools sector in England in January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for 10 years, and 6,900 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of more than 2,300 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in Inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  European Year of Languages
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial incentives are being offered, as part of the European Year of Languages, to encourage individuals to improve their linguistic skills. [154482]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]European Year of Languages aims to raise awareness of the benefits of knowing another language, provide information about teaching and learning languages and celebrate other languages and cultures.

  No specific financial incentives are being offered as part of the Year. However, the Centre for Information on Language Teaching, which is managing the UK's contribution, has produced a broad and inclusive programme of opportunities for people to participate in a wide range of projects and events. It includes a mixture of roadshows, lectures and concerts to raise awareness of the importance of language learning. A number of specific events like "Adult Learners Week" will also be held.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will relax the rules that prevent teachers who have taken retirement on the

  School achievement awards by LEA and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  Primary

  PRU

  Secondary

  Special

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  19

  —

  4

  1

  Barnet

  2

  36

  1

  7

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  25

  —

  5

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  26

  —

  5

  3

  Bedfordshire

  —

  39

  —

  13

  1

  160W
  grounds of ill health from undertaking any employment in teaching, without forfeiting their entitlement to pension benefits. [154668]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Ill-health benefits are now granted on the basis that a teacher is permanently unfit to teach, and include compensation in the form of enhancement of service for the loss of future working years. It would therefore be inappropriate to allow teachers in receipt of an ill-health retirement pension to retain that benefit if they are deemed fit to return to the classroom.

  The numbers of teachers who retire on ill-health grounds have reduced by 50 per cent. since 1997. Occupational Health Guidance which has been issued recently, as part of the Healthy Schools Programme, outlines the value and importance of a fit and healthy teaching workforce and the subsequent benefits to both teachers and the pupils they teach.

  School Achievement Awards
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by education authority those special schools, pupil referral units, very small primary schools and nursery schools which were nominated for achievement awards. [154745]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 921 eligible schools nominated for School Achievement Awards are listed in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The nominations wore assessed by independent panels with expert knowledge of the particular type of school. 381 (41 per cent.) of these schools are receiving awards.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list, by category, the schools which have won achievement awards for excellence and the local education authority area in which they are situated; [154748]

  (2) if he will list by constituency the number of achievement awards made to schools. [154747]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the difference between school results in 1997 and 2000 was calculated in assessing eligibility for improvement awards. [154746]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Improvement awards were based on the absolute difference between schools" results in 1997 and 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the number of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools which have received achievement awards. [154742]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  161W

  School achievement awards by LEA and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  Primary

  PRU

  Secondary

  Special

  Bexley

  —

  23

  —

  6

  —

  Birmingham

  1

  134

  —

  27

  6

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  18

  —

  4

  —

  Blackpool

  —

  7

  —

  2

  —

  Bolton

  —

  43

  —

  4

  1

  Bournemouth

  —

  7

  —

  2

  1

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  11

  —

  1

  —

  Bradford

  1

  37

  —

  6

  2

  Brent

  —

  20

  1

  5

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  22

  —

  4

  4

  Bristol, City of

  4

  42

  —

  3

  —

  Bromley

  —

  22

  —

  5

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  46

  3

  7

  —

  Bury

  1

  22

  —

  1

  2

  Calderdale

  —

  29

  —

  3

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  57

  —

  5

  1

  Camden

  —

  13

  1

  5

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  80

  —

  11

  —

  City of London

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  —

  45

  —

  7

  —

  Coventry

  —

  22

  —

  5

  1

  Croydon

  3

  22

  1

  5

  2

  Cumbria

  —

  87

  1

  17

  —

  Darlington

  —

  7

  —

  4

  1

  Derby

  3

  23

  —

  3

  3

  Derbyshire

  2

  94

  —

  19

  —

  Devon

  —

  99

  —

  10

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  33

  —

  7

  —

  Dorset

  —

  31

  —

  10

  1

  Dudley

  —

  26

  —

  9

  —

  Durham

  3

  94

  —

  8

  4

  Ealing

  —

  30

  —

  9

  1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  30

  —

  4

  1

  East Sussex

  —

  43

  —

  4

  —

  Enfield

  —

  19

  —

  7

  —

  Essex

  —

  139

  2

  21

  3

  Gateshead

  1

  35

  —

  4

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  60

  —

  9

  2

  Greenwich

  —

  25

  —

  5

  —

  Hackney

  —

  23

  —

  3

  —

  Halton

  2

  24

  —

  3

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  19

  5

  3

  Hampshire

  —

  133

  2

  16

  5

  Haringey

  —

  19

  —

  4

  —

  Harrow

  —

  18

  —

  4

  1

  Hartlepool

  —

  7

  —

  4

  1

  Havering

  —

  25

  1

  10

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  16

  —

  4

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  125

  1

  28

  3

  Hillingdon

  —

  23

  —

  7

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  22

  —

  4

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  15

  —

  2

  —

  Islington

  1

  15

  —

  3

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  19

  —

  2

  —

  Kent

  —

  128

  2

  28

  2

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  —

  30

  —

  5

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  13

  1

  3

  2

  Kirklees

  —

  58

  —

  8

  —

  Knowsley

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  1

  22

  —

  3

  2

  Lancashire

  7

  116

  4

  32

  9

  Leeds

  —

  90

  —

  7

  1

  Leicester

  —

  32

  —

  1

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  64

  —

  16

  —

  Lewisham

  1

  30

  1

  6

  3

  Lincolnshire

  —

  57

  —

  27

  3

  Liverpool

  —

  57

  —

  14

  3

  Luton

  —

  18

  1

  3

  —

  Manchester

  —

  44

  —

  6

  6

  Medway

  —

  27

  —

  5

  —

  Merton

  —

  20

  —

  2

  1

  Middlesbrough

  —

  19

  —

  2

  2

  Milton Keynes

  —

  22

  —

  3

  —

  162W 163W

  School achievement awards by LEA and type of school

  LEA

  Nursery

  Primary

  PRU

  Secondary

  Special

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  34

  1

  2

  1

  Newham

  —

  26

  —

  7

  1

  Norfolk

  —

  105

  —

  16

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  18

  —

  4

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  16

  —

  4

  —

  North Somerset

  —

  13

  —

  3

  1

  North Tyneside

  —

  31

  —

  6

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  73

  —

  13

  —

  Northamptonshire

  3

  62

  —

  8

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  42

  —

  17

  4

  Nottingham

  2

  40

  —

  7

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  84

  —

  13

  2

  Oldham

  —

  31

  —

  4

  1

  Oxfordshire

  3

  49

  1

  13

  4

  Peterborough

  —

  28

  —

  4

  1

  Plymouth

  —

  24

  —

  5

  —

  Poole

  —

  9

  —

  3

  —

  Portsmouth

  1

  18

  1

  —

  5

  Reading

  1

  12

  1

  5

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  21

  1

  9

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  20

  1

  6

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  16

  —

  3

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  17

  —

  4

  3

  Rotherham

  —

  40

  —

  5

  —

  Rutland

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  Salford

  —

  29

  —

  4

  3

  Sandwell

  —

  37

  —

  6

  —

  Sefton

  —

  28

  —

  13

  2

  Sheffield

  2

  33

  —

  6

  3

  Shropshire

  —

  36

  —

  4

  —

  Slough

  —

  15

  1

  6

  —

  Solihull

  —

  29

  —

  4

  —

  Somerset

  —

  60

  —

  9

  3

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  20

  1

  3

  —

  South Tyneside

  4

  24

  2

  3

  1

  Southampton

  —

  28

  —

  3

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  17

  —

  5

  1

  Southwark

  2

  27

  —

  7

  1

  St. Helens

  1

  25

  —

  2

  3

  Staffordshire

  —

  85

  1

  18

  6

  Stockport

  —

  29

  —

  3

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  —

  22

  —

  6

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5

  30

  1

  4

  2

  Suffolk

  —

  73

  —

  19

  1

  Sunderland

  —

  31

  —

  5

  4

  Surrey

  1

  105

  —

  17

  —

  Sutton

  1

  12

  —

  8

  —

  Swindon

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  30

  —

  4

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  22

  —

  5

  —

  Thurrock

  —

  19

  —

  5

  2

  Torbay

  —

  13

  —

  4

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  35

  1

  8

  3

  Trafford

  —

  33

  —

  9

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  40

  —

  6

  —

  Walsall

  —

  30

  —

  7

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  13

  —

  6

  1

  Wandsworth

  —

  21

  —

  4

  1

  Warrington

  1

  26

  —

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  3

  59

  —

  14

  4

  West Berkshire

  —

  21

  —

  2

  1

  West Sussex

  —

  73

  2

  7

  3

  Westminster

  —

  21

  —

  4

  —

  Wigan

  —

  35

  —

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  —

  44

  —

  11

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  16

  —

  3

  —

  Wirral

  —

  44

  —

  2

  4

  Wokingham

  —

  16

  —

  2

  —

  Wolverhampton

  3

  28

  —

  7

  2

  Worcestershire

  1

  60

  1

  11

  1

  York

  —

  14

  1

  2

  2

  164W 165W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the total value of achievement awards made and the percentage of the national total budget which schools in each local education authority received. [154749]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  Value of

  Percentage of

  LEA

  awards (£)

  total value1

  City of London

  6,610

  0.0

  Camden

  260,600

  0.4

  Greenwich

  264,010

  0.4

  Hackney

  227,870

  0.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  275,780

  0.5

  Islington

  209,820

  0.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  187,690

  0.3

  Lambeth

  253,750

  0.4

  Lewisham

  433,720

  0.7

  Southwark

  366,440

  0.6

  Tower Hamlets

  543,630

  0.9

  Wandsworth

  310,270

  0.5

  Westminster

  250,170

  0.4

  Barking and Dagenham

  373,310

  0.6

  Barnet

  473,380

  0.8

  Bexley

  358,070

  0.6

  Brent

  379,050

  0.6

  Bromley

  327,390

  0.5

  Croydon

  313,200

  0.5

  Ealing

  603,740

  1.0

  Enfield

  439,770

  0.7

  Haringey

  298,750

  0.5

  Harrow

  252,640

  0.4

  Havering

  399,680

  0.7

  Hillingdon

  387,710

  0.6

  Hounslow

  293,070

  0.5

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  183,130

  0.3

  Merton

  203,590

  0.3

  Newham

  565,390

  0.9

  Redbridge

  472,510

  0.8

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  189,520

  0.3

  Sutton

  302,960

  0.5

  Waltham Forest

  265,680

  0.4

  Birmingham

  2,001,640

  3.4

  Coventry

  328,030

  0.5

  Dudley

  413,510

  0.7

  Sandwell

  430,380

  0.7

  Solihull

  329,610

  0.6

  Walsall

  384,040

  0.6

  Wolverhampton

  398,430

  0.7

  Knowsley

  160,900

  0.3

  Liverpool

  799,370

  1.3

  St. Helens

  273,390

  0.5

  Sefton

  542,430

  0.9

  Wirral

  382,240

  0.6

  Bolton

  437,670

  0.7

  Bury

  165,620

  0.3

  Manchester

  610,510

  1.0

  Oldham

  310,020

  0.5

  Rochdale

  241,340

  0.4

  Salford

  273,730

  0.5

  Stockport

  236,030

  0.4

  Tameside

  296,450

  0.5

  Trafford

  431,790

  0.7

  Wigan

  313,230

  0.5

  Barnsley

  244,590

  0.4

  Doncaster

  430,320

  0.7

  Rotherham

  375,860

  0.6

  Sheffield

  477,760

  0.8

  166W

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  Value of

  Percentage of

  LEA

  awards (£)

  total value1

  Bradford

  379,760

  0.6

  Calderdale

  254,900

  0.4

  Kirklees

  566,200

  0.9

  Leeds

  827,610

  1.4

  Wakefield

  384,100

  0.6

  Gateshead

  308,840

  0.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  244,260

  0.4

  North Tyneside

  352,990

  0.6

  South Tyneside

  255,360

  0.4

  Sunderland

  440,550

  0.7

  Bath and North East Somerset

  262,970

  0.4

  Bristol, City of

  354,560

  0.6

  North Somerset

  181,660

  0.3

  South Gloucestershire

  219,720

  0.4

  Hartlepool

  187,330

  0.3

  Middlesbrough

  216,830

  0.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  276,380

  0.5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  321,600

  0.5

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  347,090

  0.6

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  289,490

  0.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  238,490

  0.4

  North Lincolnshire

  162,240

  0.3

  North Yorkshire

  566,660

  0.9

  York

  126,600

  0.2

  Bedfordshire

  370,370

  0.6

  Luton

  200,230

  0.3

  Buckinghamshire

  382,570

  0.6

  Milton Keynes

  245,380

  0.4

  Derbyshire

  912,250

  1.5

  Derby

  258,240

  0.4

  Dorset

  326,690

  0.5

  Poole

  128,100

  0.2

  Bournemouth

  119,180

  0.2

  Durham

  657,720

  1.1

  Darlington

  134,020

  0.2

  East Sussex

  315,230

  0.5

  Brighton and Hove

  329,970

  0.6

  Hampshire

  1,145,780

  1.9

  Portsmouth

  155,350

  0.3

  Southampton

  273,280

  0.5

  Leicestershire

  626,900

  1.1

  Leicester

  267,780

  0.4

  Rutland

  55,790

  0.1

  Staffordshire

  856,010

  1.4

  Stoke-on-Trent

  322,820

  0.5

  Wiltshire

  419,190

  0.7

  Swindon

  74,190

  0.1

  Bracknell Forest

  81,440

  0.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  132,210

  0.2

  West Berkshire

  164,660

  0.3

  Reading

  180,680

  0.3

  Slough

  246,520

  0.4

  Wokingham

  151,110

  0.3

  Cambridgeshire

  448,450

  0.8

  Peterborough

  324,610

  0.5

  Cheshire

  721,700

  1.2

  Halton

  238,600

  0.4

  Warrington

  186,930

  0.3

  Devon

  728,400

  1.2

  Plymouth

  261,320

  0.4

  Torbay

  213,650

  0.4

  Essex

  1,395,330

  2.3

  Southend-on-Sea

  267,630

  0.4

  Thurrock

  263,040

  0.4

  Herefordshire

  118,850

  0.2

  Worcestershire

  548,640

  0.9

  Kent

  1,360,550

  2.3

  Medway

  275,810

  0.5

  167W

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  Value of

  Percentage of

  LEA

  awards (£)

  total value1

  Lancashire

  1,364,860

  2.3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  221,530

  0.4

  Blackpool

  92,260

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  770,020

  1.3

  Nottingham

  456,390

  0.8

  Shropshire

  223,880

  0.4

  Telford and Wrekin

  234,740

  0.4

  Cornwall

  343,750

  0.6

  Cumbria

  755,410

  1.3

  Gloucestershire

  489,990

  0.8

  Hertfordshire

  1,362,070

  2.3

  Isle of Wight

  83,710

  0.1

  Lincolnshire

  779,450

  1.3

  Norfolk

  907,260

  1.5

  Northamptonshire

  481,520

  0.8

  Northumberland

  425,040

  0.7

  FSM groups1

  FSM group

  Primary

  Secondary

  1

  Up to and including 8 per cent.

  Up to and including 5 per cent.

  2

  More than 8 per cent. and up to 20 per cent.

  More than 5 per cent. and up to 9 per cent.

  3

  More than 20 per cent. and up to 35 per cent.

  More than 9 per cent. and up to 13 per cent.

  4

  More than 35 per cent. and up to 50 per cent.

  More than 13 per cent. and up to 21 per cent.

  5

  More than 50 per cent.

  More than 21 per cent. and up to 35 per cent.

  6

  —

  More than 35 per cent. and up to 50 per cent.

  7

  —

  More than 50 per cent.

  8

  —

  Grammar schools

  9

  —

  Secondary moderns and FSM up to and including 13 per cent.

  10

  —

  Secondary moderns and FSM more than 13 per cent. and up to 21 per cent.

  11

  —

  Secondary moderns and FSM more than 21 per cent.

  1Percentage of pupils 'known to be eligible for free school meals (FSM)' based on information returned to the Department's 2000 Annual Schools' Census

  Schools receiving school achievement awards in Christchurch constituency by FSM group

  School

  FSM group

  Ferndown First School

  Primary 1

  Highcliffe Junior School

  Primary 1

  Mudeford Junior School

  Primary 1

  The Priory Church of England Primary School

  Primary 1

  Three Legged Cross First School

  Primary 2

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153418]

  Mr. Chris Smith [holding answer 12 March 2001]
  The Department and the Royal Parks Agency have incurred no expenditure on television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional campaigns in the last five years.

  Information on campaigns run by the Department's non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.
  168W

  Total value of school achievement awards by LEA

  Value of

  Percentage of

  LEA

  awards (£)

  total value1

  Oxfordshire

  539,420

  0.9

  Somerset

  493,350

  0.8

  Suffolk

  674,160

  1.1

  Surrey

  1,049,370

  1.8

  Warwickshire

  731,920

  1.2

  West Sussex

  594,280

  1.0

  1Total value of awards to schools was £59.7 million

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many different groupings schools have been divided into based on the proportion of pupils eligible for school meals for the purpose of allocating school achievement awards; and if he will list the schools in the Christchurch constituency in each group. [154744]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Digital Television (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of the efficiency savings he asked the BBC to make on spending by the BBC on provision of digital services in Welsh. [154256]

  Janet Anderson
  None. Such an assessment would be a matter for the BBC's Board of Governors who are responsible for ensuring that the BBC meets the requirements of its Royal Charter and Agreement and any commitments made by the Corporation, including commitments on services for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the future budgetary needs of S4C to meet the demands of expanding programming required by converting to digital television. [154255]

  Janet Anderson
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport last year considered a bid for additional funding for S4C, following the Authority's assessment of its future budgetary needs. Departmental spending limits and competing priorities precluded our meeting the bid, but annual increases in S4C's grant in line with the Retail Prices Index, under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996, are maintaining the real value of the grant. The
  169W
  1996 Act has also given S4C the power to develop commercial services, enabling it to generate additional revenue to supplement its public service fund.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of foot and mouth on(a) the British tourist industry and (b) tourism in the South West; and if he will make a statement. [154301]

  Janet Anderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House on 14 March 2001,Official Report, columns 1021–36. The overall economic impact on the rural tourism industry in England following the foot and mouth outbreak is running at approximately £100 million a week and could grow. South West Tourism has estimated that the impact to tourism in the South West is currently running at around £17 million a week.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourism businesses have been directly affected by the issuance of form C notices under the foot and mouth procedures. [154237]

  Mr. Chris Smith [holding answer 16 March 2001]
  There are no figures available for the number of tourism businesses directly affected by the issuance of Form C notices under the provisions of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order 1983 which prohibits the movement of animals into or out of an area within an 8 km radius of the place of a suspected outbreak. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of a very adverse impact on tourism businesses throughout the country as a result of visit cancellations.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the weekly cost to the tourist industry in Shropshire of the impact of the foot and mouth outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [154486]

  Janet Anderson [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  There are no figures currently available to make an assessment of the weekly cost to the tourism industry in Shropshire following the foot and mouth outbreak. However, the overall economic impact on the rural tourism industry in England is running at approximately £100 million a week. The Heart of England Tourist Board has estimated that the impact to rural tourism in the 12 counties that make up their region, including Shropshire, is currently running at around £10 million per week.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on progress on applications for free television licences for people aged 75 years and over and the timetable for issuing licences and refunds. [154274]

  Janet Anderson
  The BBC, as Licensing Authority, has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, including free licences for the over-75s. TV Licensing carries out the day to day administration as agent for the Corporation.
  170W
  The target turnaround time for verification of entitlement to the free licence is one week, provided the application form is completed correctly and the details match those provided to the BBC by the Department of Social Security. Where the details do not match, further information needs to be requested from the applicant and the time taken to verify the application will vary according to the individual case. The timetable for verifying refund applications is the same as for free licences, but short term licences for people approaching the age of 75 have been available since April 2000, so refunds should now be the exception rather than the rule.

  The BBC has indicated that approximately 2.95 million free licences and 1.1 million refund cheques have been issued since the introduction of the concession last November. The majority of applications now being received are from people currently aged 74; approximately half a million such applications have been validated and free licences will be issued when the applicants turn 75. Approximately 86,000 applications are currently awaiting validation but the majority of these are from people under the age of 75. 11,000 applications submitted prior to November last year have still to be verified and action is being taken to clear these by the end of this month.

  Applications by housing managers on behalf of over-75s who have previously benefited from the £5 Accommodation for Residential Care (ARC) concessionary licence are being processed as the current ARC licence falls due for renewal.

  Arts Council for England
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the present term of office of the chairman of the Arts Council for England expires; and when, and by whom, an announcement was made regarding his successor. [154780]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Gerry Robinson's first term as Chairman of the Arts Council of England expired at the end of January 2001. He was reappointed to a second three-year term in February 2001, which expires at the end of January 2004.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of advertising campaigns run by his Department and its predecessor and its agencies was in each year since 1992; and if he will give the projected advertising budget for the current year. [154753]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following table shows the cost of newspaper advertising to attract candidates for the many public appointments for which I am responsible.

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  242,700

  1999–2000

  139,501

  2000–011

  85,823

  2000–012

  90,000

  1 Spend to date

  2 Planned spend

  171W
  Additional expenditure information on advertising by my Department and its agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Regional Cultural consortiums regarding the Arts Council for England's commitment to integrating the regional arts boards. [154754]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Discussions have not yet begun with the Regional Cultural Consortiums about the Arts Council of England' s proposal for the integrating of the regional arts boards. The proposals made by the Arts Council will be formally discussed with stakeholders, including the Regional Cultural Consortiums, in due course.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with(a) the Arts Council for England and (b) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding the council's commitment to integrating the regional arts boards. [154755]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I discussed the proposals with the Chair and Chief Executive of the Arts Council shortly before they were announced, and I can confirm that DETR have been informed. I am looking forward to receiving formal detailed proposals in due course, and will of course consult with colleagues further on those once I have received them.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he had with the Arts Council for England concerning the future role of the regional arts boards prior to the council's announcement of 15 March; and if he will make a statement. [154756]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have discussed with the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Arts Council the proposals they announced on 15 March and will formally consider the detailed proposals in due course.

  University Museums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from non-charging university museums regarding the repayment of irrecoverable VAT; what discussions he has had with HM Treasury regarding this matter; and if he will make a statement. [154750]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received representations from one university about the scheme under which national museums and galleries which are directly sponsored by Government and which do not charge for admission will be able to recover the VAT that relates to the free admission element of their normal business. The scheme was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 7 March and will apply to directly funded national museums and galleries. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to determine which institutions are included in the scheme.

  Intellectual Copyright
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what measures he proposes to take to ensure that Culture On Line's activities do not infringe intellectual copyright; [154758]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the potential cost of Culture On Line to public funds. [154757]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In September 2000 we secured £5 million from HM Treasury to develop the concept for Culture Online. We are currently preparing a business case for Culture Online, which will include an assessment of both the cost of delivering Culture Online and the scope for any commercial participation. The business case will be completed by July 2001 and will establish the case, if any, for public funding. It will also include an assessment of the most suitable business model for Culture Online, taking into account a number of issues including ownership of Intellectual Property Rights. Specialist legal advice will be included in this assessment.

TREASURY

  University Museums
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to permit non-charging university museums to recover the value of VAT payments; and if he will make a statement. [154751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's VAT refund scheme for the main national museums and galleries was set out in the March 2001 Budget.

  Chester Street Holdings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action was taken to enforce the provisions of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 concerning margins of solvency following the restructuring of lion Trades Holdings Ltd. and the liquidation of Chester Street Holdings; [154169]

  (2) for what reason the Government's powers of intervention under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 were not used in the case of the restructuring of Iron Trades Holdings prior to the liquidation of Chester Street Holdings. [154170]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 1 January 1999, the Financial Services Authority has been the prudential supervisor of insurance companies, operating under contract to the Treasury. In carrying out functions under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 the FSA keeps under review the appropriate use of the intervention powers available to it under that Act.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that sufferers from an asbestos-related disease working in a publicly owned industry at the time of their contact with asbestos do not lose their rights to compensation following the liquidation of Chester Street Holdings. [154080]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As I said in Westminster Hall on 6 March 2001,Official Report, columns 46–49WH, the insolvency of Chester Street Holdings Limited does
  173W
  not affect the liability of an employer to its employees or former employees. That is the case for all employers, whether they are in the private or public sector.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contact he had with the Financial Services Authority about the conduct of Chester Street Holdings in the period before liquidation; and what action is being taken as a result. [154167]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The financial Services Authority is in regular contact with Treasury officials about a wide range of insurance supervisory matters.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to investigate the reasons underlying the decision by the Financial Services Authority to approve the restructuring of Iron Trades Holdings shortly before the collapse of Chester Street Holdings. [154168]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As I said in Westminster Hall on 6 March 2001,Official Report, columns 46–49WH, the provisional liquidators are required to review the affairs of Chester Street Holdings and the actions of the directors and other parties. The provisional liquidators will report on their findings.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent contact he has had with the Association of British Insurers about Chester Street Holdings and compensation for asbestos sufferers. [154166]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Treasury officials are in regular contact with the Association of British Insurers.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that insurance companies honour asbestos-related claims. [154269]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Insurance Companies are under a contractual obligation to meet a claim made by a policyholder where this falls within the terms of a contractual policy agreement. The Policyholders Protection Act 1975 has been established to protect the interests of policyholders of insolvent insurance companies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the insurance industry about(a) the sufficiency of their funding for the Policyholders Protection Board to fully compensate those suffering from asbestos-related diseases and (b) about safeguarding those suffering from asbestos-related diseases who were in contact with asbestos before 1972 and who are not safeguarded under the terms of the present Policyholders Protection Board. [154222]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, the Policyholders Protection Board may impose levies on authorised insurance companies carrying on business in the UK to meet the liabilities of the board incurred in assisting or protecting policyholders under that Act.

  As I said in Westminster Hall on 6 March 2001, Official Report, column 47WH, the insolvency of Chester Street Holdings Ltd. does not affect the liability of an employer to its employees or former employees. We are investigating carefully the position of employees whose employers no longer exist.

  Policyholders Protection Board
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next meeting of the Policyholders Protection Board is. [154268]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I understand that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 21 March.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the reduction in duty for road fuel gases announced in the Budget will be applied; and if he expects the reduction in price to be passed on to consumers. [154738]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The duty reduction for road fuel gases applies from 6pm on 7 March 2001. Pricing decisions are a matter for the fuel suppliers.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154577]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Newbury, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 565, or 55 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 93 per cent. and long-term unemployment has fallen by 85 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18–24 year olds had helped 172 young people in Newbury constituency gain valuable skills and experience—93 (54 per cent) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 1,300 families in Newbury constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 14,100 in Newbury, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,000 in Newbury.

  Census
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the basis is for the statement on the census form concerning the voluntary completion of the question concerning religion. [154669]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which came into force on 28 July 2000, by amending the schedule to the Census Act 1920, provides a power to include in census returns particulars in respect
  175W
  of religion. The Act also removes the liability to the penalty for anyone refusing or neglecting to state any such particulars. This has the effect of making any question on religion included in the census voluntary. A statement to that effect is included in the question on the form itself.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the anticipated non-response rates in the forthcoming census are. [154670]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Richard Ottaway, dated 20 March 2001:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what is the anticipated non-response rate in the forthcoming census. (154670)

  The aim for the 2001 Census is to achieve a 100 per cent. count. Having said that I am fully aware of the problems associated with carrying out a census enumeration in some areas, particularly where there are high levels of ethnic minority populations, multi-occupied accommodation, poorer quality housing estates and more modern-style apartments protected by entryphone and other security systems. Many of the new measures and initiatives developed for the 2001 Census are aimed at combating these very difficulties.

  A particular success in this area is the new Local Community Liaison Programme in which the ONS is working in partnership with minority groups, charitable organisations and local and health authorities in order to encourage participation in the Census and to help identify sources of potential enumerators.

  The adoption of mail-back for the first time as the prime collection methodology in a census in England and Wales will facilitate the concentration of field resources in those areas where lower levels of response are experienced and where additional effort may be required.

  An extensive publicity campaign for the 2001 Census in England and Wales, under the banner logo "Count Me In" aims to encourage universal self-inclusion in the Census. In addition to the main campaign there are several other promotions and initiatives being developed to encourage public participation in the Census in an attempt to improve coverage, particularly among those sectors of the community where there was significant under-enumeration in the 1991 Census. Separate drives have been aimed at recruiting enumerators in local areas and to raise the profile of the Census.

  The extent and nature of non-response to the Census will be more accurately assessed this time than ever before by conducting an extensive separate follow-up Census Coverage Survey to be carried out by interviewing around 300,000 households shortly after the Census enumeration is completed. Results from this voluntary follow-up survey will be used, in conjunction with the Census data itself, to help produce a consistent set out census-based counts that will form the new base for the series of annual mid-year population estimates for local and health authorities.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152973]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Lincoln, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the
  176W
  constituency has fallen by 1,858, or 48 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 86 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 82 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of December 2000, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 1,319 young people in Lincoln constituency gain valuable skills and experience—668 (51 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,400 families in Lincoln constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies which enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 15,500 in Lincoln constituency, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 10,000 in Lincoln constituency.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter on behalf of his constituent Mr. Chilton forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman by the Minister of State, Department of Social Security in early January. [154725]

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

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his reasons for limiting his new aid for drug addiction to those who are no longer using drugs. [154082]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The measures were announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. £40 million will be invested over three years in additional resources to help benefit claimants whose drug problems may be getting in the way of their finding a job. The money will help skill up the Employment Service to spot and refer those on drugs into treatment programmes, and provide extra help in securing employment for those who have successfully completed treatment programmes and have come off drugs. The package is not limited to those who are no longer using drugs. Rather, proposals aim to ensure that in receiving help addicts undertake a responsibility to tackle their own addiction and become drug-free.

  Euro (Forgery)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to assist banks, bureaux de change and similar agencies in the United Kingdom to detect the presence of forged euro notes and coins presented to them for valid transactions after 2 January 2002. [154063]
  177W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  ECOFIN reached political agreement on 12 February 2001 on a Council regulation designed to protect the euro from counterfeiting. As part of this, the UK is committed to ensuring that banks, bureaux de change and similar agencies will have access to appropriate information on security characteristics which are incorporated into the design of euro notes and coins so as to be able to detect counterfeits presented to them for valid transactions.

  EU Accession Canvassing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Article of which treaty, and which budget line of the authorised expenditure of the European Community for(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 authorise expenditure by a body or institution of the European Community for advocating to the citizens of a state applying to become a member that they should approve accession of their country to the European Union. [154011]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no treaty article or EC budget line which authorises expenditure for advocating to citizens of candidate states that they should approve accession of their country to the EU.

  Post-war Credits
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims there were for post-war credits in each of the last 10 years; what the total value was of those claims in each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [154563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of successful claims was as follows:

  Number

  1990—91

  2,279

  1991—92

  1,685

  1992—93

  1,700

  1993—94

  1,835

  1994—95

  1,784

  1995—96

  1,276

  1996—97

  1,563

  1997—98

  839

  1998—99

  985

  1999—2000

  815

  The total value of claims for each year is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is estimated that some 95 per cent. of the original credit has been repaid, following extensive publicity campaigns.

  Taxation (Over-65s)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from interested organisations on the level of taxation on the over-65s. [154702]

  Dawn Primarolo
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives a number of representations on a wide range of subjects. By April, as a result of the Government's personal tax and benefit changes, pensioner households will be £600 a year better off on average compared to 1997.

  Unemployment (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) total unemployed, (b) long-term unemployed and (c) young unemployed there were in each ward of Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [154712]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 20 March 2001:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of (a) total unemployed, (b) long term unemployed and (c) young unemployed there were in each ward in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1979.

  The ONS publishes unemployment statistics at national and sub-national levels from the Labour Force Survey following the definitional guidelines promulgated by the International Labour Organisation. This information is however, unavailable for the areas requested.

  The ONS also publishes information based on the administrative records of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. These cover all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.

  Information on the claimant count of each month since June 1983 for each ward of Shrewsbury and Atcham can be obtained from the Nomis® database at the House of Commons Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will give a substantive reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire for answer on 26 February. [154726]

  Mr. Timms
  Shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the average annual domestic bills for(a) electricity and (b) gas in the UK for the year 2000 broken down by (i) direct debit, (ii) standard quarterly credit and (iii) pre-payment meter payment methods. [154506]

  Mr. Hain
  Average annual domestic bills1 for (a) electricity and (b) gas in cash terms for the year 2000 are as follows:

  1 Averages are weighted by customer numbers and based on all supply companies.

  £

  Payment method

  Electricity1

  Gas2

  Quarterly Credit

  256

  295

  Direct Debit

  244

  265

  Prepayment meter

  274

  311

  1 An annual consumption level of 3,300 kWh has been assumed. Customers with electric central heating are likely to consume considerably more electricity.

  2An annual consumption level of 18,000 kWh has been assumed.

  179W
  Annual figures for previous years are published in the Department's annual "Digest of UK Energy Statistics" and in the "Energy Report".

  Newspaper Industry
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of self-regulation in the newspaper wholesaling and retailing sectors; and if he will make a statement. [154464]

  Dr. Howells
  DTI works closely with those involved across the newspaper sector and, although no formal assessment of the effectiveness of self regulation in the sector has recently been carried out, I believe that in general self regulation is working reasonably well. In particular, I am aware of the recent agreement by those involved in both newspapers and magazines to enter into a process to re-examine distribution issues and we shall be following developments in those discussions.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents about problems facing independent retailers; and if he will make a statement. [154463]

  Ms Hewitt
  Small independent retailers are a vitally important part of the economic life of the country, creating wealth, satisfying customer demands, providing employment and playing an important social role within communities. Although there has been no recent contact with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents (NFRN) we do recognise the difficulties their members face. For example, the Better Regulation Task Force will this year be investigating the regulatory burden faced by small retailers and will be reporting on this in due course.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome is of the consultation on the renewables obligation. [154901]

  Mr. Hain
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the analysis of responses to the Renewables Obligation Preliminary Consultation. Key issues were the cost of the Obligation to the consumer, whether or not to include energy from waste in the Obligation, the proposed level of capital grants, the treatment of imports, support for the longer term technologies and the profile of the Obligation up to 2010.

  With more than 200 responses received, it is encouraging that our proposed policy has met with broad support from the industry and the public.

  All the comments received have been given careful consideration and we shall be making our final proposals in the statutory consultation in May, prior to laying the necessary Order before the House.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what Government funding has been allocated for(a) the market stimulation and (b) research into the development of renewable fuels; [151123]
  180W
  (2) what the organisations that received public funding for research into the development of renewable fuels spent the money on in each year (a) between 1992 and 1997 and (b) since 1997; how much they received; and if he will list the organisations. [151124]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have announced substantial initiatives towards achieving the target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewable energy by 2010.

  The main mechanisms for the market stimulation of renewable energy are the proposed Renewables Obligation and the earlier Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). Funds provided by the NFFO programme and its Scottish equivalent are estimated to peak at around £150 million per annum in years between 2003–04 and 2009–10. The Renewables Obligation is estimated to provide up to £600 million per annum by 2010.

  Over the next three years, the Government have allocated over £250 million for the development of renewable energy. This includes:
  support of £89 million in capital grants for early demonstration offshore wind and energy crop projects, and £12 million in MAFF planting grants for energy crops;
  the further £100 million public funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 March for the promotion of new generation renewable technologies;
  and over £55 million for renewables R&D.

  The Enterprise, Skills and Innovation White Paper published on 13 February proposes a major initiative to achieve a UK solar photovoltaic demonstration programme in line with those of our major competitors. An initial £10 million has been made available for the first three years.

  Exemption of renewables electricity from the Climate Change Levy is also an important driver.

  DTI directly supports research, development, demonstration, technology transfer and export promotion activities relating to a range of renewable energy sources through its New and Renewable Energy Programme. The breakdown of expenditure on specific renewable energy sources in the years since 1991–92, including programme management costs, is as shown. This Government have set rising budgets for the programme to begin to reverse the trend set under the previous Administration, and to bring forward new technologies. A budget of £14 million was allocated to the programme for this year. Proposed provision for the programme over the three year period 2001–04 is £55.5 million.

  In addition, through the Science Budget, DTI supports relevant research being undertaken by the Research Councils. Expenditure for the full period between 1992 and 1997 is not readily available. Between 1997 and 2000, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the main Research Council funding work on renewables, spent £22.8 million on projects on renewable and clean electricity generation. The total value of current EPSRC projects in this field is £13.4 million.

  Under the European Commission's 5th Framework Programme (1998–2002), funding for renewable energy projects co-ordinated by UK companies amounts to some 23 million euros to date.
  181W
  Taking into account the cost of obtaining the information provided in this answer, a list of all the organisations involved in over 2000 projects supported

  £ million

  1991–921

  1992–931

  1993–941

  1994–951

  1995–961

  1996–971

  1997–981

  Biomass

  1.45

  2.39

  3.00

  3.41

  3.20

  2.62

  1.90

  Wastes

  1.56

  1.41

  1.16

  1.79

  1.76

  0.87

  0.24

  Fuel Cells

  0.40

  0.54

  1.14

  1.33

  1.56

  1.22

  1.20

  Solar

  2.97

  2.81

  2.99

  3.02

  2.27

  2.15

  1.95

  Wind

  8.42

  10.61

  9.19

  3.98

  4.15

  2.90

  1.63

  Hydro

  0.15

  0.09

  0.21

  0.22

  0.14

  0.25

  0.19

  Wave

  0.59

  0.40

  0.25

  0.16

  0.07

  0.09

  0.00

  Tidal

  2.44

  2.11

  0.73

  0.32

  0.29

  0.00

  0.00

  Geo-Hot Dry Rocks

  1.98

  1.33

  1.24

  0.35

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Geo-Aquifers

  0.06

  0.16

  0.18

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Commercialisation

  0.65

  0.98

  1.46

  1.90

  1.80

  1.44

  1.12

  Exports

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.34

  0.60

  0.80

  International

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.32

  0.24

  0.26

  General Studies/Strategic Studies/Strategy and Evaluation

  0.94

  1.00

  0.79

  0.43

  0.32

  0.31

  0.39

  Marketing and Evaluation

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.56

  0.49

  0.61

  Other

  3.34

  1.66

  2.77

  2.31

  1.43

  0.73

  0.67

  Total

  24.95

  25.49

  25.11

  19.22

  18.21

  13.91

  10.96

  £ million

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  2000–011

  2001–021

  2002–031

  2003–041

  Biomass

  1.75

  2.24

  2.74

  —

  —

  —

  Wastes

  0.05

  0.02

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Fuel Cells

  1.59

  1.55

  2.41

  —

  —

  —

  Solar

  1.39

  1.73

  2.43

  —

  —

  —

  Wind

  1.38

  1.24

  2.39

  —

  —

  —

  Hydro

  0.15

  0.33

  0.21

  —

  —

  —

  Wave

  0.16

  0.01

  0.57

  —

  —

  —

  Tidal

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Geo-Hot Dry Rocks

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Geo-Aquifers

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Commercialisation

  1.06

  1.14

  1.53

  —

  —

  —

  Exports

  0.86

  0.89

  0.92

  —

  —

  —

  International

  0.23

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  General Studies/Strategic Studies/Strategy and Evaluation

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  —

  —

  —

  Marketing and Evaluation

  0.66

  0.64

  0.61

  —

  —

  —

  Other

  0.25

  0.23

  0.19

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9.53

  10.02

  14.00

  18

  18.5

  19

  1Total spend

  2Allocation

  3Plans

  Note:

  Detailed allocation of provision for 2001–04 remains to be decided

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to increase the number of trained people available to provide representation to appellants at employment tribunals. [154424]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No. While I have responsibility for the tribunals, that does not extend to the training of the legal and lay representatives who may appear before them. Applicants can represent themselves at an employment tribunal and many do so, although they may be represented if they prefer.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many miners have died before receiving
  182W
  under the DTI's New and Renewable Energy programme since 1991—92 could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  compensation awarded to them as a result of the High Court action brought by NACODS; and if he will make a statement. [154186]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department's claims handling agents, 1RISC, have registered a total of 7,468 claims by former miners who have died and where the date of death is after the date of claim. In all these cases, the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal were found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the Department will also make bereavement or loss of society awards. To date, the Department has made 5,197 bereavement or loss of society awards, totalling £43.1 million.
  183W
  In addition, the Department is also making £2,000 interim payments to those widows who have previously received a bereavement award but still await payment of damages.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many outstanding cases there are of applications for compensation to invalid miners following the High Court action brought by NACODS; what the figure was in November 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154182]

  Mr. Hain
  As at 26 November, some 127,925 claims were registered for respiratory disease and 115,034 for Vibration White Finger, VWF. Of these, 122,380 and 96,263 respectively remained outstanding.

  As at 11 March 2001, some 138,294 claims have been registered for respiratory disease and 117,908 for VWF. Of these, 130,517 and 96,263 respectively remain outstanding.

  To date, the Department has paid out £124.6 million in respect of compensation for respiratory disease and £235.3 million in relation to VWF. The Department continues to pay out around £1 million a day in mining compensation.

  About 1,000 new claims are being registered each week.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been made in respect of respiratory diseases by(a) the sufferer and (b) widows and dependants where the claimant has died after the date of claim. [147804]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, have registered a total of 6,802 claims by former miners who have died and where the date of death is after the date of claim. In all these cases the claims will be continued by the claimant's widow or dependants. In addition, where the claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory diseases for which British Coal were found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the Department will also make a bereavement award to the claimant's widow. To date the Department has made 5,200 bereavement awards, totalling £43.1 million. In addition, we announced on 2 March that we propose to make £2,000 interim payments to those widows who have previously received a bereavement award but still await payment on account of damages.

  IRISC are not informed by solicitors of the dates of death of widows and dependants and the information is therefore not available.

