Sitting of 30 March 2001

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

Adoption Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
9.33 am
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for kindly selecting this Bill for Second Reading. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that we debated the Government's Adoption and Children Bill on Monday, but they might be interested in the process that ensued after that debate and the reason for having this debate Today.
Usually, private Members' Bills are of a strongly consensual nature and enjoy large cross-party support. I am sure that hon. Members agree that adoption is precisely one of those subjects on which there is consensus. I do not expect today's debate to be any different in that respect, but hon. Members may find interesting the historical precedents for the situation that we are in, namely, Second Reading of a Government Bill being followed in close proximity by a private Member's Bill.
Such a circumstance has occurred before. It is well documented in "Erskine May" that it arose in the 1994–95 Session with the Disability Rights Commission. A private Member's Bill had been introduced to drive forward the important issue of bringing such a commission into being, but the then Government introduced their own Bill to achieve that. Interestingly, on that occasion also the Speaker ruled that both Bills should be debated.
The criteria for allowing both Bills to be debated in such close proximity is that they should be distinct and different. They may ultimately have the same objective, but they should have different ways of approaching the problem. That is exactly the challenge that fell to me between Monday and this morning: to find a way that was distinctly different from the way in which the Government had chosen to approach the reform of the law, but which may have the same outcome. I assure hon. Members that quite a lot of midnight oil was burned between 10.45 pm on Monday and my Bill going to the printers at 2 pm on Wednesday.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that "complementary" might be the right word? Her Bill skilfully fills in the gaps in the Government Bill—which is basically a good measure—and as such should be seen as complementing and supporting the Government Bill.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. "Complementary" is exactly the right word.
1204
I would not dream of using the word "block", particularly on a private Member's Bill Friday. Perhaps it would be wrong to anticipate the outcome before we have had the debate, but I fully expect that the two Bills will result in better legislation in the long run. In searching for complementary aspects of adoption reform, I hope ultimately to see those worked into the reform of the Adoption Act 1976, which is what we are trying to change.
For the sake of hon. Members, I want to explain some acrobatics that had to be performed with my Bill. They may be confused over why my Bill does not refer to the Government Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday. As I explained, my Bill needs to be distinct and different. Its purpose must be to reform existing law—to all intents and purposes, that is principally the 1976 Act. It cannot specifically refer to legislation that is in the pipeline, but it must take account of what is in the pipeline—the Government Bill—in order not to duplicate it. I hope that it is clear that that is the course that I had to pursue.
I pay tribute to the Clerks for helping me to perform that piece of procedural acrobatics, especially at such short notice. I do not know whether it is in order to mention a Clerk by name, but Nick Walker was extremely helpful in trying to get the Bill right in what was a pressurised time scale. I have relied heavily on his advice. I wonder how it would have been possible to meet the criteria without his advice and assistance.
The historical setting was not discussed during Monday's Second Reading debate, but it is an important dimension to the adoption debate. Interestingly—I would not have been aware of this without the Library's research paper for Monday's debate—we seem to debate adoption only once a generation, or every 25 years, and one or more private Members' Bills have usually acted as the catalyst for change to adoption law.
The Adoption of Children Act 1926 introduced legal adoption in England and Wales, but a private Member's Bill introduced in 1922 started that process. Although that Bill was considered on Report, it had to be dropped on the Dissolution of Parliament. In 1923, two Bills on adoption were introduced, both of which had to be dropped. In 1924, three Bills, including one applying specifically to Scotland, were introduced. Two of them received a Second Reading but were subsequently dropped. In 1925, private Members' Bills made further attempts to change adoption law. Eventually, in 1926, Government adoption legislation was passed.
That history demonstrates an important pattern that was repeated in the post-war years and the passage of the Adoption of Children Act 1949. As history tends to repeat itself, and, at the start of a new century, we seek to reform adoption legislation, it might be helpful to remember that history. I should add that although legislation was passed in the 1960s that slightly amended previous adoption legislation, the foundations for current adoption legislation were laid in the 1976 Act.
Precedents on reforming adoption legislation were set at the end of the previous century. It is generally acknowledged that, in 1996, a draft Bill on adoption reform was prepared. Like the current Adoption and Children Bill, it was preceded by full consultation and a White Paper. In short, therefore, we seem to have reached that point in the generational cycle at which adoption legislation—the 1976 Act—seems to need reform.

1205
It is instructive to note that changes to adoption law have been a reflection of changes in society and that reform of the 1976 Act will also reflect societal change. In the 1970s, for example, 20,000 children were adopted, whereas towards the end of the 1990s, only 4,100 children were adopted. There are major societal reasons for that change, such as the fact that far fewer babies are available for adoption—partly because of the greater effectiveness and availability of modern contraception. Presumably, introduction of the morning-after pill will have an impact on the number of babies available for adoption.
Another reason why fewer babies are available for adoption is that it has become easier, although not easy, for a woman to raise a baby on her own, and the stigma of doing so has largely fallen away. I was quite interested by the fact that last year only two babies were adopted in my neighbouring health authority area in Coventry. I think that that statistic illustrates the great change that has occurred.
Conversely, many children are in care. Although the number has fluctuated over time and occasionally reached 100,000, currently about 58,000 children are in care. I expect that part of today's debate will concentrate on the needs of children in care and the fact that, in many cases, their opportunity to find permanence in a family home has been obstructed by unnecessary bureaucratic delay. Many of those children have suffered because of delay in finding them a permanent home.
A sad litany of statistics demonstrates why it is so important to address the needs of children in care. The statistics show that children in care do not fare well and that collectively, as the corporate parent, we have done a poor job in looking after them. It is a depressing fact that 70 per cent. of young people leave care without having gained a GCSE or GNVQ qualification. Additionally, 25 per cent. of looked-after children aged 14 to 16 do not attend school regularly, may have been excluded, and have no regular educational placement even when they are in care. As the corporate parent, we can look only to ourselves to explain why their educational attendance record is so poor.
A statistic that particularly upsets me as a woman is that between 14 and 25 per cent. of young women leaving care are either pregnant or have a child, whereas only 3 per cent. of 20-year-old women in the general population have a child. I have to conclude that hon. Members, as representatives of the corporate parent with responsibility for looking after children, have dismally failed those young women.
Another important but depressing statistic is that 39 per cent. of male prisoners under 21 have been in care. There is a close correlation between the experience of young children who have been in care and their poor life chances. Although they undoubtedly had difficulties before going into care, their experience of being in care seems only to have added to their decreased opportunities for success in life after leaving care. In many cases, the experience of being in care has clearly been detrimental.
Mr. Roger Gale: I had not intended to intervene so early in my hon. Friend's speech, but she has raised an issue that concerns me. In east Kent, we have a heavy problem because of the vast numbers of children
1206
being taken into care—some of whom have been quite literally dumped there by London boroughs that do not make their own provision, but choose to use out-of-county and out-of-town provision. Anything that she and other hon. Members who support the Bill can do to alleviate that problem and ensure that those children receive a proper family upbringing will, I am sure, have the full support of colleagues in Kent on both sides of the House.
Mrs. Spelman: I am very sensitive to the extra burden that Kent has borne My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, proportionally, Kent offers more places for children in care than many other counties do. I know for a fact that my own local authority—all the way from the west midlands—looks to Kent to place some of our most difficult cases. Although it is recognised that the particular expertise of some of the care homes in Kent is available nowhere else in the country, I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to make the point that the resources provided to Kent do not always reflect the fact that it carries that additional load not only for some of the other London boroughs, but it for places as far afield as the west midlands. We should recognise that.
I do not wish to imply, by citing those statistics, that I think that all care provision is bad, as that is certainly not true. Many people work extremely hard with inadequate resources to provide care for children who often are quite damaged and have many difficulties. That is not an easy task, and I recognise that they try their very best in difficult circumstances.
I recognise also that not all children fail because of being in care. That would be a false conclusion to draw from the statistics. Nevertheless, the outcomes are poor for many of those children. That issue is inextricably linked with this debate. I feel very strongly that if more of those children had an earlier opportunity of permanence in a family, their subsequent life chances might be better. That is the point.
In the adoption debate, we must not generalise about adoption provision across the country because it varies greatly from one part of the country to another. Currently, council adoption rates range from between 0.5 and 10.5 per cent. of looked-al after children being adopted each year. The average time spent being looked after before the decision is made that a child should be adopted is one year and four months, and from decision to placement takes another seven months—a total of nearly two years. I know that it is the Government's aim to speed up the process through their Adoption and Children Bill. A clause in my Bill about fast-tracking tries, in a complementary way to improve on that for younger children.
There is another point when considering the issues of children in care and the need to reform adoption. An estimated 14 per cent. of children who are adopted have experienced six or more placements in their care history. That is another feature of our failure as a corporate parent. That is an excessive number of moves for a child who has already had to be severed from the birth family.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: In my experience of sitting judicially in the courts and having to deal with young people, youngsters of 17 and 18 have frequently had half a dozen placements. That results, I am afraid, in

1207
their turning to criminal ways and coming before the courts, which has a huge impact on the criminal justice system.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. His experience will make an important contribution to the debate. The magistracy sees a great number of these court orders and has important things to say. I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution, as some of us do not have his direct experience of such matters.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Does she agree that the emotional and educational damage done by repeated replacements of young people in different settings undermines their life chances in the most serious way possible?
Mrs. Spelman: Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. In human terms, it is bound to be damaging for children to be constantly uprooted from a setting, not to know where they belong and constantly having to reform relation ships. It must get to the point where it is very difficult to form any sort of permanent relationship at all.
Before this debate, I was interviewed by four young people, all of whom had been in care until the age of 16. One of them had been placed in as many as 20 homes. That flabbergasted me—it can be as bad as that, although it is estimated that 14 per cent. of children who are adopted were moved six times. However, this young woman was remarkably well organised. She put some searching questions to me about the care system, and I am confident that she will go on and make a success of her life, but hers is not a start in life that we would desire for any child.
The severity of the problem is great. The frequency of placements and replacements often has to do with the system's failure to provide permanence for the child. One of the objectives of the Government's Bill is to speed up the process so that permanence is achieved much sooner. I hope that my Bill will complement that.
My Bill deals with the important question of finance. Just as there is quite a wide variation in the percentage of children adopted by local authorities, so there is variation in adoption allowances. I know that the Government want to consider that issue, which I think has contributed to some of the problems in the process of adoption. Some 20 per cent. of adoptions, having been made, do not work. Undoubtedly, one reason for such a high failure rate has to do with post-adoption support. Most of us have had constituents, friends or relatives who have tried to adopt and might have gone on to do so. The amount of assistance available to them once the children are received into their home is lamentable.
If children have gone through the very difficult experience of having to leave behind their birth families, it will not instantly be sunshine when they arrive in another family. There is a lot of hurt and difficulty, and much assimilation is required. However, we have been weak when it comes to post-adoption support, and I would like to see that addressed.
I want to present the background to the clauses in a little more detail. Clause 1 deals with finance. I am not asking the Government to increase their spending, as we
1208
have to be very careful on that point. How the money is spent is probably the most important question. Despite the Government's Adoption and Children Bill, one significant issue is missing from their attempts to reform the system—the several causes of delay. We agree with the Government that the introduction of a national adoption register will help in certain respects, and we have supported that from the beginning. Indeed, we sought to introduce a provision into the Care Standards Act 2000 that would have brought a national adoption register into being last July.
The register will allow better matching throughout the country because it expands the pool of parents who want to adopt and children who are available for adoption, which is a good thing. However, the difficulty of making a match, which is often a cause of delay, is not simply down to knowing who wants to adopt and which children are available for adoption. There is also a problem with finance. Local authorities are, not unnaturally. deterred from travelling the length and breadth of the country to find the best match because they have to finance that out of their budget.
I suspect that the local authorities of most right hon. and hon. Members present are in the same boat as mine, and have substantially overspent, not for the first year, on social services. The breakdown of the overspend in my local authority of Solihull—and it is the same with neighbouring authorities—shows that it has occurred on children's services. The main reason for that is, sadly, the amount of family breakdown. We cannot run away from the fact that local authorities have to spend a disproportionate amount on services for children because family breakdown is a key feature of British society. Therefore they do not start from a strong position, even given the £66 million that the Government put on the table to support the changes to the adoption process. My concern is that, given that the budgets are already overspent, will that money ever actually find its way to where the Government want it to go and be spent on providing the kind of post-adoption support that is so vital in making adoption matches work well? I seriously wonder about that.
Specifically, clause 1 would passport money with the child. That important proposal is designed to support the national adoption register. Without such an arrangement, it would be difficult to make the register work as effectively as it could. I shall explain that by referring to a local authority—Coventry—that abuts my own. It is interesting that its policy is not to look very far outside its own area when making adoption matches. Coventry city council would not look beyond the A5 and, if possible, not outside north Warwickshire to make such matches, simply because of the cost entailed in travelling to and fro and in making the assessments. The council made a practical point in asking how parents would travel the long distance to the preparation evenings that the local authority would regard as an essential precursor to its assessment and acceptance of prospective adoptive parents.
There is a real practical problem, in that the match is unlikely to be made unless the resources flow with it. We may create the power to make a match, but it is significant that the Adoption and Children Bill, which the Government are proposing, does not contain the power to make the match happen. That Bill includes a requirement to make an assessment, but the local authority can still

1209
decide whether to provide the services that need to go with that assessment, so we are not a great deal further forward. If a local authority is strapped for cash, it has to make the assessment, but it may legitimately say that it cannot provide the service. I am trying to break that deadlock, so that the money flows with the child.
At present, responsibility for adoption allowances falls to the authority where the child ultimately resides. That is a disincentive to the matching process. A local authority that has spent resources on recruiting and assessing a set of adoptive parents is unlikely to allow them to adopt a child who is in the care of another local authority, even if the national adoption register exists.
The local authority where the adoptive parents reside will lose money relative to the local authority where the child resides because, first, it will not save money by moving one of its cared for children out of care. I understand that the average cost of that is between £2,000 and £3,000 a week. Secondly, the local authority may have to pay an adoption allowance, depending on the circumstances of the receiving family. Thirdly, the local authority may have to pay for the child's special educational and health needs. A high percentage of the children who have been looked after often have statements and often struggle to find the resources to support themselves through education. Fourthly, the local authority's social workers may have to provide post-adoption support, and they are already stretched by having to undertake the assessments, and so on.
Clause 1 would require the local authority from which a child has been adopted to refund the cost of the adoption allowances that the local authority to which the child has gone has had to pay. I hope that that passporting mechanism will solve the practical problem of resources flowing with the child who needs them to the family who will also need them.
Under the Bill, adoption allowances would be classified as direct payments to the family and support services provided by the local authority. I mention that because, under the procedural acrobatics that I described at the outset, I have had to propose the reform of existing legislation that is not explicit on post-adoption services, and I want to make it clear that the word "allowances"—the plural—embraces the very important concept of extending the financing to post-adoption support.
It may be helpful if I dwell for a second on some examples of those support services. Counselling for the children to help them come to terms with their circumstances is very important, as the failure rate can be high without it. There is little support for adoptive siblings in coming to terms with a new brother or sister, but that is an important dimension. Short-term domestic help should be provided to enable the adoptive parents to spend more time helping the child to settle in.
I was struck by the contrast in the experience of some friends of mine who adopted two children, who, I think, were seven and six at the time. When a woman carries her own baby, she has nine months to get ready for the bombshell that will hit her, and she is helped to prepare for that. She is also helped when she has given birth and is assimilating a new life into the family. However, the life of a couple who adopt can change overnight. They have less time to prepare and less thought is given to how
1210
to support them through that process of change. That is one reason why we need to consider the support provided in that very important post-adoption period.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying about the allowances If an adoption were to break down and could not continue, what would be the financial position? Would the original authority continue to pay for the support of the child and take over the care role again, or would the resources go to the new authority in which the child had been placed?
Mrs. Spelman: It would entirely depend on where the child went next. If the child returned to its original local authority, the resources would return with the child. The concept entirely involves the money following the child. Another family may be found in the same receiving local authority, in which case the money would go to them. The tragedy is that that involves the child being uprooted again, which is why it is so important to do all we can to make the match work. Continuous uprooting is disruptive to the child's education and, ultimately, for its well-being.
Examples of needs that might be met by the adoption allowances could include one-off payments to cover the extra resources needed if a couple agreed to take several siblings. The couple might find that their car will not accommodate four children. Although people movers are a wonderful invention, we must recognise that there can be a capital impact on a family who are willing to prevent a group of siblings being split up because they have to cope with a sudden expansion. A traditional saloon car will not take six people legally. That is the kind of difficulty that a family can suddenly face.
Time-limited payments to cover the cost of counselling should be considered, especially if the national health service is unable to meet that cost locally. Counselling for post-adoption support has not been especially strong. Women in birth families who have been parted from their children, and those who have received children, have told me that, in some cases, the counselling makes matters worse, so specialist counselling must be got right. I was struck by the fact that it can be very difficult if the counselling is provided by those who are too directly involved in the matching process, because such counselling is not objective.
I hope that hon. Members will understand what I mean when I say that if the local authority is keen to place to children from care in a particular family, it has a vested interested in that process working. However, if the problems are too great, the family is not coping with the placement of the children, and the counsellor comes from the local authority, the counselling can be insufficiently objective. I hope that I have explained what I am driving at.
If arrangements have been made to allow contact to continue with the birth family, financial support must be given to cover the costs of travelling to visit them, especially as that can sometimes entail large distances. At the moment, lower income families are very poorly represented among foster and adoptive parents, and we must face up to that fact when considering the problem of adoption allowances. The ideal would be a range of adoptive parents representing the full spectrum of society. Finance can be a real reason why families on lower

1211
incomes do not put themselves forward for fostering and adoption. Barnardos feels strongly about that. I have no doubt that hon. Members have been briefed, as I have, about the difficulties that lower income families face.
Post-adoption support services are essential for parents who have adopted older children with emotional problems. About 20 per cent. of adoptive placements of older children break down, whereas unsurprisingly, the failure rate for babies is only 5 per cent. We should not be surprised by that. The older child has usually had more problems along the way that need addressing.
Clause 1 is a complement to the existing legislation designed to help make the national adoption register work better. It assumes that the register will be law, even though it does not exist in the Adoption Act 1976. We hope that the clause will command support.
Clause 2 deals with appeals. In his review of adoption last year, the Prime Minister said:
"Clearly there is a place for a much more comprehensive appeals system which gives all parties within adoption/permanence a louder voice and better representation. There must be provision for the independent scrutiny of and appeal against the—doubtless few—bad or unjust decisions, such as those involving placements."
I quote his words because the Government's Adoption and Children Bill contains a provision on appeals, but I remain unconvinced that it is anything like the comprehensive appeals system for which the Prime Minister called.
The definition of a determination of an adoption case is unclear in the explanatory notes to the Government's Bill. It simply says that the term will be defined in regulations, so we are no clearer about it. For the benefit of hon. Members, I should say that I am talking about clause 9 of the Bill. It provides for the establishment of a review procedure. It says:
any person in respect of whom a qualifying determination has been made … may apply to a panel constituted by the appropriate Minister.…

(3) The regulations may include provision as to—

(a) the duties and powers of a panel

(b) the administration and procedures of a panel".