  Green Energy (Thurrock)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's new funds for green energy on Thurrock. [152935]

  Mr. Hain
  The additional £100 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 March 2001 will be used to encourage a range of renewable energy technologies: photovoltaics (PV), offshore wind, energy crops and other new generation technologies. Allocation of this funding to different renewable technologies will
  184W
  take account of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Report on Resource Productivity and Renewable Energy later this year.

  The new funds are additional to previously announced support of £89 million in the form of capital grants for the generation of energy from offshore wind and energy crops.

  Companies in Thurrock will be eligible to apply for all the support available and also to apply for support under the Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme that supports R and D on renewables.

  Manufacturing (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support has been given to benefit manufacturing companies in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [154648]

  Mr. Caborn
  Shrewsbury and Atcham is outside the Assisted Area so the main DTI financial support schemes such as Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grants are not available to manufacturing businesses in this area.

  However, manufacturing businesses in the Shrewsbury area are able to benefit from assistance available from the Training and Enterprise Council, the Business Link and other DTI schemes such as the Teaching Company Scheme. Unfortunately, it ha not been possible in the time available to quantify the extent to which manufacturing businesses in the area will have taken advantage of assistance available from these other support mechanisms.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152974]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Lincoln constituency has benefited from a range of initiatives since May 1997 including:Business Link—the Business Link network provides a wide range of business advice and support to SMEs. It is not possible to isolate Business Link data for the Lincoln constituency. However within the Lincoln city Local Authority District, from 1997 to date, Business Link Lincolnshire has assisted 843 existing businesses and 1,066 potential business start ups and contributed to 278 new business start ups.
  Invest UK—an initiative to help investors wishing to set up business in the UK Over 300 jobs in Lincoln City have been secured under this initiative since 1997.
  Regional Supply Office—an initiative which provides a range of support for supply chain development. It is not possible to isolate data for the Liner In constituency. However since 1997 the Regional Supply Office (RSO) has matched £65 million of business opportunities to Lincolnshire companies. In addition the RSO has worked with Lincoln City Council to resolve supply chain problems.
  Smart—a discretionary grant available to SMEs to help them develop technologically innovative products and processes. Within the Lincoln constituency three grants worth £149,850 in total have been awarded since May 1997.
  European Regional Development Fund—in 1999 for the first time parts of Lincoln City became eligible to benefit from European Structural Funds under Objective 2, enabling people in the city to
  185W

  share in a regeneration programme worth some £228 million of grant funding over the next seven years. Grants will help with site development and provision of business premises, SME support, improving the skills of the work force and community economic development.
  Enterprise Grants—a new discretionary grant introduced in 2000. Provides support to SMEs investing in capital projects which would not otherwise go ahead. Although SMEs in Lincoln City are eligible to receive Enterprise Grants, no grants have yet been awarded in this area.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Stourbridge and (b) the metropolitan borough of Dudley the effects on the area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154732]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since 2 May 1997 the DTI has made grant offers to businesses in the Dudley metropolitan borough council area including Stourbridge totalling £2.14 million. These grants under the Regional Selective Assistance and Regional Enterprise Grant schemes have helped to create or safeguard 838 jobs and unlock private sector investment totalling over £20 million. During the same period 14 businesses in the Dudley area have received Smart grants totalling £575 233 to assist with research into the development of new products and processes.

  In addition to these direct grant mechanisms businesses in the Dudley area will have benefited from assistance available through the local Business link and other DTI funded initiatives such as the Teaching, Company Scheme which will have had a positive impact on the area's economy.

  Redundancies (Paignton)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effects of manufacturing redundancies at Nortel Networks, Paignton, on the South Devon economy; and if he will make a statement. [154300]

  Mr. Caborn
  All the local agencies, including the Employment Service, the RDA and the Government Office, are working closely with the company and the local authority to assess the impact of the redundancies at Nortel.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) of 26 February 2001,Official Report column 314W, on radioactive waste, if he will list the criteria his Department uses to evaluate what constitutes as soon as practicable in respect of the return of high level radioactive waste to country of origin. [154228]

  Mr. Hain
  Wastes will be returned as required by contracts when they have been put into a form suitable for transfer, the facilities for export and receipt are ready and all appropriate approvals are in pace.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the Health
  186W
  and Safety Executive report, on progress on BNFL's response to three reports on Sellafield issued by the Health and Safety Executive on 18 February 2000. [154201]

  Mr. Hain
  I welcome this thorough report from the Health and Safety Executive. I also welcome the progress that BNFL has made in addressing the recommendations in HSE' s three reports published on 18 February 2000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of the Lord Chancellor's Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152976]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for the administration of the courts and for legal services. We have taken steps to improve the management and effectiveness of the services we provide and to meet customer needs, including working closely with other agencies to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice, improve the availability of affordable and good quality legal services and to improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families.

  Lincoln constituency is covered by the Lincolnshire and Rutland Community Legal Service Partnership which will be formally launched on 21 March. It is one of the 165 Community Legal Service Partnerships throughout England and Wales.

  Within Lincoln 12 solicitor firms and two not for profit organisations have been awarded Legal Services Commission contracts with an expected expenditure value for the year 2001–02 of £635,000. The contracts cover a range of categories, and these include welfare benefits, debt, family and employment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flooding (Environment Agency Report)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the Environment Agency's report on the serious flooding in autumn and winter 2000; and if he will make a statement. [154898]

  Mr. Morley
  I am today publishing this report, copies of which are being placed in the House Libraries. Copies of the regional reports will be placed in the Libraries by 30 March. I welcome publication of this report which I commissioned the Environment Agency to produce, in partnership with the other bodies responsible for responding to the flooding, particularly local authorities and the emergency services.

  The report shows that since last October we have seen the worst flooding for half a century, following the wettest autumn on record. Thankfully no loss of life was directly associated with the floods, though 10,000 properties suffered flooding—some repeatedly—and I again extend the Government's sympathies to all those who were affected.
  187W
  I endorse the key finding that the Agency, and those responsible for the emergency response, performed well. I am particularly pleased to note that the seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response, for which I called after the Easter 1998 floods, was delivered in most if not all areas. I am also pleased to note that in a number of localities the emergency response arrangements benefited from exercises conducted last summer between the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services. The new flood warning codes, introduced by the Agency within weeks of the floods, also worked well.

  I want to thank the Agency, and all the other organisations and individuals involved, for their efforts in response to the flooding. This involved many hours of long, hard work, rapid decisions which needed to be made, and also individual acts of bravery, for which the country must express its gratitude. The effects of the flooding would almost certainly have been much worse were it not for their efforts.

  Nevertheless, the report identifies some further lessons to be learned, the key ones being:
  The flood warning arrangements worked well but there are some detailed lessons for further improvement. I have asked the Agency to provide me with their proposals for implementing changes by September 2001. Also, the report notes some deficiencies in the weather forecasts received by the Agency. A review will be taken forward by the Environment Agency in conjunction with the Met Office, to report by September 2001.
  There is a need for the current Home Office review of local authority emergency planning arrangements to take account of the lessons learned from the floods.
  There remains some confusion in the minds of the public about responsibility for measures to prevent flooding, and for responding to it. The key to sound action is planning, partnership and provision of information. Through the Ministry's High Level Targets, operating authorities are required to provide policy statement which will indicate flood risk locally and how it will be managed, and to describe local partnerships. Such statements are due to be completed soon. These statements will provide information on "assumed" responsibility which will provide a useful basis for determining if further action on attribution is necessary in specific instances and developing a sound local partnership. Provision of a "one stop shop" may then be possible by local agreement.
  We have a High Level Target in place for the Environment Agency to organise a programme of local and regional emergency exercises and should also conduct a national emergency exercise during the course of 2001. While local and regional exercises should continue, I have accepted the Agency's recommendation that it is unnecessary to conduct a national exercise this year. I shall consider with the Agency the timetable for a future national exercise.
  We need to determine the appropriate level of investment in flood and coastal defence. Substantial increases were made in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the 2000 Spending Review. An additional £51 million was announced in November, and we have also put together an £11.6 million package to fund the exceptional costs of the Environment Agency in responding to the flooding and in undertaking emergency repairs. However, I recognise that we need to be ready to consider whether further expenditure may be justified. We have already instituted additional research to identify in broad terms what future investment may be required so that this can be considered in future spending reviews. Other developments such as strategic catchment studies should assist in the future production of more realistic needs-based expenditure programmes.
  We have established a series of High Level Targets to ensure Government policy for flood and coastal defence is delivered by the operating authorities and others. One group of targets requires

  188W

  the Environment Agency to establish a database of flood and coastal defences and to record information on their condition, based on inspection, undertaken by the operating authorities. The database is an important development, for which MAFF is currently contributing towards the cost; we will consider whether additional funding is needed. It is also necessary to ensure that inspections of defences are completed by the operating authorities accurately and to time. I am asking the Environment Agency to report on this, as hart of their report on the inspections and assessment of flood risk required under the High Level Targets.
  The Environment Agency's report raises questions about the process for making investment decisions. I have asked the Agency to provide me with supporting evidence by September 2001 and I will consider with them, and the other operating authorities, whether changes are required. This issue will be relevant to the review, already under way, of the priority scoring arrangements for consideration of MAFF financial support for flood and coastal defence schemes.
  Also under way is a review of the current funding arrangements for flood and coastal defence. I shall ensure that relevant recommendations in the report are considered by the Review Steering Group.
  The Agency has also undertaken to carry forward further reviews and studies which I anticipate receiving with interest.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was right when, on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 607, he referred to the effects of the earlier violent storm as a "wake up call". We can certainly expect climate change to mean that events of this type will occur more frequently in future. Another inevitable fact is that Governments—past, present and future—cannot prevent all flooding; but where it is sensible and sustainable to do so, we can take further action to reduce the risk.

  We can also take action to ensure that as a nation we are prepared to deal with the effects of severe weather, including but not limited to flooding, and that our key national infrastructure can withstand these effects. This is a matter on which we are working closely with local authorities and other key players through the Central Local Partnership.

  In summary, if it had not been for the effective response of the Agency and others, the flooding would have had much more serious effects than it did. There are still lessons to be learned, but we have all come a long way since the flooding three years ago.

  Serco Contracts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the contracts that exist between SERCO and the Department, its executive agencies and associated public bodies; and if he will list those which have existed in the last three years. [151343]

  Ms Quin
  For the last three years, the Department's expenditure profile with the SERCO group of companies has been as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  17,818.55

  1999–2000

  27,270.50

  2000–01

  30,399.42

  This expenditure comprises a total 139 individual transactions concerned with the supply of photographic film, fuel and vehicle maintenance. From records held
  189W
  centrally, the Department's Executive Agencies and Associated Public Bodies have had no dealings with the SERCO Group over the last three years.

  EU Sugar Programme
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total cost to the EU Budget was of the EU's sugar programme in the latest year for which figures are available. [153984]

  Ms Quin
  Total expenditure on the sugar chapter for the 1999 EAGGF year was 2.113 billion euro. This was offset to some extent by sugar levies of 1.204 billion euro.

  Aquaculture Scientists
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his Department's and its relevant agencies' fish disease scientists dealing with aquaculture hold qualifications from an internationally recognised professional body; if he will list the bodies with which they are qualified; and if he will make a statement. [154061]

  Ms Quin
  At the Weymouth Laboratory of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, there are nine scientists working on aspects of fish disease in aquaculture who hold a qualification from an internationally recognised professional body. These bodies are:

  The Institute of Biology

  The Zoological Society of London

  The Royal College of Science

  The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  The Panhellenic Veterinary Association (Greece)

  Université de Médecine (France)

  BSE
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total UK stocks of rendered over 30 month scheme material were at the latest available date; and for what sum of money the Government are eligible for reimbursement by the European Union when those stocks are incinerated. [153921]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The total UK stocks of rendered material as at 4 March 2001 were 426,474 tonnes of MBM and 215,442 tonnes of tallow.

  The total amount of reimbursement represented by these stocks, claimable at incineration, is approximately £150 million.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken into the survival of M.bovis in(a) soil, (b) dust, (c) water and (d) other materials. [154034]

  Plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides which have been granted approval since September 1998

  Registration number

  Product name

  Marketing company

  Products containing 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid

  M09748

  Aventis Cerone

  Rhöne-Poulenc Agriculture

  M09972

  Aventis Cerone

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09985

  Cerone

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09986

  Charger

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09868

  Cleancrop Fonic

  United Agri Products

  M09553

  Cleancrop Fonic M

  United Agri Products

  190W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The current research programme is designed to improve knowledge of the epidemiology, modes of transmission, pathogenesis and risk factors associated with bovine TB.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account his Department is taking of the threat of increased genetic susceptibility to bovine TB of cattle. [154033]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Government have accepted the advice of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) that research into the genetic base of disease resistance in cattle is not a priority at present, given the major practical difficulties the ISG has identified in pursuing research, and given that any genetic differences seem likely to affect mainly the severity of the disease in cattle, whereas current control policies are based on the removal of all infected animals identified through an immune response.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods his Department uses to restrict the spread of bovine TB during the foot and mouth epidemic. [154035]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]All cattle movements in Great Britain are prohibited under the current foot and mouth disease control measures, except when conducted under special MAFF licences.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides which have had approval revoked since September 1998, giving the reason for revocation in each case. [154252]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]85 plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides have had their approvals revoked by Ministers since September 1998. A further 61 products are in the process of being revoked. A list of all the products is available in the Libraries of the House, with the reasons for revocation for each product.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides which have been granted approval under Regulation 5 of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 since September 1998. [154251]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]41 plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides have been granted approval by Ministers since September 1998. A list of all the 41 products which have gained approval is provided in the table.
  191W

  Plant protection products containing organophosphate pesticides which have been granted approval since September 1998

  Registration number

  Product name

  Marketing company

  M09989

  EXP03149D

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09571

  Greencrop Tycoon

  Greencrop Technology Ltd.

  M10394

  Ice

  BASF plc

  M09979

  Marnoch Phonet

  Marnoch Ventures Ltd.

  M10004

  Nomad

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M10395

  Satellite

  BASF plc

  M09373

  Standon Mepiquat Plus

  Standon Chemicals Ltd.

  M10020

  Strate

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09634

  Terpitz

  Me2 Crop Protection

  M10029

  Upgrade

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  Products containing azamethiphos

  M09439

  Alfacron Plus

  Novartis Animal Health (UK) Ltd.

  M09314

  Farm Fly Spray 10 WP

  Rentokil Initial (UK) Ltd.

  Products containing chlorpyrifos

  M09775

  Ballad

  Headland Amenity Ltd.

  M09778

  Choir

  Nufarm Whyte Agriculture Ltd.

  M09929

  Crossfire 480

  Aventis Environmental Science

  M09153

  Dursban WG

  Dow AgroSciences Ltd.

  M09667

  Greencrop Pontoon

  Greencrop Technology Ltd.

  M10139

  Lorsban WG

  Dow AgroSciences Ltd.

  M09274

  Maraud

  The Scotts Company (UK) Ltd.

  M09226

  Suscon Green

  Scotts Europe BV

  M09902

  Suscon Indigo Soil Insecticide

  Fargro Ltd.

  Products containing dimethoate

  M09583

  Danadim

  Cheminova Agro (UK) Ltd.

  M09477

  Greencrop Pelethon

  Greencrop Technology Ltd.

  M10492

  Sector

  Cheminova Agro (UK) Ltd.

  Products containing ethoprophos

  M09973

  Aventis Mocap 10G

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  M09750

  Aventis Mocap 10G

  Rhöne-Poulenc Agriculture

  M10003

  Mocap 10G

  Aventis CropScience (UK) Ltd.

  Products containing fenitrothion

  M09598

  Dicofen

  pbi Agrochemicals Ltd.

  Products containing pirimiphos-methyl

  M10508

  Actellic 2% Dust

  Syngenta Crop Protection UK Ltd.

  M 10509

  Actellic D

  Syngenta Crop Protection UK Ltd.

  M10448

  Actellic Smoke Generator No 10

  Sorex Ltd.

  M10540

  Actellic Smoke Generator No 20

  Syngenta Crop Protection UK Ltd.

  M09501

  Fumite General Purpose Insecticide Smoke Cone

  The Scotts Company (UK) Ltd.

  Products containing tolclofos-methyl

  M09673

  Rizolex

  Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SA

  M09358

  Rizolex Flowable

  Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SA

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the plant protection products containing the active ingredient chlorpyrifos which have been granted approval under Regulation 5 of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 in the last 12 months. [154250]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  Two plant protection products containing chlorpyrifos have been granted approval by Ministers in the last 12 months to 13 March 2001. These are:

  Reg. Number

  Product name

  Marketing company

  M09153

  Dursban WG

  Dow AgroSciences Ltd.

  M10139

  Lorsban WG

  Dow AgroSciences Ltd.

  Agricultural Exports (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the value in 2000 was of agricultural exports from farms based in Shropshire, broken down by agricultural products; and if he will make a statement. [154704]

  Ms Quin
  Statistics on the value of agricultural exports are only compiled for the UK as a whole. No information is available on the value of exports from farms based in Shropshire. The total value of exports of food, feed and drink from the UK in 2000 amounted to £8.6 billion.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he is issuing in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic to local authorities about pedestrian access to canal towpaths. [152690]
  193W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 March 2001]The Ministry has not issued specific advice regarding pedestrian access to canal footpaths. However we have posted advice on MAFF's website regarding restrictions and precautions on outdoor activities in an infected area. We advise members of the public not to take part in activities on land where livestock is kept, or which might bring them into contact with susceptible species.

  The Ministry has issued advice to Local Authorities on the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (England) Order 2001 and the Foot and Mouth (Amendment) (No 2) Order 2001. These Regulations allow, with exceptions, MAFF and local authorities to prevent the entry of any person onto any land or into any agricultural building in a controlled area (currently Great Britain has been declared a controlled area). They also allow local authorities to prohibit the movement members of the public onto any land where there may be animals and onto any footpath or right of way within identified areas in their districts, for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot and mouth disease. These restrictions could be applied to canal footpaths.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on compensation arrangements for animals culled because of possible infection with the foot and mouth virus, with particular reference to(a) effects on hill subsidies and environmental allowances if stocks have been removed thus contravening the requirements for receiving subsidy, (b) the time scale for payments to be made and(c) valuations.[152951]

  Ms Quin
  We are aware that, as a consequence of foot and mouth disease, farmers are facing difficulties in respect of CAP subsidy schemes, including those funded under the England Rural Development Programme. Although some of these difficulties may be covered by force majeure provisions, some will need changes to specific regulations. We are in urgent discussions with the European Commission about them. In the meantime it is important that farmers contact their Regional Service Centre if they believe they will have difficulty in complying with scheme requirements.

  Arrangements are in place to ensure that compensation claims for animals slaughtered to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease will be processed and paid as quickly as possible. We aim to pay compensation to owners within about a week of slaughter taking place.

  An independent valuation is carried out on the animals which are due to be slaughtered and the owner is invited to agree a statement of valuation. If an owner chooses to reject this valuation, he may call in his own valuer so that the matter can go to arbitration.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to protect zoos from the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [153767]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 564W.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used by his Department to define an outbreak of foot and mouth disease that has more than one geographical location associated with it. [153838]
  194W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]An outbreak of foot and mouth disease is declared when disease is confirmed on any separate or distinct holding. For example, if a single business consisting of two separately located farms had foot and mouth disease confirmed at both locations, this would be treated as two separate outbreaks.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to retail premises specialising in products for farmers about the risk of cross-infection of the foot and mouth virus. [153839]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]Such businesses should comply with the general advice posted on the MAFF website www.maff.gov.uk for persons who work in the countryside.

  Central to this advice is that people should follow strict cleansing procedures which would include leaving vehicles outside the farm, disinfecting boots and wearing boots or clothing supplied by the farm. People working in the countryside should ensure that all mud, slurry and manure is washed off before they leave the premises.

  It is essential that all visits to farms and possible contacts with animals are recorded. The records should include the date and time of the visit. Should disease occur on a farm then these records will be used to trace movements and possible spread of the disease.

  Operators of retail outlets may wish to advertise the MAFF guidance to their customers.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if outbreaks of foot and mouth disease have occurred in the vicinity of landfill sites; and if he will make a statement about the implications for the control of the disease. [153821]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]Information as to whether infected premises are located in the vicinity of a landfill site is not readily available. However, veterinary advice is that landfill sites have not played any part in the spread of the disease.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the average annual cost per farmer of buying foot and mouth vaccine. [153719]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]If the Ministry were to approve vaccination against foot and mouth disease, vaccine would be dispatched to local control centres. Veterinary surgeons employed by the Ministry for the purposes of foot and mouth control would be responsible for the vaccination of susceptible species. There would be no cost to livestock farmers.

  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason the Prosper De Mulder rendering plant in Widnes was chosen as the sole site to dispose of animals slaughtered as a result of foot and mouth disease; what plans he has to use other rendering plants in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the locations of other rendering plants. [154074]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Prosper De Mulder plant in Widnes was chosen on the basis of its capacity, its location, and its ability to meet
  195W
  a range of bio-security considerations. Following the successful use of this facility, a further site near Exeter is now being used and further sites are under consideration.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which contractors he has engaged to provide fuel for on-farm incineration of animals put down as foot and mouth suspects. [154214]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]The Ministry is using a great many contractors at a local level throughout the country. This information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Hand-carried Imported Food Stuffs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of controls over the importing of fruit and vegetables hand-carried by visitors to the United Kingdom. [154248]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]An assessment of the plant health risks from passengers' baggage was carried out in 1992, as a result of which personal imports from outside the EU of vegetables (except potatoes) and up to 2 kg of fruit are permitted. Customs officers seize fruit in excess of 2 kg, and any potatoes, when they are detected at entry. There are no restrictions on the quantity of fruit or vegetables which may be brought into the UK from within the EU.

  Flood Defences (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Environment Agency to identify a costed preferred scheme to improve flood defences in Lewes. [154334]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that the Environment Agency is starting work on studies leading to the preparation of a flood defence strategy for the River Ouse and its tributaries. It is expected that the strategy, which will seek to identify sustainable options for flood defence in the catchment, will take eight to 12 months to complete. The timing of applications for grant aid on individual schemes will then be a matter for the Agency.

  Quarantine Laws
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the result of the changes made in the quarantine laws; and what further changes he proposes. [154084]

  Ms Quin
  The Ministry is currently carrying out an evaluation of the Pet Travel Scheme, which will be published in due course. We are also committed to reviewing the possible inclusion of North America in the Pet Travel Scheme. We will consider further changes to the scheme when the result of this work is available.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Gordon. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will complete his review of hill farm incomes. [153498]

  Ms Quin
  Hill farm incomes are reviewed, every autumn. The results of last year's review, entitled "Economic Conditions in the Hills and Uplands in the
  196W
  United Kingdom: Statistical Tables", were made available to the Libraries of the House on 29 November 2000. The Hills Task Force, set up in November 2000 to look at hill farmers' access to support under the ERDP and other measures, has been asked to report by the end of March 2001.

PRIME MINISTER

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made to date by the G8 renewables task force. [154193]

  The Prime Minister
  The G8 Renewable Energy Task Force will present its final report to the G8 Heads of Government at the Genoa Summit in July 2001. The UK is pleased with the Task Force's progress to date, and particularly with the active involvement of so many high-level representatives from business, Government and non-government organisations. We will make a full statement of how the UK intends to carry forward the Task Force recommendations once the final report is available.

  Pensioners (Annuities)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 1011, if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of giving pensioners the freedom to choose to invest in products other than an annuity. [154324]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 March 2001]Relaxing the existing requirement to purchase an annuity would provide an incentive for some to use pension schemes for purposes other than providing a secure income throughout retirement. Costs will vary depending on the nature of any reforms, including what level of income must first be secured and what tax charge is applied to withdrawals above that level. Proposals for tax-free withdrawals could cost billions of pounds a year in lost income tax and extra tax relief.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work programme for the Strategic Communications Unit for the year 2000–01. [154335]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 23 June 2000,Official Report, column 328W.

CABINET

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to her answer of 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 472W, for what reasons the Office for National Statistics no longer presents the data to which she refers broken down by public and private sector. [153951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.
  197W
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Philip Hammond, dated 20 March 2001:

  The National Statistician has been asked to, reply to your recent question on why Labour Force Survey data on absence from work due to illness and injury is no longer presented by public and private sector (153951). I am replying in his absence

  Information about absence from work due to sickness and injury is collected in the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS also includes a question about the industrial sector hat respondents work in, which is classified to public or private sector groupings.

  The LFS databases provide this information and can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. In addition, an article was published in the December 2000 issue of Labour Market Trends which includes an analysis of sickness absence in the public and private sectors for Summer 2000.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will award the Driving Standards Agency a charter mark. [154740]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Driving Standards Agency was last awarded a charter mark in 1997. They reapplied last year. The independent Charter Mark Judging Panel concluded that this application should be deferred pending improvement in a number of areas. The re-application will therefore be assessed again in the summer.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many political advisers will resign when a general election is called; and what severance compensation they will be entitled to. [154290]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on 13 February 2001,Official Report, column 130W. Entitlement to severance compensation is also set out in the Model Contract.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that when pensioners are written to they, as part of the implementation of the Social Security (Inherited SERPS) Regulations 2001, are notified of his Department's compensation scheme for financial loss as a result of misleading information supplied by his Department. [154578]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under our proposals, the spouses of existing pensioners are fully protected; they will be able to inherit up to 100 per cent. of their late spouse's SERPS, as now. They do not need to claim compensation for their position to be fully restored. We are in the process of writing to all pensioners to explain the position.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for Severe Disablement Allowance have been received each month since April 2000. [154078]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of new claims to Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) in each month since April 2000

  Month

  SDA new claims

  April 2000

  3,459

  May 2000

  3,884

  June 2000

  3,966

  July 2000

  3,830

  August 2000

  4,172

  September 2000

  4,226

  October 2000

  4,418

  November 2000

  4,539

  December 2000

  3,122

  January 2001

  4,065

  Source:

  Figures are taken from Central Data Unit 100 per cent. counts.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were eligible to receive Winter Fuel Payment in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000; and how many he estimates will receive it in 2001. [153581]

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 10 million people were eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in the winter of 1999–2000. Up to 11.5 million people could be eligible for the payment this winter, 2000–01, with a similar figure for next winter, 2001–02.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents on Income Support there are in the Leeds, Central constituency; and how many there were in May 1997. [154287]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Lone parents receiving Income Support in Leeds, Central constituency

  Thousand

  Leeds, Central constituency

  May 1997

  3.3

  November 2000

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore may be subject to sampling error.

  3. Lone parents are defined as single claimants with dependant children. not in receipt of Pensioner or Disability Premium.

  4. Dependant children are defined as children aged up to 15 or aged 16 to 18 in full-time education.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and November 2000.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents on Income Support there are in(a) South Tyneside and (b) South Shields constituency; and how many there were in May 1997. [154438]
  199W
  Angela Eagle [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  The information is in the table.

  Lone parents receiving Income Support in South Tyneside metropolitan borough council area and South Shields constituency

  Thousand

  May

  November

  1997

  2000

  South Tyneside Local Authority Area

  3.5

  3.4

  South Shields Parliamentary Constituency

  2.0

  2.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore may be subject to sampling error.

  3. Lone parents are defined as single claimants with dependant children, not in receipt of Pensioner or Disability Premium.

  4. Dependant children are defined as children aged up to 15 or aged 16 to 18 in full-time education.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 and November 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152975]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Lincoln since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Lincoln 10,634 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 1,044,900; in Lincoln the number has reduced from 3,500 to 1,800. Since May 1997
  200W
  the number of lo e parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally, and in Lincoln from 2,00 to 1,700.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 16,500 older people in Lincoln have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 15,500 pensioners in Lincoln will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 6,600 in Lincoln. 2,800 pensioner families in Lincoln are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Newbury)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Newbury constituency, the effects on Newbury and west Berkshire of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154575]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Newbury since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.
  201W
  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about seven million families receive Child Benefit, and in Newbury 12.034 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Newbury the number has reduced from 900 to 600. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100; in Newbury the number has remained at around 800

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 16,400 older people in Newbury have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter.

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 14,000 pensioners in Newbury will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 5,700 in Newbury. 1,200 pensioner families in Newbury are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of pension contributions incurred by his Department was in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01 in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [154444]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Cost of pension contributions incurred by this Department in the UK

  Year

  Cost £ million

  1997–98

  141

  1998–99

  149.6

  1999–2000

  157.6

  2000–01

  1—

  1Not yet available

  The cost of pension contributions relating to staff in Scotland is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Logos and Branding
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent by his Department on departmental and agency logos and associated branding since 1 May 1997. [152652]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since May 1997 spending by the Department on departmental or agency logos or associated branding is as follows:

  Better Government for Older People—Life Begins at 50. A logo developed for the InterMinisterial Group for Older People to link communications across Government.

  Logo Cost: £7,050

  Focus on Delivery—a logo used internally to brand all communications activity about major changes in the way the Department is organised and operates.

  Logo cost: £1,175

  50 Anniversary of the Welfare State—the Departmental logo was adapted for the year in which it celebrated its 50 Anniversary (1998)—includes all guidelines.

  Logo cost: £9,000

  Note:

  This includes some stationery costs as it is not possible to separate them out.

  Minister for Women Logo—introduced in 1997.

  Logo cost: £9,000

  Notes:

  1. Includes some inseparable stationery costs.

  2. The Minister for Women has an Intralink, website containing a logo. A breakdown of its cost is inseparable.

  The Working Age Agency—Branding of the new Agency is ongoing, therefore, costs are inseparable at this stage.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average length of time is for the Independent Case Examiner of the Child Support Agency to investigate a claim once it has been filed. [153938]

  Angela Eagle
  The current average clearance time for cases referred to the office of the Independent Case Examiner at February 2001 is 32.3 weeks. When a case is received, an initial review is carried out before a full investigation can begin. Once the initial review has been undertaken, cases currently wait around 16 weeks for the full investigation to start.

  Revenue Savings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the revenue savings from reducing the period during which a jobseeker's allowance claimant can turn down a job without losing benefit to eight weeks. [151546]

  Angela Eagle
  No such estimate has been made.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Eliman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of pensioners who would qualify for(a) Housing Benefit, (b) Income Support and (c) Council Tax Benefit for the first time as a result of the increase in the Minimum Income Guarantee in April. [153746]
  203W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table and gives the number of additional pensioners floating on to the main Income Related benefits in 2001–02 resulting from the increase to the applicable amount. This includes all the measures announced in the November 2000 pre-Budget report; aligning the different pensioner premiums, protecting the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in line with the increases to the basic State pension in 2001 and earnings uprating. It also includes the increase to the capital limits announced in Budget 2000.

  These figures are not additive because people may be entitled to more than one of these benefits.

  Number of additional pensioners that will float on to the main income related benefits under the changes compared to Rossi uprating alone

  Thousand

  2001–02

  MIG

  140

  Housing Benefit

  30

  Council Tax Benefit

  50

  Notes

  1. The assumption used is that the costs of the MIG have been calculated over and above the cost of uprating the MIG by Rossi.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases.

  3. The number of floaters has been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefits. This models the benefit system in 2001–02 and is based on data from the Family Resource Survey (FRS) for 1997–98, uprated to 2001 prices. Figures for floaters are calibrated to historical take up assumptions and therefore do not reflect behavioural changes due to recent initiatives.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the(a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for Disability Living Allowance (i) initial applications, (ii) renewal claims, (iii) reviews and (iv) appeals in each quarter from 1996 to October 1999 and monthly from November 1999 to date; [152023]

  (2) what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for Disability Living Allowance (i) revisions and (ii) supersessions in each month from November 1999 to date. [152026]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 16 March 2001:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for disability living allowance (a) revisions and (b) supersessions in each month form November 1999 to date. Also what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times

  Monthly

  Initial claims

  Renewals

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  October 1999

  40.00

  35.00

  46.00

  32.00

  48.00

  November 1999

  44.00

  50.00

  30.00

  38.00

  49.00

  December 1999

  47.00

  51.00

  37.00

  45.00

  50.00

  January 2000

  51.00

  54.00

  50.00

  58.00

  57.00

  February 2000

  51.00

  53.00

  61.00

  68.00

  64.00

  March 2000

  49.00

  53.00

  66.00

  74.00

  67.00

  204W
  were for disability living allowance (i) initial applications, (ii) renewal claims, (iii) reviews and (iv) appeals in each quarter from 1996 to October 1999 and monthly from November 1999 to date.

  The information you require is as follows:

  1. Targets

  Primary

  Secondary

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Initial applications

  65% in 30 days

  85% in 53 days

  Renewal claims

  65% in 30 days

  85% in 55 days

  Reviews

  60% in 55 days

  80% in 75 days

  Appeals

  60% in 30 days

  90% in 60 days

  April 1997 to March 1999

  Initial applications

  62% in 30 days

  85% in 53 days

  Renewal claims

  65% in 30 days

  85% in 55 days

  Reviews

  60% in 55 days

  80% in 75 days

  Appeals

  60% in 30 days

  90% in 60 days

  From April 1999, the Benefits Agency changed the format for reporting performance to a single-tier target.

  Target

  April 1999 to March 2000

  Initial applications

  85% in 53 days

  Renewal claims

  85% in 55 days

  Reviews

  80% in 75 days

  Appeals

  90% in 60 days

  April 2000 to March 2001

  Initial applications

  95% in 53 days

  Renewal claims

  95% in 84 days

  Reviews

  95% in 99 days

  Appeals

  95% in 99 days

  It should be noted that 'reviews' includes in-time and out-of-time reviews prior to October 1999, and both reconsiderations and supersessions after that date.

  2. Actual average clearance times are expressed in days and are:

  2. Actual average clearance times—expressed in days

  Initial claims

  Renewals

  Reviews

  Appeals

  June 1996

  28.51

  22.78

  44.43

  29.32

  September 1996

  31.21

  23.90

  47.33

  29.90

  December 1996

  32.01

  23.86

  48.66

  30.12

  March 1997

  32.10

  23.96

  49.31

  30.04

  June 1997

  34.20

  24.46

  49.50

  27.95

  September 1997

  36.51

  28.14

  53.44

  31.67

  December 1997

  37.34

  29.19

  53.29

  32.79

  March 1998

  37.23

  29.79

  52.28

  33.20

  June 1998

  31.50

  34.22

  46.98

  32.17

  September 1998

  32 44

  37.80

  48.95

  34.57

  December 1998

  33.93

  37.78

  49.47

  35.08

  March 1999

  35.03

  37.56

  49.67

  36.08

  June 1999

  37.54

  38.36

  54.77

  40.72

  September 1999

  38.72

  39.48

  57.25

  46.38

  205W

  Monthly

  Initial claims

  Renewals

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  April 2000

  49.10

  50.00

  66.10

  73.90

  67.40

  May 2000

  51.50

  50.70

  60.30

  70.40

  67.70

  June 2000

  51.40

  49.00

  54.50

  67.90

  66.50

  July 2000

  48.70

  39.30

  49.00

  62.10

  63.90

  August 2000

  47.50

  39.40

  43.00

  57.90

  58.60

  September 2000

  46.20

  34.80

  44.80

  55.60

  61.00

  October 2000

  45.70

  32.30

  44.70

  55.00

  55.40

  November 2000

  44.50

  32.10

  42.60

  52.50

  51.90

  December 2000

  44.00

  31.90

  39.40

  51.50

  48.40

  New procedures for assessing claims for DLA/AA were introduced last year to improve the accuracy of decisions on entitlement. Customers can receive clearer explanations of decisions on their benefit entitlement. Initially these changes led to significant increases in the time it took to process each case which, together with a growing caseload, created a temporary, but significant, backlog of work. In addition, the backlog of work caused an increase in the number of enquiries received from customers, resulting in additional work for staff to process. The backlog has been tackled as a priority with a number of improvements being made to processes. forms and the use of IT in order in turn to improve clearance times. However, changes of this order require time for staff to be trained and to become familiar with new processes before they can become fully effective. Decision-makers have become accustomed to the new procedures and the backlog has now been cleared.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Newcastle City Council. [155013]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of Newcastle City Council 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.

  BFI looked at the performance of Newcastle in August 1997 as one of a series of trial inspections during the initial set up of BFI, but the findings were not published.

  Inspectors report that Newcastle has responded positively to their 1997 findings and recommendations. The council has a large HB and CTB caseload and a transient population and the BFI was pleased to note that there were no backlogs at the time of their on-site inspection, despite the volume of work.

  There have been noticeable improvements in the council's administration. In particular, its claim form, verification and liaison with the Benefits Agency, Rent Service, private sector landlords and Housing Associations.
  206W
  The report also notes that substantial progress has been made in counter fraud work. The council now undertakes its own prosecutions and has introduced a computerised fraud management system.

  The report acknowledges a significant improvement has been the development of a joint protocol between Internal Audit and District Audit which ensures both teams are working together to ensure maximum audit coverage and effectiveness.

  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.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Sandwell metropolitan borough council. [155012]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of Sandwell metropolitan borough council 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.

  This was a follow-up inspection. The BFI previously reported on Sandwell metropolitan borough council in August 1999. Since then the council has responded very positively to BFI's recommendations and has been particularly active in taking steps to tackle fraud and error, despite a high level of staff turnover and recruitment problems.

  Inspectors noted that the council had implemented most of their recommendations and this had led to improvements in its overall administration and counter fraud performance.

  Inspectors noted that the council had approved a prosecution policy and together with training for its fraud officers this had led to the council conducting a large number of successful prosecutions. Inspectors found the council had the best performing fraud section of the 30 highest spending local authorities the BFI have inspected to date.

  Inspectors also noted that centralising benefit processing has helped the council reduce backlogs and improve clearance times.
  207W
  The report concludes that the council has achieved a lot in a short space of time and this is commendable. However, there is still room for further improvement, in particular through the council implementing the Verification Framework to support the council's counter fraud strategy, and the report makes recommendations for this.

  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.

  Pensions Agreement (Japan)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effects of the recent agreement with Japan on the pensions of UK citizens who live in Japan. [154133]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The recent agreement with Japan has no effect on pensions of UK citizens who live in Japan.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

UNESCO Cultural Property Convention
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government.
When they propose to accede to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on Means of Preventing the Illicit Traffic in Cultural Property, and to implement the other recommendations made last December by the Ministerial Advisory Panel on Illicit Trade, chaired by Professor Norman Palmer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to confirm my Answer to the Written Question of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on 13th March. The Government have taken the decision to accede to this convention once the normal parliamentary and other formalities have been completed. We are giving active consideration to the other recommendations of the report of the ministerial advisory panel, particularly the criminal offence, and we will announce progress on these in due course.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations and, no doubt, those of other noble Lords on this very welcome, if perhaps long-awaited, announcement in relation to the UNESCO convention? Will he confirm that it will be possible to complete the formalities to which he referred before the Summer Recess? The noble Lord will be aware that one of the recommendations of Professor Palmer's working party was that there should be four new members of staff in the export licensing unit to facilitate its work. Can the noble Lord say how soon we can expect the appointment of these new staff members in order that London will no longer be a bazaar for unprovenanced antiquities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in accepting the noble Lord's congratulations, may I return them. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was a distinguished member of the panel, the recommendations of which we have accepted.
The formalities involve preparing the convention and an explanatory memorandum as a White Paper, which would then have to be presented to Parliament for at least 21 sitting days. I am not sure that I can promise that this will be done by the Summer Recess, but it can certainly be done this year. As to the issue of four additional staff, we do not think that quite as many will be needed. We are working on the numbers and on the costs involved quite actively.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the recent publication
1280
by the British art dealers' federation of a new code of practice in this area? What are the Government's plans for monitoring its progress?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in welcoming the new code of practice of the British Art Market Federation, which seems to cover the necessary ground very effectively. I think self-regulation—in the first instance, at any rate—is probably the wiser course of action.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on his reference to the creation of a criminal offence in connection with archaeological finds. Can he give any kind of timescale as to when that criminal offence will be introduced in this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we are giving active consideration to the recommendation of making this a criminal offence, but first we have to establish how far it needs to be a new criminal offence and how far the offence is covered by the existing law. The panel also made a recommendation that there should be an international database of legislation, which is a very valuable recommendation. When we have completed the review of whether the existing law is adequate for the purpose, if there are any gaps we will then consider how they should be filled. That would probably be by means of an insertion in a criminal justice Bill. As we seem to have criminal justice Bills every year, that may not mean too long a delay.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can the Minister give any indication of the Government's thinking on the proposed Home Office database of stolen and looted antiquities and antiques?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we support the recommendation and we are discussing it actively with the Home Office. Incidentally, in view of an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday which suggested that there should be a log book for all items of cultural property, I should say that this is not something which is being discussed between the Department for Culture and the Home Office. That idea was specifically rejected by the Palmer panel. It seems to us to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic and intrusive burden on the trade. A database of stolen and illegally removed property is a much more sensible idea.