That is all the Bill says: it is not clear. The determination procedure lacks independence, which is important.
Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If determinations are confined to, for example, obtaining a place on the national register, the prospective parents who are being turned away now would be no further forward. It is essential that the procedure apply to at least some matchings and allow parents to appeal where a child is not to be allocated to anyone else and the outcome would be that the child would remain in care. It is important that the appeals procedure should cover such cases, as my hon. Friend's clause does.
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has a great deal of experience of dealing with adoption—far more than me. He describes one of the failings of the present system, which we must address urgently. I want to go even further in my clause on appeals, to an appeals system that deals with what I call the eternal triangle. The three sides of the triangle are the birth family, the child and the adopters. The Government Bill would not deal with all three sides of the triangle. We all know from talking to adoptees, adopters and birth
1212
families that feelings run high about the present system. They feel that there is no adequate complaints procedure to deal with their grievances.
At present, each local authority is required to offer its own complaints system, which usually consists of three or four levels, all of which are run by the local authority against which the complaint is made. At level 2, the procedure must include an independent person, but that person is interviewed, recruited and appointed by the local authority. How independent is that person? It is not hard to see that all too often the local authority is found not guilty of the misconduct of which the complainant accuses it. Those who complain feel that the system is insufficiently independent. Adoptive parents are forced to complain to the director of social services whose department they are complaining about.
A lack of independence is a common feature of complaints procedures for public services that do not work well. All too often, individuals who have a complaint feel that professionals close ranks and that they cannot have their case heard objectively and independently. That is reflected in the social services inspectorate survey, which found that 52 per cent. of complainants were dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints procedure. That is a poor result. Many complained that they had no one to turn to after the procedure was complete.
It is necessary for each establishment to have a few people with unrestricted access to children in care whose purpose is to find out at the point of delivery whether proper care is being provided. I am trying to establish that independent element. I have suggested in clause 2 that we should have a proper ombudsystem for adoption. We have such a system for health, although it could be made to work better. There is a local government ombudsman, but as Members of Parliament know, since we often refer cases to him, only cases that meet the narrow criteria of maladministration can be referred to him. One often sits in one's surgery feeling that people have been dealt with badly and unjustly, but knowing that technically their case cannot be defined as maladministration. We know that they have little chance of justice or even an apology or recognition that something has gone wrong.
We are not yet a heavily litigious society like America, and I hope that we do not go that way. Often, people would be happy with a timely and sincere apology, but they rarely get one in respect of adoption. I would like to see a proper ombudsystem for all three sides of the triangle. I have suggested that at the top should be the Children's Commissioner for Wales and the equivalent children's rights director in England. I am sure that the House is aware that there is pressure from all sides for a children's commissioner for England, so that we have like for like. We are concerned as to whether a children's rights director has the same power and scope as a commissioner. To be at the top of the ombudsprocess would provide the independence that is so important.
I would like to create the opportunity for the child in the triangle to voice a complaint about the way in which they have been treated. At present, the child has no right to appeal against any decision made in the adoption process. My clause would enable the child to appeal through the guardian ad litem, who would have the discretion to filter out frivolous complaints. It is possible that a child, perhaps a truculent teenager, will make a complaint that it would not be a good use of time and

1213
resources to pursue. Guardians ad litem do a good job as children's advocates in the present system and are well able to make a balanced decision about whether a genuine complaint should be heard.
I am concerned that the role of the guardian ad litem is restricted in terms of their window of opportunity in the court process. I should like to see their role expanded so that they see the child through the system to a successful placement and permanence, and look out for the child's interests.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government's proposals to cap the fees for guardians ad litem will mean that there are not as many such guardians? If anything, my hon. Friend's proposal, if implemented, would require more guardians ad litem. We are seeing the interests of children being badly damaged by ill thought through proposals, and they would make my hon. Friend's proposal extremely difficult to implement.
Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am not able to ask for extra spending, but within the resources that are available, I believe that my proposal would be a good use of money. The vast majority of guardians ad litem do an excellent job, very often with good will. It is important to resource their role.
We have learned about these matters through some most disturbing reports about children in care. I and other hon. Members had to read the Waterhouse report. Others who read it will also be disturbed by the poor voice that children have in our society. It is important that there be a voice for vulnerable children in care, and that someone should see them through. Again and again, children are lost in care because the key worker who was alongside them changes jobs, or someone else comes in. There is no continuity. At a key stage, a guardian ad litem would offer continuity.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): When replying to the debate later, it may be helpful if I am clear about what the hon. Lady is proposing. Initially, there was slight confusion about the reference to a guardian ad litem in terms of the appeals system, given that the role of that guardian is to give advice to the courts. Is the hon. Lady proposing a greatly extended role for the guardian ad litem, so that in a sense he or she becomes almost a new statutory caseworker for the child? I am slightly confused about the role that she sees for the guardian ad litem and how that relates to the appeals system.
Mrs. Spelman: I am not trying to confuse the Minister. I am sure that he is aware that the Children Act 1989 lays out an appeals system. At present, the law focuses very much on the court process. The guardian ad litem does not see the case through to its conclusion, and it is that which I am trying to achieve. I hope that I have made things clearer. My proposal is not to be confused with the special guardianship that the right hon. Gentleman will know is in the Government Bill. That is a completely different concept.
Clause 3 deals with a completely different subject, which is the fast tracking of younger children. The Government's Bill, which was introduced on Monday,
1214
does not make a distinction in respect of children, although it introduces the concept of time limits, which we support. The purpose of introducing time limits is to speed up the process, which we all want to achieve.
The House may be surprised to learn that, perversely, it is sometimes taking longer to place younger children following on from care than older children. If someone in social services knows that there are a significant number of older children who will be quite difficult to place, he or she will do everything possible to encourage prospective adopters to take the children who are harder to place. That person will know that it will be easy to place babies and young children. Naturally, those in social services departments are trying hard to place older and more difficult children.
The tragedy is that it is detrimental to very little children to make them wait longer for adoption. Every parent knows that within a year a baby has bonded closely with its parents and other siblings. That is the way of nature. It is then detrimental to young children to be uprooted and moved. That is partly because their power of reasoning has not reached the point when it is possible to explain to them in detail why the uprooting has to take place. Yet it happens; I have seen it happen with my own eyes.
Some friends of mine are foster parents. They are now well beyond child-bearing age. At the request of the social services department, they took in a baby within the first six weeks of its life because mum was not well. That baby was still with them after a year. They felt that they could do nothing other than to adopt the baby. The child was talking and walking, and they knew that it would be detrimental to it if it were taken from them, and difficult for them, having bonded with it. They adopted the child and it has remained with them. However, there was probably an enormous queue of parents desperately wanting to adopt the baby. That opportunity has now been missed. And it happens again and again.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) spoke movingly on Second Reading of the Government's Bill on Monday about her experiences when working in a children's home. She said that she was horrified to find three-year-olds in dormitories of 12 children. That is not an appropriate environment in which to raise a child of pre-school age. I would encourage hon. Members to listen to her moving account if it is carried, after editing, by "Yesterday in Parliament" late tonight.
The hon. Lady said that children were described as five, six, and seven o'clockers because those were their bedtimes. With the best will in the world, in that environment there is not the intimate relationship of parent and child. It is institutional, and we must try to get away from that. I am attempting to do that by complementing the Government's intentions by introducing fast tracking for younger children.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I ask for clarification on the way in which the hon. Lady's proposals would change the situation that she outlined, with the foster family that proceeded to become an adoption family. I am not clear how her proposals addressed that case.
Mrs. Spelman: If fast tracking were introduced for under-threes, the foster family that agreed to take in a

1215
baby or toddler would have a clear idea that that would be for a much shorter time than usual, and that efforts would be redoubled to find permanence for that child. They would not be faced with the predicament of having had a young child for so long that they felt almost duty bound to offer to adopt it. In practical terms, that is what my proposal would achieve.
It is understood that it is easier for foster parents to cope with younger children. If the law were changed in line with my proposal, it would be clear that in taking a baby or a child under three, social services or voluntary services would be making an extra effort to have that child permanently placed more quickly. It is an important practical point, which I hope I have made clear.
Mr. Gardiner: In a situation such as the hon. Lady outlined, the child has been placed with a foster family specifically because there is every intention and hope that the natural mother will be able to take the child back after her illness. It was by force of circumstance that the original foster arrangement was extended. By fast tracking the adoption process, we cannot automatically get round such cases, which relate to individual circumstances and perhaps the prolongation of the natural parent's illness.
Mrs. Spelman: If I believed that all delays were due to the legitimate reason that I gave in my example—that the return to the birth family was unclear—I might have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. The truth is that that is not the only reason why young children experience delays in the system. The example of a child in institutional care given by the hon. Member for Stockton, South is just one illustration of that.
The parting process from the birth family is one of the most difficult and fraught areas of adoption. On Monday, moving and practical speeches were made by hon. Members who have worked on the placement of children. They would be the first to acknowledge that the protracted parting and to-ing and fro-ing that sometimes occur when a decision is being made about whether children should be parted permanently from their birth parents can cause the greatest damage. It is difficult to legislate for that, and I am not seeking to do so; it is down to the expertise of those who are qualified to work with the birth family to make the process better. We would legislate for that only clumsily, if we tried, but the time limits under the Adoption and Children Bill should help a bit. There is more than one reason for little ones being delayed in the system. Because of the attachment that they form at such a young age it is important and humane to have a legislative incentive to move more quickly with them. We therefore need to address the question of babies and very young children.
At the outset, I said that the reform of the Adoption Act 1976 has a lot to do with addressing changes in society over the past generation. One change is that, for want of a better phrase, adoption has gone out of fashion among young mothers, who may formerly have considered that route. There are various reasons for that, to which I have referred, including the loss of stigma attached to raising a baby alone. However, it is still not easy to do that, and I am sure that, like me, hon. Members have followed cases in which young women have found it extremely difficult to manage raising a baby on their own.
When we talk about the number of children in poverty, often we are talking about young women who find themselves in a spiral of deprivation Having got pregnant
1216
young, they miss out on their education, cannot get work and end up at the bottom of the pile. I know that the Government and Members on both sides of the House are trying to address that social change, which is a source of genuine difficulty.
Talking to those young women, I realised that adoption is nowadays promoted far less often as an option for them when they are pregnant. There is some history behind that; more than a generation ago, the reverse may have been true, and it was dealt with clumsily. All of us will have had contact with women who feel that their babies were taken from them in an uncaring manner, but now we have gone too far the other way in not presenting young women with the plausible option of having their babies adopted by families who very much want them and will give them a good life chance. As part of the discussion of reforming adoption, I hope that adoption will be promoted more actively to young women.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: When that issue was touched on in the debate on Monday, I thought that it would be regarded as controversial. However, I was surprised—as I am sure my hon. Friend was—by the unanimity across the House, including especially the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who was strong on that particular point.
Mrs. Spelman: That is a helpful intervention, and I should like to pay tribute to several Members who spoke with practical experience and a lot of common sense in our debate on Monday night.
On that note of unanimity, I should like to conclude my remarks on the Bill. There is no question but that there is a broad degree of support for adoption reform. I have tried hard not to present my Bill in a partisan way this morning, as that would not be appropriate. I am really pleased that we have got to the point at which a major Bill has had its Second Reading. Given the proximity of the election, we all know that there is probably little chance of its proceeding even to the special Select Committee. However, it is important that it has been introduced, because it means that the subject is out in the open and the debate can develop.
It may be too late for the 58,000 children already in care, but we owe it to those brought into care daily to help them in the search for a permanent family and loving home by reforming the existing adoption law to ensure that they have that life chance. We also owe it to couples who, in many cases, have had to wait a long time for the privilege and pleasure of having children to call their own. I believe that both sides of the House are united on that; I hope that we can weave together my Bill and the Government Bill, and that the outcome will be the best that we can possibly achieve for the children, their prospective adoptive parents and the birth families from whom those children have been severed. That should be our aim, and I hope that my remarks have contributed to achieving it.
10.36 am
Mr. Tom Cox: May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on the subject that she has chosen for her private Member's Bill and the way in which she presented it to the House? I listened with great interest to all of her speech,

1217
especially her closing remarks; I am sure that there is widespread agreement on the kind of suggestions that she made. Regardless of whether there will be an election soon, the subject is such that, if a Member on either side of the House seeks to reintroduce a Bill on it, he or she will have wide support.
I wish to discuss clauses 2 and 3. I declare an interest as a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. For a long time, I have been the rapporteur on the European strategy for children, which deals with a range of issues concerning the care and welfare of youngsters. We have produced reports on child abuse, child labour, refugee children and disabled children. We work closely with the 43 member states of the Council of Europe, have a close relationship with UNICEF and have published a major report on adoption. As the hon. Member for Meriden and others know, legislation on adoption varies enormously from country to country.
This has been a good week in the House for children. On Monday, we had Second Reading of the Adoption, and Children Bill and this morning we are debating the hon. Lady's private Member's Bill. I am sorry that I was not here on Monday to seek to take part in the debate, but from reading the speeches it was clear that there was widespread support for the issue of adoption, irrespective of which side of the House participating Members sat on. We all know that adoption is an important issue, but it can often be complex and, at times, emotive. I am sure that, for all of us, the principal concern of adoption is the welfare and rights of the child. From time to time, I read about disturbing cases of adoption—as I am sure all hon. Members do—including how children become available for adoption. Whether we are Members of Parliament or members of the public, we are all distressed to read, as we have done recently, about cases of children changing hands for money. That is to be deeply deplored.
From time to time we hear of the difficulties facing a person who wishes to adopt. We would all agree that the principal consideration should be placing the child in a warm, loving family relationship. When I was in local government, I chaired the children's committee of the London borough of Hammersmith and served on many adoption panels. I can well recall the anxiety of prospective adopters when we interviewed them. I believe that we have a perfect right to ask questions and to make inquiries of people who seek to adopt. Our concern at all times should be for the future of the youngster whom we are considering placing with an adoptive parent or parents.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden on her wide-ranging speech. She mentioned the Prime Minister's comments about adoption. He is to be congratulated on his deep concern for the matter, and I support much of what he has said about it in recent months. Having read Monday's debate, I share many of the views expressed by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and by others who spoke, about the need to speed up the process and reduce the time that it often takes for a youngster to be adopted. We all know that some local authorities have good records and others do not, but I would not want any local authority to feel that it was
1218
being put under pressure to meet the wishes of the Government or the Department. The overriding consideration must be the welfare of the youngster.
The hon. Member for Meriden touched on another important issue—the number of youngsters who, sadly, remain in care for a very long time. All of us who have been involved in such work know how difficult those cases can be; they can also be tragic. As I have seen on my visits to European countries, one immediately recognises that those youngsters are crying out for love and warmth. In her speech, which I found very moving at times, the hon. Lady emphasised the need for us to work as hard as we can to ensure that youngsters who have been in care for a prolonged period are helped into a loving, tender, caring relationship, to which every child is entitled.
With reference to clause 2, I am involved in the adoption case of a young girl. Her father is serving a prison sentence in Wandsworth prison, which is in my constituency. His relationship with the child's mother has ended, and the mother wants the child placed for adoption. The case is being dealt with by a London borough authority—not my own, Wandsworth. The father does not want the child adopted, but he feels that as a result of the break-up of his relationship with the child's mother and the fact that he is in prison, his views are not being taken into account. I have great sympathy with his views.
From the correspondence that that man has been sending me from Wandsworth prison, my impression is that he and his daughter have a warm relationship. The fact that he is in prison at is obviously an issue, but who can say that when he is released, he will not be capable of bringing up his daughter? From what I have learned from the correspondence, I believe that he has a right to be concerned about the possible adoption of his daughter. It would be interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden on the case, should she catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In the work that I do in the Council of Europe, I have always made it a policy—which is overwhelmingly supported by members of the committee there—that wherever practicable the young people's views should be sought. When we are dealing with youngsters in care awaiting adoption, their views are not often sought.
As Members of Parliament, all of us visit schools in our constituencies. I find that a wonderful experience, especially visits to junior schools, because the children are so inquisitive and ask so many questions. I believe in being frank with youngsters. They often ask me how much I am paid as a Member of Parliament, and I tell them. That leads to great discussion of the fact that I am earning far more than their fathers, and they wonder how that is possible. That is how one treats youngsters with respect. We should be much more actively involved with youngsters who are in care and waiting to be adopted, to find out what they think and what vision of the future they have. Too often, sadly, that does not happen.
In my constituency I have a large ethnic community, and I deal with a great many immigration cases. There is clear evidence that there are certain solicitors and so-called immigration consultants—I see in the Chamber a former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who during his time in office will

1219
no doubt have come across some of those people—who have little knowledge of immigration law, but rip off my constituents.
There are also adoption agencies that rip people off. The way in which they operate and promote themselves should be much more closely scrutinised. From time to time I hear of cases that make me wonder what right they have to be involved with young children, when their sole consideration is the money that they can make from such cases. I deplore that.
I turn to clause 3. The hon. Member for Meriden and my right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the Hague convention on adoption. It is interesting to note the number of countries that follow it. I listened with interest to the way in which the hon. Lady presented clause 3, as I believe that it could have a bearing on my comments. In March, I tabled a written question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, asking him
"how many children were allowed into the United Kingdom from overseas countries for adoption by United Kingdom residents … and if he will list the countries from which those children came."—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 365, c. 618W.]
I was surprised by some of the 26 countries that were listed in the reply. I shall list some of them now, to give the House an indication of the enormous range of countries from which youngsters come into Britain for adoption. As I said, my work in the Council of Europe mostly involves countries that have similar forms of government, but even their adoption legislation can vary enormously. The list that I was given included China, Guatemala, Iran, Jamaica, Libya, Nigeria, South Africa, Ukraine, the United States of America and Vietnam, and those are only 10 out of the 26 countries on the list.
I put it to the House and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that the adoption laws of those countries must vary enormously. For example, what are the exact procedures that must be followed by somebody who seeks to adopt a child from Iran, Libya or Ukraine? We should be told far more about that. I have been to Ukraine as the chairman of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe, so I have seen the appalling problems that exist there. I have visited orphanages in Ukraine where the conditions are utterly deplorable. To their credit, some improvement is now being made, but one can well understand why some countries will say "If we can get our children adopted, our burden will be eased." There may be some merit in that approach, but I believe that we are entitled not only to question deeply people who are seeking to adopt children and to obtain as much information as we can about their background, but to find out a great deal about the youngsters who are entering this country. We must know not only how they come here, but what information about them is available to social services in the areas where they live Sadly, we hear time after time about appalling cases of child abuse in which social services say "We really knew very little about this youngster."
The Committee stage is a great advantage for Bills such as this one. Indeed, it will also benefit the Adoption and Children Bill, whose Second Reading was opened on Monday by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, as we shall have the opportunity to table amendments and new clauses. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, the
1220
House rarely has debates about adoption, so I hope that she, the Government and the party managers get together to ensure that the two Bills marry up. It would be a great disaster if anybody said "Well, we have this Bill and we're not interested in yours." We learn from each other, so I hope that the business managers will agree that the two Bills are linked.
All hon. Members who participate in debates such as this share the same overriding concerns. Today is a good day for Parliament, as was Monday. Our discussion will not get a great deal of coverage, but we know that people outside will follow it with great interest, as they did on Monday. This debate is an example of Parliament at its best, because we are discussing a matter that is very precious: the lives of young people, and our duty as the law makers of this country to introduce legislation to ensure the best possible safeguards for them. The Adoption and Children Bill and the hon. Lady's comments go a long way towards achieving that goal.
The hon. Lady made a number of important remarks. She referred to one matter that I thought was very important, and which I see from another angle because Wandsworth prison is situated in my constituency. I refer to contact between birth parents and an adopted child. I ask youngsters about these matters when I visit schools. Of course, some of them will have been adopted. I ask, "If you were adopted, when would you like to know about your real parents and their background?" They say, "When I want to know." I do not believe that youngsters have to be told until they ask.
I take the hon. Lady's point about the need for contact between the birth parents and the adopted youngster, but as she said, costs can be a determining factor in that respect. In Wandsworth prison, I see families who want to keep in contact with somebody who is serving a prison sentence in different part of the country from that in which they live. Their travelling expenses can be horrendous. We all know that it is not cheap to travel in the United Kingdom, and the hon. Lady made an important point about the costs that are involved.
I am about to use an expression that we do not hear much in the House these days. I see on the Opposition Benches colleagues who, like me, have been here for a number of years, so they will know that the phrase "nuts and bolts" was used a great deal in past. I believe that the hon. Lady has put some of the nuts and bolts onto this important issue. I congratulate her on that and wish her Bill success.
10.57 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for the compassionate and thoughtful way in which she introduced her Bill. I congratulate her on a dual success: she has not only introduced her Bill, but has helped to provoke the Government into introducing theirs. As she pointed out, her Bill complements the Government's. She has played an important role in moving forward legislation on adoption.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for exemplifying in his contribution the bipartisan nature of this week's debates on adoption. He made important remarks about the international dimension of adoption and the diversity of sources from which children are adopted into this country—an issue to which I shall return in a moment.