Fishing Industry: Compensation
2.41 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to compensate British fishermen who can no longer make a living as a result of government action.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government and other EU member states have been obliged to act as a result

1281
of the severe decline in some of the main commercial fish stocks. If not reversed, this decline in stocks threatens the long-term viability of the industry. We are urgently considering requests from the industry for financial assistance, and we expect to be able to make an announcement shortly—within days rather than weeks.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that Answer. I assume that, as the necessity is to reduce the catching capacity, the Government are thinking of a decommissioning scheme. Will the Minister assure the House that it will not be like the previous one, which was so unrealistic that fishermen sold their quotas and their boats to Dutchmen and Spaniards rather than take part in the scheme? Will the noble Lord also assure the House that, in addition to the decommissioning scheme, some short-term measures will be taken to alleviate the present distress caused by boats being tied up without fish to fish for?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords. I do not have the details of the plan that is to be announced; however, I am aware that decommissioning is high on the agenda. The Government have certainly learnt from the experience of the previous decommissioning scheme. The noble Lord referred to foreign vessels taking advantage of that. It is worth pointing out that the number of foreign-owned vessels in the UK fleet has been reduced substantially. They represent about 5½ per cent of the fleet and about 17 per cent of the vessel capacity. A scheme is in place to provide £60 million over three years in England and in the devolved administrations in order to help the fishing industry. That will help to alleviate some of the problems referred to.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in terms of tonnage at least half of the British fishing fleet is Scottish. As fishing is a devolved matter, and as the Scottish Executive, consisting of Labour and Liberal Democrat members, recently took an extraordinary decision—contrary to the advice of fishermen's organisations—leading, it seems, to the massacre of juvenile haddock, from where would any compensation come? Would it come from Westminster, from Edinburgh, or from both?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am delighted to say that I am not responsible for the actions of the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive announced a scheme to provide up to £25 million for decommissioning. The money came from the famous—I almost said "notorious"—Barnett formula funds, and the money will obviously have to be found from somewhere else within the total. That decision was followed by a Motion in the Scottish Parliament for a change of policy, which succeeded by one vote; namely, the casting vote of the Presiding Officer, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I understand that the Scottish Executive is going ahead with the scheme
1282
to provide £25 million for decommissioning, which, I repeat, comes from Scottish funds and not from the taxpayer in England and Wales.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, for the record, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the changes in areas where vessels might fish in the North Sea have absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish Executive or any extraordinary decisions taken by it? The Presiding Officer—I am not sure whether he should be described as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, or Sir David Steel—took a step that was extraordinary in the circumstances and used his casting vote. Is it not the case that fishermen primarily in the north-east of Scotland voluntarily decided not to go to sea? Is it not extraordinary that they should demand compensation for their own actions?
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend is right. In his existence as Sir David Steel, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament did exercise the casting vote in favour of a Motion to add a tie-up scheme to decommissioning. As I understand it, the Scottish Executive decided to stick with the plan that it had already announced; namely, to spend £25 million only on decommissioning.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister explain further the arrangements that the Government are making? They have spoken about decommissioning; but how much money is being set aside for those members of the fishing fleet who have their boats tied up and cannot fish at the present time and who do not want to decommission? Secondly, if the Scottish Parliament has made this sum of money available, what do the Government intend to do about the English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishermen?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I have explained, an announcement will be made within the next few days which will set out the Government's proposals in response to the problems presently faced by the fishing fleet. I cannot say at this stage how much will be involved. However, I shall be surprised if the scheme does not involve the decommissioning of vessels. As I said, £60 million has been allocated over a period of three years for the UK—that is, for the devolved administrations and the Westminster Parliament. The tying up of boats does not provide the long-term solution to the problem of over-capacity within the fishing fleet; nor does it provide any short-term conservation benefit for fish stocks. For example, the protection of the abundance of small haddock is best addressed through technical measures. To tie the boats up and offer, as was proposed in Scotland, £1,000 for a period of time does not solve the long-term problem. Once the stocks have recovered, the tied-up boats are there and the over-capacity still exists.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the Government make certain that when the European Union is subsidising the Spaniards to build extra fishing boats

1283
it is not at the same time subsidising Scots to tie boats up? That is what has been happening, and it cannot be sensible.
Lord Carter: My Lords, all the measures attempted by other member states to support their fishermen must be within EU rules. The Commission is much more active than it used to be in examining the way in which the rules are interpreted. For example, the French attempted to compensate their fishermen for the cost of fuel. This was immediately stamped on by the Commission.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend made reference to over-capacity in the fishing fleet. Does he mean the European fishing fleet or the British fishing fleet? Would British fishermen be better off remaining within the common fisheries policy or, indeed, coming out of it?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I must say that the last part of my noble friend's intervention comes as a complete surprise to me. I should point out that there is over-capacity throughout the European fleet. I shall repeat a line that I know my noble friend has heard a number of times previously—however, I shall try once more: withdrawing from the common fisheries policy is totally unrealistic. I am sure that my noble friend knows that fish are a natural and mobile resource; they do not respect national boundaries.
Conserving fish stocks requires co-operation among member states in the EU. Pretending that leaving the CFP will solve all fishermen's problems is a distraction from the real issues with which the country is faced today. Although we recognise that, at present, the CFP is far from perfect, the Government's approach is to work for an improvement within it. The way in which the Irish Sea cod recovery programme—and now the North Sea cod and northern hake plans—are being developed is a good start. It shows that the CFP can work.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, despite the admirably succinct way in which the Minister answered the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I am afraid that I am still in something of a quandary. Can the noble Lord explain for the benefit of the House how it is that the CFP has benefited both fish stocks and British fisherman more than, for example, a 200-mile exclusion zone would have done?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have in fact done well out of the closure plan. Although we received more than 50 per cent of the allowable catch in the closure area, what we actually have is less than 50 per cent of the area to be closed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when the Government make their announcement in the next few days or weeks, can the Minister say whether it will affect the whole of the British fleet—as set out in the
1284
Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—or whether it will apply only to the English and Welsh fleets?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as far as I am aware, it will be for the English and Welsh fleets. However, if that information is incorrect, I shall write to the noble Earl.

London Underground
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the outcome of recent talks with the Commissioner for Transport for London on future responsibility for the London Underground.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, during recent talks on the implementation of the public/private partnership for London Underground, our negotiators made detailed proposals to address the concerns of Bob Kiley, the Transport Commissioner. Last week, Mr Kiley resolved these issues into a 55-point plan designed to give him unified management control over key areas of activity under PPP contracts, including maintenance of track and signalling. Those proposals are largely acceptable to the Government. It was agreed with Mr Kiley on 2nd February that modifications would be sought inside the structure of the PPP. If that agreement is respected, I believe that we could have a basis for agreement that would also be acceptable to prospective private sector partners.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reasonably positive statement. However, does he agree that this whole issue has dragged on for too long and that, in the meantime, journey times on the Underground have lengthened, delays have become more frequent, and overcrowding at peak periods— both on trains and stations—has increased thereby raising safety issues? Can the noble Lord therefore confirm what I believe is implied in his Answer; namely, that when the solution is finally announced it will include unified management for the whole of the Underground system, so that such issues can be dealt with vigorously and coherently?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, our priority is to stop the political wrangling and to get on with the serious business of doubling annual investment on the London Underground. I am sure that that is also the priority for Tube passengers and, indeed, for noble Lords. When Mr Kiley returns from America at the end of the week, we shall press on to try to ensure that the public/private partnership, suitably modified, is implemented as a matter of priority. Londoners deserve no less.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the unions are threatening strike action over safety on the London Underground. Can he tell

1285
the House whether anything is being done to reassure the unions in that respect? Indeed, can be say whether there is any further information regarding this threatened strike about which we ought to be aware?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, on the question of the threatened dispute, I should point out to my noble friend that when the demand for safety was first made the request was for a joint safety forum. My understanding is that this body has now been established; that it has met; and that the suggestion is that it need not meet again for some months.
The other three demands from the trade unions are: jobs for life; no staff reductions in any circumstances; and that all staff should be kept on existing terms and conditions. Therefore, although safety is a priority for us, it is not an issue in respect of which the operation of the London Underground should be stopped for a day, or even two days, to the great inconvenience of Londoners. I hope that the unions will think again.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, bearing in mind that we seem to be getting contradictory daily press reports on the matter, can the Minister tell us exactly who is pulling the strings at present? For example, is it Mayor Livingstone, Mr Kiley, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or, indeed—as we probably hope—is it the Minister in this House?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that expression of misplaced confidence. However, the noble Lord is right. The Mayor did make an optimistic statement last Thursday when he said that a deal on the Tube is now very close. He said:
"I am optimistic that we will get a deal, even if it is not exactly the one that I want".
As I said, we have responded very positively to Bob Kiley's 55-point plan. However, noble Lords should be aware that the Mayor is now making negative noises, and negotiations are currently suspended until later in the week. We should, perhaps, be anticipating a new set of demands. If so, I trust that they will fall within the framework of the PPP, as agreed in February, and that they will not form part of an attempt to open new issues at this late stage. Noble Lords should be assured that the Government stand firm on the issue.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend said that a deal is very close. He also quoted the Mayor of London to that effect. However, when everyone is expecting a deal to be completed by the end of the week, is it not a little surprising that Mr Kiley has gone off to New York for a few days? Is that the normal way of getting both sides round the table, as it were, and completing the negotiations in the shortest possible time?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I should point out that we have been involved in a very arduous
1286
set of negotiations for both sides that has been going on for many weeks. As I said, those negotiations concluded in the 55-point plan that has now been offered to us by Mr Kiley. However, I hope that we can return to the issues by the end of this week. I also hope that we can deal with the issue of safety, which, I believe, has been raised rather irresponsibly in these discussions.
I should make it clear to the House that the safety case that is being operated at present is thoroughly approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The detailed assessment that is being made as regards the PPP has raised the 273 issues. However, the HSE has said:
"The number of issues should not be interpreted as evidence of concern about the deterioration of safety standards on London Underground".
Indeed, London Underground has said:
"Some commentators seem confused about the Health and Safety Executive process, and their inaccurate comments are creating a completely false and irresponsible climate of fear and uncertainty for over 3 million passengers who travel safely by Tube every day".
I hope that noble Lords will join both me and London Underground in condemning such irresponsible alarmism.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when Mr Kiley came to speak to the all-party London group of this House, he said that there was quite a problem as regards the number of overland trains coming into the various terminals and the interchange between them and the Tube network? He pointed out that the surge of commuters at certain times of the day can almost be a safety hazard in itself. Can the Minister say whether that is one of the factors that is being taken into consideration in the negotiations?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, that will certainly be a factor for the Health and Safety Executive to consider. We shall have a separate set of discussions with Mr Kiley, in his new role as Transport Commissioner, and, indeed, with the Strategic Rail Authority, on planning the future integration of rail and Tube services in London. I look forward to moving on to that kind of positive agenda, as soon as possible.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, by the time that Mr Kiley returns home next week, will my noble friend the Minister ensure that an agreement has been reached on these issues? The people of London are sick and tired of the toing and froing that has occurred in the matter. They demand no less than that they should be able to travel both safely and well on the Underground.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my noble friend can be assured that we shall use every endeavour in this respect; indeed, we shall take a very flexible and accommodating approach. I go forward optimistically

1287
in the hope that we shall achieve the kind of results that my noble friend requests, and which I am sure the whole House desires.

Meteorological Office: Relocation
3 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the cost savings to be made by relocating the Meteorological Office to Exeter.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Meteorological Office's existing accommodation in Bracknell is not suitable for a modern, IT-based organisation. It therefore places weather forecasting services at unacceptable risk and is increasingly costly to maintain. A new site with purpose-built accommodation is the best way of meeting the Met Office's long-term needs and those of its customers.
Compared to a move in the Bracknell area, the Met Office expects additional annual operating cost savings of up to £5 million as a result of relocating to Exeter. The Met Office expects to use this cost saving both to reduce costs to its customers—especially those in the public sector—and to provide essential investment for the future.
Lord Newby: My Lords, is not the truth that this decision will rip the heart out of a world-class body of climate expertise and threaten the chance of a proposed European meteorological office being created near Reading? Will not the Government even at this stage institute a serious review of the decision, looking at the long-term future of meteorological research in this country rather than short-term cash savings?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Met Office is of the view that by moving to Exeter it will still maintain its links with various bodies. In choosing Exeter, all the relevant factors were considered, including the potential benefits of being located at Shinfield Park in close proximity to some of the centres of relevant scientific expertise as well as the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. Both the financial and non-financial arguments are substantially in favour of Exeter.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the Met Office plays a central role in policy and research both military and civilian and therefore should be as centrally located as other headquarter branches of the MoD? Will the Government reconsider their decision?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I agree that the Met Office plays a central role in operations policy and in UK, European and global research into military and civil aspects of climate prediction. The Met Office believes that the emphasis should be on collaboration and
1288
strengthening ties with European partners. There are many organisations across Europe with which the Met Office wishes to maintain and develop close working relationships. It is therefore by no means essential that the Met Office should be in close proximity with the European centre in order to derive maximum benefit for the UK. With modern technology, communications should not be a problem.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, will the close historical relationship between the Met Office and the RAF be affected by this change?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, relationships of that nature should not be affected by the change. As I said to my noble friend Lord Hunt, with the improved IT facilities, communications are better. According to the information which the Met Office has given, I see no reason why that relationship should in any way be damaged.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will all those who are experts in weather forecasting move to Exeter or will the Met Office lose much of the expertise that has been built up over many years?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, many facilities and established organisations in the meteorological field will remain where they are at present. The Bracknell facility will move to Exeter. The Met Office feels strongly that the element that moves to Exeter will maintain a close relationship with the bodies that do not move and, indeed, with other establishments in the Reading area.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, which department of state will benefit from the £5 million saving of which the noble Lord spoke? Will the Ministry of Defence get it or will the Treasury get it as usual?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the future of the Met Office is based very much on changes, not only the geographical changes that are likely to take place but also in terms of improved information technology and improved facilities generally. As regards the £5 million annual savings, the intention is that the bulk of it will be used to reduce costs to the Met Office's customers and to fund research and development.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that those of us who regularly commute from the West Country do not regard Exeter as the other side of the earth and that what is important is the quality of services coming from a modern facility and the charges made for those services? While the decision was taken by the meteorological board and not the Government, will my noble friend confirm that he is content that the services in the future from the new facility will probably be even better than at present?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I can only repeat the information that is given to me by the Met Office on this issue. I agree with my noble friend that Exeter is not a million miles away; in fact, it is a couple of hours' journey. But most of the Met Office's argument is based on the availability of communications between it and those bodies which will provide this facility in years to come.
Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the Third Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the foot and mouth outbreak and the rural economy.

Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision relating to admission to borough freedom. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Mustill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with today to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Baroness Miller of Hendon to be taken before the Report stage of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in the event of the Consolidated Fund (No.2) Bill being brought from the Commons, Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Criminal Court Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
RATIFICATION: RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS
(". The Secretary of State shall not ratify the ICC Statute unless—

(a) a report is laid before Parliament, setting out—

(i) any reservations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for those reservations,

(ii) any declarations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for such declarations, and

(b) that report is approved by each house of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment states that,
"The Secretary of State shall not ratify the ICC Statute"—
that is, of course, the Rome Statute—
"unless—

(a) a report is laid before Parliament, setting out—

(i) any reservations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reasons for those reservations,

(ii) any declarations Her Majesty's Government proposes to make and the reason for such declarations, and

(b) that report is approved by each house of Parliament".

The obvious concern behind the amendment is that each House of Parliament should be kept in the know about what will be done by the Government and what will be laid down in the way of reservations or declarations or interpretative comments before they ratify the measure. Those who have followed our proceedings will have noted that while reservations to the statute are prohibited under Article 120, a range of declarations and interpretative comments have been placed on the ratification status document by some of the 39 countries which have already ratified the statute. In some cases, those are very detailed—in particular as regards France and Israel. It seems only right that we in Parliament, and your Lordships, should seek to know what declarations the Government intend to put down. They will colour the way in which this country approaches the statute and the entire project, and deals with the International Criminal Court authorities in the future.
Not having had much luck at earlier stages in seeking clarification from the Opposition on how our Armed Forces will be protected where the United Kingdom is unwilling to make an investigation but where the ICC therefore feels that it has the jurisdiction to do so, and having found some reluctance by the Government to state what declarations there will be—they would in effect be reservations with a small "r"—we seek again to elicit this information by placing the requirement proposed in the amendment on the Government before they ratify.
It is an important requirement. It is not just an idle request in order to keep Parliament informed in an age when, all too often alas, it is by-passed. It is a matter of great concern. That concern has been expressed strongly in this country by our Armed Forces. If anyone doubts that, he should have read the front pages of our daily newspapers. A great deal of uncertainty remains. If anyone thinks that this is an idiosyncratic request coming only from one side in the British context, look at the attitude of other countries.
France and Israel have made declarations which seek to protect their armed forces. They are clear on the ratification status document. I draw attention to one. It states that the declaration of the Government of France does not preclude France from directing attacks against objectives considered as military objectives under international humanitarian law. Another declaration seeks to interpret the phrase, "military objectives", which appears in the war crimes schedule, in ways which would be handled by the French themselves.
What is behind those and other considerations is not a narrow nationalism or even an unwillingness to support the noble and excellent principles behind the setting up of the court, and the Bill. It is simply to accept—the point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—that modern actions by troops, soldiers and armed forces are extremely complex, sensitive and difficult. They involve many levels of response, from the non-response—"Don't shoot back at all"—to a self-defence of the most vigorous kind. These require the most refined and rapid judgments under fire and place on our Armed Forces considerable burdens of decision as to whether they are acting in a lawful way, or an unlawful way which could constitute in the eyes of others—not of their own commanding officers, their own jurisdiction or their own country—a war crime and, therefore, make them liable to investigation and charges.
We believe strongly that Parliament must know the declarations that our Government will put down on the status document to protect the Armed Forces—they are trying to do their job in difficult circumstances—against these additional risks and challenges.
That is the thinking underlying Amendment No. 1, grouped with Amendments Nos. 3 and 7. Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 3 in the name also of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. It returns to the question of reservations but particularly in relation to Clause 50. One cannot make reservations about the statute itself. But reservations in relation to other treaties which may be relevant to the interpretations of articles under the statute can be withdrawn, made, revoked or amended by the Government.
Parliament has a right to expect to be involved in the detail of such matters. Amendment No. 3 proposes that before any such reservation or declaration to a treaty predating the International Criminal Court statute is withdrawn, the reason for such withdrawal is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Underlying the two amendments is the continuing concern—it has not been answered in all our discussions—about the further protection of Armed Forces. I am the first to concede that life is difficult enough for those operating in hot war, or nearly hot war, situations under the mixture of constraints and laws which rightly govern the modern warfare in which our nation becomes increasingly involved; namely, humanitarian causes and peacekeeping. But it is evident, and many believe—I am one—that unless we are very careful we shall add to rather than subtract from those difficulties. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, Amendment No. 7, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 1, moved by the noble Lord. I have no disagreement with what he said. Indeed, my task is made simpler. I shall seek to reinforce the case made by the noble Lord in his usual moderate way.
In some ways a long tradition inhibits me from intervening on Third Reading and moving an amendment. It is almost unknown in another place. But this House gives quite extraordinary latitude to Members and I shall take advantage of it.
It is a serious move to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. Let us be clear. I have no problem with the thrust and purpose of the convention and the Bill. I welcome the implementation as an international crime, and with all the mechanisms so described in the Bill, of genocide (Article 6 in the convention), crimes against humanity (Article 7), and the traditional war crimes, with which we have been familiar since the First World War, referred to in the first part of Article 8. I add this point. The kind of circumstance which most noble Lords have addressed when speaking in favour of the Bill would be covered entirely by the enactment of Articles 6, 7 and 8(2)(a). Dreadful monsters such as Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein, who have inflicted such misery on their own people and on others, would be caught under those provisions. There is no worry about that. Thai would close a great gap in international law.
So what is my problem? It is twofold. The lesser part of it is that, almost unbelievably, the list of very important acts of war, which are to be outlawed in Article 8(2)(b), has not even been mentioned in either House of Parliament during the evolution of the convention. Statements were made in both Houses in July 1998 saying that we were signing the Rome Convention and just before that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell initiated a valuable debate in which he gave his principled case for the implementation of Articles 6, 7 and 8(2)(a) as part of an international treaty. However, on none of those occasions or in the Commons debate on a Wednesday morning some time in November 1999 has anyone mentioned the list of acts of war that are to be criminalised. I was going to call them new crimes,

1293
although others might call them old crimes. That is an astonishing failure of Parliament to do its job, but we have a chance to rectify it now.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that we cannot amend the statute now? There is nothing that Parliament can do about it at this stage.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has pointed out that, because of failures at earlier stages, we are faced with a procrustean treaty and a procrustean Bill that we cannot amend. I wholly accept that. Only two devices were available to us. One was to delay implementation of Article 8(2)(b) for seven years. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, moved an amendment to that effect on Report. I supported him on that. The only alternative is to put a statement on the record as to the real reservations—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, before the noble Lord agrees too readily with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, does he recall that when President Clinton ratified the statute in the last days of his presidency, he said that it should not be made legislation by Congress without amendment? It was his view that it ought to be amended.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful comment.
I assure the House that I shall be very brief in refreshing memories about my concerns. My amendment is very similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I have itemised certain aspects of Article 8(2)(b). I have no objection to some parts of it, but there are others that affect our ability to wage war. The article would make it a war crime deliberately to bomb civilians in a major war, intentionally to direct attacks against civilian objects or intentionally to launch an attack,
"in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects".
It would be dishonest to put my name to that. No one can fight a major war without engaging in measures that will involve civilians and civilian property. There is no point in denying that.
Further on, the article lists,
"Employing poison or poisoned weapons",
and,
"Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases".
That is very unpleasant, but many people think that depleted uranium is a poison. Depleted uranium bullets were used recently against tanks during operation Desert Storm. Are we going to allow that to become a legitimate subject of criminal prosecution?
The article also refers to,
"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival".
1294
One great ingredient of the Second World War was the blockade. We did not wish to inflict starvation on our enemies, but depriving them of resources was one of the weapons that we judged necessary for waging war.
Many of the issues listed arise not just in massive total warfare, but in the minor warfare—minor in terms of cost and endurance—and engagements that we have been involved in since the end of the Second World War. We bombed civilian targets in Kosovo, Serbia and elsewhere as recently as two years ago. We know that. I greatly fear that we shall put our military in an impossible position.
We have literate Armed Forces. Our servicemen can read and write. They are an intelligent force equipped by a modern democracy. It is not just the odd barrack room lawyer who will read such documents. They will be read much more generally. There will be a challenge and an uncertainty to the exercising of authority throughout the Armed Forces. It is carrying matters to the limits of absurdity and dishonesty to say that those who give commands are to be held responsible for any breach of those commands.
That brings me back to the issue of what to do with this Procrustean treaty and Bill. Having failed to secure a seven-year reprieve, at least we can insist that the Government make a declaration. That is allowed for. The French and others have used that device already. I am not going to write the declaration for the Government, or even dare to suggest the words, but surely there is sufficient sense, resource and responsibility in our Government to produce a short document that covers such problems and makes it clear that our Armed Forces or the people who command them will not be hauled before international tribunals or be made the subject of false accusations in our country and its courts.
We are in good company. The Americans find the whole thing difficult to accept. That is not just because they have a more robust or indifferent view. They are constantly engaged in the policing of the post-war world. We are only second in terms of frequency of action. The French are also involved. Is it not rather surprising that three of the five members of the Security Council have refused to go along with the statute without reservation? Are we to be so isolated? Other countries which have difficulty with it are democracies for which I have considerable respect, such as India and Israel, to which the noble Lord referred in his earlier remarks.
I end by giving an additional reason for my concern. I mentioned such matters as depleted uranium being poisonous, and the bombing of civilian targets, even when incidental. Can one imagine what the government of Iraq will pour out from Baghdad in terms of propaganda? All the sympathetic—or, rather, bullied—countries which want to remain in favour with Iraq will propagate charges in relation to such matters.
As my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General assured me during our debate at Second Reading, if such charges ever reach the courts, he will win the case because he has the ability and the

1295
conviction, and so on. He knows that we are right and that we would not dream of carrying out such dreadful deeds. As I said to my noble and learned friend on that occasion, we shall lose not in the court of law—although that is possible—but in the court of public opinion. All over the world, the enemies of this country and of democracy will seize the type of material that is set out in the Bill and say, "They are not even observing their own laws and convention. What a lot of hypocrites they are"— when we only take up arms to protect ourselves and to protect the cause of democracy.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall not attempt to match the oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. I shall deal with a fairly narrow but important constitutional issue. I am very glad to do so in the presence of the Attorney-General because I believe that the amendments raise an important issue of constitutional law and practice. I shall say something about the merits of what the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said with regard to redefining war crimes. However, I shall not say anything about the responsibility of force commanders until we reach Amendment. No. 7, under which that matter logically arises.
I believe that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for tabling his amendments. They raise an important issue that has concerned me during most of the time that I have been in this House—that is, the extent of parliamentary involvement with the executive branch of government when that government sign and ratify international treaties and make reservations or declarations under those treaties.
Indeed, some years ago I was moved to introduce a Private Member's Bill on that subject, and I received support from all sides of the House. It was a much more modest measure than these amendments. Essentially, it proposed that an impact statement should be made in order to explain to Parliament the impact of important treaties that the Government intended to sign and ratify. It also proposed that a committee—I believed that preferably it should be of this House—should be formed in order to scrutinise in some detail treaties such as this so that the House would be better informed when it came to debate. No doubt, that committee could have examined proposed reservations and declarations.
The story thus far is that the previous government accepted impact statements. They are now laid with treaties so that we have some idea of the object, purpose and impact of a treaty. The Royal Commission on the reform of this House recommended that a treaty scrutiny committee should be formed. However, through the Liaison Committee, your Lordships recently decided that now was not the appropriate time to follow that course. That decision was reached for reasons that I understand perfectly well; they are mainly resource reasons. We have so
1296
many new committees that I can see that adding a further one at this precise moment might overstretch our resources in terms of Peers and support.
The Government have indicated—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that they will change the current practice. In future, important treaties which the Government are minded to ratify will, as I recall, be referred to Select Committees of the other place in order that they can be examined—not across the board but in terms of subject speciality. I believe that that is a welcome step forward.
These amendments seek—they do so only in relation to the ICC statute—to write into the Bill a condition that the executive branch of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom and, hence, on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole ratify the ICC statute until both Houses of Parliament have approved a report setting out the reservations and declarations. Of course, as a democrat, I cheer in a way because that is the maximum amount of parliamentary approval that one could possibly expect with regard to declarations and reservations.
However—I hope that in what I am about to say I am not regarded as too executive-minded—I am not sufficiently democratic to wish to go that far in relation to this or any other treaty. One practice that I do not admire in the United States is that which requires the United States Senate to give its approval to the ratification of treaties. It is precisely that which has caused a prevailing conservative majority in the Senate, led by such distinguished Senators as Bricker, either to tack on to international treaties amendments of their own in order to frustrate the purpose of government in entering into them on the international plane or, having in one way or another hampered the ability of successive United States governments—Republican as well as Democrat—to be able to enter into treaties such as the genocide convention, to take only one of several extreme examples.
I believe that there are limits to democratic accountability. In the field of European Union law, rightly we have very deep scrutiny—for example, in this House—because legislation which emanates from the European Union is often directly binding on this country without the need for Acts of Parliament. However, I do not believe—nor do I consider that my party would believe—that we should go so far with democratic scrutiny as to say that, whether in relation to this or any other treaty, the executive branch cannot ratify unless any reservation or declaration has first been laid before each House by report and approved.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships briefly that, so far as I am aware, that has never been the practice in relation to previous treaties, however important or controversial. I take as an example the one that I remember best—that is, the European Convention on Human Rights. The Attlee government did not even lay it before Parliament for debate. When the Conservatives won power and in, I believe, 1953 ratified the first protocol, which did very controversial things in the field of education, property and voting

1297
systems, they made a reservation under the education provision. It would have been unheard of for Parliament to have to approve the signing and ratification of either that protocol or the reservation that was made at the time.
Therefore, we are considering the relationship between Parliament and the executive in the treaty-making sphere. Although it would be most welcome if, at the right time, the Government were able to inform the House of the reservations or declarations that they proposed to make, I do not believe that it would be proper or sensible for Parliament to write that requirement on to the face of this or any other Bill dealing with treaty incorporation.
Finally in relation to this matter, it would give a strange sense of our priorities were we to write in such a requirement for the International Criminal Court Bill, which deals with such important subject matter as war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. It would appear in some way as though we considered this treaty to be more difficult to accept than all the previous treaties concerning torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, punishment, and so on. That is all I want to say about the principle raised by each of these three amendments. It is a very important issue.
So far as Amendment No. 7 is concerned, this is not the time for me to explain in detail why what is contained in Article 8 of the statute, in the definition of "war crimes", has for many years represented the relevant international law. The only way in which I can appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, is not by explaining the law but perhaps by quoting something said by a very famous American General after the war in the controversial context of the Yamashita case. I do not believe that the majority of the Supreme Court in the case of Yamashita gave a ruling with which I agree; I prefer the dissents. However, that is beside the point. For me, the words of General Douglas MacArthur sum up an answer to the values expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. General Douglas MacArthur said:
"The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being.
When he violates this sacred trust he not only profanes his entire culture but threatens the very fabric of international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honourable, based upon the noblest of human traits—sacrifice.
The officer, of proven field merit and entrusted with a high command including authority adequate to his responsibility, has failed this irrevocable standard, has failed his duty to his troops, to his country, to his enemy, and to mankind; he has failed utterly his soldier faith".
For those kind of reasons, we are opposed to all three amendments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has all but kicked into touch, into the groves of academia, Amendments
1298
Nos. 1, 3 and 7 as printed on the Marshalled List. With the leave of the House, I should like to return to them and to the relevant provisions of the Bill.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for having drawn our attention to the need for clarification of matters which at the moment remain obscure—and I do not propose to indulge in any repetition—and on which the Government are under an obligation to inform Parliament and seek the approval of Parliament. Those matters relate—and here we come to the provisions of the statute—to reservations entertained by government on any articles of the statute on which a formal reservation on ratification is prohibited by Article 120.
One has to draw the distinction, as I think my noble friend did when he talked about "R" with a small "r" and a large "R"—it is a vital distinction, because reservations are prohibited—between that and the exceptions as to the jurisdiction of the ICC on Article 8 up to seven years, which may be made, and have been made by France, under Article 124. That exception is declared on ratification, which, it is understood, it is not the intention of this Government to make. From a practical point of view, that is where we stand in considering Amendment No. 1.
At Committee stage, on my amendment on prisoners taken in armed conflict, which is not at all the same as the protection of those indulging in armed conflict—the matter before the House today—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, informed the House that the Government would make interpretative statements on ratification. I do not know what that means. I respectfully ask: for what purpose, related to which articles, what is the substance, for what reason should they be made, and what would be their effect? I ask, not to try to be clever—as someone said, as a barrack room lawyer but because I simply do not know; and I think that the House is entitled to know.
It is also important to know whether Amendment No. 1, if accepted, would delay ratification. It is certainly of importance to me, having accepted an undertaking on my amendment on the basis that there should be no such delay. Having accepted that undertaking, if there were any effective delay, I should have to abstain on a Division. I respectfully ask when, in due course, the Government intend to ratify the measure. If this amendment could be implemented before that intention were implemented, there would be no objection.
Your Lordships are entitled to have answers to these questions on the Floor of the House before this Bill do pass. In the absence of any satisfactory undertaking on this amendment and on Amendment No. 3, these amendments could well commend themselves to your Lordships. If so, Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are in no way inconsistent with Amendment No. 7, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Shore.
I turn to Article 9, the machinery of the statute, in relation to which no great academic expertise is required; one has only to read Article 9 at the end of

1299
Schedule 8 of the Bill. It is understood that the draft text of the elements of crime on interpretation and application of Articles 6 to 8 will be approved by the state parties, and that under paragraph 2 of Article 9 any state party, a majority of judges, or the prosecutor may make proposals for amendments, which could not be implemented until 2007, by the assembly of states—not, of course, by our Parliament or the parliament of any member states. As these elements of crime, as amended, will govern the interpretation and application of these articles in our domestic courts, ratification, let us face it, will involve a limited surrender or pooling of sovereignty, save as excepted for up to seven years under Article 24, as proposed by Amendment No. 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Shore.
As one of the leading Christian states in Europe, perhaps the servants of the "Grand Design" of King Henry of Navarre and his great Minister, Sully, we shall ratify the statute which seeks to afford universal protection against inhumanities. That is a moral commitment not called into question by Amendments Nos. 1, 3 or 7.
There is little for me to say on Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, because, in effect, it has all been said, and said much better than I could say it. I wish only to point to the fact that during the course of debate on this Bill, many concerns have been expressed on Article 8, most of which relate to the provisions of Article 8 referred to in the noble Lord's amendment.
As yet, those concerns have not been addressed other than by the Government contending that such is the state of public international law, and we then all say "yes", and the provisions as they stand are adequate and wholly intelligible, and we all say "no" and the Government say "yes". There is the issue and there is the need for concern.
But on the protection and safeguards of those taken prisoner in armed conflict, the Government have given a most valuable undertaking, which addressed one particular concern, which ensures that if inadequacies appear to exist, on representations, proposals for amendments to the elements of crime will be made for the consideration of the assembly in 2007.
As the contention is that such inadequacies do exist today and that Article 8 should be reviewed for redefintion and clarification, I support this amendment. It does not and could not delay Royal Assent or ratification of the statute. Therefore, having accepted the undertaking from the Government, I have no qualms about supporting this amendment in any event.
The reasons for my support have already been given on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report when speaking to my amendment which was withdrawn on this undertaking. On more than one occasion in debate on this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, has given reasons—coincidentally, they are not in prior arrangement with me—which have squared with my own, more or less. The noble Lord has made
1300
an admirable speech, for which the House will be grateful, and it is not for me to indulge in repetition and I commend Amendment No. 7 to the House.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I want to mention two items listed as war crimes in Article 8 which have not yet been mentioned in this debate. They seem to me among the most important. Item 2(a)(i) refers to "wilful killing" and (iii)refers to,
"Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health".
Are not those exactly the sort of things which our troops in war are instructed to try to inflict on any enemy?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I want to make only three very brief comments in support of this group of amendments. The first is that, like it or not, civilians are part of a total war. In the last war, we had to bomb Berlin; they bombed us. People were proud to be part of the war, part of the front line. If we had not bombed—I am sorry to say—the Ruhr, I doubt whether we should have been able to invade the Continent and liberate it. We needed to destroy the arms which were being built there. That is the first point.
The second matter is that the word "intentionally" is very subjective. It seems to me that many people, like members of the IRA, would come back and create any number of "Bloody Sundays" without anyone being able very easily to prove whether something done had been intentionally or not.
If one looks at the UN and its record of activity, in general, the UN troops are quite hopeless at policing any sort of active conflict because they are inhibited in how they respond to attack. We would be doing that to our troops. What on earth would be the rules of engagement if the MoD had to flog through this and wonder whether or not the rules of engagement would be protecting them and protecting the people?
It seems to me that we would completely inhibit the ability of our troops not only in a serious fighting war but even in the matter of the so-called Petersberg tasks and humanitarian events. One has only to look at what is now happening on the border of Macedonia to see that troops need to have absolutely clear rights to defend themselves. If we come back to the word "intentionally", it all hangs on whether the other side says that you intentionally shot them before they shot you.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions which have been made. I deal first with the remarks of the noble Baroness. She asked, rhetorically, what would be the rules of engagement. One of the difficulties about rhetorical questions is that sometimes, they call for an answer.
The rules of engagement, with which she and I are both well familiar, are, of course, presented and provided to our Armed Forces at the moment in relevant conflicts, of which there have been a number

1301
recently. They are all drawn in conformity with the law, which includes international law, and, of course, they are there for the dual purpose internally that they shall know what the law allows; and secondly, to protect them when they act lawfully. So I can say from personal experience that there is no difficulty at all in casting and providing rules of engagement for our servicemen who themselves—I take up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Lester—wish to act honourably and lawfully and who, in the overwhelming number of circumstances of which I am aware, fulfil that task.
I go back to the question which was put specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who asked whether there would be significant further delay. There would inevitably be such delay deriving from the structure of the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, because a good deal of parliamentary activity has to be gone through, not least in a report to be set out and approved by each House of Parliament. Of course, for a significant period of the year, neither House is sitting and there would be very substantial delay. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate to me that he might raise this question. Our policy purpose—I hope that it has been abundantly approved as a policy purpose by both Houses—is to be among the forefront of those who ratify.
As my noble friend Lady Scotland and I have said on previous occasions, we were in the vanguard of this particular international activity. We want to be among the first 60, and until 60 ratify, the treaty cannot come into effect.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He raised what he indicated was a wider question and one not limited to this Bill. I am happy to revert to what my noble friend and I have said on earlier occasions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there is a genuine issue that should be addressed on another occasion as to whether we should have a treaty scrutiny committee. Perhaps he will forgive me if I simply, without presumption, endorse that that is a valid matter and move on from that wider point.
First, I turn to Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, which deal with matters of reservations and declarations and, secondly, without trespassing on your Lordships' patience, I shall deal in some detail with what the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said. The first two amendments relate to reservations and declarations. Having self-instructed ourselves during previous debates, we all now know that no reservations are capable of being made to this statute and, accordingly, Her Majesty's Government will not make any. As noble Lords have pointed out, that is Article 120 of the Rome Statute:
"no reservations may be made to this Statute".
Statements upon ratification are matters that we have discussed previously. Two states have made statements that included comments on interpretation of the statute. As far as I am aware, the second comment on interpretation was a response to the first. It is likely that we shall make a statement on ratification. The statement will cover issues such as the
1302
fact—already found in some declarations—that we would want English to be the language in which the ICC documents are transmitted to us. I agree that that is a mechanical detail, but nevertheless an important one.
We do not intend to make the opt-out declaration under Article 124. No final decisions have been made on other statements that the United Kingdom may make. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has received a full letter from my noble friend Lady Scotland and we are happy to keep in close contact with the noble Lord or with any other noble Lords who are interested in this matter. At the risk of tedium, I have to say that reservations are not allowed. We shall not be allowed to make any effective declaration that purports to modify the legal effect of the statute.
I repeat that we signed, to a general welcome in both Houses. There is already parliamentary provision—I use that as an umbrella description—in the Bill at Clause 50 for any statements made to be laid before Parliament by Order in Council. Clause 50 sets out that Articles 6, 7 and 8.2 of the statute shall be construed subject to and in accordance with any relevant declaration made by the United Kingdom when ratifying any treaty or agreement relevant to the interpretation of those articles. We intend to lay before the House, in that form, any relevant declarations, including any made on ratification of this statute.
This is not new. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is quite right. In the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995, for example, it was thought appropriate under our predecessor regime that the statements made on ratification should be set out by Order in Council after they had been made. We believed that that was the correct approach then and we believe it is the correct approach now.
The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, introduced certain short questions, to which he is entitled to an answer. The answer and the matters that engaged his mind are to be found in the work of the preparatory commission for the ICC. Article 8, as the overarch to the introduction to war crimes, makes it quite plain. I shall read it out as it focuses precisely on the question put to me by the noble Lord.
"The elements for war crimes under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the statute shall be interpreted"-
I pause to underline the following words—
"within the established framework of the international law of armed conflict, including as appropriate the international law of armed conflict applicable to armed conflict at sea"—
which refers to the question raised about blockade. In other words, those acts that are lawful, pursuant to the established framework of international law of armed conflict, remain lawful.
Having set out my objections and explanations on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 on behalf of the Government, I turn to do honour to the argument deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, in a little detail. He raised questions about a number of distinct articles. I shall introduce the matter in this way: Article 8.2(b)(i) is taken from Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. It

1303
is a grave breach under Article 85.3 of that protocol. Therefore, it has been an offence under United Kingdom law since 1995 under Section 1 of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995, which I mentioned a moment ago.
British courts have universal jurisdiction over that and all other grave breaches of the convention. In parenthesis—this is an important parenthesis—I should say that both the noble Baroness and I have tried to underline on every appropriate occasion the principle of complementarity, which is not a dry piece of jargon loved only by lawyers. It is important that I repeat, for the reassurance of the House, that that means that domestic jurisdiction has the first opportunity of trying those charges. If charges are to be brought, they can be brought in the United Kingdom courts. Only if the domestic jurisdiction, namely our own, is unable or unwilling to take jurisdiction will the international criminal court feature at all.
Article 8.2(b)(ii) comes from Article 52 of the protocol. Article 8.2(b)(iv) is a weaker version of Article 51.5(b) of Additional Protocol I, which is already a grave breach under Article 85.3. Therefore, I repeat that it is already a criminal offence under UK law. It is true that, in the past, prosecutions have been rare if not unknown, but that does not mean that the law does not exist with its power and weight available to be deployed on any suitable and relevant occasion.
Article 8.2(b)(xvii), to which the noble Lord particularly referred, comes from Article 23(a) of the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Forgive this historical recitative, but we ratified that in 1909. Article 8.2(b)(xviii) comes from the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, to which, rightly in my opinion, we have been a party since 1930. At the time of signature, we entered reservations but those were superseded when we adhered to the later Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
Article 8.2(b)(xix) comes from the Hague Declaration 3 of 1899, to which we have been a party since 1907. Article 8.2(b)(xxv) is based on Article 54 of Additional Protocol I.
All those crimes that I have mentioned in what I recognise to be tedious detail, but necessary for the record as well as for reassurance, are already crimes under international law and many of them are crimes under domestic law. We have lived by them for many years and have no difficulty in accepting them now. I repeat that I have confidence in the ability of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to discharge their duties honourably and lawfully.
We come to a fundamental question which lies behind the Bill and our action, which, I repeat, was endorsed by both Houses. Do we wish the law to have the strength and power to which we pay lip service? Lip service is easy, cheap, costs nothing and offers no remedy.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to all noble Lords for their comments. I am pleased by the reception
1304
which the amendment has been given by your Lordships but I am a little less pleased by the Minister's comments.
Perhaps I may first put aside the amendments to Clause 50. I assume from what the Minister said that there will be Orders in Council and that they will be handled by affirmative resolution. Unless I am checked on that matter, I am to some extent satisfied. I fully accept that those reservations lie outside the Rome Statute, that Parliament will be fully involved and that the affirmative resolution procedure will apply.
Secondly, I repeat—the noble and learned Lord repeated it and we all repeated it to each other—that we recognise that reservations are not allowed under the Rome Statute. That is why the amendment, which specifically mentions reservations because they are relevant to other treaties, emphasises the point about declarations. It simply asks that Parliament should be involved in the process leading up to such declarations as Her Majesty's Government will put down at the time of ratifying the statute in the ratification status document.
I am afraid that, although the noble and learned Lord promised not to lose contact over these matters, he did not address the central issue of whether Parliament should be properly involved. I shall turn in a moment to the broader question raised fascinatingly by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the extent to which Parliament should be involved in any treaty arrangements or to what extent the Royal Prerogative prevails. In this case, which I shall argue is a special case and not a precedent-setting case, the right of Parliament to know what is happening is very strong and can be reasonably pressed.
Behind the issue is the worry, which was addressed with great eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, that these war crimes are widely drafted and need the most careful guardianship with assessment. We raised the matter at earlier stages of the Bill and this is the point where suitable declarations ought to be drafted and brought before Parliament in order to reassure those who are worried and to safeguard our Armed Forces and other people.
There is no doubt that the definitions are wide. The point has been made not only in this House, because the new American Under-Secretary of State, John Bolton, said:
"War crimes have enormous definitional problems concerning civilian targets … Would the United States, for example, have been guilty of war crimes for its World War Two bombing campaigns and the use of atomic weapons under the Rome Statute?".
That is not a frivolous comment made by a bystander; it is a serious comment made by a senior member of the American administration.
We shall turn to the responsibility of commanders when we debate Amendment No. 6. We shall also debate matters relating to the Manual of Military Law and to what extent it covers, and has long since covered, all these issues and all the various definitions of war crimes. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to give us a long history of the way in which the

1305
various crimes have become recognised international crimes and have long been accepted as part of the context in which war must be fought, as, indeed, it could and has been argued, have the lists of crimes in the military manuals and the rules of engagement.
However, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, all that is extremely interesting but, to use his own words, it completely misses the point. The point is that whether or not the crimes were previously on the statute book, we are now introducing a new and higher jurisdiction which may, in some cases we are not willing to investigate, want to press the matter. This is a new aspect, a new dimension, to an existing situation. It is no defence to say that because for years and years we have recognised these as international crimes everything is as before. Everything is not as before. The Bill is proof that we are trying to change things; we are trying to introduce a new jurisdiction. We welcome that in principle, but it means that we must be 10 times more careful in our handling of the definitions of these war crimes.
The noble and learned Lord urges that we be at the forefront in carrying forward the project. Indeed, other noble Lords have spoken again and again about the need for the United Kingdom to set an example and be among the founder members and so forth. I suggest to Ministers and to the noble and learned Lord that there are two ways in which we can best be an exemplar and a role model. First, we must try to bring along the great United States, which has enormous concerns. Its non-participation will come close to wrecking the project; it will severely question the plausibility and credibility of the International Criminal Court if we cannot get the Americans to move further than merely signing with reservations. We shall debate the American position in a moment, so I shall not go into more detail. However, everyone is agreed that American involvement would be a huge advance and to take steps to encourage that would set a fine example. However, they have made it absolutely clear that they are opposed to ratification, and General Colin Powell repeated that again recently.
The second way in which we should set an example would be to reassure our Armed Forces and to do so in ways which show that we recognise that there is a new situation. For all the rules of engagement, and for all the war crimes which have been adopted as international crimes since 1909, there is a new situation in which a higher jurisdiction may—not always, of course—want to involve itself at the instigation of an independent prosecutor who will not come under British jurisdiction.
Would our humble amendment, which merely asks that Parliament should know about the Government's concerns and how they will be reflected before the statute is ratified, set a precedent? I do not believe that it would. Your Lordships' House does not necessarily set precedents. Furthermore, perhaps I may say in good heart to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I do not believe that it would be carrying democracy over the top and to too great an extent. We merely ask that Parliament be informed and that a report be laid while
1306
the Government carry on with what is no doubt difficult business in international affairs. I am the first to recognise that that cannot be undermined at every point by ceaseless argumentation. Decisions must be made.
The truth is that this is a different kind of treaty. It brings into our statute law a whole range of crimes from the international criminal code book. It means that the higher jurisdiction could penetrate deep into the lives of our citizens and Armed Forces, our commanders and superior officers, and even possibly our political leaders, in a way that has never happened previously. To query how we handle that is not to oppose the principle, with which we on this side of the House agree. We merely believe that the best way forward is to make this project effective, which means that we must bring along the Americans and ensure that our own Armed Forces and others do not believe that they have been further hobbled.
The range of crimes, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, referred, sounds rather fearsome. As I child, I remember receiving a message that my father had escaped from the second siege of Tobruk, which very much pleased me. It never occurred to me, and I am sure to him, that war crimes were involved. It is very difficult to define a siege and a military objective. Those matters have been on a list of international crimes and are now coming onto our statute book. I believe it is right that we should have some protective declarations to reassure our people that these matters will be handled in a sensible, mature and wise way. In so doing that will merely reflect the concerns expressed by our neighbour France, Israel, the debates in the Canadian and New Zealand Parliaments, although they are enthusiastic supporters, and the most learned minds in the United States. We should not be afraid of keeping such company. I believe that we should pursue the action set out in the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I gathered that the noble Lord was coming to his conclusion. Since he put a question to me earlier I thought it better to allow him to develop his theme. I hope that I have not intervened too early in order to assist him and the House. The noble Lord asked me a particular question about Clause 50. I should not like the noble Lord to proceed on a misapprehension. Clause 50, which draws on the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995, makes provision by Order in Council. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not comment adversely on that and call for the affirmative resolution procedure. I do not want the noble Lord to proceed on an incorrect basis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that is a further disappointment and does not in any way impede me from uttering the final sentence of my speech. I propose that the opinion of your Lordships' House be tested upon this amendment.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 172.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsay, E.

Attlee, E.

Liverpool, E.

Biffen, L.

Luke, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brightman, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Caithness, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monson, L.

Chadlington, L.

Montrose, D.

Chalfont, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coe, L.

Noakes, B.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plumb, L.

Denham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Feldman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Fookes, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Freeman, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Selborne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sharples, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hanham, B.

Strange, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Swinfen, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home, E.

Vinson, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wakefield, Bp.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kingsland, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Amos, B.

Acton, L.

Andrews, B.

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Alli, L.

Avebury, L.

1308

Bach, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Barker, B.

Privy Seal)

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Billingham, B.

Laming, L.

Blease, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bragg, L.

Levy, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brookman, L.

Lipsey, L.

Burlison, L.

Lock wood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller]

Clement-Jones, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

McNally, L.

David, B.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Marsh, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B

Dholakia, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elder, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Molloy, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Newby, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Ezra, L.

Northover, B

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L

Orme, L.

Falkland, V.

Parekh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston. L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Filkin, L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Fitt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gilbert, L.

Razzall L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goudie, B.

Rennard, L

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Greaves, L.

Roper, L.

Gregson, L.

Russell, E.

Grenfell, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharman, L.

Harrison, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Haskel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taverne, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Thornton, B.

Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Islwyn, L.

Tope, L.

1309

Tordoff, L.

Wigoder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Wilkins, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Winston, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick moved Amendment No.2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clauseߞ

RATIFICATION: TIMING
(". The Secretary of State shall not ratify the ICC Statute before it has been ratified by the United States of America.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. The purpose of the amendment is merely to back up the admirable sentiments expressed so vigorously by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and my noble friend Lord Howell on the Front Bench, particularly what they have said about the reservations of the United States towards the proposed legislation and the establishment of the court.
The Government say that they are determined that Britain should be in the vanguard; they say that they are determined that Britain should be among the few; they say that Britain should be up there with those human rights-respecting countries, Zimbabwe and Iran, but take a different approach from the United States. It is not that we lack confidence in our Armed Forces, as was suggested, but we fear that there will be frivolous prosecutions and that unjustified accusations will be made. Before Ministers dismiss those fears, they should acknowledge more than they have done that they are strongly and widely held in the United States. As I said earlier, when I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, even President Clinton, who chose to ratify the statute at the very end of his presidency, said that it required amendment before there could be legislation in the United States Congress. There is strong opposition in the United States to what is proposed. John Bolton has been one of the fiercest and most outspoken opponents, but Mr Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State Powell and Mr Wolfawitz have all expressed their fears. Senator Helms said that the measure will be dead on arrival if it arrives in the United States Senate.
I put it to the House that the United States and Britain are at the forefront of peacekeeping. When I said that in one of our earlier debates, I was rebuked and reminded of the efforts of Luxembourg and Israel in international peacekeeping. It seems to me that the difference between Luxembourg and Britain is as great as the difference between Britain and the United States. But we are the countries that are very much at risk. We cannot just dismiss the fears that have been expressed so widely in the United States. It is not just
1310
a question of a so-called "conservative" Congress, as has previously been alleged. There is very little democratic support for the measure.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he suggesting that there is virtually universal anxiety in the United States about ratification? Has he by any chance seen the letter recently written by 10 presidents and past presidents of the American International Law Association declaring that the anxieties are simply based on misconceptions?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am sure that plenty of American lawyers are in favour of this; the same could be said of lawyers in this country. However, what we are worried about is the opinion of certain non-lawyers. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that political opinion in the United States, including that expressed by the Democratic Party, is against this measure. It has received little support in Congress.
I know that I shall be told that not only are lawyers to some extent in favour—although I suspect that they are in a minority—but that, in the past, the United States has on occasion been conservative about ratifying international agreements. That seems rather irrelevant. What matters is that we consider the case on its merits; namely, whether American opinion on this is right or wrong today, not whether American opinion has been right or wrong in the past.
I believe that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and by my noble friend on the Front Bench deserve serious consideration. I wish that the Government would acknowledge that widespread fears have been expressed in the United States, both in the administration and in political circles generally. For that reason, I think that it would be most unwise for the two leading countries in peacekeeping to go along with this proposal until either the United States has—as has been suggested by President Clinton—secured certain changes, or something is produced along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am bound to say that the doctrine which has been enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is a doctrine of despair. He is saying that the United States, whether it is right or wrong, should be followed. That is not a doctrine that I am prepared to accept. I am surprised that such a suggestion should have come from his lips. The noble Lord has not always supported the United States. To argue, as he does, that the United States should be followed regardless of the argument is not appreciated by this House and is, as I have said, a doctrine of despair.
I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his logic and seek to divide the House. We have heard the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Shore. As always, he has been engagingly articulate on a subject about which he is deeply concerned. However, having followed its logic, we have now passed that

1311
argument. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will not pursue his suggestion and seek to divide the House.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, one of the great charms of this House is that one can hear opinions expressed from all sides of the debate, including those which are eccentric. I am very much in favour of the expression of eccentric opinion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will allow me to say that I regard the amendment before us as eccentric.
Above all, the noble Lord is someone who has stood for the political and legal sovereignty of this country. Above all, he is someone who has pointed to the danger of intrusions upon sovereignty from the European Union. One cannot imagine ever seeing an amendment, tabled in his name indicating that we should not ratify this or any other treaty until Germany or France had done so. Indeed, on a previous occasion I think that the noble Lord referred to France in slightly pejorative terms. However, we have before us an amendment which indicates that, as an independent sovereign state engaged in deciding on the best interests of this country in the world community, we should not ratify this treaty unless and until the United States of America has done so.
I owe an enormous amount to the political and legal traditions of the United States. I studied at Harvard Law School for two years, learning at the feet of Henry Kissinger, among others. But I cannot imagine that the values of Senator Jesse Helms should influence us when deciding what is best for this country within the world community. Furthermore, the United States has a proud and honourable record of compliance with international treaty obligations, of upholding the rule of law, and of upholding due process.
There are many in the American legal community who would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, but there are also many in that community who would disagree with him. The same applies politically. Small "c" conservatives are not to be found only in the Republican Party; that position is not confined to either side of politics in the United States.
It is my respectful view that it makes no sense whatever for us to reach a decision on the ratification of an international treaty on the basis of what some other state decides it should or should not do. I agree that it is essential to the future of the ICC Statute that the United States should adhere to it as soon as that is possible. Furthermore, I agree that we should take every step we can to encourage our American friends and close allies to do so. Indeed, I am sufficiently optimistic about human nature to believe that, just as the United States eventually ratified the genocide convention, despite opposition from the likes of Senator Helms and his predecessor, Senator Bricker, the United States will, in due course, be reassured.
I have looked at the American objections one by one. They have been set out clearly in a helpful paper from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. With great respect, I do not believe those objections to be well founded.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I may put a brief question to the Minister. If the Americans require amendments to be made before they will ratify the treaty, the treaty will then operate under a joint command. At that point, they will operate under an amended treaty while we will operate under this one. Will the fact that, in effect, two different treaties have been signed, produce a conflict of interest?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl may have addressed his question to me. I do not think that the United States would be allowed to pick and choose. Like every other state in the world, it would have to accept without reservation the international obligations set out in the treaty. The same would apply to the Republic of India, which is another great democracy, and to the state of Israel. There are also many states that are not democracies at all and which have refused to sign and will not ratify the treaty. All nations will have to reach their own judgments. I understand that in the cases of India and Israel, both have problems to be faced. The same may be true of the United States. However, one hopes that, in the end, they will be able to follow suit.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lamont has done the House a service in moving this amendment. It has enabled us to focus on the position of the United States for reasons that I touched on when speaking to an earlier amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the participation of the United States is much to be desired and encouraged.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who speaks with great sincerity, that, with respect, what my noble friend Lord Lamont is saying is not a doctrine of despair but rather a doctrine of positive encouragement. It is possible that we shall be able to bring the United States into this great scheme. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, reminded us, certain senior lawyers in the American Bar Association believe that this is the right way to go. Unfortunately, however, there are certain very senior people, ranging right across the political spectrum and at the highest legal levels in the United States—regardless of whether they are Clinton or Republican appointees—who believe that the statute is seriously flawed. I do not think that that opinion can be laid entirely at the feet of Senator Jesse Helms. I do not want to be disrespectful to him, but it must be said that he is generally perceived as representing one wing of politics. It is neither fair nor accurate to suggest that all opposition to the measure has emanated from him.
The previous American president, President Clinton, stated that:
"In signing"ߞ
he authorised that just before the end of his presidential termߞ
"we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty".

1313
The president referred to "significant flaws", but the presentation offered to this House has been one that suggests that this is a treaty that we must sign lock, stock and barrel; that we have to sign up to the whole statute because it cannot be changed; and that the Bill before us must therefore mirror, reflect and emulate the statute as closely as possible. Personally, I do not believe that that doctrine is accurate. I believe that later we shall see that other countries have not followed that course.
The expression "significant flaws" was a strong phrase for the then American president to use. To dismiss that or to say that it is not well founded suggests a leap of faith that I for one would not necessarily wish to follow. I believe that the United States can be brought along if we are careful and if we do not dismiss its concerns as being merely arrogant or isolated. We must recognise that it has been worried all along, even though it negotiated fully in the earlier meetings that informed the drafting of the Rome Statute. At the end of 1998, one of the notes that it sent to the Secretary-General stated that it was profoundly worried that the correction procedures for amending the then draft Rome Statute were not being properly followed in accordance with normal procedures on these occasions.
With regard to the flaws in the treaty, there are many areas where wise support of the project leads one to be very careful about dismissing the views of the highest Americans and says instead that we should proceed with the greatest of care and make our own points—without going back over the previous amendment—and put down our own declarations about how we wish to go forward.
That is the way to encourage the Americans to come along. That would be the greatest possible asset that those who genuinely have the interests of this project at heart could contribute in this place. My noble friend has therefore done us a service in enabling us to look at the amendment and discuss the central position of the Americans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I viewed the amendment with a little surprise and disappointment. I was tempted in reply simply to say that I agreed wholeheartedly with the comments made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and to say no more. But that would not do justice to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has raised.
Perhaps I may say straightaway that we have the greatest respect for our American partners. They have been with us in many times of trouble. We take their important views very seriously. But I remind the House that our American partners are now in the same position as Zimbabwe and Iran. They too have signed but not ratified the statute. I am sure that the noble Lord would not suggest that we should await the ratification of it by either of those two states before we independently come to our own judgment.
1314
This House is a House of Parliament in Britain. The Members of the other place were voted into government by the people of this country—and it is our decisions, our views and our debate which is the most important.
If, in the past, we had adopted the surprising and somewhat unusual approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, we would not have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines, the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1997, or the Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea. We would have had to wait a great many years to ratify the genocide convention. Therefore, that is not a position that attracts Her Majesty's Government. I am sure that when a different administration were in power, they would not have attracted noble Lords who now sit opposite and form part of her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Many noble Lords have spoken with great passion about the independence of this country. Therefore, it is with some surprise and no little disappointment that I listened to the matters now being advocated by some of the same noble Lords. It is right to say that opinion in the United States is not as clear cut as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, seeks to suggest. There is a good deal of discussion and debate. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for also belonging to that somewhat ill-fated profession of lawyers, and saying that lawyers, too, have the ability to look at what is in their national interests. As has been stated, many lawyers in America have said very clearly that they are concerned that the United States has chosen to drag its feet in relation to the matter. We hope that we shall encourage it to change and see the benefits of the negotiations in which it participated to make the statute as good as it now appears to be, balancingߞ
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Does she agree that when what has been put forward by 10 of the most distinguished lawyers in America is that the opposition is based on a misconception of international law, it is something which perhaps should be taken seriously?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree. But I would invite the noble Lord not to press this matter to a Division, not to surrender our sovereignty, and in doing so to say that this is not an appropriate matter for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am very sorry to have caused so much hand-wringing and to have disappointed the Minister. She was speaking with such sorrow and was disappointed in my approach. I have no intention of putting this matter to the vote. As the House well understands, I wanted to raise the issues that have been seriously put by the United States. The matter has nothing whatever to do with sovereignty. That really is a nonsensical argument; talk about the word "eccentric" "It is completely illogical to say that in one instance we should follow an example of another country voluntarily, through our own

1315
Parliament in a matter that is for our own free decision. What that has to do with all the other conventions and following the Americans, I simply cannot see. I am surprised that the Foreign Office could not come up with something better to put in the Minister's brief because that really does not follow. I have no intention of pressing the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Right to review of delivery order]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)")
The noble Baroness said: This is a technical amendment. As a consequence of the changes made to Clause 5 on Report, I regret that a minor drafting error has occurred in Clause 12(4)(b). The intention is that, like the competent court, a higher court which hears an application for habeas corpus will be able to issue a declaration if it determines that the person's rights have not been respected. That declaration shall be transmitted to the ICC.
As it presently reads, subsections (4) to (8) of Clause 5 would apply to a court hearing an application for habeas corpus but not subsection (9), which provides for a declaration by the court to be passed to the ICC. The amendment would remedy that error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes]:
5 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 26, line 5, at end insert (", or
(c) outside the United Kingdom by a non-United Kingdom national, when the alleged crime was committed against a United Kingdom citizen.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Clause 51 stands, it is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, but only if the act concerned is committed in England or Wales, or outside the United Kingdom by a UK national, a UK resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.
On previous occasions, without success, we have tried to remove those restrictions. I do not propose to return to that general argument now. I deal with the limited case where the victim of a Rome Statute crime outside the United Kingdom is a British citizen. That is a point that I have raised on two occasions in the past without eliciting any response from the Minister on the Front Bench.
If a person who is alleged to have murdered a British citizen in the course of an internal armed conflict comes here and we cannot arrest him because we deliberately failed to take the power suggested in the amendment, the British people might find that very hard to understand or excuse. The Minister may say that if the evidence is good enough the ICC would, in
1316
any case, issue a warrant and the offender would be taken into custody following the procedures in Clause 2. But would that always be so?
Your Lordships may remember the case of Tharcisse Muvunyi, against whom the Rwanda Prosecutor-General said there was overwhelming evidence of his involvement in the genocide in Rwanda, and yet it was not until February 2000 that he was arrested and brought before a court in London, having lived here since March 1998. So it took nearly two years to get around to issuing an indictment. One must suppose that the International Criminal Court, with a great many more cases than either of the two existing tribunals, will not issue indictments more expeditiously than either of those tribunals have done in the past.
A few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, underlined the principle of complementarity; he said that only if the domestic jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to exercise its powers would the ICC come into play. I agree that the whole thrust of the legislation is that, wherever possible, the load should be taken off the shoulders of the international court and dealt with in the domestic jurisdictions of signatory states. It would be helpful to the ICC if this minor extension of our domestic jurisdiction were to be agreed.
In previous debates, I have mentioned the case of Mr Yunus Yosfiah, who was a special forces major at the time of the clandestine Indonesian invasion of East Timor, where he was commanding the unit that murdered five newsmen, including two Britons— Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters—on 16th October 1975. Those journalists were in Balibo when the Indonesians arrived. An eye witness reported that the journalists were dressed unmistakably in civilian clothes; that they had painted an Australian flag on the wall of their house; and that it was perfectly obvious that they were not combatants. But when the Indonesian forces came into the town of Balibo they shot first Brian Peters and then, as the remainder of the journalists were frantically pointing at the Australian flag and shouting "Australians, Australians", the troops surrounded them and fired automatic weapons at them until they were all dead. The bodies were then burnt so as to remove the evidence, and only fragments of bone were handed over to the Australian authorities a few weeks later.
This Yosfiah spent a year in Britain at the Royal College of Defence Studies in 1989, as Hugh O'Shaughnessy revealed in the Independent in November 1995. We were unaware of his presence at that time, but imagine the outrage if it had become public knowledge that a foreign officer, who was an honoured guest of Her Majesty's Government, had murdered two Britons in cold blood some years earlier but could not be arrested in the United Kingdom for that crime. That would have been the situation then; we could merely have asked Mr Yosfiah to leave the country.
But suppose that all those events were transposed into the future. What will people say when they know that the failure to prosecute results from a deliberate

1317
omission by your Lordships and by the Government? Admittedly, these cases will be extremely rare, but they could become less so as time passes. We have more and more British civilians working as technicians, professionals, humanitarian workers and UN observers in situations of armed conflict such as Chechnya, the Balkans, Angola or Colombia.
From time to time, unfortunately, there may be murders of British civilians such as the three telecoms experts who were abducted in Chechnya in October 1998 and then brutally decapitated two months later. In that case, the Russian authorities say that they have arrested the killers. Nearly always, the government concerned would take responsibility for catching and prosecuting those who commit war crimes. But the whole purpose and rationale of the ICC is that sometimes it is the governments themselves or their agents who are guilty, as they were in East Timor, as I have mentioned.
The amendment envisages a very special set of circumstances: that a British citizen is the victim of a Rome Statute offence in some other country; that the authorities of that country are unwilling or unable to prosecute the perpetrator or that he is careful to stay outside their jurisdiction; that the ICC has not got around to issuing an indictment against the perpetrator; and that he comes within our jurisdiction. The case of Yunus Yosfiah shows that the combination is not impossible. I beg the Government to accept this small extension of our jurisdiction to deal with it. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that when British citizens are the victims of serious crime it is a matter of great concern to us all. However, it is the traditional legal position in the United Kingdom that our courts do not take jurisdiction on the basis of the nationality of the victim. For that reason, I must oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
We do not agree that there is a case for changing the general legal proposition in the case of ICC crimes. We do not wish to adopt a position where we are saying that there are different classes of victim; that justice should be done in a different way depending on the nationality of the victim. If a crime is committed against a British national overseas, we expect the country where the crime took place to investigate and prosecute. Occasionally we pursue this through our bilateral dialogue with the country concerned and occasionally we offer support in such an investigation.
But we consider that the proper place for the trial is in the country where the crime took place or the country of nationality of the accused. That is where the relevant evidence and witnesses will be most readily available and where the most swift, effective judicial process is likely to be achieved.
1318
We also consider that the establishment of the ICC and the provisions in this Bill which incorporate ICC crimes into domestic law would not justify changing this policy. If anything, there is even less reason to take jurisdiction ourselves because, in the case that the state where the crime took place cannot investigate, we would refer that matter to the ICC to do so.
It is appropriate that I should say a word about Yunus Yosfiah. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised that case on a number of occasions. I should like to give a little of the history in order that there is a proper understanding of what happened.
At the time that Colonel Yosfiah attended the course in the United Kingdom, we were not aware of any allegations against him. I understand that it was several years afterwards that he was first linked with the Balibo incident. With the best will in the world, the United Kingdom authorities can act only when they have the knowledge to do so. From looking at the papers, it is clear that they did not have the knowledge at the time.
As was made clear at Report stage, in future, were such allegations to be made against people visiting this country, we would take it up with their state of nationality; they would be liable to extradition to a state which took jurisdiction over them; or we would surrender them to the ICC if it took jurisdiction. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall not seek to press the amendment to a Division. Now that the facts have become known, the Indonesian authorities have not pressed charges against Yunus Yosfiah, even though there is abundant eye-witness evidence of what happened in Balibo. It is common ground that Yunus Yosfiah was the major in command of the 300 troops who invaded that town and committed that atrocity. Therefore the assumption that the Minister is making, that we can always rely on other governments to prosecute their own citizens when we call their attention to crimes committed against Britons in their jurisdiction, is not justified. The amendment I propose would provide us with a fallback.
As I said, it would be very rare, were we to appeal to those countries to prosecute those who had killed or committed other war crimes against British citizens, that they would fail to exercise their power to do so. I recognise that in only one case in a million should we have a Yunus Yosfiah in this country, know that he had committed such acts and be able to prosecute him in our courts. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness has not given me a more forthcoming reply at this stage.
I do not, however, feel able to press the matter to a Division. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 [Responsibility of commanders and other superiors]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 32, line 30, leave out from ("or") to ("that") in line 31, and insert ("wantonly or recklessly disregarded information that clearly indicated.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to remove certain words from Clause 65 and to insert certain others. We are dealing with the degree of protection, the height of the threshold of protection, for commanders and their superiors in regard to whether, when going about their legitimate business having intentionally made use of force, they have committed or laid themselves open to a charge of having committed an ICC crime.
The problem is one of subjectivity, as we have found throughout the passage of the Bill. It is easy to say with hindsight that a commander should have known at the time what was happening. The questions hang in the air. What is the test? What is he supposed to have known? How should he have known it? Under the Bill as drafted, the clause allows for the dissection and scrutiny of the actions of commanders and other superior officers after the event by the investigatory branch and the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, assuming that the state is unwilling to make its own investigations.
The Government have repeatedly argued that any higher test, any raising of the threshold to protect members of the Armed Forces from vexatious prosecutions is not necessary. We moved amendments in Committee and on Report that would have corrected the position, and we continue to seek the protection of the Armed Forces, as we have done throughout the passage of the Bill. The wording of the amendment is already incorporated in the legislation of Canada. In our view, after taking careful legal advice, the wording in the amendment would give British Armed Forces a greater level of protection in line with that found in Canada.
Before referring to the Canadian example in more detail, perhaps I may deal with another aspect; namely, the argument used in varying forms in Committee and on Report that none of this is necessary because it is all in Part III the Manual of Military Law and in the Rules of Engagement; therefore, soldiers have always operated under these conditions and there is nothing new.
Apart from the point that I have made ad nauseam, and it would almost certainly plead tedium if I were to repeat it, there is something new. Military commanders will have a new legal jurisdiction with which to contend. Apart from that, there is the question of whether the Manual of Military Law really can be said to inform, now or in the future, members of the Armed Forces who are operating under conditions of intense stress in the complex conditions of modern low-intensity warfare and peacekeeping.
1320
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been diligent in calling our attention to these matters. Part III of the manual states:
"The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime, and if he fails to use the means at his disposal to ensure compliance with the laws of war".
So it could be said that, although there is the new jurisdiction, which is a higher level of argument, at least it was known that these were war crimes.
The question is whether Part III of the Manual of Military Law is, or ever was, adequate provision for soldiers fighting in a war. I understand that it has long since been replaced by a new format and I am not sure that the words appear in that form. I understand that, anyway, Part III of the manual is now out of print, so it is not much help to soldiers in difficulties in the Balkans or wherever they may be as they work out whether they are additionally exposed to some charge that—although they are fulfilling their duty by their own likes and by the likes of their commanding officer, and fulfilling the policy of their government—they may nevertheless be committing an ICC crime. Those are the first points that want to make about the reason why we are seeking more protection, because I do not think that on that score alone the protection is there.
The broader question I want to examine is raised by the way in which the Canadians have handled this matter. The plain fact is that the Canadians have altered the wording. Therefore, the proposition that this Bill had to reflect verbatim the words of the statute is not an imperative; it is simply a policy wish on the part of the Government. That ought to be made clear. If it is, one is entitled to ask why. The Canadians have managed to get different words on to the statute book because they wished to have a higher level of protection for their own armed forces carrying out their duties.
So the question is this: if the Canadians can change the wording, why cannot we? Is the Canadian statute inconsistent with the Rome Statute? It is not as though Canada is one of the renegade states that have merely signed on for the ride and do not really support the whole project. On the contrary, Canada has been zealous and to the fore in promoting the ideas of the International Criminal Court; its lawyers and statesmen have worked extremely hard to do so. Canada is a very important signatory. Therefore, I should like a better answer to that question than I received on Report. If the Canadians can do it, why cannot we; and why do we not want to protect our commanders and their superiors in the way the Canadians do?
Finally, perhaps I may ask a rather narrower question, but on the same point. Will the Minister who is to reply confirm that, should our amendment fail, Clause 65 as drafted requires specific intent to be proved? I am moving into deep legal waters, but that is clearly the position as it is expected to stand unless amended in some way by the Bill. If it is the intention

1321
that specific intent has to be proved, could some kind of explanatory memorandum be provided along with the other publicity about which we know very little that will be provided to commanding officers and armed troops so that they know the score and know the new conditions under which they are potentially operating?
If the answer is that this is not a "specific intent" offence, then we are in quite different territory. That would be a definite signal that a lower test is being adopted which will deprive our commanders of a necessary safeguard and which in effect appears to rewrite English criminal law.
So clarification is needed on some important questions which were not clarified earlier. We need the matter to be crystal clear if we are, in fairness, to provide the right context in which not only can the court go forward, but our Armed Forces, going about their duty as servants of the state, can proceed without finding that unwittingly or unfairly they have committed an offence under a new law and perpetrated a new crime. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Article 28 of the ICC Statute provides as follows:
"A military commander"—
I shall leave out unnecessary words—
"shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be"—
I emphasise the following words—
"as a result of his failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where

(i) That military commander"—

again, I emphasise the following words—
"either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known, that the forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander … failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution".
Those words are matched by Clause 65(2), which Amendment No. 6 seeks to amend.
The mental element required is knowledge or what in English criminal law would amount to recklessness or criminal negligence. That accords with the position described in paragraph 631 of the British Manual of Military Law for 1958 which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, cited. It also accords with the position in the US Department of Army Field Manual 27–10 of 1956 on the law of land warfare—the chapter on "Remedies for Violations of International Law"—which, in paragraph 499, says:
"The term 'war crime' is the technical expression for a violation of the law of war by any person or persons, military or civilian. Every violation of the law of war is a war crime".
Thereafter, in paragraph 501, it uses the very words that appear in the equivalent section of our manual that I understand was amended by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Colonel Gerald Draper and Joyce
1322
Gutteridge in 1958. So, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have exactly the same concept put into the military manuals on the laws of war dealing with this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is quite right to say that it is not enough to rely upon manuals issued to members of the Armed Forces. Of course, one of the merits of Clause 65(2) and of Article 28 is that this will now become the law of the land in a much clearer way than simply incorporating it into military manuals.
Amendment No. 6 would introduce a more restrictive test than is needed to establish liability as a matter of current English law—I emphasise "current English law"—and as a matter of current international law because the test that it would introduce is wanton or reckless disregard of information clearly indicating that the forces were committing, or were about to commit, such crimes.
Amendment No. 6 is more restrictive in requiring either "wanton" disregard or "reckless" disregard of information clearly indicating,
"that the forces were committing or about to commit such offences",
unlike the position in English law and in international law—I shall be corrected by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General if I am wrong—where criminal knowledge means awareness that a circumstance exists, or a consequence will occur, in the ordinary course of events (a view reflected in paragraph (3) of Article 30 of the ICC Statute), and where the court has regard to all relevant circumstances, including what the British and American manuals refer to as knowledge not only through reports received by the commander but also through other means.
I should point out that those principles were fully reflected in the judgments of the majority of the justices—and of the dissenting minority, Justice Murphy—in the case of Yamashita, which we have discussed previously and in respect of which I have made it clear that I should have been for the minority, not the majority.
There is a misunderstanding about the position in Canada that I must correct. The test of Amendment No. 6 is more restrictive than the one adopted in Canada in the legislation giving effect to the ICC Statute, where either knowledge or criminal negligence in failing to know is required, as set out in Section 7(1) of the crimes against humanity and war crimes legislation of 2000, which I shall not read into the record unless any noble Lord is misguided enough to ask me to do so. I summarise what the Canadian legislation does: it does not rewrite the ICC statute. It incorporates into the equivalent Canadian concept of criminal law what is contained in Article 28 of the ICC Statute.
The New Zealanders have used the same approach as that contained in this Bill: they copy the language word for word into the New Zealand statute. The Canadians have used the concept of criminal negligence rather than doing it in that way, but it comes to exactly the same thing. The degree of

1323
knowledge is exactly the same. No specific intent is required in the sense of the specific intent for the crime of murder, but criminal negligence or recklessness is required if all the other ingredients are satisfied.
For those reasons we should be opposed to an amendment that would be retrograde. It would actually dilute criminal responsibility in this area, as it has been incorporated into English law and international law since the time when I had the privilege of doing two years' national service. We are therefore opposed to the amendment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howell which I believe is designed to give added protection to British forces as regards the question of whether "intent" was involved in an alleged war crime. I should like the Minister to reply to one particular point. I have in mind the wording in Clause 65, which my noble friend's amendment seeks to amend. Can the Minister say how she would interpret that wording when applied to the question of the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade?
Obviously one accepts that it was an accident, but, equally, the bombing of civilians and of an embassy is an offence under the Bill. That is very relevant to the question of "should have known", the phrase used in the Bill, because the explanation that was offered for the bombing was, first, that an out-of-date map had been used. The second explanation, as reported in newspapers, was that the CIA had intended to hit the arms agency rather than the Chinese embassy, but had no numbers for the street in question. Therefore, those concerned had merely transferred the street numbering from a parallel street and applied it to the one in which the embassy was situated. Either way, it was clearly an error and, according to many sources, the embassy was marked unambiguously on maps.
Indeed, I have a note with me of a CIA spokesman saying that they had not bothered to locate where the Chinese embassy was because they were not trying to hit it. Of course, that is but one explanation. I should like to know quite how that fits in with the wording that a military commander "should have known" that the forces were about to commit an offence. Plainly, that could be argued to be an offence under the Bill. Can the Minister say what we would be able to plead in defence of NATO troops?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I declare an interest as I am a serving officer in the Territorial Army, Therefore, I could, potentially, be affected by the Bill at some date in the future. Noble Lords will recall our debates at Report stage on the matter. My noble friend Lord Howell then referred to the Emperor Caligula and the poor promulgation of his laws.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in reply to my noble friend,
"is the noble Lord aware that in this case the words are not put on very tall pillars in very small writing so that citizens cannot read them? They are put into the handbook of military law, to which every serving member of the Armed Forces has access, as I well recall from personal experience".—[Official Report, 8/3/01; col. 367.]
1324
This evening we have discussed the Manual of Military Law, Part III. I checked the validity of the noble Lord's reference to the 1958 version of the Manual of Military Law. I sought to follow the advice of the noble Lord at col. 432 on 8th March when he said that the Conservative Front Bench ought to check it. I tried to check it, but unfortunately I found that Part III of the Manual of Military Law is not held at unit level. Therefore, serving officers—
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Will he accept that what I said referred to my rather inglorious period of military service—I think I made it clear—when I was a second lieutenant in the Royal Artillery and had access to the manual and had to read it at the time? I did not refer to the present position. I have no idea whether it is now available; I referred specifically to 1958.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I just quoted the words of the noble Lord on Report when he said that present members of the Armed Forces can refer to the Manual of Military Law, particularly Part III in connection with land warfare.
I was not surprised to discover that the Manual of Military Law is not issued to units because, according to Amendment No. 20, Chapter 1, paragraph 8(b) of the Manual of Military Law, it is no longer printed. It states:
"The Manual of Military Law, Part III, deals with that part of international law known as the law of war on land and is now out of print".
My noble friend Lord Howell has already referred to that point. This goes to the heart of our concerns. Our officers and NCOs are expected to, and will, adhere to the Geneva Conventions and their principles. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, expects the members of our Armed Forces to be experts on the details of the law of armed conflict. I have spent more time studying health and safety and equal opportunities than I have studying the law of armed conflict. Is the noble Lord confident that the manual is available to all members of our Armed Forces? Will the Minister ensure that Part III is reprinted and distributed right down to sub-unit level in military units so that officers and senior NCOs can study the appropriate law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that the manual is still held by all units, or should be. The part to which the noble Earl referred is currently out of print because it is being revised. However, I can certainly reassure the House that there has been, and will be, no significant change in relation to those matters.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I checked that very point this morning. Will the Minister undertake to do a double

1325
check, as it were? If she finds that she has been incorrectly advised, perhaps she will inform the House at some convenient point.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. However, I have been advised by the Ministry of Defence that the position I have just stated to the House is the correct one. Of course, we realise that sometimes not all units have what they are supposed to have. I do not know what the position is with regard to the noble Earl's unit but that is what I am advised should be the case.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I checked the position in two units.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the answer remains the same. In relation to that matter, I reassure the House that there is no significant change envisaged as a result of the new Bill that we hope will be enacted in due course.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as regards intentionally attacking civilian objects and the mistake that was made in relation to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy. However, that was clearly a mistake. It did not amount to a crime and it did not fall within the category of issue for criticism.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, of course I accept that it was a mistake. I accept that there was no intention to bomb the Chinese Embassy. However, the Bill uses the phrase, "should have known". That is what my query relates to. Surely one could argue that the NATO forces should have known where the Chinese Embassy was situated. That is the whole point about maps and having it clearly marked.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards the meaning of the phrase "should have known", what we are talking about is a neglect of the basic duty that a military commander has to ensure that those under his effective command and control do not commit war crimes. That principle has been summarised by the former head of the British Army Legal Services, Major General Anthony Rogers, in his book on the laws of war. It may assist the House if I quote from that book. It states:
"Responsibility may arise if war crimes are committed as a result of the commander's failure to discharge his duties either deliberately or by culpably or wilfully disregarding them, not caring whether this resulted in the commission of war crimes or not".
It does not refer to the circumstances that were involved in the incident at the Chinese Embassy; that is, a genuine mistake. The fact that that principle can be implemented in practice was shown in numerous war crimes cases which our judges, and those of our allies, dealt with in the aftermath of the Second World War.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, what happens if there is a case of negligence? The Minister will be
1326
aware that a CIA official was sacked after the incident I mentioned. Would a sacked official not also be liable to be summonsed before the ICC?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that subsection (2)(a) and (b) of Clause 65 are conjunctive. I shall read them to refresh the noble Lord's memory.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I have it here.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord says from a sedentary position that he has that. Therefore, I draw his attention to paragraph (b) which states:
"he failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution".
Both paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be proven. If we apply that test to the circumstances to which the noble Lord referred, he will see why the mistake that took place in the bombing of the Chinese Embassy does not fall within the section. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already dealt with the issues in relation to the test. Therefore, I shall not reiterate them but simply say that I agree with the noble Lord's assessment. I accept—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage. I have listened with the greatest attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had to say. I think that I understood what he said. Is the position that whereas we chose to incorporate in our Bill the exact words of the ICC statute, the Canadian Government elected not to use those precise words but words which reflect in exactly the same way what is contained in the statute? If that be the case, have we not at least arrived at the point—which I think is a new point in our deliberations—that we do not actually have to put in our own legislation the exact words of the ICC statute and we can, if we think fit, amend the Bill to change the wording so long as the new wording does not depart from the intention of the ICC statute? If we have reached that point, we have moved our ground to some extent.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is right that I should explain what has happened in relation to the Canadians. It is indeed true that the Canadian legislation speaks of "criminally negligent in failing to know"; and that that is slightly different from the statute.
We understand from speaking to our Canadian colleagues that this language was introduced specifically in response to jurisprudence developed by the Canadian courts under their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the notion of "criminal negligence" has been thoroughly analysed by the courts in the light of their charter, the Canadian Government believed it preferable to use that language. However, they consider the test to be no different. That was only to ensure that the Canadian courts could accurately reflect what is contained already in the statute.