1221
Let me explain my interest in this subject. One of the most common mistakes that was made about me when I was Secretary of State for Social Security was the assumption that I was a Secretary of State for social services and that I was therefore responsible for all social services matters. Of course, that was not the case; I was responsible only for social security. When I was investigating and trying to understand the problems that created a need for social security, as well as the characteristics of those who are dependent on the help of the state, I found the same problem time and again. It arose in respect of many people who had been in the state care system, with many different needs and various problems that brought them into contact with the social security system and that could require much more intimate involvement with social services at a local or national level. I became convinced that a major problem arose from the public role in loco parentis. The more I examined the problem, the more severe the failings of our system appeared. The figures are appalling and dramatic.
Between half and three quarters of young people who leave care are unemployed—four times the rate for 16 to 24-year-olds in the population as a whole. Almost three quarters of those who leave care have no qualifications—12 times the average for the population as a whole. Between a quarter and a third of homeless people on the streets of London come from residential care or fostering—60 times the average for the population as a whole. A quarter of all adult prisoners have been in care in their lifetime, and almost 40 per cent. of prisoners under 21 come from the care system. Forty per cent. of young girls who have been in state care become mothers while teenagers, many, alas, while still in care—eight times the average for the population as whole. Their children are 66 times more likely than other children to find themselves in state care. The process is therefore self perpetuating; it is what Keith Joseph called "a cycle of deprivation.
The state has failed as a parent, and we are ultimately responsible for the performance of the state when it has to step in and take over as the parent of children in need who suffer deprivation because of the inability and sometimes unwillingness of their parents to look after them. By contrast, adoption is a success.
It is easier to measure failure than success, and difficult to think of measures of success that are not demeaning. However, by all the standard measures such as success at school, getting jobs, forming settled relationships, getting married and bringing up children, adopted children do far better than those who remain in care, those who are brought up in divided families and even those who are brought up in normal birth families. The dedication and commitment of adopted parents mean that they are often able to bring greater success in life to their adopted children than ordinary parents bring to theirs.
There are 58,000 children in care at any one moment. Many are in care for brief periods before returning to their natural parents. In most cases, that outcome is desirable. However, some 28,000 children have been in care for two years of more. Despite the failure of the state care system and the success of adoption, barely 2,000 children a year are adopted. We must ask why and ascertain what is going wrong.
1222
The care system has been blighted by several scandals, which have been investigated. Ultimately, blame lies with the individuals who have abused the children in their care physically, sexually and psychologically, but blame also lies with us for not being sufficiently rigorous in ensuring that homes were better run.
There is an institutional hostility to adoption in our system, and we need to investigate and overcome it. Until recently, there was a preference for returning children in care to their parents. That is desirable when the parents are able to take them back, but fostering or retention in institutional care has also been preferred to adoption. The processes of adoption, the attitudes prevalent in the system and the incentives built into it are hurdles that discourage or delay adoption.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden pointed out, delays are endemic in the system. She related some telling cases and gave other evidence for that. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering study of some 1,600 children who had been adopted from care showed that, contrary to expectations, more than half entered care before their first birthday; more than half of those entered care within a month of being born. Many adopted children have therefore been in the care system since they were very young, yet the average age of placement is three-and-a-half years, and that of adoption is five-and-a-half years. There are long delays in the system for even the minority of children who are adopted.
The reason for the delay is not periods in care punctuated by periods with the birth parents. Eighty per cent. of adopted children never return to their birth parents. The excuse that children may return to their birth parents is often used for retaining children in care and not placing them for adoption, but 80 per cent. never do. They are in care precisely because their parents have proved unable or reluctant to look after them. The desire to return them to the birth parents is therefore often an excuse for retaining them in the system.
There is bureaucratic delay in the processes that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden described, and a lack of urgency. As she pointed out, that is partly caused by the perhaps understandable desire to place the children who are more difficult to place—those who have been in care for a long time and suffer the most disadvantages—in adoptive homes. Emphasis is therefore placed not on the youngest children but on older children who have been in residential or foster care for some time. I believe that that approach is mistaken.
The evidence that the hon. Member for Tooting gave of people's willingness to adopt from abroad, often so that they can adopt a young child, suggests that plenty of people would adopt young children from care, but cannot do so because of the delays and processes that are inherent in our system. They therefore resort to going abroad to look for children, and even try to enter into commercial arrangements. I condemn that as wholeheartedly as the hon. Gentleman did.
Another institutional process that is so damaging to the young children who are ultimately in our care is the shuffling from pillar to post, whereby they are moved from foster family to foster family. Almost one in five children have more than three placements in a year; one in seven have more than six. Fewer than half of those who have been in care for four years or more have spent two years continuously with the same foster parent. We are

1223
putting children in care at an added disadvantage, on top of all the problems that they experienced in their early life before they came into care. There has not been enough urgency in trying to overcome that.
For many, if not most, children in care, adoption—permanent placement in a loving household whose members are committed to them—is the most desirable outcome. We must speed up and simplify the process of achieving that happy outcome for many children, and remove the processes that delay it.
Another reason for my interest in this issue is that, by coincidence, I know a number of people who have been involved in adopting children. I spoke to a small number of them before this debate, to draw on their experience. They emphasised that adoption is not for parents; it is for children. Adoption takes advantage of the fact that there are parents with an unfulfilled desire to love children, and we are happy to have that supply of parents to meet the children's needs. That unfulfilled capacity to love exists in society through, for some, the misfortune of being unable to have children, and, for others, a willingness to take on children in addition to their own birth children.
Among the experiences that I heard from other people—I am just reporting what I heard; I am not suggesting that they are a random, representative sample—was what was referred to as, at best, mistrust and, at worst, hostility among some social workers towards potential adoptive parents. There was almost a presumption of guilt on the part of adoptive parents, who seemed to have to prove that they were innocent.
One parent described a sense that the social workers with whom he had dealt were too risk averse. Prolonged checks were carried out into the parent's background, attitudes and approach. That process is never gone through with birth parents, or with those receiving fertility treatment. Nor, apparently, is that thoroughness applied to those working in the care system—or certainly not as thoroughly as we now realise is necessary and desirable—or to the social workers who make these judgments.
One parent referred to the patronising approach that had been taken, citing a three-day parental tutoring course that he had been required to attend. He was already bringing up a child—his wife's child—but, none the less, he had to go on that course and indulge in role playing, some of it offensive, much of it demeaning. The participants were asked to undertake odd scenarios led by social workers who, in large part, were not married, had no experience of bringing up children and had little training but a lot of ideology. Such procedures have, unfortunately, been prevalent in local authority departments.
Another parent had adopted two children. The adoption processes had overlapped for the two children, and a social worker or guardian ad liter had been appointed for each child, in addition to a social worker being appointed in respect of each child to work with the parents. Four social workers were involved. I happened to know those parents while they were going through that process, and they said that three of the social workers had severe social problems. The adoptive parents had the added burden of coping with the social problems of the social workers who were meant to be helping them to adopt the children. That was a serious matter.
1224
We are creating additional problems for adoptive parents. One or two of them said that other potential adoptive parents had been put off by the processes. One practical point noted by an adoptive parent was that, although social workers had been appointed to help with the process and to follow it through and ensure that the children were well placed and settling in, there was no out-of-hours contact with social workers. There was no helpline to call out of hours or at weekends. If there were crises—which seemed to happen at weekends—there was no way of getting in touch with social workers, not even an emergency helpline.
It would be a monstrous imposition to expect all social workers to be available 24 hours a day, but a helpline in the local authority social services department might be a desirable supplement to the help that we give adoptive parents to deal with the crises that can erupt at inconvenient times.
Other parents said that there was a presumption in the system that state care was the default option, and that it was not open to criticism. It was assumed to be positive and desirable. The adoptive parents had to prove simultaneously that they were exceptionally able—that it would, therefore be worth taking a child out of care or foster care to give to them for adoption—and they were not exceptional they were exceptional, they might be thought odd. If they were too clever, too bright or too motivated, that could often be taken as a negative factor. Parents had to prove that they were simultaneously exceptional and unexceptional to get through the process.
Class and anti-racist ideology were also mentioned. I have friends who are a mixed-race couple. Their attempts to adopt a child were refused. They were not fussed about the colour of the child whom they adopted, for obvious reasons, but when asked about their attitude to racism and racial intolerance in our society, they said that, yes, they had suffered direct personal experience of it and that it was a bad thing, but that ultimately it did not really disrupt their lives. That was not a satisfactory answer; it showed that they were insensitive to the problems of racism in society, and they were refused acceptance as adoptive parents by the local authority. Happily, they subsequently moved elsewhere and successfully adopted a child from a more enlightened local authority.
Attitudes hostile to the smooth and sensible operation of adoption have been built into the system. We must ensure that they are eradicated. I am sure that they are not universal, and that there are many dedicated, sensible social workers who are experienced in bringing up children in their personal lives, and who bring that experience and help to adoptive parents, but there are all too many exceptions, and those attitudes can become institutionalised. It is important that we eradicate that institutional hostility to adoption.
One very difficult point was mentioned by a parent to whom I spoke—the feeling that there is over-emphasis in the system on encouraging birth parents to demand and exercise a right of on-going contact with their child. That is a difficult issue for adoptive parents. No one wants to break the link between the child and his or her birth parents unnecessarily.
I am merely reporting the case that was put to me, which was that if the birth parent has been thoroughly unable to look after the child and has agreed that it should

1225
be adopted, it is in many cases—perhaps not always—easier for the adoptive parents to have unique parental responsibility, rather than suffering the sporadic interventions of a birth parent who is encouraged by the system to pay occasional and sometimes disruptive visits.
I do not have an easy sense of how one strikes the balance between the possibility of retaining a link with the birth parents, and not doing so. On certain occasions, however, we should allow—as I believe the courts have—a clear run for the adoptive parents when there is a danger that contact with the birth parents might be disruptive, at least until the child nears adulthood.
All those problems can discourage prospective adoptive parents from coming forward. That is sad, when there are children in care who would be better off in adoptive households, and for whom no adoptive parents are available.
What are the remedies? My hon. Friend's Bill provides some important improvements on the present system, particularly the fast-tracking procedure that she emphasised for younger children. If those younger children are clearly not to return to their birth parents, they must be speedily placed in adoptive homes so that they do not have a disrupted early childhood and can rapidly bond with their new parents at an early stage. All the evidence is that they will be much more likely to have happy and settled futures ahead of them if that happens. We must cut out unnecessary delays.
The passporting of finance is also important. One or two parents whom I spoke to said that there appears to be a financial incentive to keep children in the system: the greater the number who are satisfactorily moved to adoption, the more the institutional handling of such children will shrink. That causes a subconscious feeling that the financial incentives built into the system discourage adoption. We do not want that to be exacerbated when a child is moved between local authorities. Therefore, if finance can be passported to remove any disincentive and to ensure that there is adequate provision for aftercare, help and support for an adoptive family, that will be a good thing.
The appeals mechanism is important and my hon. Friend's proposed ombudsman system for all the parties involved would help to smooth over some of the problems. It would also probably help to change attitudes, and I emphasise that point. Change is happening spontaneously and I hope that the Government, through their Bill, take forward that change of attitude in the service to achieve a much more positive approach to encouraging adoption and encouraging parents to come forward and adopt.
That is a matter not only for Members of the House and the Government, but for Churches and community groups, which should encourage people with an unfulfilled capacity to love children to take them into their homes, not least in the case of some of the most difficult and damaged, who would otherwise remain in the care of institutions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing her Bill and welcome the Government's. I believe that the measures are complementary and I hope that they represent the point in our generation at which we can improve the provision for children whom otherwise we have lamentably failed.
11.22 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I never thought that I would stand up in the Chamber and say that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) reminds me of the Sundance Kid, but all that has changed this morning. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were employed by a Mexican miner to protect his shipment of gold, which was going up the hill, not down it, as he had to point out to them.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Was he not a Colombian miner?
Mr. Gardiner: As the hon. Gentleman is far more expert than me not only on cinematography but on Latin America, I am happy to accept his correction.
The key fact is that, when interviewed for that job, the Sundance Kid was told to shoot at a coin that the Colombian mine owner threw on to the ground. Sundance felt very uncomfortable about that. He got out his gun, aimed and fired. He got pretty close to the coin, sitting there on the ground, but he missed. That was probably the first time in his life that he had missed anything with a bullet. Then he said, "Now can I move?" The Colombian said, "Yes, you can do what you like." So he moved, drew his gun, fired at the coin as it flew through the air and hit it several times before it landed. That is the point of the story: the hon. Member for Meriden is unique in choosing to go for a moving target rather than a standing one.
The hon. Lady's measure is a Bill to
"amend the law on adoption."
The question is, which law on adoption? Is it that which is in force or that which may result from the Government's introduction of a Bill whose Second Reading we debated on Monday? Their proposal is a Bill to
"restate and amend the law about adoption and amend the Children Act 1989."
It may pass through the House and become law. Why has she chosen a moving target? I find it absolutely inexplicable. Usually, if one disagrees with a Bill, one ensures that one makes a speech on Second Reading and tables amendments in Committee. That is the normal procedure in the House.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) entered the ballot, the Government had not announced in the Queen's Speech any intention to introduce an adoption Bill. She offered the Government the chance to use her Bill, but they did not take that up. Indeed, they published their own Bill very late in the day. My hon. Friend has introduced a useful measure and I hope that he agrees, like other Labour Members, that it complements the Government's Bill.
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. However, he must know that the Prime Minister announced that he would personally lead a review of adoption policy in February 2000—not this year. He commissioned the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit to assess the evidence and prepare a report making recommendations for Government policy. The Cabinet Office report, entitled "Prime Minister's Review Adoption", was published for consultation in

1227
July 2000. A White Paper entitled "Adoption: a new approach" was published in December 2000. It included a commitment to introduce new adoption legislation in 2001. That is the Bill that we discussed earlier this week.
Mrs. Spelman: There is an important distinction here and the point about 2001 was made very clearly when we withdrew our new clause during debate on the Care Standards Act 2000. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that the election was likely to be announced, and had it been called for 5 April the Government Bill would never have received a Second Reading.
Mr. Gardiner: I listen to what the hon. Lady says and my purpose is not to be obstructive and destructive, but the positive work of engaging with the Government and, to use a word uttered many times by Opposition Members, weaving the changes proposed in her Bill into the Government's legislation would be far better done in the Standing Committee considering the Government Bill. I have made my point.
Every Member of the House would agree that amendment of the adoption law is long overdue. The Adoption and Children Bill introduced to Parliament by the Government on 15 March is substantially the most important such measure for some time and it will thoroughly reform adoption law in England and Wales. It represents the most radical overhaul in about 20 years and follows the adoption White Paper published in December 2000.
The new legislation will play an essential part in underpinning the programme that we set out in the White Paper to encourage greater use of adoption and to deliver our target of a 40 per cent. increase in the number of adoptions from care by 2004–05. It will transform adoption services and put the interests of children at the centre of the adoption process.
On Monday, the whole House was shocked to hear the statistics that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), proclaimed to the House:
"At any one time, local councils look after almost 58,000 young people, seven in 10 of whom leave care at 16 without an educational qualification of any sort. Almost four in 10 male prisoners under the age of 21 have been looked after at some stage in their lives and 25 per cent. of the people sleeping rough on the streets of London have been in care."
As my hon. Friend went on to say
"That is a failure not of the children in care, but of the system of care.—[Official Report, 26 March 2001; Vol. 59, c. 698.]
That is why it is right for this House, in its deliberations earlier this week and in future on the Government Bill, and in its deliberations today, to pay particular attention to that issue.
As quite a regular at our Friday morning debates, I must say in passing that I was overwhelmed to see how full the House was this morning. I know that normally Fridays are sacrosanct for many hon. Members, who like to spend them in their constituencies—[Interruption.] I am sure that they are taking surgeries and doing other very important work.
The fact that our Chamber is fuller today than it normally is on a Friday must be a testimony to the hon. Member for Meriden and her Bill, and her capacity to engender support for it among her colleagues, many of
1228
whom are supporting her this morning. I would hate to think that it had anything to do with the second Bill on the Order Paper—the Secret Societies (Registration of Membership) Bill, which would
"Require that a person elected to public office shall register with the public body to which he has been elected his membership of any secret society",
such as the freemasons.
I can, of course, register that—
Mr. David Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman a freemason?
Mr. Gardiner: No. I can register that I have no such connection with any secret society.
I hope that it is not because of any desire to obstruct the Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) later this morning that we see such a large body of Members on the Opposition Benches. I hope that, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is not in his place at the moment, but has been attending closely to the debate most of the morning, those hon. Members all have a long-standing commitment to child welfare in this country. I know that that is an interest that the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Meriden, has pursued on many occasions.
Mrs. Spelman: I wrote to all 659 Members to encourage them to attend the debates when I originally decided to introduce the Bill. When the Government Bill was introduced, many Members wrote back to me, and more than 40 people said yes, but the hon. Gentleman was not one of them, so he did not receive my billet doux earlier this week containing the draft Bill and an explanatory note. Had he done so, he would have seen that I redoubled my efforts with those who said that they would be able to attend, but unfortunately, he did not receive the briefing.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Lady's efforts have clearly not gone unrewarded, and she is well supported.
By modernising and overhauling the adoption law, the Adoption and Children Bill will play a vital role in the drive to transform the adoption service and get many more looked-after children adopted. The Bill will support the White Paper programme in five key ways.
The Bill puts the needs of the child at the centre of the adoption process by aligning the Adoption and Children Bill with the Children Act 1959 in making the child's welfare of paramount concern in all decisions concerning adoption. It will encourage more people to adopt looked-after children, by ensuring that the support that they need will be available, and local authorities will have a clear-cut duty to provide an adoption support service and a new right to an assessment for new adoptive families, as promised in the White Paper.
In clause 1, the hon. Lady seeks, as she puts it, to make the allowances follow the child, to ensure that the cost of taking care of the child when adopted should be able to cross local authority boundaries. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—I apologise to him for having caught only the latter part of his speech, because I was temporarily out of the Chamber when he began it—referred to the disparity between what happens when a new child is received into a natural family and when a child is received into an adoptive family.