1327
We are not in that disadvantageous position because we do not have the Canadian jurisprudence here in Britain. Therefore we do not need to change or alter the statute in any way. One of the difficulties is the issue of complementarity, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said. One of the greatest protections we have for our Armed Forces is that British courts, British judges, will be trying these issues. Our servicemen and women will be subject to the British system and, if proven guilty of any of these issues, will be held responsible to British justice. That is our greatest protection for our armed servicemen and women.
We should like there to be no chink of light between the ICC Statute and our statute so that it cannot be said that our statute does not cover precisely the same ground as the ICC. The ICC will be deprived, therefore, of an opportunity to say that we have failed to comply. If they are suspected of doing something wrong, we wish to try our men and women ourselves. If we reflect precisely the wording of the statute, we limit the opportunity for our men and women to be subject to difficult situations and to deprive our courts and our judges of the opportunity to deal with them appropriately.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that one of the advantages of our approach over the Canadian approach is that it achieves better legal certainty for officers and those under their command?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it does indeed. Although we understand why, because of their particular situation, the Canadians have felt the need to do as they have, they run the risk of it being said that their approach is not precisely the same. One could argue that they leave a chink of light between the two systems: that they should not or could not deal with the matter appropriately. We do not wish to put our servicemen and women in that jeopardy. We wish to ensure that, if there is a difficulty, our courts, our judges, will have full responsibility to deal with it. By arranging our Bill to reflect precisely the language, we believe that we better protect our servicemen and women.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is not correct in saying that the amendment he proposes is exactly the same as the Canadian legislation. Regrettably, it is not; it is materially different. We think that it would be disadvantageous to our servicemen and women.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said rightly that both issues are contained in the British Manual of Military Law which remains current to this day. The noble Lord was also right to say that it is reflected accurately in the US Department of Army Field Manual dating from 1956. So those issues are covered.
The concern of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is that the ICC might seek to second guess the decision of a British military commander. The best protection we
1328
can give our Armed Forces is to make sure that the ICC has no chance to second guess any such decision. For that reason, Clause 65 is expressed in the way that it is.
We have a long history of behaving appropriately and properly. The term has been fully understood by the servicemen and women of this country. There has not been difficulty in that understanding. It is right to remind your Lordships that the Ministry of Defence was assiduous in its efforts in this regard and has taken every opportunity to ensure that the servicemen and women of this country are appropriately protected by this legislation.
Perhaps I may quote a recent Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place. He said:
"The priority of the Ministry of Defence in the drafting of the International Criminal Court Bill and its passage through Parliament has been to ensure that members of the armed forces are fully protected from malicious or ill-founded prosecution by the ICC. The armed forces have been closely involved in the consultation process. I am confident that the Bill before Parliament provides all necessary protection".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/01; 756W.]
I hope noble Lords will accept that the Secretary of State for Defence properly takes into account the trials and tribulations which the armed servicemen and women will face and properly gives consideration to what needs to be done to protect them. We have looked together at the definition of "should have known". We are confident that the steps which have been taken make clear the basis upon which the servicemen and women will be found responsible. Perhaps the clearest exposition of this principle was contained in the judgment of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in trying members of the German High Command. It was stated:
"Criminality does not attach to every individual in this chain of command from that fact alone. There must be a personal dereliction. That can only occur where the act is directly traceable to him or where his failure to properly supervise his subordinates constitutes criminal negligence on his part. In the latter case it must be a personal neglect amounting to a wanton, immoral disregard of the action of his subordinates amounting to acquiescence".
It is a high standard which has been well established for some time.
This notion of criminal negligence can also be found in similar terms in Article 86 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and in the statutes of the Yugoslav and Rwandan tribunals. The ICC and, by virtue of Clause 65(5), the British courts, if they needed to interpret the wording in question, would thus have recourse to the detailed and prudent jurisprudence of the Hague and Arusha tribunals as well as that from the trials of Nazi and Japanese war criminals.
I regret to say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would go against this international practice. The amendment talks about wanton or reckless disregarding of information that clearly indicated that war crimes were being committed. This might leave serious gaps. What happens if the commander, in flagrant dereliction of

1329
his duty to prevent such crimes, did not ask for or read reports which talked about such crimes; or, if having read reports which spoke obliquely about massacres, he failed to request the additional information which would have made that plain?
We believe that we have made proper provision to protect our men and women, that our British courts will have the tools to give them that protection, and that we should support the international community in this praiseworthy attempt to bring all under the same umbrella. The noble Lord spoke earlier about significant changes. There have not been significant changes. Our servicemen and women are already bound by those rules. They already apply them and they have already demonstrated that the confidence that we have traditionally put in them is merited. There is no reason for us to feel anxiety on their behalf.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister has been very patient this evening. Will Part III of the Manual of Military Law be revised, reprinted and reissued?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we expect Part III to be revised, we expect it to be reprinted and we expect it to be reissued.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's reassurances and the quotations that she has given from the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence to the effect that everything is fine and our Armed Forces are protected. The exchange arising from the fascinating intervention of my noble friend Lord Attlee about the publicity given to changes in military law was not reassuring. We are not sure what steps are being taken to ensure that simple explanations of such changes in the law will be available. They have to be simple, because they have to be interpreted in the heat of stressful situations. There is a yawning lacuna—perhaps lacunae do not yawn; I should say a yawning gap—between the recognition that something fairly substantial has changed and the knowledge and information that should be made available to our fighting forces in the conditions in which they daily find themselves having to making agonisingly difficult decisions. I repeat my objection to the constant claim that there is nothing new in what we are doing. I find the situation worrying. This is not the state in which I had hoped that we would leave the Bill before it passed to another place.
I listened with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lester, and to the Minister on whether the amendment would provide a better protection or a lower tripwire for commanding officers and superiors. The advice that I have received from Canadian legal authorities, who are deeply involved in trying to make their legislation work—there is no question of them trying to undermine it—is that, although they have found the need for changes to the wording and the wisdom to make them, there is no chink of light or deviation from the intents and purposes of the Rome Statute. They have made
1330
adjustments to suit their domestic law and conditions with which they feel comfortable. It is extraordinarily difficult to understand the doctrine, to which we have been subjected throughout the passage of the Bill, that we must be made to feel uncomfortable and that the verbatim copying of the Rome Statute into our law is necessary and will provide the best protection. There is room for two opinions on that. We have not two but 200 legal opinions on whether that is right. I suspect that those disputes will continue if and when the Bill passes into law.
My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the bombing of the Chinese Embassy. We all agree that it was a genuine mistake, but should such an event happen again—the provisions are not retrospective—and should the Chinese be signatories to the statute, the lingering question is whether they would think that it was a genuine mistake. The issue all along has been whether other parties who may not see things our way or the way of our allies are prepared to go to the independent prosecutor and say, "Whatever the British or Americans say, we think this was a crime". I think—I stand to be corrected—that the Chinese said that the Belgrade embassy bombing was a crime.
That will be the problem in the future. People who are not well motivated and do not see things our way will argue that actions that we would not dream of investigating as crimes were in fact crimes. The whole issue is very questionable and worrying. I do not wish to leave it unchallenged.
My noble friend Lord Waddington shrewdly put his finger on the fact that the Canadian example shows that modifications can be made, regardless of whether their wording or ours raises the threshold or keeps it where it is. In the interests of making the legislation work in our domestic jurisdiction and reassuring our people, the general public and the Armed Forces, some modifications are possible. The Minister has said yet again that they are not possible—or rather, that she does not wish them to take place and that any modifications would somehow reduce the protection for our Armed Forces. Not everyone in the Armed Forces accepts her argument.
In answer to a Question from an MP, the Secretary of State for Defence said that there had been no representations from the Armed Forces about the Bill and that he felt that the protection provided was full and secure. That contradicts the comments that appeared in many newspapers—not inspired by the Conservatives here or in the other place, but apparently coming from the high levels of the military forces—that there were considerable worries that were shared by the Armed Forces of other countries, particularly the United States.
At the end of Third Reading, we are still left with a feeling of considerable unease. For all those reasons, it would be right for me to test the opinion of the House.
5.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 169.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lindsay, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Luke, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Biffen, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Blackwell, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blaker, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Blatch, B.

Monson, L.

Boardman, L.

Montrose, D.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Noakes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northbrook, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Northesk, E.

Buscombe, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Byford, B.

Onslow, E.

Caithness, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Palmer, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Coe, L.

Peel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Plumb, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Prior, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Quinton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rawlings, B.

Cranborne, V.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saatchi, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fookes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Freeman, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Stewartby, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glentoran, L.

Strange, B.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Vinson, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Jopling, L.

Weatherill, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Addington, L.

Berkeley, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Alderdice, L.

Blease, L.

Alli, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Andrews, B.

Bragg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Brookman, L.

Avebury, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Bach, L.

Burlison, L.

Barker, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Barnett, L.

Christopher, L.

1332

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McNally, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

Newby, L.

Elder, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northover, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Parekh, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Razzall, L.

Gale, B.

Rea, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rennard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Richard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goudie, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roper, L.

Grabiner, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Greaves, L.

Sandberg, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sawyer, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sharman, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Harrison, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stern, B.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taverne, L.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton, L.

Thornton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Tomlinson, L.

Chancellor)

Tope, L.

Islwyn, L.

Tordoff, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Turner of Camden, B.

Privy Seal)

Uddin, B.

Jeger, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Levy, L.

Whitty, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Lipsey, L.

Wilkins, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Longford, E.

Winston, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney Lord Shore of Stepney had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 7:
Page 41, line 50, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this section until—

(a) the Government has made a declaration of its reservations about the observance of Article 8(b)(i), (ii), (iv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix) and (xxv) on War Crimes when the United Kingdom is exercising its right of self-defence and when its armed forces are being deployed to resist aggression committed against a fellow Member State of the United Nations, and

(b) that declaration has been submitted to, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the debate that we have already held on Amendment No. 2, upon which we voted, and the close proximity of the terms of that amendment to my own, I do not intend to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I want to say a word of appreciation for the valuable undertaking that has been given in relation to prisoners of war. That is due to the good offices of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Archer of Sandwell, the officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that we are dealing with the privilege amendment. If he intends to say something, I believe that he should do so on Bill do now pass, which has not yet been moved.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise for having spoken at the wrong moment. I wanted to say a word of appreciation for the valuable concession that was made. It was entirely due to the good offices of three Members of this House: first, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who set up a meeting with officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office so that the matter could be considered in depth; secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who evinced a personal sympathy towards this matter; and, thirdly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who used his influence to ensure that a satisfactory arrangement was made in amity.
In fact, it comes to this: the Government have given an undertaking that, if there is any concern as to whether the regime affords adequate protection, oral
1334
representations from any quarter shall be taken into account, the inadequacies shall be highlighted and addressed, and the proposals to amend the regime shall be raised in all appropriate fora, including any review conference, and that they will closely watch the developing jurisprudence of the ICC. On behalf of all those of whom I have spoken, I should like to express my gratitude.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it would be wrong not to reinforce very briefly the words of appreciation expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about the way in which this Bill has progressed. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as well as her ministerial advisers, for their support.
I observe that this is a global Bill, in the sense that parliaments and legislative experts all round the world have followed its progress and offered their own comments and views on it—a reminder that through this Bill we shall be participating in a global institution, with all the benefits and problems that that may involve.
I end by saying that I hope the Bill, because of its vast significance, will be debated fully in the other place. With those comments, I am happy to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to take part in these memorable debates. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General not only for their learning, tact and commitment to the international rule of law but, above all, for their patience in listening to many speeches, from all sides of the House, scrutinising this Bill almost line by line. We on these Benches wish the Bill well. We hope that it will be speedily enacted in the other place in order that the Government, on behalf of the people of this country and those elsewhere in the world, may see us in the vanguard in bringing this important measure into full effect.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, lest some of us from the Government Back Benches be misconstrued, I rise to say that we congratulate the Government on having throughout been in the vanguard of international opinion and greatly enhancing the reputation of this country. We are grateful to both my noble friends on the Front Bench. We hope to see an early ratification of the Bill, and we wish it well.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should like to reciprocate those expressions of gratitude. Many noble Lords have worked very hard on this Bill. I thank and congratulate all those who participated in the meetings held prior to the proceedings in the House. We give this Bill our very best wishes. It should significantly change the course of history.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Foot and Mouth Outbreak: The Rural Economy
6.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend Mr Michael Meacher in another place earlier today. The Statement reads as follows:
"Mr Speaker, I wish to report on the work of the Rural Task Force, which held its second meeting this morning. We all agree that our first priority remains to eradicate foot and mouth disease as soon as possible. The situation remains an extremely serious one. Its effects are very serious for both farmers and the wider rural community, especially in tourism. The Rural Task Force, which has representatives from a range of rural interests and government departments, is working urgently to develop measures to alleviate these impacts.
"I must commend the response of the public who have been very anxious to avoid spreading the disease. But large parts of the country are not affected and people wrongly believe that the whole countryside is out of bounds. This has had a devastating and unnecessary impact on many of the businesses which depend on visitors to rural areas. The best way to help rural business is to encourage its customers to return as quickly as possible to the many places where it is safe to do so.
"So the task force has agreed on a number of actions to achieve this.
"First, last Friday we issued new guidance to the public on what they can do safely in the countryside - and what they must not do. The basic message is that the public should stay away from livestock and their pastures, but that there are still plenty of things to do and places to visit in the country without risking spreading the disease.
"Secondly, an increasing number of rural properties will be opening to the public again very shortly. English Heritage are announcing today that over 200 properties will be open from 1 April. The National Trust will announce shortly that they will be opening around 150 properties between now and 1 April. British Waterways will be reopening many of their canals, starting next week. In all cases this follows a very careful in-depth review agreed with MAFF.
"Thirdly, local authorities and National Park Authorities will be considering where footpaths can be safely opened, and I hope that there will shortly be a much wider availability of footpaths for the public outside the infected areas.
1336
"Fourthly, we are mounting a public information campaign to ensure the message gets through to the public about what they can and cannot do, and the benefits that they can bring to rural businesses by their visits to the countryside, and, in particular, to rural and seaside towns and villages, hotels, guest houses and tourist attractions in rural areas. The Government, in conjunction with the tourism industry, are setting up a public information phone. This will steer callers to more detailed help on what attractions are open. Extra funding will be made available to the tourist boards to promote rural attractions.
"We are also developing a preliminary package of measures to alleviate the immediate financial hardship of small businesses in rural areas which have been badly hit by the sudden drop in visitors and other knock-on effects of the foot and mouth disease. In preparing this package we have met with, and listened to, a wide range of rural interests. The first stage measures are as follows.
"First, we can offer help through the rates system.
"We will consider help through the rates system by increasing the central government contribution to rate relief from 75 per cent to 95 per cent for small businesses in rural authorities in areas of greatest need that are suffering greatest hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease. We will be announcing our proposals shortly.
"Affected businesses can also apply to the Valuation Office Agency for a temporary reduction in their rateable value.
"Yesterday we presented a Bill which will extend mandatory 50 per cent rate relief to all food shops in small rural settlements. We will also lay regulations to extend mandatory 50 per cent rate relief to sole village pubs and garages with a rateable value of less than £9,000. Local authorities will also consider using their existing powers to allow deferred payment of rates. We are also announcing a three-month extension to the deadline for business rate appeals.
"Secondly, we shall take steps through the tax system. As a first step, Ministers have asked Inland Revenue and Customs officials to take a very sympathetic approach to businesses experiencing financial problems as a result of the outbreak. The revenue departments already have power in specific circumstances to defer payment of taxes and national insurance contributions and agree extended arrangements for time to pay. They will make maximum use of this flexibility for agricultural, transport, tourism and related retail businesses in the countryside which cannot pay debts because of cash-flow problems, where cash-flow assistance through rescheduling tax or NIC liabilities would help.
"Thirdly, we are considering with the Small Business Service and the banks how we can ensure continuing credit for small businesses badly affected by the impact of foot and mouth disease, including the use of the small firms loan guarantee fund. The

1337
Small Business Service, through a national helpline, will provide more information on the package of support available and access to the network of local business links.
"Fourthly, we are taking action through the benefits system. Jobseekers' allowance may be available to both employees and self-employed people out of work as a result of foot and mouth; and the Department of Social Security will be making its procedures as fast and flexible as possible.
"I have also had constructive discussions with the major banks. It is clear that they fully understand the problems being faced by businesses from all sectors affected and they are being pro-active in contacting their customers likely to be in trouble. They made it clear that they are keen to support their customers wherever possible. They will look, on a case-by-case basis, at mechanisms such as extended lines of credit, capital repayment holidays and other measures. I would encourage all bank customers in difficulty or expecting problems to contact their local bank manager as soon as possible to discuss what options may be available.
"Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the important role the voluntary sector is playing in relieving rural distress. I can announce today that the Government will match the public donations which have been made to them for this purpose.
"I should stress that this is a preliminary package. The task force will continue in being as long as it is needed, and I look forward to making further announcements in due course".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in view of the extended nature of the previous debate, I may not be able to stay throughout the debate on the Statement and I apologise to the House for that. I am going to Brussels with Sub-Committee D and have already booked a seat on the train. Therefore, I ask for the understanding of the House. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for allowing me to speak before her on the Statement.
We welcome this package of measures and the fact that the Government have moved quickly to introduce some certainty into the situation regarding rate relief and associated matters. However, I say immediately to the Minister—I repeat what I said last week—that on these Benches, we are disappointed by the Government's blanket approach to this issue. Clearly, some areas are in extreme crisis—for example, Devon, Cumbria and Powys—while much of the nation is barely affected by it. The Statement does not recognise sufficiently the very regional nature of the problem. I hope that when this package of measures is applied, authorities in the worst affected areas will be able to take much more extreme measures, in particular in deciding which businesses should be eligible for rate
1338
relief. The Minister listed a number of businesses but clearly in some areas, such as Devon, all businesses are now affected.
There is also the question of what message the Government wish to give those coming from abroad to use our tourist facilities. On their televisions and in their newspapers, people from abroad are still seeing piles of animals burning. That makes it very difficult for the Government to succeed in putting across the message that the countryside is open. The Government must achieve a very difficult balance in that respect. On these Benches, we want to see the revival of tourism but the issue of which regions are worst affected needs to be dealt with extremely frankly.
However, if that is done, it will be clearly understood that the North West and South West are difficult areas in which to walk and, after all, that is why most people visit, for example, the Lake District and Dartmoor. Again, I ask the Government to consider using the contingency fund in a major way, particularly in those areas where tourism, small businesses and agriculture are most affected. That could perhaps be done through the regional development agencies. There really is a case of extreme need in those areas and I believe that consequential compensation is the only route there.
I must declare an interest as my husband is chairman of the Exmoor National Park Authority. But there is much concern in Exmoor about the existence of a confirmed case at South Molton. The authority has no power to close minor roads through open land where stock graze and it feels that that is necessary. Access needs to be restricted in infected areas with diversions via minor roads into uninfected areas. It believes also that it is a necessary to disinfect essential vehicles entering an uninfected area, with support from army services personnel. I make a special plea for Exmoor because of the large deer herd there. That is a problem which is particular to that area.
These are the short-term measures. In the medium or long term, again, I urge that the steps which the Government have taken to encourage British supermarkets to buy British produce should come into effect rapidly. Those steps would include the provisions the code of conduct and the recommendations of Food from Britain which, in their response to the rural White Paper, the Government said would encourage supermarkets to stock regional produce. When farmers can no longer export, that is absolutely crucial.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place earlier today. I pay tribute to the members of the task force who have come forward with these first proposals. We welcome the Government's commitment to match the donations given by individuals and charities in response to this disaster. I add my thanks to all those in the voluntary sector who have given money or who are supporting those families which have been devastated by these recent events.

1339
While some of the measures outlined today bring hope to some businesses, by far the biggest help that the Government could give would be to bring this foot and mouth outbreak under control. The Statement does not announce any new measures on that front. It refers to the rate relief and possible deferred payment of taxes and national insurance contributions, and other help to rural businesses. Those concessions are indeed welcome. But will the Minister assure the House that those reliefs will be speedily available, with the minimum of red tape, particularly bearing in mind that the rate billing season is now upon us?
Does not the Minister accept that there is total confusion throughout the country as to whether or not the countryside is open to visitors? Does he accept also that farmers and those involved with the outbreak are furious that members of the public wander across country lanes and footpaths, many of which have restricted notices displayed? How can members of the public make and have a considered judgment when MAFF is going in one direction, the DETR in another and the DCMS going in yet another direction as to what is or is not possible?
Mr Meacher said earlier today in the debate in the other place that he accepted that decisions on whether to close or keep open footpaths will be made locally. Does the Minister accept that that will only add to the difficulty and confusion? That will make practically impossible the running of any national hotline which is set up.
What is or is not open to visitors? Mr Meacher even suggested that people could visit areas that were livestock-free, but how will the general public know what animals have been or are likely to be in certain fields without greater direction? What about wildlife? The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, referred to wildlife and in particular to deer. If the disease spreads on the wind, as currently believed, in addition to direct contact, how can the Minister balance the words in the Statement? How are walkers to know which fields have livestock and which have not, and how will overseas visitors be briefed?
Why have the Government shied away from persuading the Environment Agency to relax its administrative procedures and to permit more and speedier burials? That matter, which was the subject of a strong recommendation in the report on the 1967 disaster, has not been addressed properly by MAFF or DETR.
The mounting of a public information campaign is vital. Visitors from abroad assume that our whole country is affected. I suspect that they will not change their views until a clear announcement is made that the disease has been eradicated. Many visitors are fearful of the implications that the disease may have upon them when they return to their own country. Can the Minister comment on that and tell the House what proposals there are?
We welcome the extra funding that is being made available to the tourist boards. The Statement refers to the sole pub, shop or garage in villages, but some small villages of fewer than 3,000 people have more than one
1340
pub. The Statement suggests that such places will not be helped. Is that correct? The Statement also referred to the job seeker's allowance, saying it "may" be available. Surely, it should say "shall" be available. Who has the discretion?
Already 118 people have been made redundant in Dumfries and Galloway as a direct result of the foot and mouth disease. Can the Minister give the House the figures for England and Wales? What help is to be given to employers who have to bear the costs of redundancy? What happens to businesses that technically still have staff and want to keep them but are currently financially unable to pay them?
While the measures set out in the Statement are welcome, does the Minister accept that the biggest help that the Government can provide is to bring this outbreak under control? 'The Statement is helpful in parts. It provides help for rural businesses. But do the Government accept that it produces no specified new money to help to fight the disease? We have had contact with farmers in affected areas who tell us that they have no or, at best, little confidence that the Government are in control of events. Their personal experience shows us that inadequate resources have been supplied. They are also frustrated by the many delays that they are experiencing. That is in stark contrast to the approach taken in France and in Northern Ireland.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the seriously qualified welcome given to the Statement from the two Front Benches opposite. Clearly, there are anxieties, but I do not believe that it is useful to say that there is total confusion or—
A noble Lord: My Lords, there is total confusion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, "total confusion" may be fed by irresponsible comment both in the media and in political circles.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I understand what he is saying but I assure him that there is confusion. The Government should understand that. We are in London, although we go home to various parts of the country, and there is confusion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have a difficult and complex situation because circumstances differ in different parts of the country. It is important that people realise what the situation is in the parts of the country that they visit. Government advice has been geared and is being geared to providing that information, for example, through the Countryside Agency, the tourist boards and so forth.
Counties in areas that have not been affected, as well as those that have been affected, have taken measures to close all rights of way, and other bodies, such as

1341
English Heritage and the National Trust, have closed properties even when there has been no evidence of a potential problem for a particular property. Those bodies have said, as we have said, that a more selective approach to the matter needs to be taken and that we should look at those areas where it is possible to open properties, paths, tow paths, canals and so on where there is no danger of the disease being spread. That approach will reassure people in the locality that we are not closing down the countryside; it will reassure people who want to visit the locality that they can enjoy certain activities in the countryside; and it will reassure people that prosperity can be spread to those areas of the countryside that are being damaged more than they need to be on any continuing basis.
It was right that such bodies were exceptionally cautious to start with, but we can now take an approach that will allow those businesses that can operate to operate. We can send a message to the public that many of the attractions of the countryside—stately homes, the seaside, restaurants, hotels and in many cases gatherings—can take place without danger of spreading the disease.
That situation will be different in different parts of the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, there is a particular problem in relation to Devon, Cumbria, Powys and some other areas where clearly the measures that we have announced today would need to be applied more intensively. We have now given the local authorities the ability to do that.
The idea that different messages are coming from government is not correct. This Statement and all other Statements have been agreed between my department, MAFF and the DCMS. The English Tourist Council is likewise putting the same message on its information systems. However, it is clear that we must, as a top priority, contain and eradicate this disease, but at the same time we must not, by default, close down the rest of rural industry and services.
Therefore, this is not a blanket approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said; in fact, it is a selective approach that focuses the attention of the eradication process and of the restrictions on movement in those areas most directly affected or in adjacent areas. It is important that we assure tourists, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, that there are opportunities available to them. In the short term we must look at the package that we have produced today, in terms of immediate measures to relieve the pressures, particularly on small businesses in rural areas, because those are closest to the margin and are therefore those with the most acute cash-flow difficulties; but we must also look at the long-term effects as to where the more substantial, wider measures may be necessary to deal particularly with the worst affected areas.
In relation to Exmoor, for example, the local highways authorities have the ability to close roads, and no doubt the Exmoor National Park, in conjunction with Devon and Somerset councils, could close roads. I understand that not many local authorities have used those powers and primarily they
1342
have not done so on their own veterinary advice. Nevertheless, the powers are in place and if the danger is perceived as particularly acute there is no reason why such restrictions or closures of roads could not take place.
I endorse the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in relation to the appeal to supermarkets and other food distributors to "buy British" in this period and to try to sustain some of the produce from our agricultural and horticultural sectors.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the Environment Agency. It is certainly true that there has been frustration about the way in which that agency's procedures have operated. The Environment Agency is well seized of that. However, it is important to recognise that the agency has a big responsibility. Burying the carcasses can often be seen as the quickest way of disposal, but the Environment Agency must assess the long-term pollution effect of that. It is taking steps to speed up the way in which it does that and to be as flexible as it can with farmers and others in trying to dispose of livestock in that way where it is appropriate. However, it has wider and longer term responsibilities in that respect.
In relation to all government agencies—to social security and the tax authorities—we are attempting to speed up the bureaucratic processes in order ensure that the aid referred to in the Statement and previously is delivered as rapidly as possible to those who most need it. We have gained the co-operation of the banks as regards private finance.
Many of the decisions as regards particular rights of way, restrictions or movements will be made locally. Those local decisions must be based on veterinary advice. It is important that the advice given to local authorities, to farming enterprises and to MAFF co-ordinates the information and it is important that people recognise that the situation will be different in different parts of the country. The point of the package is to minimise the devastating impact on farming in many of the areas and also to ensure that the rest of the rural economy, which employs many more people than farming, does not suffer unduly from the knock-on effects of the disease.
The announcement of itself does not deal with the measures directly to eradicate the disease, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, we have intensified those measures, particularly in the worst affected areas, and there is a clear determination to use all facilities, including the use of troops and private-sector resources, in order to eradicate and contain the disease. That remains our top priority, but it is also necessary to look after the rest of the rural economy and to take into account the serious impact the disease is having, particularly on the tourist trade.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the Minister said that the primary objective of the rural task force is to eliminate foot and mouth disease. He also said that the Government would soon inform the general public of

1343
the areas of the countryside to which they could return safely. However, that would exclude livestock and pastures. I am anxious that that advice should include areas frequented by wild deer, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Byford.
In the outbreak in Bicester in Oxfordshire the M40 is guarded on both sides by deer fencing. Fifteen miles away, where I live, it is normal to shoot about 200 wild deer in a year. It can therefore be seen that a considerable number of wild deer in certain parts of the country are vulnerable to foot and mouth.
Will the Government ensure that the general public are made aware of the problems relating to wild deer? Will the Minister ensure that the areas which the general public are allowed to use will not include footpaths next door to arable fields and woodlands which are frequented by muntjac? Will he also ensure that the general public are aware of the muntjac, which frequent people's gardens?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can reassure the noble Lord on that count. The first line of the information on what one should not do reads:
"Do not go near cattle, sheep, pigs or deer wherever they are".
That includes wild deer and deer which are corralled. Therefore the information is clear.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I farm a livestock farm not far from some outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and I have a tourist attraction which would, but for the present situation, be about to open. I want to ask the Minister two specific questions.
First, will he ensure that no footpath which is currently closed is reopened without close consultation with those who farm the land over which those footpaths run? I am sure he recognises that a farmer who realises that his livestock is at risk of total slaughter will be absolutely infuriated if he feels he is exposed to the slightest additional risk by the reopening of a footpath merely to allow people to wander and derive a little pleasure. It may imperil his entire enterprise and it is a recipe for confrontation. Any sensible farmer, including myself, who felt that there was a risk would keep the footpath closed, whatever the local authority said.
Secondly, the Minister said that tourist boards will have funding enabling them to make plain to the public which tourist attractions are open. Will he confirm that that funding will extend to making plain which tourist attractions are not open? There is a considerable problem as regards those who have spent money advertising their attractions and who are now faced with the difficulty of informing people they will not be open. They have wasted their money on advertising, so can the Minister assure them that the tourist boards will assist them in informing people that the attraction is not open?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, decisions on the opening of footpaths in areas where there has been a blanket
1344
closure of all rights of way will be for the local authorities. They will necessarily take into account the views of landowners and veterinary advice. Some rights of way are closed but could now be opened and all those considerations must be taken into account. The general advice is that footpaths which cross areas where there are livestock or wild deer should not be reopened.
The tourist boards' information states what is open and what is not. The problem is that a large proportion of the population and foreign visitors believe that the whole of the countryside is closed. We need to correct that as facilities open, but it is intended that there should be comprehensive information on where people can and cannot go.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, coming from Surrey, a county which thankfully has not yet been affected by the disease, I can say that its rural communities are affected by what is happening across the country. This year's county show has been cancelled and I have recently cancelled a major youth event which was due to take place on Easter Monday because it is impossible to determine which footpaths are available and which are not.
I am concerned lest we believe that the only places which are in anxiety and need help are those which are directly affected. Will the Minister accept that farming and rural communities across the country are feeling the pressure and need a sense of support?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes. The fact that, understandably and rightly, decisions have been taken to close rights of way and restrict movement throughout the country means that many farming enterprises, industries and services throughout the country are affected by the disease, no matter how far away they may be from the nearest confirmed outbreak. Therefore, the measures which we are debating will support small businesses in rural areas and will apply to all areas which are affected by a restriction. The point I made in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was that more help will be needed in the areas of higher devastation but the facilities for help exist across the country.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer in Worcestershire. Is the Minister aware that over the next two weeks it is probable that 1 million ewes that are now grazing will lamb? At the moment the Ministry of Agriculture tells the farmers concerned that they cannot transport their ewes to the lambing sheds, but agrees with them that ewes lambing in the open, sodden pastures on which they are now grazing gives rise to an animal welfare issue and it is much better if the Ministry culls the sheep concerned. Therefore, we face the potential slaughter of 1 million healthy sheep because the Government say that they should not be transported to lambing sheds. The farmers have said that they will send them in sealed lorries which are sprayed before they move, on routes where there is no foot and mouth disease either side of the road, and yet they have not been given permission

1345
to do that. They find it very difficult to understand why during this particular period the Government urge more of the urban population to travel to the countryside but farmers cannot deliver their ewes to the lambing sheds.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, neither I nor the Government have stated that the urban population should move in areas where there is livestock, let alone infected livestock, and to say otherwise is a complete distortion of our advice. We are saying that there are places and businesses in the countryside which are open and can be used, but not in the vicinity of livestock, whether healthy or infected by the disease, or adjacent to areas affected by the disease. The task force is dealing with the impact on businesses other than agriculture.
The Government's top priority is to restrict the spread of this disease. The most obvious way in which the disease is spread is by the movement of animals. Therefore, MAFF has taken the decision to restrict the movement of animals. We recognise that in some cases that will have a fairly devastating effect on the farming community in those areas, but the top priority is to restrict the most obvious way in which the disease is carried. There may be different situations in different parts of the country and MAFF, based on the best veterinary advice, will have to take separate decisions according to the outbreak of the disease and the pattern of movement within those areas.
I am not able to comment on the precise restrictions in Worcestershire, but the priority of MAFF, as well as local authorities, must be to restrict movements of livestock.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but can my noble friend explain a little further the position of the leisure and tourist industries, particularly in small market towns? I think particularly of East Anglia where, thank goodness, so far there has not been an outbreak of foot and mouth disease. I am also very aware of the way that small market towns, such as my home town of Market Rasen, have been hit. Obviously the same restrictions apply there, and the people who run hotels, inns and shops are extremely worried. Can my noble friend explain how these measures will help the leisure and tourist industries in the market towns?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the measures announced today relate primarily to businesses within small rural communities, but we are looking more widely at businesses which have been affected in larger settlements. It is clear that what is happening on farms and in the countryside can have a devastating effect on businesses in both large and small towns which are based in the centre of rural areas. It is the job of the task force to look at the way in which we can relieve the pressure on the tourist industry and other businesses in those areas as well.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with Easter approaching, what advice can the Minister give in
1346
relation to caravan parks? An example is Skipton which is an important area of sheep farming. There is a large caravan park situated between two areas affected by foot and mouth disease: Hawes, which has three cases, and an area near Bradford in South Yorkshire, which has two cases. I declare an interest in asking the Minister whether he is aware that I had hoped to open my riding and trekking centre at Easter. At the moment, like many people, I am in limbo, with the welfare of farm animals taking priority. There is also a herd of deer involved. Everyone in Yorkshire is very worried as foot and mouth is a creeping paralysis which strangles initiatives and livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that this is an impossible situation for some people?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the exact position will depend on the geography and the nature of the movement involved. If one is within 3 kilometres of an infected area, clearly movement will be totally restricted, and there may be restrictions beyond that. Any business that is fairly close to an infected area needs to obtain veterinary advice from MAFF and the county. There will undoubtedly be serious restrictions on enterprises of that kind, and one of the points of the package announced today is to limit the financial strain to which such businesses are subject.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Pig Association. I also have considerable interests not only in farming but in a large number of businesses of the kind that are covered by the Statement. I should like to put two questions. First, in view of the happy consensus in this House that the first priority is to eradicate the disease as the best way to help people affected by it, when the Government come to consider whether burying rather than burning carcasses is a sensible way to address the problem in a number of cases, is there any EU restriction to prevent that, if that is what the Environment Agency decides is expedient?
Secondly, is the noble Lord content with the arrangements to police the import of food, particularly meat, into this country? At first sight, it appears that our arrangements are rather less rigorous than they are in a number of other countries, including our partners in the European Union. In view of at least the possibility that this outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and the outbreak of classical swine fever in East Anglia earlier in the year, resulted from lack of controls on imported meat, is it sensible for the Government to give a little more attention to that aspect as well?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already touched on the role of the Environment Agency. Clearly, there will be a mixture of burning and burial in disposing of carcasses. I have said that the Environment Agency must speed up its procedures. The agency must look at the total effect in the medium and long term on the particular piece of landfill; and in particular it must look at the water table. Such European regulations as apply to this area relate to the effect on the water table.

1347
Whether or not EU legislation applied, we would wish to take that into account. That is the main concern of the Environment Agency in its cautious approach to burial.
The general view of my colleagues in MAFF is that there is a fairly tight regime in operation in relation to meat imports. It is not clear where this virus originated. It is clear that, however tight the regime, there may well be areas for improvement to which the Government will give their attention.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, as a former banker I was very glad to hear that the Government had talked to banks and received a sympathetic reply, but I was sad to note that there was no reference to any approach having been made to the Bank of England. Speaking for myself, I believe that the Bank is very reactive in its decisions. Surely, at this time it should be proactive and provide some help to small industries by giving more serious thought to lowering the interest rate.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the immediate situation that we have been talking to the banks about, the small businesses within rural areas would be more concerned with deferrals of interest, interest holidays and delaying loan repayments than with the precise rate of interest. That, as the noble Lord knows, raises somewhat wider issues. The Bank of England is independent on such matters.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked regarding orders of priority. For example, in the North West we have the Blackpool Zoo, Knowsley Safari Park and Chester Zoo, These places are now closed and the staff are redundant. Will they qualify for compensation in the same way, even though there is no foot and mouth disease in the area?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in general, relatively large enterprises, such as zoos, would not benefit from the proposed package. Clearly, as we move to the next stage, we need to look at those areas of the tourist trade which have been particularly affected and see what best we can do. A significant number of zoo animals are susceptible to foot and mouth. Therefore, it will be necessary for zoos to remain closed for some time, whatever the situation on foot and mouth in other areas. So there will be an issue to be addressed there. But this particular package is unlikely to affect those particular rather large zoos.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the confusion is highlighted by having a different regime in Scotland? Will he instil in the Environment Agency some sense the importance of making the right decision the first time? It instructed a friend of mine at 10.30 a.m. to dig a pit to bury stock. At 4.30 p.m. it said, "No, you cannot bury the stock". He had to fill in the pit. The next morning he was instructed to reopen the pit and start burying.
1348
Will the Minister also answer the question of my noble friend Lady Byford about the number of redundancies in England and Wales as a direct result of foot and mouth?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that last question is impossible to answer. Clearly, the impact is both immediate and longer term. We do not have figures that relate to the knock-on impact of the disease across the whole of the rural and tourist economy. Such figures are not capable of being produced until the crisis is over. It is to be hoped that the job losses will be short term.
The different regimes in England and in Scotland are a consequence of devolution, on which I appreciate that some noble Lords are not particularly keen. Nevertheless, it is important that decisions are taken locally. That means locally by the Scottish authorities, both at national Scottish level, including the Scottish environmental authorities and by the Scottish county and other local authorities. That probably means that there will be slight differences of treatment in different parts of the country. However, the (thankfully so far) relatively small areas of Scotland affected are different topographically and in terms of their agricultural nature from areas in England and therefore one would expect some decisions to be slightly different.
In relation to the Environment Agency, as I have said, we want to speed up the process of decision-making, but that sometimes means that one makes decisions too fast. I am not sure whether it was the Scottish or English Environment Agency to which the noble Earl was referring, but I hope that we can avoid conflicting advice and avoid mistakes. In all these cases speed is important, but it is also important that the decision is robust and meets all the requirements. I hope that people will recognise that, like the MAFF veterinary service, the county and other veterinary services, the Environment Agency is doing its desperate best to ensure that the situation is contained as much as possible. A great deal of work is being done by huge numbers of government people who are working 18 and 20 hours a day in some cases. So we are committed to containing the disease. The package is intended to ensure that the knock-on effects of the disease are minimised as far as possible. Nevertheless, some desperate situations will arise, both in the farming community and in the rest of the rural area. We need to do our best to minimise that.

Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 17th January, be annulled (S.I. 2001/85).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this Motion not because of any desire to revert to bushels, pecks, rods, poles and perches, which I remind noble

1349
Lords are known throughout the world as imperial measures, but for two reasons: first, because there is absolutely no public or legal demand for it. A survey in November 1997 showed that 74 per cent of the public find feet and inches, pints, pounds and ounces most convenient for their everyday purchases. Most importantly, it showed that 70 per cent of people would prefer a system of dual labelling which would allow the consumer to choose the system which best suited him or her.
Tesco reverted to dual pricing because it found that nine out of 10 of its customers still used imperial measures in their heads. Yet the Government relentlessly pursue their determined drive to abolish those familiar measurements. In my view, that is part of the Government's long-term project to airbrush out our history, including the existence of the United Kingdom, the traditions and status of Parliament itself, in both Houses, and the reduction of England into petty regions in the style of French départements and German Länder.
The date of the survey that I have just mentioned is significant. In 1989 the previous government obtained a 10-year derogation from the EC directive permitting the sale of loose goods such as meat, fish, vegetables and fruit in pounds and ounces. Despite the fact that the Government had two clear years notice of public opinion before the derogation expired on 31st December 1999, they just allowed the date to go by default without lifting so much as a finger to obtain an extension. That was clearly a deliberate decision on the part of the Government.
In reply to a Question for Written Answer from my honourable friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton in July 1999, which at least would have been a reminder, if the Government amidst their so many other preoccupations had overlooked it, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said:
"The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with Members of the European Commission".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/99; col. 583W.]
The result is that it is now illegal to sell bananas by the pound or for children to buy 2 ounces of dolly mixtures. However, it is still permitted under EU law for the equivalent in imperial measures to be shown as so-called "supplements" underneath the metric marking. This is technically called in Eurospeak jargon "supplementary indications" or "dual marking". The regulations that we are discussing today are to put an end to even that dual marking on 31st December 2009. These regulations sound the death knell for pounds and ounces in less than 10 years' time. The question I have to ask is, why?
The same question was raised by some of my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place and answer came there none. The only pathetically specious reply that the Minister could dredge up was:
"The directive is to establish harmonised use of the international system of metric units for education, public health, public safety and administrative services".
1350
Before the Government side gets over-excited, it is true that the previous government signed up to the directive. One was negotiated by the Labour government in 1979 just before the Thatcher government came into office. I shall, if I may, revert to that aspect in a few moments.
I remind your Lordships that we also negotiated the derogation which the Government have deliberately allowed to expire, in the same way that my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister established and negotiated the principle of subsidiarity which the Government waive at every opportunity. The Minister in the other place claimed that imperial measures had to disappear into history because of,
"public health and public safety",
as if people would be fainting in the aisles of Sainsbury's if they were confronted with a label quoting prices in both kilos and pounds; as if an eleventh plague would be visited on us if we were allowed to buy a pound of Cox's Orange Pippins.
Harmonisation is another excuse. Well, I can understand the commercial need not to attempt to sell goods in pounds and ounces to countries that have had the metric system for more than 200 years. But what principle of harmony is breached if some market trader in Sunderland sells his customers bananas by the pound? Even if overseas visitors patronise his store, or even Safeway, surely they will not be insulted if they see a sign containing a so-called "supplementary indication". If millions of British tourists—
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a simple question. The regulations that we are discussing simply allow the supplementary indicators to be continued for another eight years. If we do not have them, we will not have the use of supplementary indicators, which are wholly in the consumer interest.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister is not correct in that. If we were to reject the regulations, consumers would gain, choice would gain and the public would gain because we would be going back to what was in place before the regulations were brought forward. Perhaps I may refer to some of the regulations on the back of the instrument; for example, the Measuring Equipment (Capacity Measures and Testing Equipment) Regulations 1995, with which I am sure the Minister is well acquainted. The existing provisions allow for the indefinite marking of gallons, pints, quarts or gills and fluid ounces as a supplementary indication to litres and centilitres. The regulations against which I am praying would insert a cut-off date of 31st December 2009. However, if those were rejected, supplementary marking would still be allowed.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am perfectly happy to discuss the matter with the Minister after the debate,

1351
but I have been advised very clearly that supplementary marking would still be allowed. I believe that the Minister will find that to be the case.
Perhaps I may return to the point I was making. If millions of tourists can cope with litres and kilos when they go on holiday and adapt to driving on the wrong side of the road, I am sure that our visitors can manage with dual pricing when they decide to buy a bag of oranges. In other words, what business is it of Brussels or even of our own authoritarian Government how my local corner shop and its satisfied customers do business?
I said a few moments ago that the previous government accepted the directive subject to the derogation. But it was an earlier Labour government, in their dying days in 1979, who negotiated the original directive which referred to,
"laws which regulate the use of measurement in the member states differ from one member state to another…as a result hinder trade".
Which member states were being talked about? They were the United Kingdom and Eire. In what way do imperial measures hinder trade? That ex cathedra statement is not based on the slightest shred of fact or evidence. Indeed, the United States of America has emphatically rejected metrication. If we do not use imperial measures on, say, pots of our highly prized jam, that will hinder trade, as manufacturers will have to run separate production lines to produce different labels.
My right honourable friend the Member for Wells pointed out in the other place the difference in attitude to regulation between the United Kingdom and the Continent. In France, everything is permitted; in Germany, everything is forbidden unless it is permitted; in the United Kingdom, everything is permitted unless it is forbidden. I had my own experience of that in 1974 when I expanded my mail order business into Germany. I had to negotiate a special licence with the German Post Office because it did not allow one to put envelopes on the outside of packets, even though that is done world-wide.
My right honourable friend in the other place also asked why anyone needs permission to display helpful information. In the hope that in the week that has elapsed since that question was asked in the other place the Government have had the time to think up an answer, I ask the Minister exactly the same question. Indeed, I go further. By what right do the Government seek to censor labels on supermarket shelves of pots of marmalade? If in a free country I decide to put political slogans on my products, there is nothing to stop me, much as this Government may dislike my doing that. I have no need to remind your Lordships how Tate&Lyle comprehensively routed the government of the 1940s—perhaps it was the 1950s: I am not sure—with its brilliant "Mr Cube" campaign opposing the government's plan to nationalise it. If, in exercising my right of free speech, I can include on my jar of home-made pickles, which are very good, a statement about class sizes or hospital waiting lists, or even on the shelves of my shop, why do the Government believe that they are entitled to prohibit me from saying that a kilo of onions costs 78p—equivalent to 35p a pound?
1352
The Government have claimed that that causes confusion. Who does it confuse? The customer can rely on which unit of measure and price he or she chooses. In real life, unless one is among the fortunate few whose greengrocer still delivers—whether it is Fortnum's or the very helpful corner shop—most people do not even buy loose fruit by weight. They pick up six bananas or five apples and the person at the check-out tells them what they cost. So why cannot the customer see the price on the shelf in whatever units he or she is most comfortable with?
If we are going to discuss confusion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships about the confusion that was caused by the last compulsory imposition, without an adequate transition, of metrication on this country. We have just reached the 30th anniversary of the overnight decimalisation of our currency. It was done in a most confusing way. We did not adopt a 10-shilling unit, as was the case in Australia and New Zealand. We stuck to the pound. I do not blame the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—now the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—personally because he followed the advice that he was given at the time. However, as a result, many people no longer understood what they were paying for anything, when 17 shillings became 85p instead of 1.7 new pounds, sovereigns, or whatever. Older people still have difficulty in relating decimal coinage to the old prices, to real prices or to, as so many people call it, real money.
How many of your Lordships realise that your Evening Standard costs you seven shillings and that it costs 5s 2½d to post a letter? Conversion of petrol pumps to litre pricing only disguises the fact that petrol is now more than £4 a gallon. In the case of metrication, we are not just talking about older people. Tens of millions of our citizens have grown up with pounds and ounces, pints and gallons. Millions of those who were born before Harold Wilson invented the "white heat of technology" in 1963 and introduced the now defunct Metrication Board during his 1964 administration will, it is to be hoped, still be alive in 2009. But the Government are clearly saying that those survivors of the pre-Wilson era will not be worth bothering about in nine years' time. That is a clear act of age discrimination.
While I am talking about confusion—I assume that our benevolent Government want to protect the public from being misled in some way by being given more information than is thought good for them—have your Lordships thought about the confusion that is caused by the change to metric quantities? Butter used to be sold in half pound packets. Now it is sold in a 250 gram pack. But 250 grams is nine ounces, so the supermarkets benefit from a 12½ per cent boost in sales. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is very well aware of that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I think that he probably is. But as he made a slight mistake previously about the effect of the regulations, perhaps he is not. I do not know.

1353
On the other hand, the old standard 12 ounce—three-quarters of a pound—pot of jam is now rounded down to 340 grams—just one-eighth of an ounce less; not much less; just 1 per cent less jam today, my Lords, but the public have not noticed. By what piece of bureaucratic nonsense is it all right to inform the public that their pint of milk is equal to 568 millilitres but not that a bunch of grapes, at £2.99 a kilo, is equivalent to £1.36 a pound?
The regulations we are considering today go beyond the requirements of the directive, which merely requires the use of a uniform system of measurement; a directive from which the Government deliberately and consciously lost our opt-out. The directive did not prohibit dual pricing or supplementary marking, but, as is typical of this Government in their dealings with the EU, they are adopting their usual submissive attitude and gold-plating the directive. They have put in an eventual time-limit on dual marking. That is the sole purpose of this regulation.
European Union firms that sell to the United States of America are not permitted to sell only in metric measurements. Imperial marking is also required. The EU has responded by graciously permitting even sellers of pre-packed goods to use dual marking. As I have already mentioned, the EU has taken this further and entirely logical step to prevent the uneconomic need for two different production runs, one for Europe and the other for the United States. Indeed, the EU permits dual marking on goods to be sold within the EU and I understand that it extends that permission even to loose goods such as bananas.
However, the Government wish to prohibit that practice from 2009 onwards, but only for British businesses. Europeans will be permitted to sell their goods in bushels, firkins or any other medieval measurement they may choose, just so long as they also use metric measurements. Britain is to be censored and prohibited by an increasingly despotic Government from doing so after 2009. Again, I shall ask the same, unanswered question, which I think is amusing the Minister. I am glad that I have managed to amuse the noble Lord but I hope that, when he thinks about it, he will realise that this is a serious matter. I shall ask him the same question: why?
What the regulation does is to restrict freedom of expression for no reason or benefit whatsoever. If there is no reason for it or benefit from it, I ask again: why? What have we or the EU to fear from giving British shoppers the choice of how they want the goods they buy to be priced and measured? Do we seriously expect shopkeepers to be prosecuted for telling confused shoppers the weight of the goods in pounds and ounces? Will the Minister, in all seriousness, tell noble Lords categorically, here and now, that a Labour government would support such prosecutions?
Once in a while, a piece of nonsense crosses a Minister's desk, although of course the Minister may see plenty of nonsense passing over his desk. Some of those pieces of nonsense have nothing to do with the
1354
real world but, occasionally, there is something that the Minister will be able to do about it. I say this to the Minister: sometimes the pieces of nonsense that pass across his desk do no more than provide work for a few bureaucratic, regulation-loving officials. Advisers are there to advise; Ministers are there to decide. In this case, I look to the Minister to stand up for himself and decide that there is no compelling case for this piece of administrative madness.
This totally purposeless regulation should be revoked. To support that proposition, I should like to reverse the question that I have asked several times in the course of my remarks. I shall quote my personal motto, which reflects my personal philosophy. When I meet an illogical piece of obstinacy, I then say: quare non—and why not?
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 17th January, be annulled (S.I. 2001/85).—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I shall intervene only briefly because the matter has been covered more than adequately in the speech of the noble Baroness. I am not quite sure what is the correct emotion to demonstrate: should we laugh in scorn at this matter, or should we feel gusts of anger at the humiliation inflicted upon our Parliament by the Brussels authorities, for that is what it is?
First, using a single sentence, I shall try to put this matter into perspective. No one in possession of their senses would have any objection to the adoption of a metric system where it is in the interests of Britain to do so. Many of our traders who conduct most of their business with the Continent find it convenient to use metric units. Those who export primarily to the dollar areas do not, because the recipients of their goods are familiar with imperial units. Common sense rules what decisions are made.
So far as concerns the ordinary consumer, it is only a matter of what is most convenient; namely, what each consumer is most familiar with. There can be no justification at all, in terms of public demand, for getting rid of our traditional system of weights and measures.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I do not wish to prevent noble Lords expressing their views about the metric system or their anti-European sentiments; it is obviously very therapeutic.
I point out again that these extremely limited regulations simply extend for up to a further eight years the period during which pricing using both imperial and metric units can take place. That is all that the regulations will do. Obviously, people have views on metric measurements, but tonight we are debating only that one simple proposition.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, with respect, the regulations do not simply reiterate the status quo. We are now envisaging for the first time the total

1355
suppression of imperial units by a given date—admittedly on 31st December 2009. Why on earth we should have anything to do with the year 2009 is beyond me, unless the Government wish to be provocative.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must insist: a previous EU directive brought all supplementary indicators to an end in 1999. The regulation before the House extends the period during which such indicators can be used for a further 10 years. We have negotiated this extension. If we had not done that, the use of supplementary indicators would have stopped in 1999.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, if the regulations simply extend the status quo and merely give us a terminal date, we should have taken the opportunity to renegotiate the matter so as to escape from the ludicrous provision we are already saddled with.
Perhaps I may put one or two questions to my noble friend, because they will help to clarify the point. I understand the present situation to be that, in this country, it is unlawful to sell units of goods using imperial measurements. What we are allowed to do—the Minister should blush with shame at this, as should we all—is to display our traditional units as "supplementary indicators".
The term "supplementary indicator" has yet to be fully described or defined. However, I gather that the imperial weights and measures must be less prominently displayed than the metric units. To sell using only those "supplementary indicators" is unlawful; it is unlawful today. As noble Lords know, we are presently awaiting the result of a test case where a Sunderland greengrocer, whose name is Steven Thoburn, sold a pound of bananas as a pound of bananas in his shop in Sunderland. What have they done? They have confiscated his scales and, because he persists in refusing to use metric measurements, they are now trying to inflict further punishments. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what are the maximum punishments under the present regime. Are there prison sentences and fines? We might as well have the details put on the record.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps they have the galleys.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, we can make a joke about this, but I am concerned with far more important matters here than whether one can buy and sell bananas by the pound. Greater issues are at stake here. This case illustrates what is happening. What is meant by the loss of self-government is that unelected bureaucrats tell the citizens of this country what they can and cannot do, when what they are doing has no relevance at all to the European Union. It is an invasion of freedom. In my view, this House and the other place, which is debating this matter tomorrow, should be up in arms and refuse to re-enact these regulations, thereby giving notice to the authorities in Brussels that we will not stand it any longer.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I oppose this Motion. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness will wish to press it because she is far too sensible. The technicalities will be explained by the Minister; I wish to make some general remarks.
First, it is not very sensible to have dual systems. It is no more sensible to continue to show pounds and ounces than it would be to have figures showing pounds, shillings and pence, as in some ways the noble Baroness suggested.
Secondly, it does not have very much to do with the bureaucrats of Brussels. Metrication has an interesting ancestry. There was a unanimous recommendation by a Select Committee of the House of Commons that metrication should be instituted in 1862, which, as I far as I remember, was somewhat earlier than the founding of the Common Market.
The Metrication Board was set up to promote metrication in this country. It was recommended in 1968 by that well-known Europhile, that lackey of Brussels, Mr Douglas Jay. He was backed in this by that other Europhile, Mr Anthony Benn. Metrication was introduced into our schools by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
This is not a gigantic plot. Every other country in the world has gone metric. Every Commonwealth country has completed metrication. Is that because they are dominated by the bureaucrats of Brussels? What on earth is the noble Lord, Lord Shore, talking about? It was magnificent Churchillian rhetoric, full of sound and fury, but signified nothing.
These changeovers sometimes cause a fuss. It would have been much easier if we had kept the Metrication Board. I remember decimalisation because I was the Minister in charge of decimalisation in 1968. I remember the great "Save the Sixpence" campaign. The sixpence was given, rather weakly, by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, a reprieve for a certain time. It was meaningless because a sixpence—a 2½p coin—had no place in a metric system, and the 2½p coin duly disappeared.
This really is a great deal of nonsense about nothing. It is a pity that the Decimalisation Board, which did a great job, was not followed in due course by the Metrication Board, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, explained, was abolished, I think by him, as one of the first acts of the new government He rather regrets that it was done. The Decimalisation Board was a great success. If the Metrication Board had been, the fuss might be somewhat limited.
Do not let us pretend that this is a great story about domination by Brussels. That has nothing to do with it. Why should all Commonwealth countries have adopted metrication? Why should the United States be adopting it as well?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, back to the issue. It is not a question of whether or not we should adopt metrication; it is whether it should be a

1357
criminal offence for someone, after 2009, to display his produce in pounds and ounces as well as in kilos. No one is saying that we should not display in kilos, but we should be able to display in both. That is all that the issue is about.
Some say it will die out—it probably will—but why do we buy from the fishmonger in Barfleur, the fish market, "les huitres: le livre". After all, the French invented metrication and they still use their old bourbon levels of measurement in some markets—they do in the vegetable market in Carcassonne—but they do not get sent to the guillotine or the Temple prison in Paris.
I regret to say that governments of both parties have been prone towards the intolerable habit of over-regulating. There is no need to ban it. When people do not want it, it will die like the sixpence. The difference is fundamental; it is not an attitude of anti-metrication but one of live and let live. I thought—I may be wrong; I am being proved wrong—that the Liberal Democrats believed in that. They obviously do not at the moment. They say, "Let's boss people about". The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, may split the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I do not know, but that is the issue.
I pride myself on being what can be called a "xenophiliac". I rather dislike the way that Brussels governs us, and the two are not mutually exclusive. That is why we should be able to love the pound and love kilos and not send people to the galleys, the guillotine, the Temple or fine them two thousand quid.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here for the opening moments of my noble friend's eloquent and emotional speech. It was effective in its way, as always. It matched in emotional content the speech of my old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Shore. However, as a former Minister for metrication—if I may get that on the record—I find the existence of this debate, with its hugely generated emotions, in itself a very sad commentary on the lack of skill and, quite frankly, the lack of candour with which we have set about the metrication process. It is a very distressing state of affairs.
I say "we" because all parties have connived in quiescence and a lack of candour. We have never secured a statutory endorsement by Parliament, which was a mistake. Even as I see the smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, I say "we" because his party colleague, the Member for Weston-Super-Mare, Mr Brian Cotter, has made speeches of matching eloquent emotionalism to the ones we have already heard. So it is an all-party shambles.
The myths which underlie the shambles are, first—this has been dealt with already—that this is the fruit of some hideous alien imposition. It is true that it was the French revolutionaries who first started designing the metric system. They had the courtesy, rather remarkably, to ask the then British government to attend consultations about how to do it. With a better excuse in those days than in the present circumstances, the British Government declined the offer.
1358
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is right that in 1862 a unanimous Select Committee of the Commons recommended metrication because, in its view, no country—especially no commercial country—should fail to adopt the metric system, which would save time and lessen labour. Nine years later, by five votes only, the House of Commons failed to endorse metrication and decimalisation simultaneously. Decimalisation then would have cost trade £3 million; decimalisation 100 years later in 1971—a long delay even for this country—cost £300 million. That is one of the prices we have paid for it.
Successively, the Hodgson committee appointed by Lord Attlee unanimously recommended metrication in our national interests; the Metrication Board was set up in our national interests; and in 1972 we started teaching our children in metric measures in our national interests. While I was waiting for the debate to begin I was talking to an old friend of mine in Port Talbot, a retired primary school headmistress. I mentioned what we were about to embark upon, and she said how upset she had been when she had taught all the children going through her primary school in metric measures, as she was led to understand was necessary, and found that when they moved on to their secondary schools they were back to imperial measures again. That is no way to run a country.
It is wrong to believe that this is an alien imposition; it is wrong to believe that it is intrinsically bad; it is, above all, wrong to believe that we can continue indefinitely living in a twilight world with both systems having a kind of equal parity. If we were the first Commonwealth country to embark on metrication and are now the only one not to have completed it, does not that lead one to question why we alone have to have this extraordinarily emotional excitement?
It is partly because we have allowed the thing to come among us now in European dress. In 1972, when the Heath government published the metrication White Paper, even that was published before we joined the European Community. We have made the mistake of relying upon that background instead of saying, "Look, guys, this is for us" to the British people. Canada, Kenya, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have done it. New Zealand started it in 1972 and finished it in 1977. If you do it with a properly designed, sustained educative process, you do not need to contemplate prosecution.
My noble friend was right to refer to the use of the livre on the French coast. I have bought a livre of moules marinières in Barfleur. But the livre is a residual designation of a demi-kilo. There would be confusion unless we got it clear in this country that the pound, if we wanted to go on using it, was now to be understood as meaning 500 grams or half a kilo.
The tragedy is that we have not carried this process through in a sensible, systematic fashion. That is something of which we all ought to be collectively ashamed. To have successive governments saying that this is the way we are going, introducing measures to achieve it and letting the schools embark upon it, and

1359
successive oppositions remaining hugely excited about it, is not the way to run an adult democracy. I am very sad that that we still find ourselves in that age.
I grieve deeply that, not just my honourable friends—with whom I am very friendly—but the noble Lord, Lord Shore, with whom I am normally on very good personal terms, as I am indeed now, and I should find ourselves divided in this extraordinary fashion at the beginning of the 21st century over a system that we ought to have adopted in the middle of the 19th century.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was correct in one of his remarks and incorrect in another. I am not, and am not likely to be, a Front Bench spokesman for this party. That is partly because I do not intend to speak up for my noble friend Lord Taverne on this occasion.
I do not believe that this debate is "much ado about nothing". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord Taverne are too rational about the issues involved. Little things sometimes mean a lot to "little people", as Dickens called them. We need to understand about the European Union. I make no bones about the fact that I am a complete supporter o f our membership of the European Union. But people need to understand that the public in this country are not in love with the EU. They find it bureaucratic, distant, impersonal and arrogant. I believe that the way in which this whole question of measurement has been dealt with is a classic example of just that—as well as, I concede, a failure on our part to be sensible in the way in which we have dealt with education.
People feel put upon by bureaucratic busybodies and, frankly, they feel put upon by us. This is a good example of how we often fail in our duty. I say to the Minister that it is true that we are talking about a derogation for 10 years. But what those of us who are in favour of the Motion disagree with is the guillotine that will come down at the end of 2009 and which will make illegal thereafter any use of alternative, supplementary or additional measurements. That is what I disagree with; and I believe that the House should have disagreed with the previous derogation Motion.
Let us consider what we are dealing with. In Halsbury's Statutes there are 175 pages dealing with weights and measures. The Weights and Measures Act 1985 has 122 pages; and 28 EC Council directives dealing with, weights and measures are still in force. The directives have been amended many times. Let us take, for example, the directive dated 15th January 1980 on,
"Ranges of Nominal Quantities and Nominal Capacities Permitted for Certain Pre-packed Products"—
a snappy little title! We find that the EC Council directive of 1980 was amended by another directive in 1985, another in 1989—the occasion giving rise to the matter with which we are dealing, when, I believe I am right in thinking, Douglas Hurd and Francis Maude were present at the Council which approved the
1360
directive from which this comes. Then there were the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986. Those regulations have since been amended on several occasions: three time in 1994, and again in 1995. Trying to get to the bottom of this matter is a nightmare; and that in itself tells us something that we need to hear.
My point is a simple one. On 1st January 2010, it will become a criminal offence for any small trader, shopkeeper or market stall holder to have additional measurements along with the metric measurements relating to any goods for sale. If someone goes up to a small shopkeeper or trader on 1st January 2010 and asks for a pound of apples, the trader will be committing a criminal offence if he supplies them. That is like something out of Alice in Wonderland. It is a nonsense. Above all, it is completely unnecessary. I have studiously tried to understand this, and there is no single justification for such criminalisation.
No one is damaged by allowing the supplementary measurements; no great principle of European trade is traversed by allowing them. Indeed, if one is talking about damage, surely the damage is to the many, many consumers who will understand only our traditional measurements. Let us not forget that the latest survey indicates that 93 per cent of the population prefer to deal in traditional measurements. I believe that we shall find that anyone who is over the age of 40 will in 10 years' time be completely lost if he or she has no alternative indicators. Only bottles of milk and pints of beer and cider will then be allowed in traditional measurements.
My point is that there is a basic libertarian issue here. It is easy for some to say that it does not matter, that it is silly. My noble friend Lord Taverne said that it is not sensible. We are not dealing with sense; we are dealing with choice, and with the right of people to express themselves as they think fit. Measurements are a mode of expression like anything else.
It is easy for this House to fall into the managerial attitudes that are now so prevalent, but it is dangerous. It is dangerous because it alienates the very people whom we as a Parliament ought to be setting out to woo. Those of us who do not want the backlash against the European Union to gather force to the point where the time may come when a party will go to the public seeking withdrawal from the European Union need to understand what people resent and why they resent it. Unless there is a good reason for making it a criminal offence on 1st January 2010 for people to supply goods in alternative measurements—I do not believe that there is one—we damage the cause of the European Union. For that reason, I am strongly against the criminality provision that will come into force at the end of the 10-year period.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I assure the House that I shall be brief. I am slightly mystified by this debate. Frankly, I did not intend listening to it, but I was told that it was a matter of some importance and of some constitutional note, so I came into the Chamber. I was

1361
greeted with what I had, frankly, slightly expected. I heard a speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which was passionate—certainly that came across. There was an argument there, although, if I may respectfully say so, one had to dig for it a little in order to try to decipher it. I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Shore, which was Churchillian in its tone and which seemed to elevate what is, after all, a fairly small issue into Trafalgar, Waterloo, Dunkirk, the beaches: "We must stand and defy these terrible people who somehow or other are going to eat into our liberties".
Then we heard the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I told the noble Earl earlier, and I shall repeat my remark to the House, that I have begun noting the length of time that it takes him to get to his feet from when he first comes through the door into the Chamber. That interval is getting shorter—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Richard: No, my Lords. Perhaps I may, first, amuse the noble Lord before he decides that he must respond.
We have had the benefit of the noble Earl's contributions on two occasions today in what is probably his first appearance for some time. I hope that the noble Earl comes to the House more often. When he comes, he is entertaining; indeed, we all enjoy seeing him. Some of us enjoy listening to him, as long as he does not go on for too long.
We have, again, heard this great libertarian issue. Does the noble Earl wish to intervene now?
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my only slight defence was that I did arrive slightly late for the Question on fishing that was dealt with earlier today. The noble Lord is right to say that I was fairly sharpish off my feet at that time. However, on this occasion I had made a plan; namely, to arrive, to listen to the opening speech and to the other speakers, and then to intervene with what I hoped would be a constructive and libertarian contribution. The noble Lord may not agree with what I said, but then he is excellent at not agreeing; indeed, he is excellent at showing disdain of a rather patrician kind, which we all have known and have grown to love. But at least three of us can play this game.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to say that to be accused by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, of being patrician seems to me to be a somewhat astonishing proposition even at this hour of the night, and on this particular issue.
We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who said that this is a basic libertarian issue. That was greeted by a chorus of "Hear, hear!" from those on the other side of the Chamber. This is not a libertarian issue. The noble Lord said how terrible it will be when this becomes a criminal offence on 1st January 2010. That prospect seems to appal the other side. It is a very
1362
strange way to be appalled: they are appalled by a criminal offence coming into being on 1st January 2010, yet they seem to want it to come into being on 1st January 2001. With respect, that is precisely what will happen if this derogation is not granted.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I urge noble Lords opposite to try to follow the argument. That is being a bit patrician! Indeed, it could have come from the lips of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. It is going to be a criminal offence on 1st January 2010 if the derogation goes through. However, as I understand it, if it does not go through it will become a criminal offence at the period of time when the derogation should have come into practice, but did not—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I call upon his vastly superior experience to mine and ask him how he would contend with the position in which we now find ourselves if we feel strongly that criminalising the sale by alternative indications in 2010 is wrong?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not quite know how I should deal with the present situation, except perhaps to recognise it. The previous government and the previous Labour government—but especially the previous government under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—accepted the principles of metrication for the United Kingdom. We are talking about the process of how that metrication is introduced. As I understand it, the previous government managed to get a derogation for 10 years. The effect of these regulations will be to give a further derogation for 10 years. So we are debating a 20-odd year period, within which metrication is being introduced into the United Kingdom. That is no position from which to start tearing a passion to tatters, as we have heard tonight.
The House would be well advised to listen to the rather wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. I believe that he got it absolutely right: this is something that should have been done a very long time ago. However, it was not done and now should be.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wholeheartedly—and not for the first time. We have heard one illiberal speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches, though not by any means for the first time, which was more than balanced by an excellent and highly liberal speech from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, as is his wont.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other supporters of the Government that all law—in particular, a new criminal law—any breach of which may result in an individual being fined or sent to prison, should have some moral basis. That applies whether a law affects 10 million or only two dozen people. Similarly, it does not matter what date it comes

1363
into effect. Unless it rests on a moral foundation, it is likely to be arbitrary and, most probably, also tyrannical.
Where is the actual morality in outlawing dual marking? Is there anyone in the entire world who would be harmed in the slightest degree if these regulations were rejected? The answer is surely no. Is there any popular demand across the European continent for these regulations; for example, are the Greeks and the Belgians demonstrating in the streets, rioting and insisting that dual marking be outlawed in the United Kingdom? That is certainly not the case. Would the handful of zealots in the European Commission and among the EU bureaucracy really lose any sleep at all if the regulations were rejected? Even here, I suspect not.
Above all, it is the europhiles and euro-enthusiasts, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who should be worried by these regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested, nothing is more likely to provoke the British people into hating the EU, and all its works, than this sort of arrogant and unnecessary interference in our purely internal affairs.
On a technical point—here I declare an interest as a patron of the British Weights and Measures Association—it is worth pointing out that bicycle wheels all over the world, including the whole continent of Europe, are measured not in millimetres or even centimetres but in inches. If the regulations go through, we could end up in the year 2010 as the only country in the EU where sellers are forced to advertise bicycle wheel measurements in millimetres, while France, Germany, Italy, and so on, remain free to advertise them in inches. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there are also other examples of continuing Continental use of imperial measurements. I hope, therefore, that the House will reject these regulations as we are now—thank goodness!—fully entitled to do.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I listened with some interest to those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these regulations. I listened in particular to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe. So far, I have to say that the arguments fall with my noble friend Lady Miller. As other speakers have said, I cannot see what is to be gained by removing the right of consumers to choose how they buy goods. It is not a question of being for or against Europe, and it is not even a question of being for or against metrication: it is simply a question of being for choice and liberty.
It is certainly true that we must have a legal form of measures and that we have chosen to have the metric system in this country. However, what is generally missed is the fact that any two measurement systems have, by necessity, an exact conversion. It is not a question of using one measurement system to try to short-change the public by using short pints or bent rulers. It is not a question of fraud: one measure is exactly the same as the other. It is just expressed through a conversion factor. A certain quantity of produce will cost exactly the same in pounds and pence
1364
whether it is measured by one metric system or, indeed, by old imperial measurements. As far as concerns the public, there is nothing to be gained.
The regulatory assessment that was issued with these regulations says that there is no cost involved in extending dual marking to 2009. If no cost is involved in extending dual marking to that date, it seems to me that there is no cost in extending it in perpetuity. However, there is a cost involved in bringing dual marking to an end. In economic terms, we know to our cost that any regulation introduced in this country is enforced. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, pointed out, people will be travelling around the country enforcing the regulation and will be incurring costs in the process, as well as imposing costs on those on whom they attempt to enforce it.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, there is a more important cost involved; namely, a cost as regards liberty. There ought to be a bias in this country that a strong benefit must be derived from introducing a regulation, or reducing a freedom, before it is implemented. I cannot see any benefit coming from the implementation of this regulation. It will reduce consumer choice and force people to adopt only one source of information.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but there is a further cost and that is that on 1st January 2010 everyone will have to throw away their existing scales because it will be a criminal offence from that date to have scales that have both traditional and metric measurements.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I accept that point. It occurs to me that there is no calculation in the regulatory assessment we have been given of the cost of introducing this terminal date for dual marking. Does the Minister advocate a date on which dual marking should be abolished? If we had free choice in the matter, would he have advocated it in 1999? Does he advocate that in 2009 as a positive measure? If he believes that the prayer of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is not an appropriate way of getting ourselves out of this "box", what can the Government do to extend—as it appears that the majority of noble Lords here would like to do—dual marking in perpetuity? What do we have to do to achieve that? Will the Government bring forward whatever measures are necessary to support that intent?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I give an example which I hope may be helpful to your Lordships to demonstrate why this matter is so infuriating to those of us who support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. It is all about subsidiarity. It is a living example of subsidiarity in your Lordships' House. I enjoy going to the Refreshment Department to order my steak for lunch and dinner. Only comparatively recently, to my horror, I found that the steak was described as weighing 200 grams.
In most London restaurants the steaks are described as weighing eight ounces. We all know what an eight ounce steak is; it is an edible size of steak. We can

1365
picture an eight ounce steak in our mind when we order it. But for some reason it is now described as weighing 200 grams. Who has any idea what a 200 gram steak looks like?
I took the liberty of writing to my noble friend Lord Colwyn who is chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee. Sadly, he is not present at the moment. However, I saw him coming in so perhaps he will read Hansard. I asked him why it was necessary to have the steak uniquely described in grams. Like other noble Lords, I have no objection to dual marking but we do not have the choice. The figure is given just as 200 grams, whatever that may mean.
I did not receive a satisfactory answer from my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Therefore I wrote—I shall not say higher up as one can hardly get higher than the chairman of the Refreshment Sub-Committee—to Mr Edward Ollard. He informed me that it was a requirement that purchases should be conducted in metric measures and that that was far more convenient for what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, called the managerial mindset. That may be the case for people buying in metric measures. But why cannot we have both measures? Why cannot we have eight ounces? If a product happens to be 233 grams, it can be marked eight ounces or 233 grams. Why is it just marked 200 grams? Incidentally—
Lord Richard: My Lords, does the noble Lord feel the same about a bottle of claret, which we all know is 75 centilitres? There is no choice whatsoever there. The noble Lord has to accept that measurement.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, Berry Brothers used to sell a very convenient pint bottle of claret which was exactly the right amount one wanted until it was forced to sell it only in 75 centilitre bottles. That applies also to imperial pints of champagne and imperial pints of claret, which were exactly the right amount.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I do not want to intervene in the cross-Floor repartee. What I tried to explain before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, intervened is that 200 grams is seven ounces or 7.133 ounces. Noble Lords may not know it but they are being short-changed. When they buy a 200 gram steak and they think that they are getting an eight ounce steak they are not, they are getting a seven ounce steak. All I am saying is that surely we could have a choice in this matter. I wonder whether the usual channels could persuade the Refreshment Department to rethink the matter so we could have marked 200 grams or 231 grams and eight ounces. That is a living example of why this regulation is so absurd. If my noble friend divides the House, I shall support her.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to explain the regulations. I have been
1366
longing to explain them because they are simple and they do not need a debate on all the fundamental issues. I remind the House that since 1965 all governments have supported the change to the metric system on a gradual basis and for an ever increasing range of uses because of the global move to metric.
The main directives were adopted in 1976 by a Labour government and in 1980 and 1989 by Conservative governments. The 1989 directive set 31st December 1999 as the date after which grams and kilograms must be used to sell loose goods by weight, mainly fresh foods such as meat, fruit and vegetables. The implementing legislation, which has been challenged in the Sunderland case, was made in 1994.
If we are to play the cards of libertarianism and British history, I remind the House that in Magna Carta for the first time the people of Britain established the case and the need for a single form of measurement in the country. With a general election coming up it is no time for the Conservative Party to line up behind King John on the ground that somehow having a series of weights and measures is a good thing. I say that by way of background.
I now take noble Lords through the regulations that we are debating. The regulations I am discussing are those listed in the schedule to the present regulations and in Regulation 3(2). The regulations set out constructional requirements and limits of error for different classes of weighing or measuring equipment. They also include the option for the equipment to display the quantity weighed or measured by means of a supplementary indication in imperial units.
The regulations serve to implement, in respect of the listed equipment, the provisions on supplementary indications in Directive 1999/103/EC, which amends European Community Directive 80/181/EC on units of measurement. Directive 80/181/EC originally set 31st December 1989 as the period after which non-metric units were no longer authorised for use as supplementary indications alongside metric units on measuring equipment or for other purposes such as the quantity mark on packaging or the unit price of goods.
In 1989 the directive was amended to extend the period for supplementary indications until 31st December 1999. The new deadline—and the other amendments to the directive—were debated on the Floor of another place in 1989. The present Government have now negotiated a further 10-year extension for supplementary indications for two reasons.
First, under legislation made in 1994, goods sold loose by weight were required to be sold in grams and kilograms after 1999. It was clear that consumers would welcome a further 10-year period during which trade weighing machines could display indications in both metric and imperial weights.
Secondly, under US legislation, consumer packages—including imports from the UK and other EU member states—must be labelled in metric and US imperial units. Packing in metric only for the EU market and in metric/US imperial for the US market would clearly add to the costs for UK exporters. It was

1367
again clear that there was benefit in extending the period for supplementary indications by a further 10 years.
It is also important to recognise that the amending directive was passed by the European Parliament. If UK MEPs had considered that the 10-year extension period was not adequate, they could have tabled an amendment; and they did not do so. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that it would be open to a future government to seek a further extension if in 2009 there were an indication that a further extension was needed.
It seems wholly perverse, therefore, for the House to turn down regulations which extend the period during which supplementary indications can be used, the provision of which is wholly in the interests of consumers. The regulations extend the period in which supplementary indications can be given for another 10 years. I cannot see what is to be gained for the consumer by turning that down. If people still want supplementary indications in 2009, it will be open to the government at the time to seek to extend them for a further period.
Perhaps I may respond to points made during the debate. Since 1st January 2000 it has been unlawful to use imperial units only. That was as a result of legislation passed in 1994, and debated at the time in the House of Lords.
My noble friend Lord Shore asked about maximum punishments. The maximum punishment is £1,000 and/or confiscation of the weighing machine.
The consumer can ask for goods in imperial measures. The metric equivalent can be weighed out now and after 2009. The libertarian argument fails to recognise that one of the oldest functions of government is to define the legal units of measurement. Just as all governments have always had a monopoly on issuing notes and coins, if there was no legal definition one man's pound or kilo would differ from the next's.
I come back to this point. These are simple regulations. They act entirely in favour of the consumer by extending the period for 10 years. It is not appropriate again to raise the whole question of metrication. Both governments have supported metrication consistently for a long period. It is sensible to extend the measure for a further eight years. If, after that period, there is a wish to do so, it is up to the government of the day to seek a further extension.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he agree that the reason why governments have the power to regulate weights and measures is to prevent the consumer from being confused or cheated? That is exactly what we do by allowing the use of dual measurements.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while in the short term it is clearly sensible to allow supplementary indications, as a general principle it is a good idea to have one unit of measurement and to stick to it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister's indulgence before he sits down. At
1368
the end of his speech I believe the Minister said that if a trader or shopkeeper is asked for goods in traditional weights after 2009, it will be possible for him to supply them. However, the shopkeeper will not then be able to use scales or a weighing machine with traditional measurements. Therefore, that will be impossible.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the consumer can ask for goods and they can be weighed out in those measurements, but the shopkeeper would have to do that on a metric machine and make the conversion.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not want to tire the House; we have heard so much. However, when I spoke, the Minister intervened to explain that if I divided the House and won annulment of the regulations, we could not even now have the use of supplementary indicators. On the advice that I have been given, that is not so. If that were so, I would not ask the House to annul this regulation. We on this side of the House are looking for choice; I am glad that many others have joined us on this issue.
I mentioned the Measuring Equipment (Capacity Measures and Testing Equipment) Regulations. I shall not do so again. However, the Minister continues to say that the regulations are sensible. I wish to ensure that noble Lords understand the position. In the schedule there is reference to nine different regulations. The eighth paragraph refers to the Measuring Equipment (Liquid Fuel and Lubricants) Regulations. If the measure were annulled, one comes back to what that regulation states. The fourth point of that regulation states that any indication on measuring equipment referring in metric units of measurement to the quantity of liquid fuel supplied may be accompanied by a supplementary indication. That reflects the strong advice that I received today from a colleague who visited the Library, and from my honourable friends in another place.
We could annul the regulation. The Minister did well in his response. He tried hard, but his arguments are not good enough. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Astor, V.

Buscombe, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Byford, B.

Attlee, E.

Caithness, E.

Barber, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Blackwell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blaker, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Boardman, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

1369

Elton, L.

Montrose, D.

Ferrers, E.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Northesk, E.

Glentoran, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hanham, B.

Onslow, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Palmer, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hooper, B.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Islwyn, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharples, B.

Jopling, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Slim, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsay, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lyell, L.

Vinson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Waddington, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Monson, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addington, L.

Greengross, B.

Alderdice, L.

Grenfell, L.

Alli, L.

Hamwee, B.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Andrews. B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harrison, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barker, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Borrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bragg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brookman, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Burlison, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McNally, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dixon, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mitchell, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Northover, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Parekh, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B. [Teller]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Redesdale, L.

Filkin, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Rennard, L.

Gale, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Roper, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

1370

Sawyer, L.

Tordoff, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Turnberg, L.

Sharman, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Simon, V.

Warner, L.

Taverne, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wigoder, L.

Thornton, B.

Wilkins, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Vehicles (Crime) Bill
8.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 21 [Cancellation of registration by the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 12, line 20, leave out "28" and insert "90"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was kind enough to point out in a letter to some of us who spoke in Committee that the cancellation of registration after 28 days is a power, not a duty and whether it is exercised in any particular case will depend on the authority's assessment of a person's business status, taking account of all available evidence, including, for example, VAT.
I realise that the Minister was trying to be helpful and I am grateful to him for writing that letter, but we still feel, for various reasons, that 28 days is not long enough. First, although he says that it is a power and not a duty, we know that if the legislation says 28 days, local authorities will always go for that period. They will not consider whether the period should be longer or shorter, so 28 days will become the norm. The idea that it will not is a misunderstanding.
The Minister said that guidance would be issued that would take full account of the points made during the passage of the Bill. That may be so, but if we are to rely on guidance it would be better not to specify a short period in the Bill and to allow the number of days to be set out in guidance so that the Government could change it if they found that it was not working because the period was either too short or too long. That would be more sensible. The guidance cannot specify, because the Bill already does so. The guidance cannot contradict the Bill.
Various organisations have expressed concern, particularly some of the smaller organisations whose members have seasonal operations. The caravan industry, for example, is a seasonal business. Someone could easily be claimed to be not operating for 28 days at certain times of year. Such organisations favour a longer period. The Government will have to issue guidance. Extending the period to 90 days would give them the flexibility to set out that that was the maximum period and that local authorities should

1371
seek to act within a shorter period if that was right. However, we feel that the 28-day period suggested by the Government is too short.
I am sure that the noble Lord will point out that in another place the Official Opposition put forward a different view in relation to the number of days from the one that I suggest in the amendment. However, that proves that we are a flexible and thinking Opposition and indicates that we have been able to examine the matter in greater detail. I know that the two Ministers who are dealing with the Bill are also flexible and that they take account of the views expressed. We all learn more about the industry as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider the matter carefully. My amendment is meant to be helpful and is intended to elicit a positive response from the Government. It is not in any way intended as an attack on any of the principles of the Bill. I believe that it will make it easier for the Government to issue guidance on the matter. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as Ministers will be aware, in Committee my noble friend Lady Scott expressed broad sympathy for the thinking behind the amendment. We still believe that 28 days is too short a time and that it will bear down most unfairly on the small operator. However, in case the Opposition feel lucky and believe that they can lure us into their Lobby, perhaps I may make it clear that we would not join them in the Lobby if they divided on this issue. But we share their concerns and hope that the Government show some of the flexibility that has been urged on them.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench talked about the passage of the Bill in another place. I believe that your Lordships' House has given the Bill very good scrutiny. Although we have not persuaded the Government to accept any amendments, I believe that people outside will be much clearer as to what the Government intend to achieve through the Bill.
I turn to the last paragraph of the Minister's letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I take it that the noble Lord is saying that, although the Bill cannot be amended in this House because the Government fear that they will lose the legislation if, as everyone believes, a general election is forthcoming, amendments will be made in regulations. If that is the case, that will probably be a good idea. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I could not possibly comment on some aspects of the recent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham. I believed that the letter which I sent to several noble Lords who took part in the earlier debate set out the situation and explained how flexible we already were. I shall have another attempt at doing so and shall perhaps focus a little more on the procedures.
1372
The provision for the cancellation of registrations is not intended as a punitive measure but as an informational one so that the register is kept up to date and does not include businesses which no longer operate as number plate suppliers. Before cancelling a registration, the registration authority must serve notice on the person concerned and must give him the opportunity to make representations. Following that, he has at least 14 days in which to respond to the notice. That should guard against cancellations based on misinformation.
As an additional safeguard, if the registration authority decides to proceed with a cancellation, the supplier may still appeal to the magistrates' court within 21 days. That means that in total, through the process built into the Bill, at least 63 days will have elapsed from the day when, according to the judgment of the authorities, the person ceased to trade, say "at least" because the 63 days does not take account of delays in administration and decision-making time between each stage. In practice, the time taken is likely to be much longer than 63 days.
If a supplier avails himself of the extensive safeguards in the Bill, there will be plenty of opportunity to make clear to the registration authority that the authority is wrong and that he is still trading as a number plate supplier. In most cases, the registration authority will be told by someone else that the business is not continuing. We shall not require a constant check on every business. Of course, a duty rests on the suppliers because they are required to give such notice under Clause 26.
The noble Lord asked why the notice period should be specified in the Bill. He asked why it cannot be provided for through guidance or, as the noble Lord. Lord Brougham, said, through regulations. The period of 28 days was not plucked out of the air. It follows the precedent of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. I do not believe that in practice the application of a 28-day period to that industry has given rise to difficulties.
Therefore, the 28-day period is consistent with the period within which registered persons are required to notify the registration authority that they are not carrying on a business. That is an important link because it would be slightly peculiar if the authorities had to wait for 90 days before acting on information that the supplier was required to provide within 28 days. Of course, as we debated earlier, the 28-day period also applies to the cancellation of registration as a motor salvage operator.
I believe that some of the misgivings about this provision are misplaced. A business that continues to offer number plates for sale is carrying on the business even if no one buys the plates. Therefore, it is not as though a seasonal trader in, for example, caravan number plates would be deemed to have ceased to trade simply because he had not sold any plates between November and Easter. There is no question of putting people out of business simply because they have not been successful in selling their number plates.