1229
As the parent of four children, I echo that sentiment. I well remember taking my first child home, being presented with him on the hospital steps by the sister, and thinking, "Well, is that it?" There was no induction procedure, whether for three days or any other length of time. Natural parents have got to get on with it. [Interruption.] Yes, there is often a crisis at weekends in my house—but there is no hotline for social services to send someone to sort it out.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said that we must begin to treat adoptive parents more like natural parents and say, "They are parents now; let them get on with it." That applies equally when considering what the hon. Lady suggests in clause 1—
Mr.Heald rose—
Mr. David Davis rose—
Mr. Gardiner: I would be happy to give way on that point—as soon as I have finished making it.
It seems to me that a child adopted by parents in a local authority area becomes, not the child who came from local authority A and is an import to local authority B, stigmatised by having some awkward financial relationship tailing back, but simply a child of that area, as any other local child would be. The hon. Lady must consider carefully the potential stigma for the child funded by a distant local authority—although I understand her reasons for wanting the money to follow the child.
As for allowances following the child, the hon. Lady talked about capital allowances whereby, perhaps, if a family were accepting siblings together, their car could be upgraded from a saloon to a people carrier. I found that part of her speech somewhat strange. We could have been forgiven for thinking that the Conservative party had proposed to increase the social security budget rather than refusing to match the Government's spending proposals. The idea that adoptive children will bring with them large enough resources to upgrade the family car is strange.
Mr. Heald: I was surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, because when people adopt older children, many come with a host of problems from their earlier lives. I suggest that training for adoptive parents is important in such cases, and that the sort of financial support that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden talked about is vital too. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the points that he has been making. If people take on a child who has been placed in short-term foster care on numerous occasions, especially if an attempt is being made to re-establish a disintegrated family, with the child moving backwards and forwards, they will certainly need some help.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I do not propose that there should not be allowances available when a child comes into a new family, but that they should not necessarily follow from the old authority. My objections related to the transfer from one authority into the new area.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished member of the Public Accounts Committee,
1230
and has been a signatory to a number of reports in which we have highlighted perverse behaviour by local authorities. Housing benefit is an example that comes to mind. Local authorities can behave perversely because they would lose out as a result of a proper action. My hon. Friend's proposals are designed to prevent such perverse behaviour. How would the hon. Gentleman's proposals achieve that?
Mr. Gardiner: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but perhaps he did not listen carefully enough to what I said. I said that I thought there was another aspect that the hon. Member for Meriden should consider. I did not say that there was not good reason in principle to ensure that money follows the child: support must be provided.
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about perverse incentives, but it is important for the new local authority providing care to have a sense of ownership of the child in the new community, and a sense that this child is different. The existence of a funding stream relating to the previous authority may create an artificial distinction between the children in the new authority's remit. I am not saying that the point about perverse incentives was not fair, but there must be some way of overcoming the resistance of authorities to the transfer or acceptance of children into adoptive-parent structures.
Mr. Davis: Might not the same end be achieved by a ring-fenced direct change in standard spending assessment? That would have exactly the same effect.
Mr. Gardiner: In many respects, that might indeed be a better way around the problem.
The existing adoption legislation needs to be changed, and the Adoption and Children Bill, which we discussed earlier in the week, will help that. It will support efforts to build confidence in the adoption process—efforts whose importance has been stressed by Members on both side of the House today—by encouraging more people to come forward to adopt, and enabling the Secretary of State to establish an independent review mechanism for applicants who consider that they are being turned down unfairly. It will help to cut harmful delays. We have already set challenging time targets for decision making in the application process in the draft national adoption standards that were published with the White Paper. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to establish a national adoption register to reduce delays for adopters and children waiting to be matched, which must be a good thing. It also includes measures requiring the courts to draw up timetables for adoption cases, to help cut delays in the legal process.
The Bill that we are now discussing deals with an important topic, which all Members think the Government should address and which the Government have rightly addressed. I believe that the best way of ensuring that we have the best legislation for our children is for the Adoption and Children Bill to receive widespread and all-party support, for Members to engage in constructive discussion of that Bill both here and in the Standing Committee, and for sensible amendments—such as those contained in the hon. Lady's Bill, which make important points and may well improve the Government's legislation—to be made in that Committee. I do not

1231
believe that the hon. Lady's Bill, as a free-standing private Member's Bill, is appropriate at this stage of the parliamentary process.
11.44 am
Mr. Humfrey Matins (Woking): Let me begin by declaring an interest. As a solicitor, I practised for some years in the field of family law and adoption, before moving on to a career in crime—[Laughter.] Perhaps that is the wrong phrase. In due course I sat, and continue to sit, as a recorder in the Crown court, and as a district judge in the magistrates courts.
Putting children's needs at the centre of the process: that is a laudable aim. The Government Bill sought to achieve that aim, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her Bill because it complements the Government's Bill. As the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said earlier, Friday mornings can show the House at its best, when Members are not arguing with each other but trying to be constructive.
I believe that adoption should be very high on our agenda. I ask Members to accompany me on a journey. Let them come with me to the courts where I sit day after day—perhaps to Camberwell Green, or to the south-western court of Clapham; perhaps to Greenwich, Woolwich, or the Thames court at Bow in Poplar. Let them sit with me on the bench, and look at the court in front of me. They will see 50, 60, 70 defendants, all to be dealt with that morning. Many are aged between 18 and 21. They are there for crimes of violence involving drink—quite often—or drugs—quite often.
The defendant may be black, or he may be white. He is young: he is certainly young. Before we sentence him we read the pre-sentence report, which reads as follows. "This defendant has a very troubled background. His father was violent; his mother was an alcoholic. When he was two his home life broke up, and he was taken into care. He spent some time with foster parents, then went back into care, then went back to the foster parents. Between the ages of five and 17, he was in care. He never had a settled background; he never acquired a qualification. He was in care, in care, in care."
If Members look up from the bench, they will see the young man in front of them. He represents a real problem: the link between a family background that is non-existent—a really troubled childhood—and crime. As was said earlier today, some 40 per cent. of young criminals have been in care. I do no often read a report that tells me that a young man, or woman, was adopted at the age of one and brought up by a loving couple. Oh no: I read "in care".
Let no one be under any illusions about the crisis that faces a nation in which, as I am led to believe, nearly 60,000 children are in care. That is the future criminal generation—and who is to say that it is their fault? Did not my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) say that the state was not a good parent, or words to that effect? How right he was. That is why this is such an important debate . Was it the Jesuits who said, "Give us a child until he is seven, and we can always keep him thereafter", or something like that? Do we not all know that those are indeed the most formative years of a child's life?
1232
I understand that there are some 4,000 adoptions per year in England and Wales. I would be interested to know the number of children available for adoption, and whether that 4,000 figure represents as small a proportion of the available children as I believe it does.
Mr. Swayne: The 4,000 figure represents a fall from the figure of some 25,000 in 1975.
Mr. Malins: I did not know that. It is a telling statistic, and it must have something to do with the problems of the young in our society today.
I should also like to know what proportion of the 4,000 children are aged between nought and two, what proportion are aged between two and four, what proportion are between four and eight and what proportion are between eight and 12. If adoption is to be effective, it is surely terribly important for a young child to be very young when adopted—no older than eight or nine.
I want to comment on one or two aspects of my hon. Friend's Bill and compare it with the Government's Bill. Under clause 96 of the Government Bill, the Secretary of State can establish and maintain a national adoption register containing some prescribed information—so far so good—but we all agree that there is a need to ensure that the process of matching children and parents should become much more effective and efficient. One feels—dare I say it?—that the dead hand of bureaucracy and paperwork, which is daily and irresistibly increasing in our lives, needs to be kept in check as much as possible in the adoption process. We all agree that the process of matching children and parents should take a much shorter time. Every day or month that slips by can delay the much needed arrival of the stability and security that adoption can bring.
Most usefully, my hon. Friend's Bill focuses on the need to passport the money. Currently, a disincentive exists, as an authority that receives a child from another authority will be liable for all payments connected to it. Under her Bill, the authority responsible for the child—the one under which the adoption plan for the child was made—will have financial responsibility too.
I move to the appeals system and an omission in the Government Bill which I believe most of us recognise. Currently, appeals go into the system. Often, a complaint against an authority is dealt with by the director of social services. It has been pointed out that that is not always a satisfactory situation. My hon. Friend's Bill widens the appeals process. It refers to the ability of an adoptive parent or prospective adoptive parent to appeal against any decision by an adoption agency. It goes further; it states that the guardian ad litem for a child may appeal against any decision by an adoption agency that materially affects the interests of that child.
The role of the guardian ad litem is important and should perhaps be extended considerably in time, noting as we should his obvious ability to articulate complaints that the child or young person could not so readily do. Should there not be provision for those who may be concerned about a child to make a complaint on behalf of the child—for example, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a paediatrician who may have a lot of contact through his or her professional life with a child and who may have any number of concerns? The Children's Commissioner

1233
for Wales and the children's rights director in England could be given power to oversee the whole process of adoption and to act as ombudsman. They could and perhaps should be given unrestricted access to the child in care to establish at the point of delivery whether proper care is being provided and whether the adoption process is proceeding fast enough.
I move to what we call the fast-tracking of babies within the adoption system. It is dealt with in clause 3 of my hon. Friend's Bill. We all know that it is much easier to place a baby for adoption than an older child such as a teenager. In recent times, much emphasis has been placed on the tricky placement of those older children. That is all very well, but has that been at the expense of placing babies and very young children?
Some children are growing up in a succession of foster homes. It is difficult for them to form a stable and permanent relationship with any adoptive family. That is doubly bad, for we all know that the younger a child is, the more easily it will settle into a new family. Equally, if younger children are placed more efficiently and quickly, there will be fewer older and, by definition, more difficult children to deal with. A fast track for adoption of babies and young children where time limits were lower than for older children would thus help to reduce the problem. The main point is that it is critical that a young child should have the chance to settle into a family as soon as possible.
Let us never forget that the needs of the child are paramount, and that that child is already—do not forget it—damaged by the fact that its home life is in some difficulty. Next and most importantly, as institutions, the family and marriage are still vital to the safe continuance of a free society. It saddens me that they are both institutions that in today's climate are often sneered at and undervalued. All research confirms that the best, although not of course the only, environment for children to be brought up in is marriage. A stable home based on marriage and the family, and the influence of a mother and father, are the best guarantees against a child turning to crime—I should know that.
Let me ask hon. Members to look up from their desk in Camberwell court and see the young man aged 19 who is standing trembling 10 yd away, and who, for the 14th, 12th or 10th time, is before us for sentence. He has never been adopted. He should have been adopted as a baby because then he would have had a chance. He was in care. Which of us dares look at him and tell him to go to Feltham young offenders institution for over-18s, the biggest hell-hole I have ever seen, for six months? That is why I say that adoption should go right to the top of our agenda when we think about young people.
11.57 am
Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), first, on being successful in the private Member's Bill ballot last December, secondly, on choosing adoption as the subject for her Bill and her excellent presentation this morning, and thirdly, for revealing a serious omission in the Labour Government's legislative programme that was outlined in the Queen's Speech. I am sure that the Minister is aware that many of us were extremely
1234
disappointed that adoption was not given priority by the Government at the beginning of the parliamentary Session, but I am pleased that that has now been corrected by the Government s recently published Bill on adoption and children, which had its Second Reading last Monday.
Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in that debate owing to other parliamentary commitments, but naturally I welcome any measures that focus on the interests of children throughout adoption procedures. I know that Opposition Front Benchers have indicated their support for the principle of that Bill. I also, of course, welcome my hon. Friend's Bill, which addresses additional adoption issues.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) for their contributions to today's debate. I think that they have clearly demonstrated the consensus on both sides of the Chamber on encouraging adoption by means of the measures that the House is considering.
Hon. Members may know that I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Health for five years, from 1992 to 1997, in which time the Committee undertook an inquiry into children's health. It was the first time such an inquiry had been conducted. The inquiry was very wide ranging, and it was broken down into reports on specific headings—such as the health needs of children and young people; health services for children and young people in the community, home and school; child and adolescent mental health services; and hospital services for children and young people. Unfortunately, the 1997 general election interrupted our programme of investigations.
Following that general election, I was no longer a member of that Committee. However, I am delighted to say that the new Committee members continued the unfinished business and, in July 1998, produced a report on children looked after by local authorities in which, of course, adoption featured.
The report endorsed the view that the Children Act 1989 is correct to presume that the best possible outcome to episodes of care is the child's successful reunion with a loving birth family which receives appropriate support to enable it to cope with the child. None the less, in some cases, there is no realistic prospect of a child ever returning to his or her birth family. In those circumstances, adoption is one of a number of options that should be considered.
Adoption should proceed only when, first, it is judged that there is no realistic prospect of reconciliation with the birth family; secondly, when adoption is in accord with the wishes of the child, assuming of course that the child is old enough to reach a decision on such matters; and thirdly, when the would-be adoptive parents have been assessed as capable of coping with the demands that the child will place on them
A social services inspectorate report, with the evidence that the Health Committee took from others at that time, made it clear that local authorities too often fail to take adoption sufficiently seriously as an option, that unnecessary delays occur and that insufficient support is offered to adoptive parents. When a looked-after child is adopted, it is important that the decision-making process should proceed without undue delay, and that appropriate support be offered to adoptive parents during and after the process of adoption.

1235
In 1996, the social services inspectorate found that serious delays frequently occurred between the forming of a plan for the adoption of a child and the making of a placement. Those delays were found to be attributable partly to the absence of a sense of urgency on the part of the social services department or an unwillingness to commit resources to the cost of inter-agency placement. Of course we know that some local authorities discharge their duties competently. However, several of the witnesses who came before the Committee claimed that social services departments and social workers can display an irrational hostility to the concept of adoption.
The organisation Adoption Forum stated that the
"presumption that all children are better off with their birth families … is palpably lacking in common sense when so many children are mistreated, abused and neglected by those families",
and claimed that
"linked to this presumption is the practice of returning children time and again to their abusers or those who have been seen to be unable to deal with life as a parent … functioning biology does not make a person a good enough parent".
Adoption Forum argued that a child who has been "looked after" continuously for six months is unlikely to be successfully reconciled with his of her birth family in the long term, that in such cases adoption should be considered, and that it should be a statutory requirement for adoption to be considered in the cases of children who have spent more than 18 months in the care system.
A group of adoptive parents also gave oral evidence to the Health Select Committee. They claimed that many social workers were biased against adoption and that, when mothers were unable to cope with very young children and wished to have them adopted, undue pressure was often brought to bear on them to change their mind.
Sir William Utting said that his review team, reporting on the safeguards for children living away from home, had found evidence in 1987 that
"authorities are too careful and painstaking in their regard for parental rights and are less active in protecting children against known or suspected harm … some children told us that one of the worst things for them was actually being made to go home at weekends to families where they had been abused".
The Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services body agreed with the Adoption Forum that
"delays and too stringent criteria"
in the current care system made it unnecessarily difficult to adopt. However, it added that an I improved system would still not turn thousands of young, inexperienced, infertile couples who long for a baby into parents immediately able to take on board the needs and behaviour of an 18-month-old who has been severely neglected from birth, an eight-year old who has been rejected by his birth mother, abused by his mother's partners and moved 26 times through the care system, or a group of four brothers and sisters who need to stay together and to recover from years of sexual abuse.
Clause 3, which deals with fast tracking for the adoption of babies and young children, is particularly relevant to the points that I have raised. There is no doubt in my mind that it is in the best interests of a child to settle as young as possible into a new and permanent family unit. Let us make no mistake about it—influences on small babies and young children can have a profound effect on how they develop and mature. A warm, stable and, importantly, loving environment in which to grow
1236
up from the earliest moment is essential for laying the foundations of a well balanced and happy adult—an individual who will take their place in society as a contributor to the well-being of their community and give their own families, in due course, security and the knowledge of the meaning of loving care.
The more disruption there is in a child's life, the more difficult it may become to place that child as it grows older and to heal the damage from which it may have suffered, both physically and mentally, during the course of its early years.
12.8 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I support the Bill of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) and I am delighted that it has been introduced. Just like waiting for a bus, we have waited ages for such a Bill, and now two have come along at once. It is ironic that we have had what seems like Bill after Bill on this subject in the past couple of weeks.
I should like to declare two interests. The first is formal: I am a member of Stockport metropolitan borough council's social services committee, which is an adopting agency, so I see some of these issues from the local authority's angle. It has been a matter of intense concern to members of the committee to ensure that the life chances and educational chances of children in our care and protection are handled sensitively, and that we provide them in full measure as best we can.
My second interest is informal. I have five children, two of whom are adopted and of mixed race. They would probably be a little insulted to be described as children; they are both in their twenties and are making their way, very successfully, in the world. One of the facts of life in the adoption culture is that we would not have been permitted to adopt them if we had begun to do so five years later than we did because of their mixed racial background. I therefore have a particular perspective on the debate.
As my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Meriden showed, I think that preserving young people's life and educational chances is absolutely fundamental. That is the why I strongly support the changes to the adoption laws proposed in the Bill and in the Adoption and Children Bill, which the Government have introduced. The delays, the multiple placements, the changed physical locations, the different relationships that children have to form, the different schools that they attend, the different school friends that they have to make and the damage to a young person's emotional development that all that implies are precisely what creates the circumstances that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) outlined in referring to his court experiences. We must recognise the tremendous damage that we do simply because we try too hard to ensure that the care and the parents are appropriate.
If the revised laws, which I hope will soon be introduced, have the effect that their promoters, including the hon. Lady, want them to have, and if we can do anything to reduce the disruption and emotional betrayal, we will have done young people a tremendous service and, incidentally, produced real benefits for society. The fact of the matter is that children who slip through the adoption system are exactly the people who turn up in court later on.