1373
Likewise, the temporary closure of a business for a holiday or because of a seasonal fluctuation in trade, or some other reason, does not constitute a break in the activities of the business. The business of a number plate seller continues in existence until a decision is made to stop selling number plates as part of that business. At that point, there is a requirement on the supplier to notify the authorities, and he has 28 days in which to do so.
Therefore, this process is more subtle and sophisticated than is implied by the suggestion that the 28-day period will lead immediately to a cut-off point and that it is an arbitrary figure with no bearing on anything else. I hope that that is understood within the industry, and I hope that the guidance that we issue will spell out how the provision will operate. I do not believe that there is a case for deleting the 28-day period from the face of the Bill. However, there is a case for explaining the matter more clearly when we come to implement this part of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has been helpful. He has gone further than he did in his letter in explaining the point in relation to seasonal operators and the fact that, even if they do not sell goods, they are considered still to be trading. I believe that that is helpful. The noble Lord has gone a long way towards satisfying my concerns. I shall obviously study carefully what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"OFFENCES RELATING TO SALE OF REGISTRATION PLATES
(1) A registered supplier who supplies a registration plate to another person when he knows or reasonably suspects that it will be used for an unlawful purpose shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 of the standard scale."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 follows an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux in Committee. On that occasion, I believe that the Minister tried to give a helpful answer. However, we find ourselves somewhat confused by the Bill in relation to the offences. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"Although we require a new offence in relation to the supplier, it is not necessary to create a new offence in relation to the purchaser. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, I do not accept that it is necessary".—[Official Report, 6/3/01; col. 151.]
I have studied the Bill with as much care as I can muster, but I admit that I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that the Minister has acknowledged a need for a new offence relating to the supplier. I cannot find in the Bill any provision for such an offence. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, we discussed this matter fully in
1374
Committee. I should briefly like to say that, having considered all the responses made in Committee, we do not believe that the Bill as currently drafted makes provision for this offence. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill deals with the question of who can supply number plates and on what terms. To go beyond those terms would clearly constitute an offence under the provisions of Clause 25(1) of the Bill. The Bill would require the supplier to carry out checks to ensure that the purchaser is entitled to the plates that he asks for. The question of deciding whether the plates would be used for illegal purposes would not then arise. If the requisite checks are made with due diligence, the plates would be sold only to a genuine purchaser.
If this amendment is passed, it will place an unreasonable burden on suppliers by forcing them to make a subjective judgment about whether plates may be used for an unlawful purpose. If, in checking the credentials of the purchaser, due diligence was established, it would be difficult to place a further burden on the supplier to establish that he was supplying somebody who was deceiving him.
The existing criminal sanctions already allow for the prosecution of persons who obtain plates by deception. Section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act makes it an offence to issue a false instrument. That would cover any attempt to pass off as genuine a false document in order to deceive a supplier of number plates. There are also specific offences of forging driving licences with intent to deceive and forging vehicle registration documents. Therefore, offences already exist which deal with a purchaser practising a deception in such a way that leads to him being legally supplied with number plates by a supplier, without an offence being committed by the supplier. This amendment attempts to create a new offence relating to the purchaser, and that is covered by existing legislation. I hope thatߞ
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister proceeds, perhaps I may ask a question which I hope will be helpful. The Minister said that my amendment would impose a burden because it would mean that a supplier would have to make a judgment. My amendment states,
"when he knows or reasonably suspects".
If he does not know or does not reasonably suspect, he does not need to make any difficult judgments. Does the Minister accept that? I believe that that is the case. What he said implies that a supplier would have to guess, and that is certainly not the case; nor is it part of the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a supplier would clearly have to check the documentation. If apparently genuine documentation is provided, it would be unreasonable to expect a supplier to make further additional checks in relation to whether those documents were in order, whether they related to the vehicle to which they purported to relate, and whether

1375
the individual possessed the personal driving documents to establish that he was the keeper of the vehicle. But if those documents were forged, or if a person claimed a different identity—in other words, if they were not forged documents but stolen documents—there should be no duty on the supplier to establish that. One would not expect that. But a criminal act would already have been committed by that purchaser either forging documents or representing himself to be another person. Either way, the offence by the purchaser is covered by long-standing law.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has put forward an interesting argument. However, it does not address the bones of this amendment. The Minister has talked about the purchaser. This amendment has nothing to do with the purchaser; it concerns the supplier. The Minister has referred to forged documents. This amendment is quite simple. It does not suggest that the supplier should make a huge number of background checks on anybody. The Minister has used an argument against it which does not relate to the amendment. The amendment is quite simple. It states:
"when he knows or reasonably suspects that it will be used for an unlawful purpose".
If he does not know and does not reasonably suspect, there will be no offence. The Minister does not appear to accept that. If the Minister wants to intervene and agree that that is the case—some form of divine intervention may reach him to help to settle this debate—or if he would like to clarify any point before I decide what to do with this amendment, I shall, of course, be grateful for any assistance.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall have to repeat the point that I am making. There is provision under Clause 25(1) for the supplier to obtain proof that a prospective purchaser is entitled to receive plates. What does the noble Viscount's amendment mean over and above the requirement that he "knows or reasonably suspects"? What requirement does that put on the supplier over and above that which already exists in Clause 25(1)? If it does not require the supplier to do what I suggest—that is, to go behind the documents and make further inquiries to establish evidence one way or another that a purchaser is entitled or not entitled to present those documents, and therefore is an unreasonable burden on the supplier—what other additional requirement does his amendment mean? We believe that what he has just said is covered by Clause 25(1) in any event, or will be covered by the regulations to be made under Clause 25(1).
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister has moved on. When he began his reply, he said that its provisions were covered by Clause 25(1). They are not presently covered by Clause 25(1). That refers to,
"information of a prescribed description from their prospective purchasers before the completion of a sale".
1376
But the first line states that the Secretary of State "may by regulations provide" that. If the Minister is suggesting that the regulations will cover the instances that this amendment addresses, that is a different matter altogether.
I recognise that the Minister has, as ever, tried to be helpful. However, his initial arguments on this amendment did not help the process very much. He has moved a little. I hope that he now understands more clearly our thinking behind these amendments. I am not satisfied with the Government's answer, but it is an area that we might be able to consider between now and the next stage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister too will study Hansard and consider what has been said. I think that the intention is the same. It is a matter of how we reach agreement. It is quite clear to me that as drafted Clause 25(1) does not cover the offences that are dealt with by my Amendment No. 2.
The noble Lord said that he will bring forward regulations but he has not been clear what those regulations will be and how they will work. We shall certainly give him the opportunity to do that at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Issue of new registration documents, vehicle identity checks etc.]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 34, at end insertߞ

"( ) notification of serious damage to vehicles,"

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the need to destroy the identity of a vehicle, especially when it is unlikely to be used again. That is necessary in order to avoid the cloning and ringing of stolen vehicles which, as your Lordships know, is one of the key objectives of the Bill.
In Committee, I moved Amendment No. 27. A t the time I accepted that it was not perfectly drafted and therefore the Minister was unable to give as full an answer as he would have liked. I described why it was desirable to destroy the identity of the vehicle as scion as possible, or perhaps not to destroy it but to make the identity unusable for a criminal. In order to do that, we must make sure that the DVLA is aware that a particular chassis number or a particular vehicle registration number no longer relates to a serviceable or repairable vehicle. Of course the chassis number and vehicle registration number should not be erased from the DVLA computer for obvious reasons.
The Minister said that he had some sympathy for my point and, subsequently, I received a helpful letter from him which referred to the Motor Conference code of practice regarding the destruction of a vehicle's identity. In principle, that requires the salvage operator to remove the number plate and the vehicle identification number plate—the shiny little plate that is in the engine compartment.
But the problem is that criminals are interested only in a vehicle's identity; that is, the VIN number and the registration number to which it relates. The log-book or registration document would be helpful, but at the

1377
moment, although the Minister may have plans to change this, it is possible to tax vehicles without their registration documents.
Your Lordships will recall that in Committee we agreed that only company directors of salvage companies need to be clean, if I can use that expression. Very few checks would be carried out on employees of vehicle salvage organisations. So there would certainly be no criminal record check and it would be impossible, for practical reasons, to avoid dubious characters accessing the information.
Noble Lords should not get too excited about the VIN plate being destroyed under the code of practice. It is very easy to manufacture and forge a vehicle identification plate. It is a simple photographic process. Indeed, I have my own kit for making aluminium name plates. It is for a strictly legal purpose—doing decals on controls on some sophisticated engineering equipment. I assure your Lordships that I have no intention of making an illegal VIN plate.
But I suggest that the solution to all this is for the DVLA to be informed as soon as either the vehicle is a complete write-off—that is, a burn-out—or is so severely damaged that its future is questionable. If the vehicle finds that it has a second life after extensive repairs, the Bill provides for how that vehicle can continue to be registered.
It is no use relying on the Hire Purchase Investigations database because, as we discussed in Committee and on Second Reading, not all write-offs are recorded. That occurs especially if the vehicle comes to grief when it is only covered by third party insurance or, indeed, no insurance at all.
If the Minister accepts my amendment, he will be able to use his powers under new Section 22A of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to avoid the possibility of a cloned vehicle being taxed and, therefore, used apparently legally on the road, because the DVLA will have put a flag against that particular vehicle registration number, indicating that there is something questionable about that vehicle.
Without my amendment, the Bill will be weak, unless one looks at the operation of the vehicle salvage industry through rose-tinted spectacles. I beg to move.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have my name to this amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied in Committee to a similar amendment, he said that he speculated that the matter was best dealt with in other ways but that he would think further about it. I wonder whether he has thought further. I look forward to his response.
Unfortunately, I shall not be here next week for Third Reading. However, I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench and Ministers on the Government Front Bench for all the work they have done on the Bill. It is not quite right but I think we shall get there. In the long run, it will achieve what the Government,
1378
my noble friends, the European Secure Vehicle Alliance and I want. I look forward to the publication of the regulations, which we shall study with care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords opposite for raising this issue again. My understanding of the amendment suggests that it allows for the making of regulations to notify a person presenting a vehicle for an identity check of serious damage to the vehicle. That would effectively involve making a very thorough inspection of a vehicle over and above simply checking its identity. We did not include such a provision because we did not consider that it would be justified to do so. In particular, there is no evidence to show that accident repair vehicles are a particular threat to road safety.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that accident repair vehicles have no effect on road safety? It is well proven that two parts of a vehicle welded together have a tremendous effect on road safety.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept that particular point, which is rather different from the point that I was making. I entirely accept the noble Lord's point. Of course that is the case.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that there is a need to destroy a vehicle's identity when it is taken to a salvage yard if it is to be destroyed. That need is addressed by the Motor Conference code of practice for the disposal of motor vehicle salvage. That requires scrap dealers to remove number plates and vehicle identity number plates from vehicles at the time of scrapping. In addition, a scrap dealer is required to supply the DVLA with a notification of destruction when vehicles are destroyed, thereby providing an audit trail for each destroyed vehicle.
However, if a vehicle is taken to a salvage yard in a repairable condition, then it is necessary to keep the identity of the vehicle until and unless it is destroyed. If the vehicle is repaired, it will be subject to a vehicle identity check under Clause 33 before it is allowed back on the road to ensure that it is the vehicle it is purported to be. There is nothing in the Bill which relates specifically to when the identity of a vehicle should be eliminated.
We take the view that that does not necessarily result in a loophole for criminals to exploit. The Bill contains two measures which will reduce the criminal demand for stolen vehicle identities. First, under the provisions of the Bill, salvage dealers will need to be licensed and keep records. Secondly, as I have already indicated, written-off vehicles will need to have their identity corroborated before returning to the road after repair.
We believe that these two measures make the idea of controlling the date of destruction of a vehicle's identity unnecessarily burdensome on the industry and over-regulatory. That is an argument that I know noble Lords opposite have been particularly keen to follow and with which, in broad measure, they have agreed. For those reasons we do not believe that this

1379
amendment, well-intentioned as it is, is entirely necessary. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw it.
On a final legal point on the amendment, the noble Earl agreed that his previous effort in drafting this amendment was not technically correct and this one is also technically defective. It would empower the Secretary of State to notify but would not empower him to carry out the kind of thorough inspection that would be necessary in order to decide whether or not to give such a notification. I do not believe that the amendment achieves what the noble Earl seeks.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. At this time in the parliamentary calendar I understand his reluctance to accept any form of amendment. Does the Minister agree that it is easy to forge the VIN plate? Although the code of practice, to which he referred, mentions destruction of the VIN plate, does he agree that it is easy to forge, especially when one considers how much money can be made by cloning or ringing a vehicle? We are talking of thousands and thousands of pounds and it may cost only £100 to forge a VIN plate.
The Minister referred to the need for thorough inspection. Surely, the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State will state how thorough the inspection will need to be. It should be fairly obvious whether a vehicle is seriously damaged or whether the damage to a vehicle as a result of an accident is cosmetic. When a vehicle ends up in a vehicle salvage dealer's yard it has probably had some serious damage inflicted, otherwise the original owner of the vehicle would have had it repaired and would not dispose of it.
The Minister referred to notification of destruction of the vehicle. At what point does the Minister consider that the DVLA would be notified that the vehicle has been destroyed in the salvage yard? Perhaps the Minister could answer those points before I decide what to do with the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as to the noble Earl's first point, it is clear that, for whatever reason, he knows far more of such matters than I do. However, I do not agree with him entirely because, if I were to, it would suggest that measures currently in place and those that we anticipate putting in place would be wholly ineffective. I do not think that the noble Earl believes that to be the case.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I do.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in that case, I venture to disagree with him firmly. I accept that it can happen, but I do not believe that it is something that happens regularly; nor do I believe with regard to the proposed legislation that that is likely to happen often. I accept that it is an issue, but this is not necessarily the best way to deal with it—a point on which the noble Earl may want to reflect. In any event, I believe that the amendment is technically deficient.
1380
In answer to the second point raised by the noble Earl on when to notify the DVLA, we can certainly address the issue in guidance. I do not see why there should be any cause for delay in that matter at all. It is an issue that we can deal with fairly immediately. While I understand the sincerity and the well-meaning nature of the amendment, I do not believe that it achieves what the noble Earl seeks. As we can cover the DVLA issue in guidance, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment and to reflect on those points.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, it must be comforting for the Minister to know that he is confronted with a defective amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am even more comfortable when I know that there is a defective argument behind an amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, it also makes me comfortable to know that the Minister's argument is defective. I am concerned that it is extremely easy to forge a VIN plate. Although the Bill has desirable objectives, I fear that a number of loopholes are left in relation to the way in which the Bill will operate. I suspect that it will not work as well as the Minister would like. Unfortunately, in view of the way things are, we shall not be able to improve it as much as your Lordships would like. I am not happy with the Minister's reply and I intend to return to the matter at a later stage with considerable vigour. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Health and Social Care Bill
9.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, with some reluctance I intervene at this point to express our considerable dismay and disquiet at the fact that we are commencing today's Committee proceedings at this late hour. Yesterday when the Government offered us additional time in Committee for this evening, that offer was presented on the basis that we would be able to begin our proceedings at around 6 p.m. Although that would have been late in the day, nevertheless, it would have been acceptable to us because it would have given us up to five hours of debating time.
It is now after five past nine. In normal circumstances we would have told the Government to abandon any idea of beginning Committee proceedings so late. The only reason why we have not adopted that course is because it suits us to make some

1381
headway with the Committee proceedings, bearing in mind that a number of noble Lords have attended especially for this Bill. This is in no way to be regarded as a precedent.
This is a major Bill. It has 75 clauses over 91 pages. By the time we complete the Committee stage we shall not have had more than two-and-a-half days to debate in excess of 330 amendments. That is a ridiculously short time. Members of the Committee may recall that the Social Security Fraud Bill contained 22 clauses over 22 pages, which is one quarter of the length of the present Bill. Although it was relatively uncontroversial, it was nevertheless given two-and-a-half full days in Committee. We are led to believe that we shall not be allocated any more time for this Bill. That is highly regrettable and does no service to an extremely important measure.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I do not want to delay the proceedings and was not given notice of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wanted to say. However, I agree with him in many respects. My personal estimate, which was not rocket science, was that four days in Committee were required to deal with the number of amendments tabled. I communicated that to the Government Front Bench. That is proving to be the case.
It is not helpful to be proved right, but we are being short changed on the Bill. We shall try to co-operate as much as possible during the time available to us, but a lack of planning has been demonstrated. If a little more time had been made available, we could have sorted things out more effectively.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am responsible for the procedure and the programme and must take full responsibility. If I were the health spokesman in Opposition, and if I had been sitting where the noble Earl is sitting now, I would have made exactly the same point.
However, he will remember that he agreed the Bill could be completed in Committee in three days. We are hoping to achieve that. Today's programme has included the Third Reading of the International Criminal Court Bill. A succession of amendments, which were major items of policy, were tabled by the Opposition at that stage and therefore the debate took much longer than expected. We then had what I can only call a remarkable debate on the order dealing with metrication measures. Again, that took much longer than expected.
Last night I suggested to the usual channels that I hoped to begin the Bill at about six o'clock—a little later if, as we thought there might be, there was a statement on the foot and mouth epidemic. However, the House regulates itself and self regulation requires all Members of the House to regulate themselves.
I am in the hands of the House. I believe that we should now make some progress. I understand the position that noble Lords take and believe that we all want the Bill to receive proper consideration. We have
1382
Thursday to deal with it and I know how our Lordships feel about sitting late on Thursday. When I make arrangements I do so in entirely good faith—I am sure that the noble Earl accepts that—but today is the kind of day when self regulation does not quite work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Annual reports]:
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 12, line 2, after "established," insert "the overview and scrutiny committee, the Patients' Council, the Independent Local Advisory Forum, the Health Authority,"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 109A. Clause 15 requires patients' forums to prepare and publish a report of their activities on an annual basis.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he mean Amendments Nos. 109 and 110?
Lord Astor of Hever: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109A. Clause 15 requires patients' forums to prepare and publish a report of their activities on an annual basis. These reports shall include details of how the forums have sought to obtain the views of patients. That is an important requirement of patients' councils if forums are to fulfil their duty as intermediaries and advisers in the health service in their areas.
For that reason, we believe that the reports should be circulated more widely than is proposed in Clause 15(1)(b). Amendment No. 108 ensures that the annual report is sent to each overview and scrutiny committee established within its area, to the patients' forum, the independent local advisory forum and the health authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, a copy of the report will be sent only to the relevant trust and to the Secretary of State. The bodies which our amendment seeks to include will be important partners in overseeing and maintaining a high standard of health and social care for residents and patients. If they are to play a key role in taking a strategic view of patient services and provision, they will need to be aware of all the relevant data which enable them to carry out their tasks more effectively.
I turn to Amendment No. 109A, which is slightly different. The patients' forums as proposed under the Bill will take over one of the most vital parts of the role now carried out by CHCs. CHCs have statutory powers of inspection in relation to hospitals, NHS premises and premises where NHS care takes place. Under present arrangements CHCs report their findings to health authorities and trusts, and that is a vital two-way process. This amendment places a duty on patients' forums to prepare a report of any matters that arise from the inspection of premises within 60 days of the visit. It is proposed that that report will be sent to the relevant trust's overview and scrutiny

1383
committee, independent local advisory forums and the relevant health authorities. Those bodies will again have a duty to respond.
Where the patients' forum is not satisfied with the response from any of the listed bodies, it has the power to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. That is an important safeguard for patients which we believe will lead to a quicker response to patients' concerns. Without sanctions and a public airing of concerns, health service providers may be slow to remedy unsatisfactory situations, or be unable to remedy situations without national input.
Although we do not support the abolition of CHCs, we believe that, if there are to be new bodies to take over their functions, they should have all the tools at their disposal to ensure that patients' views are aired and remedied and maintain a link with all partners in the provision of healthcare. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 110. I hope that the Minister understands from the wording that this is a probing amendment which is designed to elicit assurances from the Government about the independence of patients' forums from trusts. Clearly, this is one of the issues that run throughout the provisions relating to the forum and the council. This amendment seeks to make sure that the annual report of the patients' forum makes transparent whether such influence has taken place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for confusing Amendments Nos. 109 and 109A. The noble Lord was absolutely right.
I turn first to Amendment No. 108. Clause 16(2)(1) already states that regulations may be made in respect of the preparation and publication of reports by patients' forums. For that reason, we do not believe that it is necessary to include this provision within the body of Clause 15; nor do we believe it is necessary to specify the organisations to which the forum should send its report. This is very much a matter for the forum itself. The forum will send its report automatically to the Secretary of State and the trust. It need not be limited to that, and I am sure that it would not be so limited in practice.
Amendments Nos. 109 and 109A both refer to patients' councils, but those bodies will not be responsible for making visits or inspections of premises. That is the function of patients' forums which will work at trust level. Patients' councils will be made up of members of patients' forums in that area and will make reports to health authorities, local authorities and the Secretary of State for a response, if necessary. I understand that there may be an intention here that patients' councils should act as co-ordinating bodies which might prepare reports on their member forums' inspections. But we must avoid duplication of effort in relation to the particular focus of patients' forums in undertaking visits. Patients' councils will wish to keep an overview of the activity carried out by
1384
forums in their areas. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a council referring matters to the Secretary of State.
Forums already have the duty to make reports and recommendations to the trust on the operation of its services and patients' views of those services. To ensure that their views are effective they will appoint a non-executive director to the trust board or a member of the primary care trust. They must also produce annual reports which detail their activities as specified in Clause 15. These arrangements make forums independent of the trust and ensure the transparency of their relationship, while ensuring that the bodies maintain a constructive working relationship. In a sense, that is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to Amendment No. 110. The link between forum and the trust is central to our proposals.
These proposals are not intended to engender adversarial relationships. Patients are the most important part of the health service, and it is intended that patients' forums work in concert with their trust to improve services. I repeat the points I made yesterday in Committee. The forums have the status and the tools to ensure that they have a real influence in the running of the NHS. They will be bodies secure in their independence from the trust to which they relate. It is not necessary to replace a requirement in the Bill for them to record any attempts on behalf of the trust to influence the discharge of their functions.
Again as I said yesterday in Committee, if there are specific problems in the way a trust behaves towards its forums, that would be a matter for referral to the regional office of the Department of Health which would take the appropriate action.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: May I ask the Minister a question? The noble Lord mentioned the fear of duplication. Why not have one body combining the patients' forums and the patients' councils? That would help to avoid the confusion, which I am sure will arise, in the public's mind.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There are two points there. First, we have made it clear that there will be a common secretariat between the council and the forums which are covered in the area of that council. That will ensure co-ordination and a pooling of resources.
Secondly, we particularly want to put the emphasis of patients' forums as close as possible to the decision-making point where the patients are particularly affected. We believe that that is best done at the trust level where matters are decided in relation to operational services which affect the experience of patients. That is very much an improvement on the current arrangements. The common secretariat will ensure that there is no duplication of effort. It is

1385
important to re-emphasise that it is very much at the patient care level where we want these measures to make an impact.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: What happens if there is conflict between the forums and the councils? Who sorts it out?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: A council is made up of representatives of the forums. The individual forums will be responsible to each trust for their own actions. If the forum representatives on a council come together, just like any other group or organisation, they will have to work out a way of working which embraces as common a view as possible. Clearly, there may be disagreements. I do not think that we should particularly worry about that matter.
Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and clarification. Although we are slightly disappointed with his response to both amendments, I was happy that the noble Lord on two or three occasions said that patients are the most important part of the NHS. We shall consider his response to both amendments. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 12, line 10, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 113, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 116, 118 and 120. Clause 16 deals with the regulations pertaining to patients' forums and patients' councils. Currently, much of the work of CHCs is governed by regulations. It is important that regulations set out exactly what will be expected of patients' forums and patients' councils and how they will operate. The impact of the work of patients' forums will extend far beyond the boundaries of the trust for which they are established. It is therefore essential that the patients' forums and councils are properly informed, with information being supplied not just by the relevant local trust but also by health authorities and OSCs. Just as CHCs have a statutory right to receive information from health authorities, so the same should apply to the new bodies. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 115.
It was inevitable that we would encounter at least a handfull of amendments proposing the substitution of "shall" for "may". We have had one or two already. Amendment No. 113 does so because in this instance I simply do not understand why there should be any uncertainty about the issuing of regulations in Clause 16. Assuming that the Bill passes into law, we need be
1386
in no doubt that the regulations will be essential. That seems to be borne out by the wording of subsection (4), which begins by stating:
"The regulations must secure".
I am not clear why there should be a permissive power at the beginning of the clause and then a mandatory duty below that.
Amendment No. 120 tries to set out on a probing basis an outline of the membership of patients' forums. Its purpose is to ensure that the membership is balanced, inclusive and representative. There will doubtless be many interest groups that will claim to be representative of an area. But, to me, the key groups are patients, carers and relevant voluntary organisations. It is no use trying to lay down precise numbers for each category of representative, but it helps to set an upper limit to allow for flexibility and to ensure that no single category of member dominates the forum.
The purpose of Amendment No. 116 is to ensure that the comments made by OSCs, as well as by trusts and health authorities, on reports or recommendations by patients' forums and patients' councils are published. I see that as important in the interests of transparency and also to ensure that OSCs make the most of their role. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 119 and 120. Amendment No. 119 would add further provisions for which the Secretary of State may make regulations. In a sense, the amendment is designed to elicit from the Minister answers as to how he sees the patients' forums and patients' councils being funded, how the whole issue of travel and other allowances to members of the patients' forums and patients' councils will be met, and also the provision of information to patients' forums and patients' councils and how that will be organised. There seems to be a gap in the current clause.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, touched on the issue of representation, which is covered by Amendment No. 120. In our view, the current provisions of the clause are rather sketchy. The noble Earl used the words "representative", "balanced" and "inclusive". I very much agree with that form of words. A scheme such as that included in Amendment No. 120 would meet that description. I do not believe that the concentration on individuals provided in subsection (4) of Clause 16 is adequate in that respect. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in that regard.
Lord Rea: Perhaps I may add a few words at this point. Clause 16(4) states that regulations must secure that the members of a patients' forum include at least one member of a voluntary organisation and at least one patient. If that is interpreted precisely, it could lead to a very unrepresentative membership, including perhaps just one patient or one member of a voluntary group.
In the NHS Plan the intention is set down that there should be 50 per cent of each of the groups. But the regulations do not actually require that. Amendment

1387
No. 20 seeks to rectify that. As well as rectifying that possible outcome, it also includes the requirement to have a sizeable group of carers, who might otherwise be unrepresented and who would provide valuable insights.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I hope that the Minister will take serious account of his words.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clause 16 provides for further regulation-making powers to define the detailed provisions relating to patients' forums and patients' councils. The amendments in this group seek to add requirements to the list of issues about which the Secretary of State can make regulations. However, I believe that some of the amendments deal with issues already covered by the Bill as drafted. The regulation-making powers in Clause 16(2) already apply to both patients' forums and patients' councils, making Amendment No. 119 unnecessary, as subsection (2) covers funding, expenses and the provision of information.
Similarly, the same remarks can be applied to Amendment No. 117. Clause 12(2)(f) allows additional functions to be given to patients' forums, while Clause 13(3)(d) serves the same purpose for patients' councils. Taken together with the general power to make supplementary regulations in Clause 16(2), the powers are already available to ensure that we can equip patients' forums and patients' councils to carry out their functions.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. He said that this was already covered in the clause. Can he elucidate that for me? As I read it, Amendment No. 119 covers both patients' forums and patients' councils, whereas the paragraphs under subsection (2) in Clause 16 cover only forums.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I believe that it states that:
"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in relation to Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils.
(2) The regulations may in particular make provision as to".
Subsection (3) then states that:
"Subsection (2) applies in relation to a Council as it applies in relation to its member Forums".
I hope that that makes it clear to the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may turn to the issues raised in regard to overview and scrutiny committees. We are anxious not to prescribe a relationship between patients' forums and councils and the relevant overview and scrutiny committee. They have different, if complementary, roles and it is important that local co-operation should determine their relationship. That is why we have not sought to introduce a regulation-making power of the kind proposed in Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. However, we recognise the need to provide for the effective flow of information between patients'
1388
forums, patients' councils and health authorities. The noble Earl will have noticed that we have tabled government Amendment No. 114 to that effect.
Amendment No. 118 stems from the view that the local authority overview and scrutiny committee cannot be independent enough to scrutinise services provided by the local authority in partnership with the NHS. I have discussed this issue in earlier amendments and I do not accept that argument. The whole purpose of local authority overview and scrutiny committees is that they will be independent from the local authority executive. Their main role will be scrutiny of the local authority executive's decisions. I see no reason why they should not be able to provide effective scrutiny arrangements of services delivered under the Section 31 partnership arrangements.
In relation to membership issues, I do not accept the approach taken to membership in Amendment No. 120. We have made clear our policy that we want patients' forums and patients' councils to represent patients, carers and voluntary organisations representing patients. We envisage forum membership being 50 per cent patients and carers and 50 per cent voluntary organisations. But surely those are issues best left to regulations, which will allow flexibility to adapt as experience of the new system grows or enable local circumstances to be taken into account. It is very important that I should emphasise to the Committee that, whatever the proportions, we are committed to the NHS appointments commission overseeing all appointments.
Finally, I can reassure the Committee that we will lay regulations in each of the areas in Clause 16(2), so there is no need for Amendment No. 113, which would have no further effect over and above this commitment.
Lord Rea: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. When regulations are drawn up, is attention given to what has been said in debates in your Lordships' House and in the other place?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we always pay attention to the debates in this House.
Earl Howe: It is very reassuring to hear that from the Minister. It makes me feel wanted. On a more serious note, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I shall have to read carefully what he said because I am not entirely sure that he addressed all the points that I and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were seeking to make. In the interests of moving on the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 12, line 30, after "established" insert "or by a Health Authority"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 114 is a minor but important amendment. It relates to the regulations that the Secretary of State can make

1389
concerning the information that has to be provided to patient councils and patient forums. At the moment, under Clause 16, regulations can be made concerning the information to be provided to patient forums by the trust for which they are established. The amendment changes the subsection so that regulations can be made about the information both trusts and health authorities have to provide to patient forums and patient councils.
This is particularly important for patient councils because they will have a more strategic role than patient forums and, in addition to accessing information from individual trusts, they will also need to access information at health authority level. Similarly, patient forums will undoubtedly want to work together on a number of issues and may want information from a health authority when they are looking at those wider issues.
Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 are clarifying amendments. Patient forums will not be set up in Wales by this Bill. The effect of both amendments is to make clear that only trusts and primary care trusts in England will have a member of the board appointed by the patients' forum.
Amendment No. 123 is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that the words inserted by the paragraph are inserted in the right place. It ensures that the power to make regulations about the appointment of directors to trust boards in the 1990 Act is qualified by the provision that one non-executive director is to be appointed by the patients' forum. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I have tabled Amendment No. 121A and this may be a convenient moment for me to speak to it.
With the amendment, I return to a matter I spoke about on Second Reading; that is, my very great concern with the proposal that a member of the patients' forum should be appointed by that forum as an executive director of the trust for which the forum exists.
My concerns relate to the difficulties that I foresee, first, with the impartiality of the patients' forum representative; and, secondly, with the appropriateness of someone who has the right of access and investigation to the trust being then a member of the trust board and required to make decisions on the corporate basis that trust non-executive members are required to do.
I had an opportunity of discussing this matter, very briefly, with the Minister shortly after Second Reading. It would be fair to say that he does not share that concern. But the corporate nature of a board is a very real aspect of it, and nothing in the Bill will change the responsibility that is placed on all non-executive directors for the corporate management of a trust. It seems to me that to have a cuckoo in the nest, someone who has a very real lobbying locus, may be difficult not only for that person but also for the trust itself.
1390
Perhaps I may raise two other concerns that I had at Second Reading. The first is that all non-executive directors are currently appointed by the regional chairman after extensive interviews and "Nolanisation". That duty and responsibility will pass to the advisory committee for the region as non-executives will still have to be cleared on that basis. I understood the Minister to say yesterday that members of the patients' forum will also be selected by the advisory committee. If that is right, it will leave the independence of the forums somewhat adrift when they come to nominate someone for a non-executive role.
My third concern relates to the question of whom the non-executive will replace. Under the present legislation, the number of board members is balanced between executives and non-executives. The present number is five, and I believe that that was done by regulation. If the patients' forum is to have an appointment, there are two possibilities: one is that it has to be yet another executive appointment in order to balance out the patients' forum appointment; the other is that that patients' forum non-executive will replace one of the existing non-executives.
I believe that I am right in saying that none of the non-executives has a specific role. We are all there to manage the trust corporately. But it is a fairly heavily loaded job, as I am sure the Minister will accept. Most non-executives do a good job. Within the board there are usually those who develop an expertise in finance, who are responsible for audits, who are dealing with patients' complaints, for example. To have to replace one of those with someone else seems inappropriate.
Not least among the aspects to be taken into account are patients' complaints, which are presently a matter for the board. Patients' complaints are one of the prime focuses of the patients' forums. Therefore, a person would be excluded from dealing with such an aspect if he or she became a member of the board.
I have rather forlornly, and probably not very expertly, tried to get round this by proposing an amendment which would enable the forum to nominate a person from the forum to the board in an advisory capacity. The position would be a great deal stronger than that of the current community health council representative. At present that representative can attend as an observer but has no right to speak unless the chairman of the board enables him or her to do so. My amendment would enable a patients' forum member to be appointed and to be there specifically to give advice to the board about all the things that the patients' forum is there to do.
I must make it clear that I have no difficulty with patients' forums. I believe that the role of protecting the patient is well placed and well meaning. But we do not want to undermine its capacity by this particular move forward. The Minister was concerned about the patient element. I find that very difficult; what on earth is an NHS trust there for if it is not to look after patients and attend to their complaints and worries? It would mean that the patient focus would be brought to the board by right, although the person would then

1391
not have the corporate responsibility of NHS non-executive directors. I can add no more to my remarks, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support my noble friend Lady Hanham on this issue. I have been engaged in a good deal of work recently with nurses who are on the boards of PCTs and PCGs—mostly PCGs. One of the issues with which they are faced is that many of them have actually been voted on to the board by nurses within their area. A point for debate with every group that I meet is: what is their role? Are they there to represent the nurses who have voted them on to the board, or do they have a corporate responsibility? Alternatively, are they there in their own right?
We are carrying that dilemma further up into the NHS trusts and the PCTs. I believe that the issue needs teasing out. It is important to ascertain whether these people are representatives of the forum, delegates of the forum or whether they are there in their own right. One of the dangers when one gets into this area and says, "We must have one of those, and then we need another of these", and so on, is that one gets all sorts of people—often very good people—who are well-meaning and form a nice group but who are actually not fit for the purpose. The board is not fit for the purpose because, as my noble friend said, one does not go for the skills that are needed to run an organisation; for example, those of finance, human resources and, indeed, just understanding how a very complex, difficult organisation runs.
These trusts are much more difficult to run than many companies in the private sector because they have both different and difficult accountabilities: they are accountable to politicians; they are accountable to their local communities; and they are accountable to taxpayers. The more that we have representatives, delegates, or whatever, on these trust boards the more difficult it is for them to act effectively. It is in all our interests that they should be both efficient and effective.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are discussing an important matter. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for raising the point. Of course, she speaks from considerable experience of the NHS. I certainly very much agree with her that the contribution that chairs and non-executives make to the health service is crucial. I am also glad to hear about the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is carrying out in relation to nurses. I believe that we need nurses to be evermore forceful on the boards of NHS organisations.
I understand the issues that both noble Baronesses have raised. There will be some very interesting challenges ahead both for the board and for the patients' forum person who is on the board to ensure that the body acts effectively, that it has a strong patients' voice at the highest level in the trust and that it also acts in a corporate manner. I do not believe that it is impossible for that to happen. It is absolutely vital that we have the benefit of a board member who has
1392
specific responsibilities in relation to ensuring that the patient's voice is fully considered in the deliberations of the trust.
Perhaps I may answer the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the practicalities of how the process is to be implemented. There is no intention to increase the overall number of trust board non-executive directors. However, it would be wrong to expect a newly-established patients' forum to wait until a convenient vacancy occurred before making the appointment. Therefore, we accept an additional non-executive director, mainly to be appointed temporarily, until such time as a vacancy occurs. Once it is established, the NHS appointments commission (which is due to be established on 1st April of this year) will assume responsibility for appointing trust and health authority non-executive directors. The commission will take that responsibility from the Secretary of State.
However, under the Bill the patients' forum has the power to appoint a non-executive to the trust board. In order to maintain standards of membership and meet basic requirements, regulations will be laid down detailing the selection process. They are likely to contain a reference to qualifying criteria laid down by the NHS appointments commission which will oversee the whole process.
We then come to the crux of the question as to whether such a board can act corporately. I believe that it can. Once appointed, the patients' forum non-executive will assume full board status and will be bound by the corporate governance arrangements, the code of conduct and appraisal arrangements which apply to all trust board members. I was interested in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, when she referred to nurses being elected. She talked about the different accountabilities that boards in the NHS have to face up to. I agree with that. There have always been dual accountabilities in the NHS. Board members have always come from various backgrounds to which it might be felt they owed some allegiance.
My first experience in the NHS was as an Oxford City Council representative appointed to the Oxfordshire Health Authority. I soon learned that to be effective within that authority I had to act corporately. I believe that that also applies to nurses and doctors. One might also consider university representatives. A university makes two nominations and the Secretary of State chooses between them. The health service is used to those different kinds of appointment mechanisms and thrives on them. Overall I believe we can be satisfied that our boards act corporately. I also believe that a patients' forum non-executive will add to the performance of a board and that such people will be able to act as corporate members.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the noble Baroness responds, will it be made clear to the member

1393
representing patients what his or her role is and will there be a substitute should that member be absent for a long period as there is only one of them?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think that it would be possible to appoint a substitute. If a non-executive member were absent for a long period his or her membership of the board would undoubtedly be called into question. As regards the standards expected of all board members, I refer to the code of conduct and appraisal arrangements in the health service and the corporate governance arrangements which would be applicable to all trust board members.
The Earl of Listowel: Can the Minister explain how long such a patient representative is expected to stay on the board? Is there a finite length of membership?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The maximum period for each term is four years, although non-executives are sometimes appointed for less than that. One can be appointed certainly for two four-year terms and then I believe there are circumstances in which one can be appointed for another one or two years. I would expect that the kind of limits on appointments that apply to other non-executives would also apply to the non-executive from the patients' forum. However, that will be specified in guidance and regulations.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful reply. I was not expecting anything more. However, I cannot say that he has reassured me. I am very concerned. The terms for the patients' forum representative are unusual. I can think of no other situation where one has an individual with the right of inspection. That is an unusual right. There is the right of inspection of a trust—the premises and everything that goes with it—and then the turning from poacher to gamekeeper by sitting on the board. The patients' forum representative is a very strange animal.
A secondary issue is the confidentiality aspect. Not much these days is debated in private; it is mostly open and above board but there are issues about patients' complaints and sensitive matters relating to patients.
I shall read what the Minister said. It is one of those rare occasions with this Minister when I do not agree. I believe that he makes a mistake. I shall consider the matter carefully. We shall probably return to the issue if there is a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 120 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 13, line 10, leave out from "members" to end of line 12 and insert "under paragraph 4(c) above of a Primary Care Trust for which there is a Patients' Forum shall be a person appointed by the Forum."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 121A not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 122 and 123:
Page 13, line 15, leave out from "trust" to "and" in line 16 and insert "for which there is a Patients' Forum shall be a person appointed by the Forum.","
Page 13, line 17, leave out "before "any"" and insert "at the beginning"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Independent advocacy services]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 133 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Clement-Jones: Although we on these Benches wholly support the concept of independent advocacy, I wish to speak to the Question in order to debate the overall shape of provisions regarding patient advocacy, patient consultation and patient representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made some valuable points yesterday in Committee. He asked the Minister:
"Would my noble friend think it appropriate to place some residual duty on the patients' councils to satisfy themselves that appropriate advocacy arrangements are in place and are strong enough so that, if they are not satisfactory, the patients' council can provide the service?".—[Official Report, 19/3/01; col. 1197.]
We had a considerable debate about how independent advocacy services would be provided. I took no great satisfaction from the Minister's reply. He said:
"It is clear that the independent advocacy services could be provided in the way suggested; alternatively, they could be provided by another public organisation. Indeed, they could even be provided by a voluntary organisation".—[Official Report, 19/3/01; col. 1199.]
It is widely accepted across the Committee that the provisions relating to consultation, representation and advocacy are flawed and highly fragmented. There has been very little give in what the Minister has said about the scheme yesterday and, to some extent, today, despite the fact that it was hurriedly put into the plan at the last minute; and outside the Government there is a universal belief that the provisions taken as a whole are fragmented and unsatisfactory. The Government have given very little extra in Committee apart from the new national patients' council. We welcome that, but the new scheme is flawed and we are not satisfied with it.
The Minister could have given much more of a fair wind to the idea of bolting together independent advocacy with the patients' councils. That would be logical and, in the view of many outside observers and many in this House, it would considerably improve the scheme. Giving patients' councils the right to commission and provide independent advocacy services would be a significant improvement to a fragmented scheme.