1237
As an adoptive parent, I am perhaps in a good position to make a couple of points. Children are not a commodity. We are not simply trying to produce a more efficient supermarket so that the goods reach consumers as quickly as possible. The proposals are not about making it easy for adoptive parents; they must never be seen as a way to fulfil the wishes of middle-class couples in the shortest possible time. I say in all sincerity that, like every other hon. Member, I deal with people seeking adoption and a variety of matters relating to adoption, and people's expectations can be based on their own wish fulfilment, rather than on meeting the needs of children and young people.
Having said that, I want to turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who spoke about the training that adoptive parents undergo and the lack of training that he had as a natural parent. My wife and I had two natural children before starting our programme of adoption, if that is not too grand a title. We were aware of the stark contrast that existed. We did not have to ask anyone, and no one asked us, about our two natural children, but as soon as we wanted to adopt, people started to ask questions. When we had the first two, no one knew whether we were alcoholics, drug abusers or child abusers, and no one asked.
Luck was on our side and everything was okay, but as soon as we sought to adopt, every question was asked and every examination carried out. I do not resent that at all—in fact, it has brought my wife and I to a conclusion that is the reverse of that reached by the hon. Member for Brent, North: it should be rather more difficult to have natural children.
Mr. David Davis: Has the hon. Gentleman any proposals?
Mr. Stunell: I am well aware that a bit of levity does not go amiss, but we need to ensure that our young people have the parenting skills that make them effective natural parents, as well as ensuring that those who seek to become adoptive parents have the requisite skills. The level of skill needed is not lower for natural parents; it is the same. We make real efforts to ensure that adoptive parents have those skills. We test their skills before we let them loose. Parenting skills should perhaps be another subject in the national curriculum.
The hon. Member for Meriden needs to do a little more work on two or three points. She talked about extending the role of guardians ad litem so that they play a supervisory role for longer. The Minister asked precisely what she meant, and I hope that she will not mind my saying that she was a teeny bit woolly in her response. Does she envisage an extra six months, six years or 16 years? My experience as a member of a social services committee is that guardians ad litem are like gold dust. They have to be qualified social workers from outside the area. In Stockport, a number of our senior social workers already spend a good deal of their time acting as guardians to children in other authorities, and vice versa. There is a problem about expecting senior qualified people on loan from other authorities to provide the service for an extended period. That is not to say that behind her proposal there is not a good idea, but the hon. Lady perhaps needs to take a second look at it.
1238
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a point about the life experience that social workers bring to the job. My experience of adoption is many years ago now, but the social worker whom we dealt with was a young, unmarried woman. There was no harm in that; she was excellent. I have no complaints, but I hear stories that suggest that social workers sometimes come to the task with little idea of what bringing up children is about and carry out tests as though from a book. Some parents who have more experience of children and of life find that pretty tedious, especially if they are rejected. There is an issue not so much about social work training as about ensuring that social workers have the life experience that will fit them for their role.
I do not want to nit-pick with regard to this Bill or the Government's Bill. I am delighted that we are at last making progress in an area that cries out for reform, and I wish the Bill well
12.17 pm
Mr. David Davis: There is in my part of the world a rather apposite proverb, which is that good ideas have many parents and bad ideas have none. By that measure, the proposed adoption legislation is a good idea, because many claims have been made to its parenthood—to its maternity and paternity rights. I will not revisit the spat that we had on Monday, but my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has done a good job of midwifery on the legislative programme in encouraging what may be one of the most important pieces of social legislation of the decade. Her Bill highlights and corrects gaps in the Government's Adoption and Children Bill that were recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister, on Monday.
It is clear that the Government's Bill was rapidly drafted. That is why the Government sensibly took the route of a special Select Committee, which no doubt will run into the next parliament, whichever party wins the general election. Notable omissions were picked up in Monday's debate, and my hon. Friend has corrected them all in her Bill. We should be careful with social legislation, especially if it is important and is supported by Members on both sides of the House. Such legislation is most prone to being enacted without sufficient care and attention to detail. The Bill to create the Child Support Agency, to introduce care in the community and a series of other Bills are examples of that.
I am sorry that the Minister is not on the Bench, but I hope that the Government will adopt my hon. Friend's proposals in the special Select Committee that will consider their Bill. That is their best chance of making the statute book.
It is difficult to follow the many excellent speeches that have been made, including from the past Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), a magistrate who has dealt with the victims, if that is the right word, of the current system, a past Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. I shall be brief, and take up one point on each of the three clauses.
First, I refer to the passporting of money, on which there was some argument across the Chamber. The best example of the need for it was highlighted when the

1239
British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which represents most of the local authorities involved in adoption and fostering, tried to introduce a national adoption scheme of its own, by circulating pictures and details of children to many parents throughout the country. That scheme was thwarted by local authorities refusing to allow parents in their areas to cross borders. They had spent money on selecting parents. That simple resource shortage thwarted the first voluntary attempt to set up a national adoption register
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is entirely right when she says that we must have a capitation scheme. It does not matter whether that goes through the standard spending assessment directly or whether it is a legislative scheme, as is proposed. It must be clear, and it must apply to voluntary agencies. There are quite serious problems even between the voluntary sector and local authorities in this context.
For example, most local authorities think that it costs about £3,000 to recruit a new adoptive parent. Voluntary agencies have to find £14,000 for each parent. There are real problems in terms of how much to pay and where the money will come from, which thwarted the previous attempt to set up a register. These problems apply also to the various types of children who are passed on, and include age and the extent of damage. Those factors should dictate different levels of capitation. Therefore, the system will need to be carefully thought through.
My hon. Friend was right when she spoke about the appeals system. The White Paper contains several paragraphs that start with these words
"The Government will legislate to revise the review mechanism for assessments, to establish a new independent system."
That is taken up in some detail in paragraph 6.23. The matter is important in its own right. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said, there are some difficulties. However, it is necessarily important, not only because it will provide justice with in the system but because it will change the behaviour patterns of local authorities.
One of the difficulties within local authorities is the lack of oversight. In a non-transparent system, the pressures to behave properly and justly, with a view to the right outcome in the long term, disappear. They are often subsumed by matters such as resource shortages or the department having only untrained youngsters to put into the adoption and fostering sector. We are talking of a necessary requirement for justice and for a change of behaviour.
The Bill contains a proposal to fast-track babies, which arose on Monday. There is no doubt that it is an extremely important issue, as the Minister recognised on Monday. It is dreadful that the Association of Directors of Social Services does not recognise that. It does not regard fast tracking as one of the most serious issues to be taken on board. That is why legislation is required, or strong legislative guidance.
It is obviously assumed that fast tracking is the right thing. It is clear that a year in care for a one-year-old does more harm than a year in care for an 11-year-old, who perhaps has already been in care for 10 years. Statistics show that break-up rates for older children are much higher than those for younger children, but that does not pick up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, which was that the
1240
qualitative nature of the bond with a one-year-old is different from the bond with an 11-year-old. One knows that if one has teenage children, let alone if they are adopted. The Minister has accepted that argument, but directors of social services departments do not, and we must make that clear.
Finally, record keeping is extraordinarily important. Again, it is not dealt with in legislation, but it is important to recognise it from the perspective of social services directors and local authorities. Do social services directors know about all the children who have been moved six or seven times or even, in the case I cited on Monday night, 60 times? If a child dies in care from a drugs overdose, having been moved 60 times, social services directors must know how many times the child had been moved, and must have that drawn to their attention; the information must be easily available. Furthermore, everybody in their department must know that the figures will be available to the world at large—not information about individuals, but overall statistics on how well the department has done and what has happened to the children in its care.
If we do not have those records, the situation will continue; the placing of children will be driven by resources—how many foster parents are available—and the expediency of having to solve a problem by the end of the week, rather than solving it properly. My hon. Friend is right to put record keeping in her Bill.
May I repeat to the Minister what I said at the beginning of my speech? I hope that he will take note of the points that I have made, none of which is partisan, and virtually all of which were made on Monday by Members on both sides of the House, including the chairman of the all-party adoption group, a member of the Minister's own party. All those points are important and are perfect items to be considered during the special Select Committee stage of the Government Bill. That is the best way to ensure that the Minister gets a good Bill and that my hon. Friend's Bill makes it into law.
12.27 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on introducing a timely measure? I pay tribute to the work that she has put in during the lead-up to the presentation of her Bill, especially in the past week, not least since the publication of the Government Bill. A tremendous effort is involved in putting together and introducing a Bill that is in order, especially when there is short notice as a consequence of the introduction of a Government Bill on the subject.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the impact that she has had in expediting the Government measure. She sounded a cautionary note on the necessity of staying in order when debating her Bill, given the existence of the Government Bill; I took that as a warning that I should not be tempted to repeat the speech that I made on the Government Bill on Monday. I shall endeavour not to repeat myself but, given the number of Members who did not speak on Monday but have had a second opportunity to address the House on an important subject, it will be difficult to avoid much of the same agenda, even if I avoid making the same speech.
In her exposition of her Bill, my hon. Friend was extremely lucid about the importance of passporting finance and the question of an adoption allowance. If any

1241
Members were in the dark about the intricacy of those subjects before her presentation, they could not claim to be so now. Certainly, it would be impertinent of me to address those subjects in any detail, given her exposition. That is also true of what she said about the need for a fair and transparent appeals system.
My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who could not be with us on Monday. Had he been here, he would not have been out of place because our proceedings were characterised by a high-quality debate, and his contribution today lived up to that standard.
The hon. Gentleman brought us his valuable experience as the chairman of the Council of Europe social affairs committee. He drew our attention, rightly, to the variable performance of local authorities and he introduced a significant constituency case. Opinionated as we politicians naturally are, it is important for us to be conditioned by the real experience of ordinary constituents. Such constituency cases brought to our attention in the Chamber are vital to anchor us in the reality that ordinary people experience. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the need to scrutinise adoption agencies, and dealt with important aspects of overseas investment. He ended with a powerful call for unanimity and for the two Bills to be married together. I should certainly welcome that as the outcome of our debate today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) followed, and introduced a point that is implicit in all that has been said in the debate, but it was valuable to have it made explicit that adoption is for children. He went on to argue cogently that the state has failed as a parent and that, by contrast, adoption is a success. He drew attention to a troubling problem in some local authorities, but by no means all: in some cases, there is an institutional hostility to adoption and a preference for returning children to their birth families.
We know the possible consequences when those families have no desire for the children's return or are inadequate to it. I draw the attention of the House to the case of Rikki Neave in that respect. My right hon. Friend noted that 80 per cent. of children never return to their birth parents, and it is to those 80 per cent. that we owe a huge duty of care. By introducing measures such as the Bill, we shall provide them with a much greater opportunity to achieve the adoption that they so badly need.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) did us a service by drawing our attention to the Prime Minister's commitment to the subject. I hope that as a result of that commitment, the agenda will be moved swiftly forward and that both Bills will be united. The hon. Gentleman told us a great deal about the Government's Bill, which was not unhelpful. Notwithstanding the fact that we are not debating that Bill, it was useful to be reminded of the Government's proposals, and 1 thank him for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) spoke powerfully. It was a privilege to have the benefit of his experience as a member of the magistracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) gave us the benefit of her experience as a member of the Select Committee on Health. She gave an excellent
1242
exposition and spoke of the realistic prospect of reconciliation with birth families. That should not be denied, but I wonder whether she would agree that there is a difficulty when, social workers put the possibility of reconciliation with the birth family above every other priority. Such reconciliations fail much more often than do adoptions. I do not believe that public policy should ever be allowed to be driven by the sometimes capricious demands of birth families to be considered and to maintain some cursory contact, where that may wreck the child's chance of a new start in an adoptive family.
As I said on Monday, the irresponsibility of some birth parents must be limited in that respect. There are serial mothers who fantasise about gathering all their children together at some time in an ideal future, but such fantasies cannot be allowed to prevent children from pursuing their lives and getting a new start in the meantime. Of course, the alternative is to go through the care system, with all the consequences about which we have heard. I assume that my hon. Friend is thoroughly aware of those issues, as she quoted the Utting report in that regard.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made a tremendous contribution that was born out of his experience not only as a member of a local government social services committee, but as an adoptive parent. I thought that he was rather disparaging when he said that being an adoptive parent was no more difficult than being a natural one. I bow to his experience, as he is both, but I should have thought that being an adoptive parent was more difficult, as if requires greater resourcefulness. He implied that adoptive parents were more resourceful by saying that only they are required to demonstrate that they can carry out the task of parenting before they are allowed to do so.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of mixed-race adoption. I have done some reading about that, and I hope that he can help me on some of the issues that are raised. I have read expositions suggesting that children from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds should not be expected to be adopted in the same way as children from other backgrounds, because of the huge and much wider support systems that exist in Afro-Caribbean families. It is sometimes suggested that the children of such families can more readily be raised by aunts, uncles and close relatives than children from indigenous families.
I am doubtful about that. The reality is that statistics about those who are categorised as black children for adoption deal mainly with mixed-race children for adoption.
Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swayne: I shall do so once I have formulated my argument—if, indeed, I can do so.
The children to Whom I refer are generally of mixed race and usually have a white mother and a black father whose relationship has broken down. Such children have no means of support and no extended family, so there is a case for suggesting that we should not concern ourselves too much with finding the ideal family for a particular child. If staying in care is a likely consequence, surely any other option is better.
Mr. Stunell: I hesitate to lurch from being a parent to being a world expert in one intervention, but I must say

1243
that, in an increasingly multicultural and multi-ethnic Britain, we need to recognise that we are not talking about first-generation immigrants. That is certainly the case with my children, who were the product of natural parents who were not themselves first-generation immigrants. We are talking about people who are British, but of a different colour. I say to the hon. Gentleman—I want to keep this intervention short—that I hope that I shall have some debates with Conservative Members about precisely what we mean by the terms "multicultural" and "multi-ethnic". The fact is that we are talking about British children who happen to have a different ethnic background. They do not intrinsically have better support services or better—or even different—cultural backgrounds.
Mr. Swayne: That was a helpful intervention, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said that it was difficult to follow so many excellent speeches. I remind him of his excellent speech on Monday. In his short, important contribution today, he drew to our attention the way in which the previous attempt to establish a national register for adoption on a voluntary basis was thwarted because finance could not be passported. The Bill tries to tackle that problem. My right hon. Friend's telling point will inform our decision on the measure. He also spoke of the importance of fast tracking babies, and provided the significant insight that a year in care is much more damaging for a small child than for are 11-year-old.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned record keeping, which the Bill covers. Other speakers have not dwelt on that important point, but I shall say more about it later. He suggested considerations that directors of social services should make about the records that their local authorities should collect. Again, I want to revert to that subject shortly.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden set out the reasons for the Bill, she did us a service by recalling that we have an opportunity that generally occurs once in a generation in the history of adoption. That history goes well beyond the House's involvement, which began in the 1920s. Adoption has an ancient and distinguished history. The course of history would have been different if Moses had not been adopted by Pharaoh's daughter. However, transplanting an adoptee into a new family as a full member of it is a 20th-century phenomenon.
In the past, adoption was different. Foundlings and orphans were taken in by relatives or others in ancient societies, but they were rarely considered full members of the adoptive families with equal rights in the way in which the Adoption of Children Act 1926 established for the first time in Anglo-Saxon legal history. In the past, considerations of lineage and inheritance worked against the inclusion of adoptees as full and equal members of a family.
Despite the 1926 Act, institutions were considered to be the proper places in which to care for foundlings, orphans and children who had been rejected by their birth parents. That ethos extended into the second half of last century, when large institutions, many of them charitable, were created specifically for that purpose.
The Bill seeks to amend the Adoption Act 1976, which is the successor of the 1926 Act. Our understanding of adoption as shown in the measure and in the 1976 Act is
1244
a relatively new, 20th-century phenomenon. They are not based on the models of adoption that stretch back to ancient times.
It was stressed on Monday and today that an institutional background for children has been a disaster, which is compounded by the increase in family breakdown that we witness in our times.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden did us a service by drawing the level of family breakdown to our attention. In my experience, when constituents come to my surgeries with a problem, that problem might have manifested itself in any of a number of ways—but, in nine out of 10 cases, if we scratch the surface, family breakdown usually lies behind it. That is something that we face in our time more than ever before.
Local authorities have not been successful in protecting children in their care. Those children are the most disadvantaged, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden gave us a series of powerful statistics to bear that out. Let us face it, children leaving care account for less than 1 per cent. of their generation, yet they are vastly over-represented in measures of deprivation such as psychiatric disorder, poor health and a lack of educational achievement—75 per cent. of such children have no educational qualifications at all.
Children leaving care lack many of the basic life skills. More importantly, they are deprived of that kin support system that young adults enjoy by being members of a family, and being able to go home with their problems and receive advice, love and financial support. That is not available to children in care. That is why children who have been in care are over-represented among the homeless, the unemployed and those in prison. It is a shocking statistic that one in seven young women leaving care is either already a mother or pregnant. What possible start in life can a child have, being born to a young girl leaving care? The whole cycle of deprivation is set to begin again.
The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said on Monday that there had been a significant increase recently in the number of foster parents making their services available. That is encouraging and most welcome, because two thirds of local authorities have problems recruiting foster parents. One study showed that 60 per cent. of foster parents had been fostering for less than a year, so there is a relatively high turnover. As a result of the shortage, only 20 per cent. of local authorities can offer a choice of placement to a child under 10. Only 3 per cent. of local authorities can offer a choice of placement to an older child. That lack of scope for choice raises the question of how many children get a placement determined by a proper measure of their needs.
The foremost feature of the system is the children's experience of moving through multiple placements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke of a case in which a child had had 60 placements. There are many 10-year-old children in our land who have had 10 foster homes since the age of five. It is little wonder that they emerge from the process so disadvantaged. To be honest, we have abolished their childhood.
The alternative social policy to care and fostering is adoption. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden pointed out, adoption is a success: it

1245
works. In so far as anything works, only a substitute family seems up to the task of bringing troubled children into adulthood. That bears testimony to the therapeutic effects of the love of the new family. I suggest that the tremendous ability to overcome early disadvantage is evidence of grace working through our modern world.
Adopted children have fewer problems than non-adopted children from similar circumstances. It is important to bear that in mind, because in a telling intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), we learned that only 9 per cent. of adoptions fail. The figure is higher for older children who suffer with a number of particular disadvantages such as learning difficulties and special needs. Nevertheless, even for older children with special needs, the adoption failure rate is only about 20 per cent and, overall, adoption is successful in 90 per cent. of cases.
Of course, the younger the age at which adoption takes place, the more successful it is. Therefore, as I said on Monday, there is, to an extent, a possibility that adoption delayed is adoption denied, so our purpose must be to fashion a public policy to allow more children to benefit from adoption, and to benefit from it sooner, by tackling the delays. That is the context in which I consider the Bill.
The local authorities are the instrument through which adoption takes place and their performance is patchy: some are very good or exemplary, others not so. We have heard about the differential rates at which adoption is achieved, which are highly variable. We must find ways to get the worst to perform as the best and we must attack the endemic and systemic delays in the process.
We must also tackle the perception—I choose my words carefully—of political correctness, which hon. Members dealt with not so much today as on Monday. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made a brave attempt, and certainly the only one made on that occasion, to defend what some people would regard as political correctness, pointing out that, in many cases, it represents common sense. There is some force in what he said, but the risks in being adopted by fat people or smokers are very, very much smaller than those attendant on a child who is not adopted, but left in care.
It is important that we devise methods, such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, to ensure that more children are adopted and adopted more quickly. We must also ensure that the decision-making process involves appropriate decisiveness and minimum delay, and at various points we need sanctions against bureaucratic inertia.
Schools make public their performance tables annually. It would not be unreasonable to expect local authorities to publish—say, within 30 days of the year end—the number of children in care, the time that they have been in care and the number who are free to be adopted, but who have not yet been put in pre-adoptive placements. The provision of such statistics and the collection of that information would in itself provide incentives for the less-well-performing local authorities to perform better.
Given the increasing court time taken up by child protection and adoption cases, a culture of delay in family justice also has to be tackled. Time limits should be built into the regulations to enable proceedings to be expedited,
1246
as far as possible, with fast-track procedures such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden drew attention. Is it unreasonable to expect an adoption application to be completed in, say, three months, subject to the consent of the natural parents? Some cases are difficult, but in many examples it would be reasonable to expect that to be achieved. There is, of course, a wider argument about separating children's cases from the generality of court work.
Mr. Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on whether the existence of difficult cases perhaps places a question mark over including time limits in regulations rather than in best practice guidance?
Mr. Swayne: That is a forceful point. I would certainly want a framework of regulation to allow fast-track procedures. Even if we did not specify in regulations the timetables involved, I would want to see a framework there to achieve that. I look forward to discussing that with the Minister in the Committee that I am sure will follow our deliberations—
Mr. Owen Paterson: For months.
Mr. Swayne: Yes; this one will run and run.
As a cautionary note to what I was saying just before the Minister intervened, we would not want family law and adoption cases to be separated from the generality of court work and the judicial mainstream, and become simply an arm of social services departments.
Social services departments have not emerged from many reports and investigations as particularly efficient. Rather, they have often been seen as confused over their roles, with a lack of openness and accountability, and inexperienced and unqualified staff at both ground and supervisory levels. Obviously, problems concerning the prioritisation of adoption work have flowed from that. I refer in particular to the Murch and Lowe study, "Pathways to Adoption", which was published by the centre for family studies at Bristol university.
In contrast, workers from voluntary agencies are likely to have specialist training in child placement, small case loads and good supervision. The review of adoption law commissioned by the Department of Health and the Law Commission questioned whether local authorities should continue to have the primary responsibility for adoption practice at all, and in 1996 the social services inspectorate questioned whether the nature and volume of adoption work justified local authorities continuing to provide in-house services. It said that all the indicators pointed
"to a need for better managed and properly resourced network of adoption agencies. They possibly indicate the need to remove adoption work from … local authorities altogether—an option which at least should be considered. Whether improved management could best be achieved by a consortium of local authorities say on a regional basis, or by voluntary agencies acting on behalf of the local authorities, or even entirely separate from them, is not for us to say."
The 1996 draft Bill preserved the role of local authorities. Indeed, the Government's recently published Adoption and Children Bill, which we debated on Monday, also preserves that role. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, however, has suggested some measures that would provide a useful means of gingering up the performance of local authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities.

1247
Some of the inertia would be broken by providing passporting for finance in clause 1(3). The case for fast tracking was drawn movingly to our attention on Monday by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who gave an exposition of the importance, for small children in particular, of being sped through the system. What my hon. Friend suggests in subsection (3) is important in that respect.
An independent and transparent means of adjudicating on complaints—an appeals system, as provided by clause 2—is vital for providing a check on the conduct of the local authority.
In clause 3(2) my hon. Friend draws attention to the collection of data. The lack of routine data places a constraint on the ability of Government and organisations to monitor what is happening, and to be alert to changes. That important point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Only by having such data can people recognise shortcomings, and realise that certain things must be investigated. Even when records are kept, there have been considerable differences in format and coverage among different agencies.
Accurate and relevant information is essential to the management of any process, and to the wise development of policy. There has been some improvement—I welcome the recent statistical reports of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and the Office for National Statistics—but such initiatives rely on the care with which data have been collected locally, and that is dependent on how clear staff are about what information is to be kept, in what format, and for what purpose. It is dependent on the training of clerical staff, and on standardisation. We should learn from the example of Scotland, which has a much more comprehensive approach to the collection of adoption statistics. All that is in keeping with what the Secretary of State said in a letter about quality protects, which he sent to all elected members of social services committees at the end of 1998.
The quality of service to the individual is also affected by the quality of the information available. Those who make professional decisions about adoption must possess detailed and accurate histories of the children in question. Should a child be adopted, and when? Should it be placed with brothers and sisters? What kind of family is most likely to meet its needs? What support is required? Wise decisions about adoption also depend on a detailed and up-to-date knowledge of birth families, and the families with which children have been placed or might be placed. The assembly of that information must be selective and purposeful. We must identify the key information.
The Thomas and Beckford study "Adopted Children Speaking", a British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering publication of 1999, reveals that many children felt they had been denied details about their past, as well as information about the adoptive families to whom they were going. Although valuable information in the form of "life story" books can be available, many such books have not been available, and a great deal of information has been missing because it had not bee n kept up to date. I think that children should be able to obtain a full picture of their histories, albeit perhaps later in their lives, and such history needs to be kept in trust for them. The Bill addresses that issue.
The study also reports considerable dissatisfaction among adopters with the information they are given about children. They also complained about lack of information,
1248
court procedures and adoption allowances, but the two main complaints related to insufficient information about children's backgrounds—particularly their medical history—and the fact that some information was incorrect. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) made some powerful points in the House on Monday about the need to provide information so that adoptive parents know what they are taking on.
Birth parents cannot be ignored. After all, it is from them that essential information must be obtained, and recorded accurately and objectively. If adopters or children receive a negative picture of the birth parents and their way of life, attitudes can be created that prejudice the child's view of his or her history and origins. Although this morning's debate has not focused on it, the question of the recording of information—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has so usefully drawn to our attention—is a vital part of the overall equation.
The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, had compliments heaped upon him on Monday from hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many Conservative Members, regarding his commitment to his Bill and the way in which he had brought it forward and was striving to maintain a bipartisan approach. I hope that his ministerial colleague at the Department, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), will be able to share in those plaudits through the way in which he addresses the Bill today.
Many foster children discover that it is an embarrassment to be a foster child and experience that embarrassment at a very young age. Those children like to pretend that they have real parents because they have a strong desire to have a proper family. This Bill, together with the Government's Bill, offers many of those children the potential to make their pretence a reality—to make their dreams come true, in effect. It is down to those of us who are close to the levers of power—indeed, we are getting closer by the day—and those who have the levers of power in their hands at the moment to adopt a bipartisan approach and, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, to strain every sinew on behalf of those children. I commend the Bill to the House.
1.7 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on her success in the private Member's ballot and on her choice of this topic for a private Member's Bill. I acknowledge her consistent interest in the issue, which she has shown again today. I would like to recognise and to pay tribute, as, in effect, hon. Members on both sides of the House have done, to the personal commitment of the Prime Minister to the issue of adoption. I do not think that anyone would question that he has been instrumental in ensuring that not just in my own Department, but in Departments across Government, issues of children's welfare and adoption in particular have been driven forward. I also pay tribute to the work of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has done the hard slog in producing both the White Paper and the associated national standards and the Bill.

1249
We have had a good debate, as we did on Monday. The House can therefore be confident that our proceedings will be comprehensively ignored by the media and the world outside, which concentrate on affairs here only if we are having a big row with each other. We can draw some confidence from the debates on Monday and today that, as the Government Bill proceeds through the House, there is a commitment on both sides of the House to the proper scrutiny of that Bill and the many issues that have been raised today, including the issues raised by the hon. Member for Meriden, so that we get the legislation right.
Reference was made on Monday—I am afraid that, sitting here this morning, I have been unable to track it down in Hansard—to the dangers of legislation that has cross-party support. Someone referred to the Child Support Agency as a not terribly impressive example of both sides of the House basically agreeing with what the measure was about and not managing to get the detail correct. It is essential that, as the legislation on adoption goes through the House, we make sure that it is properly scrutinised, that all the issues are dealt with and that the right amendments are tabled and adopted.
We can be fairly certain that there is considerable expertise among hon. Members on both sides of the House—much more than I personally would claim to have on the issue. A number of hon. Members have been pursuing an interest in the topic over several years. Provided that we can bring that to bear on the legislation, we can make the once in a generation step forward to which hon. Members have referred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—replying to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who suggested that adoption was a relatively recent invention—offered me a list of literary references, from Shakespeare to the Brontës and Dickens, to comparable arrangements. However, as my hon. Friend also thought that the final scenes of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" took place in Mexico, I shall not share those references.
Mr. Wardle: It was Colombia.
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House. I am sure that the combined wisdom of the Treasury-Bench quiz team is right in saying that the final scenes took place in Bolivia.
The hon. Member for Meriden quite rightly said that there are precedents for private Members' legislation being considered so speedily after the Second Reading of similar Government legislation. However, there was perhaps more of an edge to the disability discrimination legislation, because the sentiment behind that private Member's legislation was to make the Government's legislation much more radical. None the less, it is quite appropriate that we should have a second debate on this type of legislation.
The hon. Lady explained that her Bill had been written essentially between Monday night and Thursday lunchtime. She will forgive me if I say that, on a first reading, that shows. However, she explained the procedural reasons why the Bill had to be framed as it has been and the need to concentrate on issues that have not already been discussed by the House.
1250
I should like to reply to most of the points that have been raised today by hon. Members. Then I hope to address any remaining issues and, in particular, to indicate the Government's initial response on the Bill's key provisions. I think that the hon. Lady and the whole House will accept that those proposals should be considered as issues for discussion and as possible amendments to the Government's Adoption and Children Bill as that legislation is considered by the House. Therefore, although my comments will indicate our initial reaction to the Adoption Bill, which was printed yesterday, I am sure that the House will wish to consider the Bill's proposals in more depth and detail than we shall be able to give them today
On several occasions, the hon. Lady mentioned social services spending, particularly adoption allowances—which I shall deal with later. It would have been helpful to know whether the Opposition were committing themselves to sustain even current projected levels of social services spending. As the Opposition have failed so far to do that, I think that one is allowed some scepticism when they mention the need for additional spending.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—who has given his apologies for having to leave the debate to return for his constituency surgery this afternoon—spoke with great experience as a parliamentarian both in the House and internationally in the Council of Europe, and based on his constituency and local government roles. He stressed the importance of putting children's needs and interests at the heart of the adoption process.
My hon. Friend expressed some concern about the scrutiny of adoption agencies. In the United Kingdom, however, unregulated adoption agencies are unlawful. Only local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies approved by the Secretary of State can make arrangements for adoption. Currently, voluntary adoption agencies are inspected and approved by the social services inspectorate.
From 2002, however, the National Care Standards Commission will regulate voluntary adoption agencies and local authority adoption services. The commission will conduct regular inspections of services against new national minimum standards. I therefore hope that, if there are any shortcomings in current arrangements for the regulation of voluntary adoption agencies, they will be effectively addressed when the new arrangements are implemented.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting was the only hon. Member to talk at any length today about international adoption issues. I do not intend to dwell for long on those issues today. However, on Monday, in introducing the Government's Adoption and Children Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health informed the House of that Bill's provisions to strengthen the safeguards on international adoption. We are taking measures through other legislation to sign up to the Hague convention. Once we have done so, not only can other safeguards be put in place but it will enable us to consider, if necessary, whether the existing bilateral arrangements are the right ones. I therefore believe that those concerns are being progressively addressed by the measures that the Government are taking
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) made a wide-ranging and constructive speech. He discussed the costs and causes of delay in the

1251
system. He also highlighted the possible danger if everything was concentrated on dealing with the hardest cases of placement, and described how delaying placement for children who were easier to place would, in turn, become a problem for those children. We have acknowledged that; the White Paper that we published before Christmas drew attention to the success that some councils have had in establishing a permanence team to allow them to reduce the length of time that children have to wait for adopters.
The White Paper referred to my local authority of Southampton, which established a permanence team in 1997 covering all aspects of adoption. Contingency planning is now established practice. It provides a virtually seamless transfer between the teams, with the plan for adoption being considered by the adoption panel prior to the final court hearing. The experience has been that the waiting time has been reduced, especially for babies with no special placement needs. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's call for best practice to be spread so that we can tackle problems as effectively as possible.
An interesting part of the debate has been the difference in emphasis put by right hon. and hon. Members on the process of deciding whether it was in the best interests of the child to go for adoption. From his local government experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting justified what he considered the reasonable inquiries that should be made before a child is placed with adoptive parents, while the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was critical of some of those inquiries.
I believe that the answer lies in the way in which the Government Bill attempts to set out clearly the process that should be followed, the time scales that should be worked towards, the issues that should be taken into account and, to support all those factors, the training that should be made available to the professional staff in each case to make sure that the decision taken is in the best interests of the child. None of us believes that we can make sweeping statements about what is in the best interests of children, aside from a proper consideration of each child and his or her needs. The standards and issues identified in the Government Bill clearly put the interests of the children first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North referred to children who are placed into adoption out of their local authority area. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Meriden, spoke about where the financial responsibility lies in such a situation, how funds are transferred, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North was making the point that an adoption should be seen as a successful placement of a child with a family, and that it is not desirable to have links for ever and ever with the history of that child and hence with the local authority from which the child comes.
It is clearly important to have a financial arrangement that facilitates adoption, including adoption out of the child's original local authority. After all, the whole point of having a national register is so that children can be matched with prospective adopted parents. In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) referred to placing children outside their own local authority area.
I shall deal with a number of those issues together. In our view, it is normally better to place children in their own local authority areas, except where they would be at
1252
risk, and it is for each local authority to find the best placement for each child, although that may be outside the child's local authority area in some cases. The House will know that one of the priorities in the quality protects initiative is to improve placement choice, and we are working closely with local authorities and other key organisations to ensure that the substantial funding provided by that initiative is appropriately targeted.
In a related intervention, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked whether children would be the responsibility of the local authority that had originally placed them for adoption, or that of the new, home local authority, if an adoption broke down. At present, the position varies. If the placement breaks down before adoption, the child is still the responsibility of the placing authority. If it breaks down after adoption, when the child is, by definition, no longer in care, the responsibility tends to fall to the receiving authority.
We shall develop the new framework for adoption support in consultation with the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association and others. That will include how money flows around the system to support the objective of having a national register for adoption, which will be accessible to adoptive parents and children who need to he placed for adoption. That is, in part, a response to the hon. Lady's initiative in clause 1.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With some difficulty, I have just obtained from the Vote Office the document issued by the Department of Trade and Industry entitled, "Mirror Group Newspapers PLC", which has just been published and is available through the Stationery Office. On making inquiries, the very helpful young man in the Vote Office told me that he did not expect any further supplies of the document from the Department of Trade and Industry because someone there had said something along the lines of "Not us, guv. Nothing to do with us. You'll have to go elsewhere."
I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to cause inquiries to be made into the status of that document and into whether it should be made freely available to Members through the Vote Office in the normal way; there should be no question whatever of the Department of Trade and Industry seeking to limit supplies of the document to Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair to comment on directly. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard what he has had to say, and it is to be hoped that the matter will be put right as quickly as possible.
Mr. Denham: As I was saying, in developing the new framework for adoption support, which will include post-adoption support and the financial allowances, we want to consider how our objectives of making a national register available to prospective adoptive parents and children who need to be adopted can be satisfactorily achieved. We will want to make regulations, under clauses 3(8) and 4(8) of the Adoption and Children Bill, to set out clearly the financial responsibility of placing and receiving local authorities.

1253
We are, of course, generally providing more money—more than £60 million over the next three years—to support the promotion of adoption. That will help to tackle the disincentives relating to resources that have been mentioned. The hon. Lady proposes a particular mechanism to link the money to each child, by which she seeks to achieve the objective of creating a system with no disincentives. We are not convinced that that is the right way forward. We recognise the need to tackle the issue, and propose to do so through regulations, but I am sure that the detail of how money flows around the system will be properly discussed when the Adoption and Children Bill is considered in Committee.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke about the cost to individual children and society of failures in the child care system, as did several hon. Members on both sides of the House. He drew from his experience in discussing the link between failures of the child care system and involvement in crime. He went through several provisions in the Bill—on finance, which I have dealt with, on appeals, which I shall come to later, and on fast-tracking younger children, which I have dealt with in part but shall come back to later.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred to some conclusions drawn by the Health Select Committee, including conclusions drawn during her distinguished chairmanship. She used the expression "absence of urgency" in referring to the procedures of some social services departments in dealing with adoption, and talked about problems of resources. I hope that the Government's Adoption and Children Bill will deal with both issues by establishing a framework that will include time scales within which local authority social services departments will be expected to consider whether a child should go for adoption and within which adoption should successfully be achieved. We will also invest new money in adoption through quality protects. We will help to tackle both issues.
The hon. Lady suggested that there was an over-emphasis on returning children to the birth family, irrespective of other options. The point of the Government's approach—I think that there is cross-party consensus on this—is that the best interests of the child must be the overriding and governing principle. We are setting down in our Bill a set of issues that must be taken into account, subject to the test that any action must be in the best interests of the child. That means that one cannot have a fixed preconception about what is in the interests of a child before he or she has been assessed.
Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister accept that there is sometimes a professional search for perfection that leads to the very delays and difficulties that undermine a satisfactory outcome?
Mr. Denham: The point was made effectively by the hon. Gentleman when he talked about his personal experience, and by several other hon. Members, that purely assessing the absolute merits of a course of action rather than the choices available to a child can lead to a difficult situation. Several hon. Members spoke of their concerns: it is as though the best becomes the enemy of the good. Such an attitude should be challenged if the
1254
process of considering the child's best interests has been established. By logic, considering the best interests of the child will lead people to consider the options that are practically open in the circumstances, and which one of those is best.
Mr. Heald: Does the Minister have any concerns about social work practice? Does he agree that adoption is seen as a draconian last resort? Is it not necessary for social workers to take far more account of the fact that continually trying to re-establish a child in a family where the parents are hardly able to look after themselves may be draconian in itself?
Mr. Denham: I accept that things have been done with the best motivation but have turned out to be wrong. I am not one of those who will indulge in a sweeping attack on the social services profession. Although occasionally—as in any other profession—we see examples of incompetence and bad practice, people have for the most part genuinely believed that what they were doing was in the best interests of the child, even where things have gone wrong. As a Government, we are saying that that has brought us to an outcome that we do not want.
We have heard all the statistics about the failures of children in care in education, their failure to establish relationships, their involvement in crime and so on. The process that we propose, with the expectation that adoption will be properly considered within a reasonable time scale, will begin to change those attitudes and failures.
I would not underestimate the need to back up the legal and procedural charges proposed in the Bill with the need for continued professional training of social workers. We have made substanial sums available over the next few years for improved training of social workers, which is extremely important.
Rather than blaming individuals, I like to recognise attitudes over time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said on Monday, over an extended period it was thought that sending children to the other side of the world would be in their best interests. We have learned since that some horrific mistakes were made as a result. I am sure that the vast majority of those involved genuinely thought that they were acting in the children's best interests. I hope that the consensus that is reflected in the Chamber now, as it was on Monday, on the important role of adoption and the way in which we should approach it will lead to better outcomes for children than we have seen in the past. That is our commitment, and I think that it is shared throughout the House.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke in part about his own experience. I think that he shared some of my concerns about the role set out in the Bill of guardians ad litem. There is a sign of slippage from their current and specific role of giving advice towards a wider role in the system. I shall return to that.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) raised a number of issues, including the importance of record keeping and the need to know what is happening to children. I share his view that it is important to know what is going on within a system. I have no doubt that one of the reasons for a fall in the number of long trolley waits in accident and emergency