1395
I shall not go on at great length, because we have a great deal of business to get through today. I have given an example of the inadequacy of the provisions. As we progress through the Bill, the Minister's approach and his attitude to suggestions for improvement will colour our view on these Benches as to whether the proposals as a whole can be approved. I am in considerable doubt about whether to give any kind of a fair wind to these very fragmented proposals. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
10 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not want to go over all the ground that we covered in our eight-hour debate yesterday on these matters. The Government's case is that the arrangements will result in a stronger, more effective mechanism for user involvement, for dealing with and sorting out problems out and for helping people through the complaints system. At the local level, there will be democratic involvement in the decision-making process. I firmly believe that. I have no doubt that at the end of the day, we shall have much stronger patient and public involvement in and impact on the National Health Service. I am tempted to go back to Mrs Archibald, but I shall resist at this stage. I am convinced that she and her relatives would receive a better service as a result of the arrangements that we are putting in place than they receive at the moment.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's comments on independent advocacy. We want some flexibility on how the advocacy arrangements can be made. Patients' councils could be one of the organisations that provide that advocacy, but we believe that we need greater flexibility. I am also convinced that the responsibility should be laid firmly on the Secretary of State, although he will have a duty to consult the relevant patients' councils on the arrangements to be put in place for independent advocacy providers. I also assure the noble Lord that we shall specify criteria that will define best practice for independent advocacy. Those criteria will include the need to make use of existing high-quality local provision; the need for the services to be accessible, including in relation to language—I take to heart the comments made yesterday by the noble Earl in that respect; physical access will need to be open; there must be proof of quality of output; and, whichever service is commissioned, it must be equipped demonstrably to offer advocacy expertise.
I believe that the presence of independent advocacy, established in a way that many people over many years have requested, will prove to be an absolute boon to members of the public who have found failures in the service and who wish their complaints to be addressed. They will find that they receive an enormous amount of support from those services. I believe that the provision will prove to be a very important plank in the new arrangements.
The Earl of Listowel: I welcome the Minister's statement that measures will be put in place to ensure that the independent advocacy services are acceptable to people who do not speak English. That is an
1396
important concern. I believe that in Tower Hamlets more than 60 different languages are spoken. At the CHC at which I called this afternoon, a Kurd visited with a friend who was a translator. Therefore, I welcome that news.
I should like to know more about the independent advocacy service and to know whether it will be run on a walk-in, non-referral basis. In addition, can the Minister indicate whether the current community health council premises, of which I believe there are more than 100, many of which have recently been refurbished, might be used to house the independent advocacy service? My key concern is whether alternative access will be made available other than through NHS Direct. We spoke about that matter during yesterday's debate. I can see that there is a great advantage in picking up a telephone and being able to reach the service easily. Equally, sometimes delicate matters can be dealt with better in person.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Following on from the points raised by the noble Earl, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the training of advocates. Will a list of advocates who can be called upon be available, and will there be a rota? Different training will need to be given in different parts of the country. The needs in an area such as Herefordshire are quite different from those which one comes across in Tower Hamlets.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Some of those matters will need to be developed as the Bill, if enacted, is implemented. Clearly in terms of the commissioning process for local advocacy services, the criteria that we set will need to tackle many of the issues raised by the noble Earl; for example, with regard to open access. I very much agree with that point.
I understand that when he asks whether a referral procedure will be put in place, he means that a person should not be required to go through a bureaucratic system before gaining access to the advocacy service. I share that point of view. In order for the service to be successful, people must have quick and easy access to it. Whether through a telephone call, through NHS Direct, through telephone booths that may be placed in NHS trusts, or whatever, people must be able to gain access as quickly as possible.
So far as concerns premises, I believe that that matter is for local determination. However, if useful premises existed in the high street, those would clearly be an option.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about rotas. I assume that she is inquiring whether an out-of-hours advocacy service will be provided. Again, I believe that that matter must be determined through local discussion. However, we would not want to see the situation which sometimes arises at present with regard to people seeking help in relation to complaints. On certain days it is difficult to obtain help. Clearly, in a society such as ours, we need to provide as much access as possible.
The issue of training is a very important one. We would expect any organisation or service commission providing independent advocacy at local level to have

1397
the experts to do so; and part of that would be their own continuing professional development. In addition, if the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is passed today, I am sure that the national body will also have an important role to play in considering the question of training and support for those services.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I appreciate much of what the Minister has said about independent advocacy services. We on these Benches believe that the independent advocacy services have great potential. We have previously argued for them, in the context of both care standards and the Health Act 1999. But the services set out in this Bill must be judged as part of a total package of representation and advocacy.
Although I admire the Minister's certainty with regard to how the scheme as a total package will work, I fear that the total package may founder on a lack of willingness of the Government to respond to criticism of their current proposals. That is all it may amount to. However, in the mean time, before we reach the next stage of this Bill, I shall not press my opposition to the Question.
Clause 17 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 134A:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"NATIONAL PATIENTS' BODY FOR ENGLAND
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a body corporate ("the national body") to exercise in relation to the health service in England the following functionsߞ

(a) advising the Secretary of State, and such bodies as may be prescribed, with respect to arrangements for public involvement in, and consultation on, matters relating to the health service;

(b) representing to the Secretary of State and such bodies as may be prescribed, and advising him and them on, the views, as respects the health service, of Patients' Forums, Patients' Councils and those voluntary organisations and other bodies appearing to the national body to represent the interests of patients and their carers;

(c) assisting Patients' Forums and Patients' Councils in, and advising them with respect to, the performance of their functions;

(d) such other functions as may be prescribed.

(2) In carrying out its functions the national body shall have regard to any guidance given to it by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in relation to the national body.
(4) The regulations may in particular make provision as toߞ

(a) the appointment of members;

(b) any qualification or disqualification for membership;

(c) terms of appointment;

(d) circumstances in which a person is to cease to be a member or may be suspended;

(e) the proceedings of the national body;

(f) the discharge of any function of the national body by a committee;

(g) the appointment, as members of a committee, of persons who are not members of the national body;

1398

(h) the provision of information to the national body by a health service body, a Patients' Forum or a Patients' Council, including descriptions of information which are or are not to be provided;

(i) the funding of the national body;

(j) the payment, to or in respect of members of the national body, of such remuneration, pensions, gratuities and allowances as may be determined in accordance with the regulations;

(k) the preparation and auditing of accounts of the national body.

(5) The regulations may include provision applying, or corresponding to, any provision of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents), with or without modifications.
(6) The regulations may authorise the national body to make charges for the provision of advice or other services.
(7) The national body shallߞ

(a) prepare a report in relation to its activities in each financial year,

(b) as soon as possible after the end of each financial year, send a copy of its report for that year to the Secretary of State,

(c) publish any such report in accordance with prescribed provisions,

(d) make such other reports to the Secretary of State, and supply to him such information, as he may require.

(8) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consultߞ

(a) such persons as appear to him to be appropriate to represent the interests of patients and their carers, and

(b) such other persons (if any) as appear to him to be appropriate.

(9) In this sectionߞ

"carer" has the same meaning as in section 12;

"the health service" has the same meaning as in section 7;

"health service body" meansߞ

(a) a Health Authority,

(b) a Special Health Authority,

(c) an NHS trust, or

(d) a Primary Care Trust;

"patient" has the same meaning as in section 12;

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Abolition of Community Health Councils in England]:
[Amendments Nos. 135 to 139 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power to abolish Community Health Councils in Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 15, line 15, after "may" insert "by regulations"
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects an oversight in Clause 19. As drafted, the clause does not specify how the National Assembly for Wales can exercise its power under subsection (2) to amend or repeal any legislation if the Assembly decided to abolish CHCs. The amendment makes it clear that the National Assembly and the Secretary of State can,

1399
through regulations, amend or repeal legislation concerning CHCs if it decides to abolish CHCs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Intervention orders]:
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 15, leave out lines 22 to 30 and insert—
"( ) If the Secretary of State—

(a) receives evidence from the Commission for Health Improvement or the Commission for Mental Health or the Audit Commission of serious and persistent failures in the way a body to which this section applies is run or evidence that such a body is not performing one or more of its functions adequately or at all, and

(b) is satisfied that it is appropriate for him to intervene under this section,

he may subject to subsection (3A) below make an order under this section in respect of the body ("an intervention order")."
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 154, both of which seek to render this system less subject to the whim of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 146 provides that the Secretary of State alone should not decide on interventions, should any of the various bodies proposed in the Bill be considered to have failed. Such action should be taken only after receiving the advice of the Commission for Health Improvement, the Commission for Mental Health or the Audit Commission.
Amendment No. 154 lays down that the Secretary of State should, at the same time, publish a report giving a detailed description of the failure which is the subject of the intervention order. Again, that makes matters far more accountable and open. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 147 to 151, 153 and 157. Debates in another place established the intention behind this clause, which is that an intervention order would be triggered only as an exceptional measure and in extreme circumstances. We can all be relieved that the use of those new powers will not be frequent nor in any way routine.
As I said before, the more we can maintain local managerial accountability and build on it, the better it will be for the working of the health service and for the morale of its employees. Much of the present lack of morale in the NHS is directly attributable to the feeling of not being appreciated by those in high places. That feeling of not being appreciated is not just a matter of pay. It originates from a whole variety of reasons. But one reason is undoubtedly the way in which Whitehall insists on directing matters from the centre and loading the health service with objectives and targets, which in some cases distort clinical priorities and erode local accountability.
Against that background, it is difficult not to be acutely suspicious of Clause 20, which is another centralising power. But the relief generated by the
1400
reassurances given in another place is tempered by a further examination of the Bill's language and we must ask whether the Bill's drafting lives up to what Ministers have told us.
The first issue is that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover; that is, the gravity of the test which is set as a trigger for an intervention order. The Explanatory Notes first explain this Clause in terms of,
"the most serious and persistent failures".
However, at paragraph 96, they then speak of the Secretary of State merely having concerns about the management of that body. The subsection makes clear that the Secretary of State needs to be of the opinion that there are significant failings in the way the body is being run. However, in the same breath, the test for failing one or more of that body's functions is described only in terms of the adequacy with which the function is performed.
It would be a rare health body which did not, on occasion, fall down on one or other of its functions. That is why I believe that we should consider two amendments in that regard. The first is to make clear that the shortcomings in performance should be of a significant order; and the second is to specify that it will be only after all other appropriate avenues have been explored and exhausted that the power of central intervention can be triggered.
At the risk of appearing contrary, I have also tabled a further amendment which proposes that an intervention order should be linked directly to the quality of care and the quality of financial and general management as revealed by the annual audit.
I am drawn to that amendment because it is based on the idea of the whole process being triggered by a third party—that is, someone other than the Secretary of State. Once again, transparency is essential in this regard, because if there is not transparency, those sweeping powers will have all the potential to be used as a charter for "scapegoating", to put it at its simplest.
To follow that sentiment still further and to enable the appropriate lessons to be learned, I suggest that every time an intervention order is made, a report of that fact and the background to it should be published and laid before Parliament.
But what happens then? The power to intervene in the affairs of an NHS body is couched in very sweeping terms. We need to ask whether it is right and justifiable for that power to be used, as it could be, willy-nilly and without warning. I do not believe that it is. That is why I suggest that there should be a system of prior notification so that the body, if it chooses, can make appropriate representations about the proposed course of action.
Finally, Amendment No. 151 does not set up a formal appeals procedure. Instead it inserts a process whereby the Secretary of State formally sets down his concerns and his proposed solutions. That process would allow the body to state its case. The health authority, trust, or PCT should have the opportunity to correct unfair, incorrect or misleading statements. I

1401
hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the arguments that I have advanced for tempering these considerable powers.
Baroness Cumberlege: I support my noble friend Lord Howe on these amendments, one of which stands in my name. I am divided about the principle behind this matter. I believe that it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should be able to dismiss his appointees when they fail to satisfy what he feels is a reasonable standard. The Secretary of State should have power to appoint and to disappoint. At the moment the system does not work well at all. It is quite ghastly. The chair of a trust of PCT who fails is taken behind a bike shed at dead of night and is persuaded to fall on his sword, drink hemlock or something similar. If the chair being dismissed seeks to hold out and tries to stand his ground, what is a bad situation locally becomes an impossible situation and a real shambles. I believe that that part of the proposals in the Bill is right.
However, I have grave concerns that the Secretary of State can seek powers to dismiss an executive director of a trust. Usually such people spend the whole of their careers in the health service or they have a job within the health service and their whole life can be ruined. They can be deprived of their job, their career and their reputation by an idiosyncratic Secretary of State who decides to take action without having the transparency that my noble friend has suggested and without reports going before Parliament and so on. Throughout the Bill we have sought to make people accountable, and the Secretary of State too should be accountable.
I have some misgivings, but I understand the purpose behind this point. The NHS Confederation, an august body with a distinguished past, has put forward some good proposals. I am not sure whether the Minister, through his various channels, has had an opportunity to see them but the confederation suggests that, where there is an occasion when an intervention order is necessary, followed by an inquiry or an investigation into an incident, it is right that the Secretary of State should present a report explaining the reasons prior to making such an intervention.
There are some detailed systems laid down that can be adopted in order to make that situation acceptable to those involved. I recommend that the Minister considers whether those are acceptable to him. As the Bill now stands, I believe that it is unacceptable. We have seen cases, particularly at the Bedford Hospital, where there was real anger at the way that the chief executive was treated, not only among the local population but also among the staff in the hospital, particularly among the consultant body, who rose up to support the chief executive, whom they felt had been treated extremely unfairly in being dismissed and in having pressure put upon him.
When such a case concerns a chair, a non-executive who has been appointed by the Secretary of State, there should be an open, fair, transparent procedure, so that everyone can see how the Secretary of State has
1402
acted and why he has acted. In regard to executive directors, dismissal should be by the local board. Such a local board would be on the patch and would know the individual, his reputation and his expertise, or, in cases where that person had failed, it would have become dissatisfied with him. I support the amendment put forward by my noble friend.
Baroness Noakes: I support my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady Cumberlege. The proposals as drafted are draconian. They would allow the Secretary of State to intervene in almost every trust if he really put his mind to it. The test is only that the trust does not perform one or more of its functions adequately. In my experience, almost every health body does not perform one or more of its functions adequately. That is the nature of managing in such complex environments as health trusts.
We are looking for a much higher test. The Explanatory Notes mention persistent and serious failure, but that is not how the Clause is drafted. I look for clarification from the Minister on which particular ill he is trying to address in the clause. Is it an ability for the Secretary of State to intervene in any trust he chooses? That appears to be the way in which the Bill is drafted. Is it to intervene in only the most serious cases? If so, I suggest that different wording is used. If that is the case, will the Minister reflect on whether the existing procedures do not adequately allow proper action to be taken in the most "persistent and serious" cases, the language used in the Explanatory Notes?
I am not clear what the Government are trying to achieve with these provisions and look for further clarification before deciding whether the wording of the Bill is acceptable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We return to last Thursday's debate on the balance between national direction and leadership and local autonomy. I listened to the noble Earl's unkind words about centralising power, but every government who have been responsible for the NHS have faced the same dilemma.
I was interested to read Rudolf Klein's book, The New Politics of the NHS, in which he described in detail the previous government's dilemmas. Dealing with the 1982 reforms when district health authorities were created, he wrote that the rhetoric of delegation had a short shelf life. He stated that Norman Fowler began a series of measures designed to strengthen the grip of central government and that the DHSS moved to a tighter system of control and accountability than had ever existed in the history of the NHS.
Moving on through those years, Klein concluded that the NHS became a transmission belt for ministerial will and that further reforms in the 1990s, including the abolition of regional health authorities, were further indications of that process of centralisation.
I do not refer to that by way of criticism of the previous government. I merely refer Members of the Committee to it because I believe that there has always

1403
been a genuine problem about the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, accountable through Ministers to Parliament is the expenditure of a huge amount of public money.
Clearly, the Secretary of State must have the ability to manage and direct the NHS accordingly. Equally, I accept that it is important that the people at local level, who are of high calibre and I assure the noble Earl were certainly appreciated by myself and ministerial colleagues for their hard work, are given sufficient ownership and control to do their job properly.
How does one achieve central balance? That is where earned autonomy comes into play. Earned autonomy is very much about giving greater freedom to those organisations which do well in the health service, while there is greater intervention in those organisations which are not doing well. That is the background to the debate on Clause 20 and the answer to the many philosophical points put forward by Members of the Committee.
As far as concerns the specifics of Clause 20, the clause creates a new power which enables the Secretary of State to use two types of intervention, either separately or together, in failing NHS bodies: the removal or suspension of all or part of the body's board and the replacement by other persons nominated by the Secretary of State who may then constitute a new management team; and a requirement on the failing NHS body to make arrangements for some other person or body to perform the specified functions of that NHS body. For example, that would enable the Secretary of State to require the body to delegate the exercise of specified management functions to a third party.
The test that must be met before the Secretary of State can intervene is, as Members of the Committee have said, referred to in new Section 84A(1). The test requires the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that an NHS body is not performing one or more of its functions adequately, or that there are significant failings in the way that the body is being run. In addition, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is appropriate for him to intervene. Therefore, the test has two elements to allow for a situation either where there has been a very serious one-off incident or where there has been a failure to provide a satisfactory service to patients over a period of time.
I assure the Committee that in the second situation clearly it would be inappropriate to use the powers of intervention at the first sign of merely inadequate delivery of services. That would not be our intention. The kinds of situations in which the Secretary of State might use the power could include the failure of trust management to address serious malpractice; for example, carrying out procedures without informed consent. Although in that example there may be only one clinician involved in that situation, if the trust was aware but failed to tackle it, or handled the incident badly, that might be a case for intervention and the removal of board members. A second incident might
1404
be the continuing failure of a trust board to take the necessary action to ensure that the trust was in financial balance. A third area might be continuing failure to provide services to an adequate standard. For example, a satellite renal unit might be unable to provide adequate haemodialysis because of nursing shortages. In that instance, the trust could be required to let a third party, such as a better performing green light NHS body, provide the service for a fixed period. We envisage that the use of those powers of intervention would, generally speaking, be a last resort when other actions had failed or were deemed inappropriate because of the seriousness of an incident.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can the Minister enliven his presentation by giving examples where the existing powers have failed to enable the Government to take appropriate action when problems within trusts or other health service providers have been identified? I am troubled that the drafting gives the Secretary of State very draconian powers. I am not at all clear in what circumstances the existing powers have failed to allow the Government to take appropriate action. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten the Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can think of a number of examples where a trust fails to deal with a given situation despite many efforts to try to persuade it to perform better. Clearly, one route is the "bicycle shed" to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred, whereby an attempt is made to persuade the chair of the trust to resign. Other efforts may be made by the regional office to persuade the trust to make a change of management. But there may be real problems where the trust board absolutely refuses to make the necessary changes. It is in those circumstances where this power of intervention might come into play.
Baroness Noakes: I was trying to probe the Minister on what examples have led the Government to make such a sweeping power to intervene in the management of health bodies. When my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the bicycle shed, she was referring to what happens in many organisations where there are one or more levels of management failure. Obviously pressures are brought to bear on an organisation to achieve management changes or changes in corporate governance generally. Over the past 50-odd years, the NHS has worked rather well to cope with many circumstances. That is why I was trying to press the Minister for some examples of why this additional power needs to be taken in the legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There may be instances where that has not worked. For instance, although a trust, may have made efforts to pressurise an organisation into making a change, either its management has been unwilling or, because of the way

1405
in which it provides services, it is unable to do so. So it is an issue of last resort where it is clear that it is the only realistic way of getting the effective change made.
Baroness Noakes: I press the Minister yet again; have there been any such examples in recent memory which would lead us to think that this power is an appropriate power to include in the legislation?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Just recently there was a case. I represent a voluntary organisation. We were very unhappy with a trust because all kinds of matters were going wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, previously mentioned the trust. The Minister kindly came down to that particular hospital. It was very helpful. There are problems. It is helpful if a Minister can come down to help sort matters out.
Baroness Noakes: The Minister would not have to visit the hospital to sort out matters because of a provision on the statute book. I fully accept what the noble Baroness has said. There are problems from time to time in many types of organisation. But I am seriously concerned about the making of these sweeping powers to deal with common-place situations relating to large complex managerial organisations.
Baroness Cumberlege: I rise to support my noble friend Lady Noakes. Our concern is that already there are powers that the Secretary of State can use. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is absolutely right. I referred to a hospital the other day. I know that since then heads have rolled. In the Bedford case, many people thought that very unfair, idiosyncratic and really quite vindictive action was taken to sort out the matter. In the Explanatory Notes we are told that the Secretary of State can intervene,
"where there has been a one off catastrophe".
At Bedford it was not a one-off catastrophe for the local population or for the staff working there. They supported the chief executive. It was a catastrophe for the chief executive. He was treated very badly indeed. When these matters are already happening without additional powers having been taken, I am sure the Minister will understand why, as my noble friend has said, we are deeply concerned about additional draconian powers being introduced and used totally inappropriately.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I want to make two points. First, I shall not engage in a debate about the specific circumstances of Bedford. I do not think that would be appropriate without the full facts of what happened being available for everyone to understand, although I believe that at the end of the day chairs and chief executives of NHS organisations ultimately have to bear responsibility for what occurs in their trusts.
Secondly, there are actions that can now be taken, there are powers of direction and there is an ability to require non-executives to retire in the interests of the health service. That is true. But there may be
1406
occasions—either when there is a specific incident that requires immediate intervention or where a trust is continuing to fail to provide an effective service despite all the pressures and reminders and despite all the performance management systems that are in place—when an intervention would be in order. Surely there is benefit in the sense that, because of the way in which the proposal is made, that is much more likely to be a transparent process than any bicycle shed approach that may have had to be adopted in the past.
These powers can be considered only as part of a much wider package of performance improvement initiatives outlined in the NHS Plan. We have debated the whole performance management framework, earned autonomy and the traffic light system. The intention is that, as the NHS Plan is implemented, we shall see more and more of the NHS move towards local ownership of targets and freedom to innovate within a clear framework of accountability, with the intervention power very much a last resort.
I turn to Amendment No. 146. If the amendment were accepted, there would be a requirement that the Commission for Health Improvement, the Mental Health Act Commission or the Audit Commission would have to present evidence to the Secretary of State showing sufficient justification for an intervention order. That would mean that at least one of the commissions would have to inspect the NHS body concerned before an intervention order could be issued. That could lead to delays, which in some cases might be vital. In most cases where an intervention order might be needed, the NHS body in question would probably already be classified as red under the new system of performance traffic lights. That means that it would already have a recovery plan in place and would now most likely be subject to intervention orders because of its failure to carry through the detail of the plan.
Amendment No. 147 would have the same effect as Amendment No. 146. But it would also alter the first element of the test for intervention, so the Secretary of State would have to demonstrate that an NHS body was failing to perform one or more of its functions "to a significant extent" rather than "adequately". Amendment No. 148 also makes that change. To amend the clause as suggested would mean that, ultimately, there would be no sanction against persistent failure over a period of time if the NHS body was performing its functions to some extent. That is unacceptable since we need to ensure that patients receive the high standard of care which they have a right to expect.
Amendment No. 149 would stipulate that the Secretary of State should make an intervention order only when all other possible action has been taken. I have no disagreement with the principle being put forward. I have already said that the measures in the clause should be taken as a last resort or at the end of a series of other measures except in the event of an immediate or, as has been mentioned, a catastrophic failure when urgent action must be taken.

1407
I appreciate the reasons why Amendment No. 150 has been tabled. I understand the concern that the Secretary of State might seek to use these powers of intervention out of the blue and that the NHS body concerned would not be forewarned and might not appreciate why the order was being made. If the Secretary of State wished to use the intervention powers in a case where an NHS body was failing to perform to an adequate standard, it is likely that he would do so if that body had already failed to respond over a period of time to other support mechanisms. In such a situation, the body would already have been working on areas of concern with its Department of Health regional office and the Modernisation Agency. It would have agreed a recovery plan with them and it might also have been visited by the Commission for Health Improvement.
The body would therefore be fully aware of what it needed to do to improve, which would be set out clearly in the recovery plan. The recovery plan would also specify the timescale that was agreed for the necessary performance improvements. This would vary depending on the nature of the body's problems, but the body would always know what it had to do and by when. It would thus be fully aware that continued failure to make the necessary improvements could lead to an intervention order being applied.
The other situation in which the Secretary of State might wish to use the intervention powers is when a NHS body experiences a very serious one-off service failure, or if there was a significant failing in the way the body was being run. In such situations, patients and the public would quickly lose confidence in the body if swift action was not taken to ensure appropriate standards of service and patient safety. If we were to accept this amendment, we would introduce unnecessary delay into the process because we would need to use these powers in the most serious of cases.
Amendment No. 151 follows on from Amendment No. 150 and is concerned with the Secretary of State giving detailed reasons for intervening; in effect, what the NHS body would have to do once it was subject to an intervention order. I have already explained that bodies subject to an intervention order would have to have a detailed recovery plan, agreed with their Department of Health regional office and normally the modernisation agency. As I said, the recovery plan would have set out the areas of failure and what action needed to be taken. It would also agree a timescale over which specific improvements would be monitored.
It is therefore our intention that the issues raised in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this amendment would be covered by the recovery plan, which would then be reinforced by the intervention order if the body had shown insufficient signs of progress since agreeing the original recovery plan. There would therefore be no need for these paragraphs of the amendment.
The second part of the amendment is concerned with a period of notice before the intervention order could take effect and with what seems to amount to a
1408
right of appeal for the NHS body concerned. I have reservations about a formal period of notice, 28 days or otherwise, from the issuing of an intervention order to it taking effect. This would surely introduce unnecessary delay into the process and might even threaten patient safety in cases where a serious incident required quick application of intervention powers.
Similarly, I would not wish to introduce what amounts to a formal right of appeal on behalf of the NHS body concerned because of the delay that this would cause to implementation and service improvement. This does not mean that Ministers would not be interested in the views of those representing the body concerned. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a situation in which Ministers would not wish to meet representatives of the body concerned and to discuss the problem and action required.
Amendment No. 153 is in two parts. The first part of the amendment would stipulate that the Secretary should make an intervention order only when all other possible action had been taken. I have already confirmed that it is our intention that the measures in this clause are to be taken as a last resort. The second part of the amendment would insert a new subsection (5) into the clause requiring a report to be laid before both Houses setting out what action had been taken to ameliorate the situation, why the order was being made and for how long it was expected to be in force. This matter was discussed at some length during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health,
"concluded that it is sufficient to recognise that the Secretary of State will need to state clearly why he has taken action".
He added that he was,
"not persuaded that a formal reporting system would add anything to the procedure".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23/01/01; col. 58.] I should like to reiterate the Government's commitment that a clear statement of reasons will be given whenever the Secretary of State seeks to use these intervention powers.
Amendment No. 154 would require a report to be published giving a detailed description of the serious and persistent failure which is the subject of the intervention order. I have discussed this already in answer to the previous amendment. I do not believe that a more formal reporting system is necessary.
As to Amendment No. 157, which is also concerned with making details of the reasons for intervention available, it would be unusual to make it a statutory duty to lay copies of an intervention order before both Houses as this order is not a statutory instrument.
So far as concerns the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, let me make it clear that, in relation to executive directors, the power does not relate to the dismissal of those directors as employees of the trust. It would ensure that they stood down as directors of the trust; their employment position would clearly then be a matter for the trust concerned.
All I wish to say in conclusion is that this has to be seen in the round; this has to be seen in the context of earned autonomy. We are seeking to provide a great

1409
deal of incentive to organisations to improve their performance and to reward them for doing so. We are also seeking to ensure that those organisations which have weaknesses are given all possible support to enable them to improve their position. At the end of the day, it may be necessary in a few cases for the intervention powers to be used. This is the purpose of the clause.
Baroness Noakes: May I respectfully suggest that the Minister has demonstrated a sense of schizophrenia about this issue? In one sense he is suggesting that the powers will be used only in very few cases, yet the powers are drawn very widely and would enable the Secretary of State to intervene in a large number of cases. If, as the Minister has done, we link it to earned autonomy, it is potentially 25 per cent of cases; and, if we go into the middle band, it is potentially up to 75 per cent.
I think that the Minister will accept that the powers are drawn very widely. I find it difficult to understand what he is saying. He said that it is only for a very few cases. We have asked him to explain to us what kinds of case but they seem to exist in his imagination; they are not shared on these Benches. We have severe doubts about the nature of the power being taken, although not about the necessity for intervention in extreme cases. I find it difficult to sign up to the fact that the powers are necessary to deal with the generality of managing the health service from the perspective of the Secretary of State.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may make two points in response. My first point concerns traffic lights. It is my hope that we shall have very few red light organisations. The whole emphasis of the earned autonomy is on recognising those that are successful and helping those who are less successful to improve their overall standards.
None the less, I believe that there may be occasions when, in a very few organisations, there is a problem which, despite all efforts, the trust is either incapable of solving or refuses to put right and when some intervention will be necessary. It becomes very much a last resort in this whole context of performance management and earned autonomy.
Ultimately, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the NHS. It is right that he should have these intervention powers. Equally, I have tried to assure the Committee that these powers will be used very sparingly indeed.
Baroness Northover: This debate has illustrated just how important are the amendments that I have tabled. It is a running theme throughout the Bill that the Secretary of State is seeking to take wide powers. It does not seem to be a conflict, therefore, with what the Secretary of State may be seeking to do to have a back-up sitting alongside the Secretary of State, to have other organisations involved in these decisions, and to have a report-back mechanism built in. So I am afraid
1410
that I am not reassured by what the Minister has said. It sounds as if other Members on these Benches are not reassured either.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with her amendment, perhaps I may respond briefly to what the Minister said. As always, I am grateful for the full way in which he addressed the points raised. However, I was disappointed by his response. His language was couched in many cases in reassuring terms, but a great many of my worries remain.
The Minister said that these powers would be treated only as a last resort measure. That assurance was given in another place. But the Bill does not state that. Legally, the Secretary of State would have scope to take action at any time he liked. I do not think that the drafting is tight enough.
Equally, the Minister admitted that these powers could be used without warning—something that again worries me. I accept that there are cases where time can be of the essence, but I believe that we should think twice, if not several times, before drafting legislation to cater specifically for the extreme circumstance. In the past, the NHS has always managed to cope with genuine one-offs without special legislation. My strong preference, if we need these powers at all, is to draft the clause with much more routine circumstances in mind.
The Minister is right to speak of the general tension between control from the centre and local autonomy. I do not dispute that at all. It has been a feature of the NHS, as he rightly said, since it began. But whenever we see before us, as we do now, a new and very wide power, as my noble friend said, to arrogate yet further control to Ministers, that power must be justified fully. We are talking about intervening in the day-to-day affairs of health service bodies.
The Minister spoke of "earned autonomy", a concept that we discussed earlier in Committee. As I remarked then, it is a somewhat Orwellian phrase. It means autonomy earned in return for achieving objectives that are set by the Secretary of State. If one were not a cynic, that might appear perfectly satisfactory. But the targets and objectives set by the Secretary of State are not, as we all know, always such as the man in the street would regard as beneficial to patients. I hesitate to raise the matter again, but the waiting list initiative is one such example. Politically driven objectives make me feel distinctly uncomfortable in this context.
I think I shall want to return to this matter at a later stage of the Bill, if indeed there is a later stage. In the meantime, in the interests of allowing the proceedings to continue, I shall say no more.
Baroness Northover: At this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 to 151 not moved.]
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 15, line 35, at end insert—
"(e) Care Trusts"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment adds care trusts to the bodies appropriately covered by any new arrangement that might replace CHCs. The thinking behind the amendment was to try to produce closer links between health and social services, a subject that is addressed later in the Bill.
However, yesterday I heard the Minister explain that care trusts would be included in this kind of context. Given the importance of the inclusion of care trusts, perhaps he is willing to comment. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As the noble Baroness suggested, I said yesterday—and I say again tonight—that it is unnecessary to add care trusts to the list of bodies to which intervention orders can be applied. They would be constituted legally either as a primary care trust or as an NHS trust, both of which are already listed in the clause as drafted. Perhaps I may give the Committee an example. If we are talking about a primary care trust that has delegated some local authority responsibilities, it would be a care trust but it would be formally known and recorded in statutory provisions as a primary care trust. However, in similar circumstances, if we are talking about a mental health acute trust that has taken on responsibilities delegated by a local authority, it would be a care trust but in statute it would remain an NHS trust. I certainly agree with the principle behind the amendment, but I believe that its purpose is already covered.
Baroness Northover: I am reassured by the position being made explicit. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 16, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall agree with the Commissioner for Public Appointments the process whereby individuals are selected prior to being specified in or determined in accordance with the order to replace those removed from office under subsections (2) or (3) above."
The noble Earl said: I shall deal briefly with two amendments that relate to various consequential aspects of an intervention order. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 156. The first concern I have is that there should be a proper process for selecting people to take over boards following an intervention order. Ideally, the full process laid down by Nolan or Neill would be involved. However, with time pressing, I am the first to recognise that that course is impractical. In its place, I have suggested something that I hope is quite flexible; namely, that the process used for making the
1412
appointments—not the appointments themselves, but the process used—should be the subject of agreement by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
The Minister will need no explanation from me as to why I have chosen that particular route. I do not need to go into too much detail if I simply mention the recent report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, in which some pretty critical comments were made about the political nature of some of the appointments made by the present Government.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question about the sub-contracting provisions. Subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to force the body to sub-contract some or all of its functions. The Explanatory Notes say rather baldly that expressions of interest will be selected from an approved list, but there is no mention of how such an "approved list" will be drawn up. It would be helpful to have some detail in that respect.
In subsection (5), we have a provision that specifies that the health service body itself has to foot the Bill for any sub-contracting. That is not a wholly unreasonable requirement. However, Amendment No. 156 seeks to ensure that the intervention order is not used to specify a price or any other conditions that are unaffordable to the body concerned. In the sections of the 1977 Act, and other Acts that are cited here, the basic financial duty is to break even. With this amendment, the Secretary of State could not force the body to incur a deficit. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The appointment to the boards of public bodies should be free from political interference. Of course, we very much agree with that aim. That is why the intention was set out in the NHS Plan to establish an independent appointments commission, which will oversee the appointment of lay members to NHS bodies. The commission will start life from 1st April of this year.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is absolutely right that we should give the commission a clear role in relation to the appointment of temporary replacement non-executive members of NHS boards. I should stress that we are talking about temporary replacement. If the Secretary of State seeks an intervention order requiring the removal of board members, their replacements would, in the first instance, be appointed on a temporary basis subject to time-scales set out in the recovery plan agreed with the body subject to the order. The remit would be to ensure that the failing body was able to implement the recovery plan in the time specified.
At that point, and assuming the performance of the body had been turned around, the Secretary of State would want to make regular appointments to the board in question for the normal period of tenure. These appointments, of course, would be subject to the established processes of the NHS Appointments Commission; that is, by advertisement and open competition. The temporary replacement members might wish to apply for the permanent positions but it would not be a case of rubber stamping their appointments.

1413
The involvement of the Appointments Commission in the appointment of temporary replacement members would be in accordance with standard procedures agreed with the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This means that it would have the responsibility for making the appointments and would ensure that the candidates met the relevant criteria and had the particular expertise needed. The only difference between temporary appointments and long-term appointments is that the former would not be advertised because when the intervention powers are used there will be a need to address a serious matter and therefore one would not want to delay the process. It would be open to Ministers, the Modernisation Agency or the department's regional offices to put forward names for consideration. The NHS Appointments Commission would have to treat those candidates in the normal way and take the final decision on their appointment. In those circumstances it is highly likely that experienced chairs or non-executives already serving in the NHS would be appointed temporarily to fill those positions. I hope that I have given the assurance on that matter that the noble Earl requires.
Amendment No. 156 would alter subsection (5) of the new Section 84B inserted by this clause. The subsection provides that where functions are to be performed by a third body, such as a better performing green light NHS body—we shall publish in due course details of the approved list—the body subject to the order must meet the cost of those arrangements. The amendment that the noble Earl has put forward stipulates that that could happen only if the directions did not contradict the body's existing statutory financial duties.
The financial duties to which the noble Earl's amendment refers in essence require NHS bodies to break even. An NHS trust has to ensure that its revenue, taking one year with another, is sufficient to meet its outgoings. Health authorities and primary care trusts must ensure that their expenditure in any year does not exceed the aggregate of the income they receive from various sources. These statutory duties cannot be removed or modified by the directions under the new Section 84B. In essence, directions cannot "trump" the provisions of primary legislation. Indeed, it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to give directions which conflicted directly with the duty or prevented the body concerned from complying with its statutory duties.
That is particularly relevant to our discussions last week when discussing Clause 2. I explained that a new performance fund will be available from next year, distributed on a fair shares basis to all NHS bodies. This is additional funding which will be used by NHS bodies to incentivise performance improvement.
NHS bodies which are traffic lighted as red or poorly performing will have the spending of their share of the performance fund determined by the Modernisation Agency. They will work with their regional office and the Modernisation Agency to agree a recovery plan to turn round their areas of poor
1414
performance. Their share of the performance fund will be used to implement the recovery plan. In some situations implementation of the recovery plan may be cost neutral—improvements in performance will result from better ways of working and targeting existing resources. But if money is required to set up new and improved systems of working, the performance fund will be available to pay for it.
If the intervention order is applied, for instance as a result of a one-off or very serious failure, to a body that was not previously classified as red, we would then expect that body to agree its spend of the performance fund with the Modernisation Agency to make sure the failing was addressed.
We consider the amendment unnecessary, not only because a performance fund would be able to provide extra money for service improvements but also because it would be unlawful for the Secretary of State to give directions which conflicted with a body's statutory duties.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. I take on board the point that the power of direction could not trump an existing statutory duty. The difficulty would be in cases where it is not entirely clear whether a direction from the Secretary of State puts a trust in a difficult financial position. There would be one view of the matter from the trust's perspective and another perhaps from that of the Secretary of State. Much argument will no doubt take place.
However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about the availability of the NHS performance fund. I would hope that the existence of that fund will obviate most of the difficulties to which I have referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a brief question. How will an intervention order be brought to an end? Will targets have to be achieved? Will those targets be known when the order is made? What happens then? Once an intervention order is terminated, does the relevant body return to the status it had previously, run by a board which does not consist of caretaker directors? I believe that that was the implication of what the Minister said. Perhaps the noble Lord could elucidate that very quickly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The recovery plan, which has to be seen in relation to the intervention order, will have details of what has to be done to ensure that the trust meets the terms set out in the order. I would expect to be included in that order some targets in relation to timing. The hope and expectation are that these interventions will be of a temporary nature. It would be in everyone's interest to ensure that the organisation got back on an even keel as soon as possible.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Vacancies for medical practitioners]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 18, line 4, after "consultation" insert "including consultation with the local medical committee for its area"
The noble Lord said: I take advantage of my pole position on this group of three amendments briefly to revise the debate on the abolition of the Medical Practices Committee when I had to break off with a frog in my throat. My noble friend then replied that,
"we shall debate the Medical Practices Committee later.—[Official Report, 15/3/01; col. 1074.]
But, apart from this amendment, I do not see any other undebated amendments in which that can be done.
My noble friend dismissed the suggestion of a national medical practice advisory body, suggested in Amendment No. 225, as recreating the medical practices committee in another guise. I believe that that may have been the intention of the amendment. The new arrangements seem to the British Medical Association and many others, including myself, to be insufficient to maintain and further improve the even spread of GPs throughout the country. That has still not been achieved. Without such a committee or an equivalent body, it is less likely to be achieved Different health authorities or even different regional offices will be able to tempt general practitioners into their areas in various ways even if basic remuneration scales are nationally agreed. The preservation of a national body to continue the role of the MPC in an advisory capacity is highly desirable if only to feed information onwards to the proposed national workforce mechanism.
I am in favour of golden hellos and golden handcuffs to attract GPs to deprived areas and to keep them there. Those mechanisms will be more effective if an expert national monitoring and advisory body is retained.
Having got that off my chest, perhaps I can return to my amendment, which would simply require that the local medical committees should be consulted when health authorities—rather than the previous local medical committees or family health service authorities—decide when to create a GP vacancy in an area. That would not only be courteous, but would provide expert local knowledge to the health authority about the situation of general practice in the area.
I shall finish by quoting the comments of the British Medical Association:
"Local medical committees have the requisite local understanding to promote the delivery of high standards through their professional contacts with all general practitioners".
The amendment could be included in the Bill with benefit. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have only two points to make. I am the first to acknowledge that, particularly under the leadership of Ro Day, the Medical Practices Committee has done its best to try to redistribute GPs in the way that we all want. However, for one reason or another, it has not been successful enough. The arrangements that we wish to put in place will be very helpful in ensuring that the local health authority is in prime position to deal proactively with the problems and that the funding mechanism provides the right incentives.
I accept the principle behind my noble friend's remarks on local medical committees. It is not a matter for the Bill, but I assure him that the regulations will require health authorities to consult with local medical committees before making any determination on whether there is or will be a vacancy for a general practitioner in their area. I hope that my noble friend will accept that assurance.
Lord Rea: I have very little option but to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Colchester Borough Council Bill
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes after eleven o'clock.

  UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights: Funding
  UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights: Funding
  European Security and Defence Policy and NATO
  European Security and Defence Policy and NATO
  East Timorese Refugees
  East Timorese Refugees
  Treaty of Pelindaba: Ratification of Protocols I and II
  Treaty of Pelindaba: Ratification of Protocols I and II
  Learning Disability Services
  Learning Disability Services
  Flooding: Environment Agency Report
  Flooding: Environment Agency Report
  National Taxing Team: Untaxed Claims
  National Taxing Team: Untaxed Claims
  European Development Fund: Disbursement Rate
  European Development Fund: Disbursement Rate
  House of Lords: Modes of Address
  House of Lords: Modes of Address
  Public Libraries: Internet Access
  Public Libraries: Internet Access
  Sudanese Nationals Working in UK Engineering and Power Industries
  Sudanese Nationals Working in UK Engineering and Power Industries
  Equal Employment and Occupational Treatment Directive
  Equal Employment and Occupational Treatment Directive
  Free-to-air Digital TV Channels
  Free-to-air Digital TV Channels
  BBC Digital Television Service
  BBC Digital Television Service
  Resort Regeneration
  Resort Regeneration
  Duty-free Sales
  Duty-free Sales
  Trafficking in Persons
  Trafficking in Persons
  Mr Phillip Wilson (Stephen Darren Boch)
  Mr Phillip Wilson (Stephen Darren Boch)
  Asylum Seekers: Appeal Conditions
  Asylum Seekers: Appeal Conditions
  Human Rights Convention: Protection of Atheists and Agnostics
  Human Rights Convention: Protection of Atheists and Agnostics
  Asylum Applications: "Safe Countries"
  Asylum Applications: "Safe Countries"
  Illegal Immigrants on Eurostar
  Illegal Immigrants on Eurostar
  European Telecommunications Market: Liberalisation
  European Telecommunications Market: Liberalisation