1255
departments over the past year or so is that we have insisted that chief executives should Know whether they are happening. People should know what is going on within their organisations. It is a prompt to take action if standards are not being met.
The Government are taking action to improve planning and record keeping for children. Over the next year, we shall develop an integrated record keeping system, which will bring together planning and record keeping for children in need in the community, and for those who are looked after by local authorities.
We want to improve local authorities' information and record keeping so that they can track the progress of the children for whom they are responsible. That is a key theme of the quality protects programme. Implementation of the new time scale targets in the national adoption standards will drive this process. It is worth noting that each year we publish figures by local authorities on the numbers of looked-after children who are adopted. It is a national social services performance indicator. We shall want to review performance indicators to ensure that appropriate indicators are in place to support the measures that are set out in the White Paper.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West rehearsed his concerns about some of the inappropriate established attitudes that might be brought to bear. I think that I expressed my views on that subject in an earlier exchange. Again, it is a matter of getting the process right, getting the measures right, getting the issues right that should be taken into account and ensuring that staff are properly trained.
I have a slight qualification to make. I am not sure that this is what the hon. Gentleman intended, but it sounded at times as though he felt that adoption was the only thing that could work for children in care. I think that we all recognise that that will not always be the outcome. He is aware of the Government's support for adoption and our support also for fostering. It will not always be possible to meet the needs of all children through either of the two routes. We must recognise that there is still a job to be done for children who cannot be cared for in either way.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the role of local authorities and referred to the earlier report, which questioned whether it should be a local authority role to handle adoption. The matter was considered in the performance and innovation unit report, and it has certainly been considered by the Government. It is our view that local authorities generally should be responsible for running the adoption service. The White Paper published in January held out the possibility that, if a local authority was simply unable to run an effective adoption service, responsibility could be transferred to another local authority or voluntary adoption agency. That is not dealt with directly in the Government Bill because the legislative power to make such a transfer is given to us in the best value legislation.
Finally, I turn to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Meriden and the specifics of her Bill. Clause 3 covers the assessment of children for adoption; the Bill also includes powers to make regulations setting out how adoption agencies should carry out their functions of making arrangements for adoption, placing children for adoption and keeping records. We are already dealing with the time scales for assessing children. The national adoption standards, which were published for consultation
1256
alongside our adoption White Paper in December, set challenging time scales for assessing children. Standard time scales will not suit all children; they need to be flexible to take into account the needs of individual children. Regulations are unlikely to offer the necessary flexibility. We shall take into account responses to the consultation on the national adoption standards when dealing with those issues.
As the House will know, one objective is that a plan for a child should normally be drawn up no more than six months after he or she has come into care—sooner, if that is appropriate for the child. If adoption is the plan, a best interest decision should be made in six weeks and a match with parents in a further six months. It is important for younger children that decisions should happen as soon as possible; for babies and infants, speed is extremely important. That is why the standards proposed where a parent requests that his or her baby be placed for adoption specify that a placement be identified in three months and adoption panels meet, with 48 hours' notice if necessary, to make decisions on babies and infants.
Mrs. Spelman: I have read the Government Bill carefully, and would be grateful for clarification. Will the two processes of placement and adoption take place one after the other, or does the Bill provide for twin-tracking where adoption is the likely outcome?
Mr. Denham: I am not entirely clear what the hon. Lady means by twin-tracking. Placement is part of the adoption procedure set out in the Bill. Perhaps I can write to her on that point. However, we share common ground in recognising that there are circumstances in which it should be possible to place a child for adoption successfully using a timetable faster than that set out for normal circumstances in the national standards. Regulations may tie things down too tightly, but I am sure that that issue can be examined in detail in Committee.
Adoptive families will benefit greatly from improvements to post-adoption support, for which provision is made in the Adoption and Children Bill. It is unacceptable that the provision of adoption services across the country is patchy and inconsistent; as many as one in five adoptive placements break down before the child is legally adopted. We cannot keep letting down children who have already gone through at least one family breakdown. Adoptive families need access to services that will support adoptive placements and help them to last.
Post-adoption support services that adoptive families may find useful include support groups, where they can meet adoptive families with similar experiences; counselling for adoptive children to help them understand their new circumstances; and support for adoptive siblings to help them to come to terms with a new brother or sister. That is why we want to place, for the first time, a clear duty on local authorities to make arrangements to provide adoption support services, including financial support.
Clause 1 deals with the provision of financial support. As I said earlier, we acknowledge the issues, but we believe that we should deal with them in regulation, and shall make those arrangements clear. Again, that can be worked through in detail when the Bill is discussed in Committee.

1257
Clause 2 includes a right of appeal for adopters, prospective adopters and guardians ad litem. Our proposal is that we should build confidence in the adopter recruitment process by ensuring that prospective adopters are treated fairly at all times. We will take powers to set up a new independent review mechanism for prospective adopters who feel that they are being turned down unfairly. An independent body appointed by the Secretary of State will convene a review panel to re-examine the evidence and make a fresh recommendation to the agency. The adoption agency must then consider both the new recommendation and the recommendation of the original agency panel before making its final decision.
Prospective adopters will have a choice of review methods, but in practice most are likely to prefer the objective nature of the independent review mechanism. In some cases they may wish to go back to the original agency panel instead, to correct simple errors of fact.
There is a specific purpose behind the proposed mechanism. It will build confidence in the assessment process and encourage more prospective adopters. Adoption is a mainstream social services function, and it is appropriate for more general complaints about the adoption service provided by local authorities to be dealt with by the local authority social services complaints procedure. We are carrying out a thorough review of that procedure. We must make sure that it meets the needs of all of those who may need it, including those affected by adoption.
The hon. Lady's Bill is, as she said much wider than the scope of the Government's Bill. She seems to be proposing a system under which any aspect of any decision at any point of the adoption process would be subject to independent review. That cuts across the principle that I set out earlier—that adoption is a mainstream local authority function and should be dealt with through those process. A process whereby every facet of every part of every decision could be subject to independent review would hardly be likely to speed up the process of adoption and clear decision making. Again, I am sure that the matter will be examined in Committee.
The role of guardians ad litem is clearly set out in law. They are appointed in care order and contested adoption cases to provide the court with independent expert advice, and to represent and advise on the child's interest and welfare. They are not set up or empowered to act as some sort of independent inspectorate or regulator of social services, as the hon. Lady seemed to intend—although I may have misinterpreted her. There has been no call from guardians ad litem for an appeal mechanism such as her Bill sets out.
Mrs. Spelman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Because of the existence of the two Bills, it is easy to be confused. When he says that the matter will be considered in Committee, is he saying that the provisions of my Bill will be considered in a special Select Committee, or is he speaking of the Government's Bill? I need to know that in order to decide whether to press the Second Reading motion to a Division.
Mr. Denham: The answer is that I have no control over the amendments that the Opposition might choose to table to the Government's Bill at the appropriate time. Clearly, all the issues raised by the hon. Lady are capable of being discussed as amendments to the Government's Bill. Procedurally, it is not possible to take both Bills forward at the same time, so it will be for her to decide what she wants to do with her own Bill. The issues that she wishes to raise could be tabled at the appropriate point in Committee as Opposition amendments to the Government's Bill, which received its Second Reading on Monday night. Beyond that, it is not for me to give advice on procedural matters.
We cannot commend the hon. Lady's private Member's Bill because we believe that adoption issues are better dealt with by the Government's Bill. As that Bill makes its way through the House, there will be more than enough opportunity for all the issues that were raised today to be discussed on the basis of amendments tabled by members of that Committee. I have no doubt that the Government will want to ensue that all those issues are properly considered, but I am afraid that I cannot commend the hon. Lady's Bill to the House.
1.45 pm
Mrs. Spelman: I was listening attentively—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must have the leave of the House.
Mrs. Spelman: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the Minister's speech, to which I listened attentively I listened especially carefully to his final remarks, which dealt with the specific content of the Bill. Of course, I recognise that the existence of two Bills that deal with adoption—mine and the Adoption and Children Bill—can result in some ambiguity, but I hope that all hon. Members will accept that this debate will at least help to ensure that something will happen in the very near future. That is the important point. Furthermore, if my Bill was a catalyst for the Government's Bill, that would also make it worth while.
The fact that we are debating both Bills at what appears to be the 11th hour before a general election increases the chance of their prompt reappearance in the next Parliament. Obviously, it is arrogant of any Government of any persuasion to assume that they will be re-elected or to think that any business that falls before an election will automatically reappear afterwards. Such assumptions cannot be made, but we have pledged that when and if we are elected, we will announce an adoption Bill in our first Queen's Speech.
The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), was asked about that on Monday night, but he could not make a commitment. As we heard today, however, the Government are obviously minded to roll their Bill forward into the special Select Committee that was mentioned in the programme motion that was debated on Monday, although it appears that their timing will be knocked asunder by the general election.
Some of the specific questions that were asked on Monday about the way in which the special Select Committee would work were not answered, but are pertinent to the position outlined today by the Minister,

1259
who told me that I will have do this work all over again if I am still in the fortunate position of having my job as a Front-Bench spokesman on health with special responsibility for adoption. He said that the Government would not commend my Bill to the House and that we would have to try to introduce its provisions by tabling amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill. That is especially disappointing because I tried to address gaps in that Bill whose existence were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
In the bipartisan spirit that has been apparent today, it would have been appropriate for the Government to acknowledge the purpose of my Bill—if not its exact wording, which might not have been is refined as it could have been, because of lack of time—and to think about it, perhaps with a view to tabling their own amendments. It is perfectly possible for a constructive Opposition to provide the sort of nuts and bolts that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), and to make general improvements to the structure that has been put in place by the Government of the day.
I was not entirely satisfied that the Government understood what I meant about the importance of record keeping. The Minister sought to placate me by referring to the better statistical monitoring that the Government have established for adoption, but it is not so much the bare statistics about which I am worried. I am more anxious about the fact that those statistics concern individuals—real people and real children. We are all aware of the number of sad cases that have occurred. We all know the names of the children whose tragedies have been described in the press. For example, Rikki Neave was mentioned. Those names stick in our memory because we know that the system failed them. I want to ensure that a child is not lost in care and does not simply drop through the system. Statistical record keeping and monitoring are important but not enough. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister rejected that aspect of the Bill.
I feel strongly that the Government miss the point about independence in appeals. I was at pains to stress that, in a complaints procedure or an appeals system, it is vital for those who want to make a complaint to believe that it will be heard objectively. Simply saying that there is an appeals procedure that is run by the
1260
social services against which the individual wants to complain does not satisfy my quest for an independent appeals system for adoption.
I am not happy that the Government are unwilling to commend the Bill. I remain principally motivated by the child, for whom we are trying to eradicate damaging delay. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West used a phrase that stuck in my mind. He said that adoption postponed is often adoption denied.
The Government's unwillingness to accept or commend the Bill means that we overlook the fact that delays will remain in the system. The principal sufferers are the children whose cases several hon. Members have eloquently pleaded this morning. I therefore wish to press the matter to a Division.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 14, Noes 0.

Division No. 169]

[1.52 pm

AYES

Baldry, Tony

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Stunell, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Swayne, Desmond

Heald, Oliver

Wardle, Charles

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Lansley, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Eric Forth and

Paterson, Owen

Mr. James Paice.

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Andrew Dismore and

Mr. Andy King.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Secret Societies (Registration of Membership) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.5 pm
Mr. Charles Wardle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should explain that this is the first time in 18 years that I have succeeded in bringing a private Member's Bill to the Floor of the House, so if I am a little rusty on the procedure, it is because I have been sitting here thinking about other things.
This is a short Bill with a clear and narrow objective. It simply requires that anyone elected to a local authority, the House of Commons or the National Assembly for Wales who is a member of a secret society—for example, and perhaps most obviously, the freemasons—shall register his membership with that public body.
I am pleased to say that there has been cross-party support for the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body), and to the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). As has been pointed out to me, that is an eclectic bunch if ever I saw one. I am grateful for their support, and for the support and advice that I have received from many people both inside and outside the House, especially Mr. Martin Short, who wrote a best-selling book on the subject some years ago.
May I add—without straying out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that, depending on what statement is or is not made on Monday, this may be my last opportunity to make a speech in the House? I am sure that I am not the only person on the Opposition Benches who has felt the excitement of a further career challenge, which in my case will involve a return to the business world, from which I entered the House 18 years ago.
I make it clear from the outset that I have come across freemasons throughout my adult life. An uncle of mine was chaplain to the Royal Masonic hospital, and when I worked in industry, many of my colleagues were freemasons. I have no hesitation in defending their right to privacy for the activities that they pursue in their private lives. I respect their sense of fellowship and admire their charitable good works.
However, I maintain that once a person crosses the threshold into elected public office, he or she should register that interest. That is the nub of the Bill. I am pleased to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who belongs to such a secret society, and who has for some time recorded that fact in the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend's Bill applies to membership of the House, which is regulated by the Register of Members' Interests and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. My hon. Friend did not give evidence to the Committee during its latest inquiry, and I do not know whether he has seen the conclusion of its report, which was published last week. It says:
"The Code does not, and the House should not, seek to regulate what Members do in their purely private and personal lives."
1262
I consider my involvement in masonic lodges to be purely personal and private. If the Committee on Standards and Privileges does not consider that a matter for the Register of Members' Interests, why does my hon. Friend feel that registration should be a statutory requirement?
Mr. Wardle: Because I abhor the idea of secrecy among people who are elected to public office. I am presenting this Bill because I think it important, in the spirit of openness and accountability, for Members to be steered in that direction. If a statutory requirement is necessary, as I believe it is, the Bill is necessary. I shall enlarge on the subject shortly: I shall say something about Lord Neill's advice to his own Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I think is pertinent to what my hon. Friend has said.
It stands to reason that the Bill will not reach the statute book, not just because of the Minister's endeavours, but because it is being presented at a fairly late stage in the current Parliament. However, I hope that it will at least put down a marker, even if not every Member considers it appropriate.
A report on freemasonry published by the Select Committee on Home Affairs a few years ago found that suspicions about the influence of freemasonry were damaging, and that the main cause of those suspicions was the secrecy that surrounded freemasons. I think I am right in saying—provided that there is time, the Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that the Government have taken steps to bring about the establishment of a register of freemasons for the police, the judiciary, magistrates and other categories of public official. I understand that there has been some resistance from the Police Federation, which has involved the Human Rights Act 1998; but it may be significant that the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks there should be a register of all those in government who are freemasons or members of similar organisations in cases in which a conflict of interests could arise. Inevitably, both in local government and in Parliament, there are numerous potential conflicts of interest, and I think that that fortifies the argument for my Bill.
To set an example to other public officials, members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life have established their own code of practice, requiring them to register
"any private interest which might influence their judgement or which"—
this is the crucial part—
"could he perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to do so"
The inevitable conclusion must be that, sooner or later, the need for openness and accountability in public life that I cited to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will lead to legislation embracing that principle.
I have mentioned the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I wrote to its chairman, Lord Neill, asking whether, in view of paragraph 9 of appendix 2 of the committee's report, he or any of the committee's male members were freemasons. I received an oblique reply, in which the noble Lord said he believed that all members of the committee had complied with the requirements they had set themselves. Beyond that I was told absolutely nothing, which may come as no surprise.

1263
For the avoidance of doubt, I should tell the House that I am not and have never been a freemason, nor have I sought to become one. Only in the past year have I developed a greater awareness of things masonic. It began with what I suppose was a mildly amusing cartoon in Private Eye, which lampooned me for having signed up to the employ of a well-known emporium in Knightsbridge. I did so, I may say, with the full clearance of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The cartoon featured some masonic symbolism. In the same spirit of satire, I sat down and wrote a letter to Private Eye in which I said that I was not and never had been a freemason, but some of my ex-best friends were. It may surprise some Members that, as a result of that little exchange, I began to receive messages from constituents disclosing their concerns and reservations about freemasonry—constituents whom I have known for years, and whom I trust. One is a former mayor of Bexhill, an experienced former district councillor. He invited me to his house and told me that he had been a freemason most of his life, but was concerned about some practices. That increased my awareness of the subject. Until that Private Eye correspondence, no one had approached me about problems with freemasony. When people did get in touch, the first comment was that they had found nowhere else to raise the subject of to seek redress and would I help. I suppose that that provided the beginnings of the Bill.
All those revelations persuaded me that, if I were to be successful in the ballot for private Members' Bills—
Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wardle: I will in a moment. I know that my hon. Friend will make a speech if there is time. I hope that he will let me just finish this point. All those revelations persuaded me that, if I were to be successful in the ballot, I should like to draw the subject to the House's attention.
Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend says that there is nowhere to seek redress. Part of the Bill deals with local government. He knows that there is a local government ombudsman. Would it interest him to know that, over the past five years, the ombudsman has investigated some 76,951 complaints, that of those just 24 alleged some improper masonic influence, and that of those he upheld just two? Therefore, over the past five years, the ombudsman has out of 77,000-odd complaints upheld just two—that is 0.001 per cent.—as having anything improper to do with freemasons.
Mr. Wardle: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have no idea whether the ombudsman is a freemason. I do not in any sense cast aspersions at the ombudsman, but, if my hon. Friend, as a freemason himself, does not understand what the Select Committee on Home Affairs said some years ago—that the secrecy is worrying to members of the public—and that that fear of secrecy, that apprehension, prompts many people not to ask questions and not to make a complaint because they do not know who will react and how they will react, I fear that he has buried his head in the sand on this important subject. I am sure that that really is not the case.
I give some general illustrations of what I mean and why it is important that there should be a statutory requirement. One of the points raised with me by my
1264
constituents, including constituents who are themselves freemasons and let me know that they are, was that, of the five main committees on Rother district council, four were chaired by freemasons. Good for them. I have absolutely no doubt that they were the most suitable choices for those jobs, but what is important and pertinent is that just one of those four chairmen had previously registered his masonic interest. Two of the others did so only when the local Member of Parliament began to ask questions about the subject—questions raised by other constituents. They then put their names on the voluntary register. It is right and proper that there is a voluntary register. The other, who is chairman of the planning committee, to the best of my knowledge did not and has not yet registered his masonic interest, even though he is a past master of a lodge in, I believe, Battle.
I stay with that individual and talk about another situation that throws up the sort of conflict of interest that worries people who do not know enough about the subject and are nevertheless concerned. The individual to whom I have referred is also a member of the governors of the local high school: Bexhill high school. He was part of the process, as he should have been, in recruiting a new head teacher. I have absolutely no doubt that he approached that matter with evenhandedness and fairness, and I have no doubt at all that the governors made an excellent choice when they decided on the next head teacher. However, the fact is that that head teacher, who is doing a thoroughly good job—as is the councillor to whom I referred and who was a member of the governors participating in the selection process—was also a past master of a nearby lodge, in St. Leonards I think, just outside my constituency.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. However, it does raise a question on which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and the House will reflect. Should not the other governors, the teaching staff and the parents have been told that both those gentlemen belonged to that particular society? I am not suggesting for a second that they colluded in any way; I am sure that they did not—they are both honourable and capable men. Nevertheless, they did not report the fact and most of the parents are not aware of it. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is sitting on the edge of his seat, but he will have to be patient. He has already had a big chunk of the time available for this debate, and I am sure that he will understand it if I want to make some progress.
I discussed the matter with the head teacher, and he said that some of the parents and some of the staff were aware of the fact because they had come along to ladies' nights. Although that is wonderful, the point is that not all the staff and all the parents had gone along to ladies' nights. It would have been so simple, in a spirit of openness, to declare the fact—to which, I am sure, no one would have batted an eyelid.
When I was successful in the ballot, I asked the grand secretary of the united grand lodge—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will correct me if I have that wrong—to lunch at Westminster. As I had this Bill in mind, I said to him, "Let us have some lunch and discuss it." He gave me a little booklet, which states on page 9:
"In circumstances where a conflict of interest might or be perceived to exist, or when freemasonry becomes an issue, a freemason must declare an interest."

1265
As I understand it, freemasons argue that it is up to individual freemasons to decide whether a declaration of interest is necessary. However, as Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life advises that a person must register any interest that might influence or
"could be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to do so".
one has to ask how reasonable members of the public are to form a view if they do not have that information at their fingertips. The interest needs to be declared.
One of the arguments used against my proposals is that such declarations are not pursued by many other clubs and societies, such as golf clubs. People often say that golf club membership does not have to be declared to the council. However, I beg to differ. If a member of a local authority planning committee is a member of a golf club and discovers that a friend and fellow club member is presenting a planning application to the committee, he had better declare it or there will undoubtedly be difficulties. Openness and accountability are the order of the day.
Mr. Baldry: They are the order of the day also for freemasons.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has addressed himself to the national code of local government conduct under the Local Government Act 1972, but it is perfectly clear and refers to freemasons. The councillor in those circumstances must obviously declare an interest.
Mr. Wardle: I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind me reminding him that I have told the House that the chairman of the planning committee of Rother district council is a freemason, a past master of his lodge, and has not registered that fact on the voluntary register that the council, quite properly, keeps. If my hon. Friend was trying to suggest—I am sure that he was notߞthat in the many years that this responsible councillor has been on the planning committee and has, indeed, been its chairman, there have been no applications from other freemasons who have not declared the fact, he and I have a different grasp of reality.
The grand secretary of the united grand lodge also had some comments about self-regulation. He assured me that freemasons deal with disciplinary matters involving wrongdoers that come up from time to time in any organisation. He said in the same breath that he would not know who was or was not a freemason in Sussex. I had asked about whether some individuals, whom I will not mention, were freemasons, and he said that he had no way
1266
of knowing, to which I replied, "If you do not have a central list of members at your fingertips, how can you assert that you have t system that can regulate itself?".
The Bill has had a little publicity, so it came as no surprise to me that I heard not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury but from the Sussex grand master, although I may have the appellation wrong. He is a very important per on at the head of the organisation in Sussex. I do not know him, but he dropped me a line saying that if I knew of any cases of wrongdoing—that is not my purpose here today—would I let him know so that he could take action? If the grand master of the society in Sussex does not know about his own membership, or flock, what price self-regulation?
I am aware that time is running out, but I have been sitting patiently, so I shall use the time available.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I, too, have been sitting patiently, waiting to contribute to this debate. Although I very much welcome what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, if there is a shortcoming it is that the Bill does not go far enough. For example, it deals with this place but not another place, which is part of the legislature. It deals with local authorities but not local authority officers. In my days at Westminster city council in the 1980s, there was a lodge specifically for the council, where senior officers and senior councillors met together. I thought that that was a very serious abuse.
Mr. Wardle: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for what I am trying to do. A small step in the right direction may be the right way to start. A Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose name I am not allowed to mention, introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject several years ago and has provided me with some helpful information on the subject.
I mentioned earlier that there has been a little publicity for the Bill. I was intrigued at being approached, via a journalist I know, by Brian Boyce, a retired head of the crime squad from Scotland Yard. He said that he understood I was introducing a Bill on the subject. He is not a freemason himself, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will be pleased that he was quick to say that in his work he found that many Metropolitan police officers who were freemasons never let that get in the way of their work.
It being half-pass Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 April.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  PATIENT CONSENT FORM BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 6 April.

  ADOPTION OF SEWERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 27 April.

  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 6 April.

  EDUCATION (STUDENT LOANS)(AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I beg to move.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is attempting to move a motion, he should rise in his place.
  Mr. Paterson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 6 April.

  COPYRIGHT, ETC. AND TRADE MARKS (OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
  PRIVATE DENTAL PRACTITIONERS BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 6 April.

  PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Friday 6 April.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman speak with the authority of the Member in charge of the Bill?
  Mr. Stunell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yes, I speak with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)
  To be read a Second time on Friday 6 April.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS (FREE DELIVERY OF ELECTION ADDRESSES) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Internet (Criminal Offences)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
2.32 pm
Sandra Gidley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this subject today. There has been a certain amount of interest in the fairly enigmatic title of the debate. For example, a journalist rang me up and asked whether I would use the opportunity to talk about a gentleman who had put a contract out on someone using the internet, but I shall disappoint people if they think that that is what I am talking about today. So I thought that it would be helpful to start by explaining that I want to concentrate on the problems caused by using a website to bully, harass or defame an innocent member of the public.
When I originally drafted the title of this debate, I was summoned to the Table Office and told that no Minister appeared to have responsibility for the subject. So I apologise to the Minister for perhaps getting him here under false pretences, but I hope that when he hears what I have to say, he will agree that some action is needed to deal with the problem that I am about to describe.
It would be helpful to outline the events that took place. I was visited at my surgery by the mother of a teenager. For reasons that will become obvious, I should like to keep the names confidential, so I shall call the teenager child A. Her son had been subjected to what can only be described as a particularly nasty form of homophobic bullying using the internet. Child B had set up a website in the name of child A and using child A's name as the domain name. The content of the website caused great concern as it portrayed very graphic pictures of naked men and the invitation, "If you think size matters—then call me."
Unfortunately, child A's phone number was also included on the website. Perhaps luckily, child B was so proud of his endeavours that he could not resist taunting child A at school the next day, as he was keen for his handiwork to be noted. So the outcome of the story was not as serious as it might have been.
Child A had a good relationship with his mother and alerted her to the website. It cannot have been easy for him to do so, because the material was the sort of thing that the average teenager would not want his mother to see or even know existed. The mother acted immediately, and the offending site was, thankfully, withdrawn quickly.
However, the outcome could have been very different. If child A had not felt able to show the material to his mother, nothing would have been done, the child would have been under considerable stress, and the house might have been telephoned. If child B had been even more malicious, he might have alerted other children to the existence of the website, which might in turn have led to taunting at school, and more phone calls. The life of the innocent child could have been made thoroughly miserable. There could well have been a tragic end to the story, and I do not think that I am being over-dramatic when I say that.
The mother of child A came to see me not only to tell me about the offence but to tell me that she was concerned because the police had told her that no crime had technically been committed and that they could not take
1270
any action. They mentioned that there was a file of similar offences at the local police headquarters, and that any action would have to be through the civil courts.
There have been other cases of people registering a website in the name of another person for mischievous purposes, although not quite so sinisterly. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) found that a political rival had set up an alternative website containing a host of material that was not approved by him. I hope that it will not be self-interest that moves politicians to act on the matter, but if that gets things moving, that may be for the greater good.
I read recently that an entrepreneur had used the name Billy Connolly to advertise the stud services of his Afghan hound. That sounds like a bit of a laugh, but Billy Connolly did not think so and successfully sued. Unfortunately, not everyone has the money to take legal action. I shall return to that point later.
It appears that the legislation surrounding the internet is a mess. Internet law is largely piecemeal, unknown or unwritten. Few laws deal specifically with the internet, the main exceptions being the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
I am not here today to knock the internet. It has wonderful potential as a tool for education and business. It also serves a social function by keeping people in touch cheaply. My daughter even met her current boyfriend via the internet, so it is not all bad. However, the huge potential of this tool must not be jeopardised by the unpleasant use to which some users put it. It is imperative that the internet be allowed to be used to its full, positive potential. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that freedom is a right, and that it must be guaranteed by any new legislation or guidance on the internet. So legislators must walk the tightrope between freedoms.
The right to free speech and expression must be balanced against the freedom to live free from slander and fear. Many of us believe that the Government have ignored the rights of the individual in recent legislation on the internet. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act smacked of a patriarchal big brother state and was widely attacked by civil liberties groups when it was introduced.
I want my debate today to be about the freedom of individuals to be free from internet crime, and from harassment or bullying via the internet. I should like to start a continuing debate about how the individual can be protected from a malicious internet user. I have mentioned an example in which a person had no protection. I am also aware of a case in Bournemouth in which a man was jailed for seven and a half years for systematically harassing a young woman. There were similarities with the case that I described earlier; the material placed on the site included invitations to other net users to rape and abuse the victim. The Bournemouth case was slightly different, because haoking was involved and the matter was not dealt with quickly. The victim received abusive e-mails and telephone calls from around the world. The information posted on the website and the subsequent events mean that the victim is still receiving psychiatric treatment.
In general, one can say that what is illegal in current legislation is also illegal on the internet. A case of slander on the internet would take a civil action to

1271
correct, and would cost a great deal of time and money. Slander in the printed media is generally the preserve of the rich and famous and directed at the rich and famous. So it is not coincidental that, through civil action, the multi-millionaire pop star Madonna helped in establishing the idea of intellectual property rights over internet domain names. Current legislation is inadequate to protect the rights and dignity of citizens.
Home computer use is now increasingly common. I do not have the most up-to-date figures, but in August last year 14 million people in the United Kingdom were logging on to the internet at home. That constitutes 22 per cent. of the population. Legislation has not kept up with this change.
What can we do about it and what should we do about it? It would be helpful if a way could be found to allow people sole use of their own name. After all, we cannot open a bank account in another per person's name. We need a means of ensuring that someone cannot set up a website in another person's name unless he has clear evidence that that person has given express permission. That simple action would stop cases that arise from simple malice.
It would be helpful also if the Government could increase their efforts to monitor illegal content on the net. I know that that can be rather like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, there are some bodies that deal with the issue. The Internet Watch Foundation is doing a valuable job. It is rightly concentrating its resources on child pornography. The foundation acts as a third party that receives notices of illegal pornography, establishes the illegality of the material and then delivers notices to the internet service providers that ate posting the material to remove it.
The foundation is very good, and a quick-fix solution has been proposed: that it extend its remit to all illegal content. However, that would probably be difficult. I have thought about the matter carefully, and I am not sure that that is the right way to go. Currently, the foundation's staff receive specialist training and guidance from the police to enable them to make decisions on the legal status of material. Child pornography is illegal, full stop.
Claims that material breaches copyright law or is defamatory, slanderous, or incites racial hatred are rarely clear on first inspection. It is never clear whether a court would decide that the information was illegal. For these reasons, I do not think that it would be as simple as it seems to extend the scheme.
The public need an open and well publicised guide that shows how an individual can make complaints about internet sites. That would include investment in resources so that trained staff could examine complaints. It might be useful also to encourage ISPs to include links to a Government website that is dealing with the issue, in almost the same way as the Advertising Standards Agency places advertisements in newspapers and magazines. At the very least, people would they know how easily to complain.
I have been speaking to members of the Internet Service Providers Association, and they, too, are keen to get things right. They would rather the internet be used to its full, positive potential. They want to minimise the dark side of the net. They are calling on the Government to address the issue during the implementation of the e-commerce directive. ISPs believe that they are not liable for content on the internet. They have no obligations to monitor and they are not legally responsible for content.
1272
The ISPs are keen for the current situation to continue, and are calling for the establishment of an improved system for removing illegal material. They need clear guidelines on what is acceptable and what is not. It is a matter that demands much thought and attention.
In a recent civil action—Demon v. Godfrey—the finding was against Demon, an ISP. It failed to remove material from a news group that Dr. Godfrey regarded as defamatory. As Demon did not remove the material, the judge found it in breach of the Defamation Act 1996. Although Demon was shown not to be a publisher, under the 1996 Act it could not claim innocent dissemination, as it had been put on notice of the existence of defamatory material.
A big worry for ISPs is that they do not want to take on the role of judge and jury, which brings us to the thorny issue of takedown. That is a procedure whereby the ISP becomes responsible for removing sites once a complaint has been made against them. That sounds good, and the procedure would have helped my constituent who faced the original problem that I described. However, if ISPs take down they risk legal action by the customer who owns the sites. If they do not take down, they risk legal action by the complainant. The complainant is generally under no obligation to prove the illegality of the material.
The ISP is put in the invidious position of being judge and jury in these matters. Presumably the relevant legislation applies also to companies. I give a hypothetical example that relates to a topical issue. There could be a site attacking Nestle, making allegations that its aggressive marketing of baby milks in the third world was adding to infant mortality. Obviously, the company would not like that. It could easily put pressure on the ISP to remove the site. ISPs are likely to think carefully about who is most likely to sue them. The system is weighted against small charities and pressure groups and favours large multinationals and those with clout, so the issue is therefore developing into an argument about freedom of speech.
Such issues need to be tackled in the short term so that the public are protected from the incidents that I have outlined. I should like a number of things to happen. Individuals should have the right of control over the use of their names as domain names. The Government should consult widely and work with ISPs to establish a clear procedure to deal with notice and takedown, even if, initially, that is a voluntary arrangement. The Government need to co-ordinate notifications to the Internet Service Providers Association, which currently receives different information and guidelines from different Departments. It would be good to see some joined-up thinking.
Once the Government have their own house in order, they should take a lead on co-ordinating international action, as there are wide differences in the way those problems are tackled across the world. For example, in the United States, ISPs remove material only on receipt of a court order, and in Belgium ISPs automatically pass complaints to a judicial police body, which makes all the necessary decisions. The web is world wide, and eventually we must have worldwide thinking. The public need a guarantee of their freedom to use the internet and be free from child pornography, fraud, slander and harassment.
2.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): May I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on obtaining this opportunity in the ballot and succeeding in her representation of the interests and concerns of her young constituent? I am delighted to respond, both as the Minister of State, Home Office and as the Minister with responsibilities for young people.
The hon. Lady rightly raised the issue as one that has had an adverse impact on a young person in her constituency. What happened to him was a form of abuse and, had it not been handled with support from a parent and good sound common sense by the young person himself, it could have had extremely damaging effects.
The issue of the internet and its impact on society today, for good or ill, is one that the Government are addressing. Only on Wednesday, the Home Secretary called together key representatives of the internet industry, child welfare organisations and the police to tackle child abuse and paedophilia, fuelled by a combination of new technologies—digital photography, streaming video, audio data and the internet. We are committed to tackling that abuse of the internet, as we are committed to tackling all criminal misuse of new technologies.
We want to make the United Kingdom the best and safest place in the world to conduct e-commerce and surf the net. There is no doubt in our mind that the growth of the internet offers huge benefits for society, commerce and education. It is rewriting the rules on how we all communicate. Alongside those huge legitimate benefits, the internet offers opportunities for criminals to abuse modern technologies for their own ends. That is why we have introduced legislation on the internet.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady spoiled an otherwise excellent contribution by characterising our legislation in a simplistic and uncharacteristically naive and misplaced way. It is not authoritarian or big brotherish and it is certainly not patriarchal—I think that she used that word. If I may so, that is nonsense; the legislation was none of those things. It deals rigorously and effectively with a genuine mischief. However, the hon. Lady outlined an area worthy of examination, and I shall certainly ensure that the case that she brought to light receives the attention that it deserves.
We should not forget the real benefits that the internet offers. Launching UKonline last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set the Government the objective of working with industry to ensure a safe and secure environment for e-commerce and to help people trust the internet. We want to work in partnership with UK industry to clean up the net and make it safe for UK users.
Should we use the criminal law to do that? The Government, in common with many other Governments, take the view that what is illegal offline should be illegal online. Possession and distribution of child pornography is possession and distribution of child pornography, whether that is done on paper, by post, electronically or by e-mail. Fraud is fraud, whether it is a newspaper advertisement inducing gullible investors—there are always some of them about—or a website that seeks to do the same and entrap the same sort of person, preying on a combination of greed and gullibility.
1274
Technology changes, and we want to keep the criminal law technology-neutral; otherwise we risk coming back to the House every time some new invention intended for some harmless pursuit is used and abused by innovative criminals to carry out their criminal purpose. The challenge for Government is to ensure that harmful and unlawful activity is addressed by the criminal law, however that activity is conducted. We think that we have the balance right, but that is not to say that we are complacent. The hon Lady's case is an interesting one; we need to keep offences under constant review, and examine them to see whether further action can be or needs to he taken to strengthen the law, when offences are conducted wholly or in part using computers or computer networks.
We have already acted in a number of areas. I took the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 through the House. In January, we increased the maximum penalties for child pornography offences—for possession from six months to five years, and for production and distribution offences from three years' imprisonment to 10 years.
We raised the age threshold in the Indecency with Children Act 1960 from 14 to 16. Conspiracy, incitement or attempts to commit gross indecency with a child under 16 are all offences under the Indecency with Children Act, whether they are committed over the internet or not. They carry a penalty of up to 10 years' imprisonment.
Safety in chat rooms is another complex issue, and a crucial one for parents. The hon. Lady mentioned that her own daughter had entered into a happy and successful relationship with a boyfriend through the internet. The outcome may have been happy for her, but, sadly, that is not always the case. The recent report from the Internet Crime Forum, "Chat Wise, Street Wise", made a number of recommendations for industry, Government and children's charities to consider. The recommendations suggest practical ways to protect children from the risks that chat rooms can pose, the most extreme being exposure to paedophiles who will, as we have seen, incite young people to go against all their instincts to secret assignations, with the most appalling consequences.
Some seek to add "entice" to "incite" in the 1960 Act and widen the scope of the offence. My advice is that the change would not achieve that end. The courts have held that the word "incite" involves some form of persuasion or encouragement. It does not matter that the incitement is unsuccessful. Courts would also be bound to give "entice" its ordinary meaning—
"to persuade by the offer of pleasure or reward".
In other words, the ambit of the offence would not be extended at all.
We cannot be complacent. Protecting children from sexual abuse and the theft of their childhood and their innocence, and breaking what can become a cycle of abuse as the abused become abusers, must be a clear priority for Government, and it is. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took decisive action this week and established the taskforce, which is chaired by my noble Friend Lord Bassam. I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's case is referred to it. It includes representatives of the internet industry, child welfare organisations, the police, the Government and others. It will review internet content rating systems, develop a kite marking scheme for internet chat rooms that provide child-friendly services, develop and promote a safe surfing education and awareness

1275
campaign for parents and children, and enhance co-operation between police and communications services providers in the investigation of crime. It will also review existing legislation to ensure that it continues to protect children from grooming and other forms of abuse, and that it keeps in step with changes in technology. That is where the case raised by the hon. Lady comes in, because, as she told us, her constituent experienced a form of abuse. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will review the work of the taskforce in the summer.
We have legislation in place to deal with crimes against computers, such as hacking and the spreading of computer viruses. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is now 11 years old, but it was ahead of its time and it has stood the test of time. We want more use to be made of that legislation now. We have ensured that the Public Order Act 1986 can deal with the distribution of racist material, whether over the internet or by pen and paper.
The UK is not an island in the electronic world, however much it is one in geographic terms. We have recognised the threat that electronic attack poses to our critical national information infrastructure. That is why we established the national infrastructure security co-ordination centre to work with Departments and private sector organisations to protect critical national infrastructure against electronic attack.
We know that there is no room for complacency in these matters, on which we are working closely with our international partners in the G8 group. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) went to meet G8 Ministers, specifically to work with our partners to develop co-operation in tackling child pornography on the internet. We are investing in law enforcement to ensure
1276
that personnel are properly trained and equipped to investigate and prosecute high-tech criminals. We are also taking steps to ensure that we keep apace with technological development. We must give law enforcement agencies the statutory provisions that are necessary to enable them to investigate high-tech crimes. That is what lay behind the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, about which I hope the hon. Lady will change her views.
It is our objective to ensure that any victim of a crime in which computers were involved, be it a multinational corporation or an individual, can report that crime to police in the knowledge that it will be dealt with effectively and professionally by officers who are trained and equipped to deal with the task.
I must conclude my remarks as I began them. Child abuse on the internet is deplorable. It is also depraved in every sense of the word. We owe it to victims to locate and prosecute the abusers and the people who use the internet for criminal purposes. We owe it to children to protect them from abuse of the technology. The Government, industry, parents and carers must together maintain the real and sustained progress that we have made in tackling criminal abuse of the internet, so that as a society we can reap the full economic and social benefits and so that our children can surf the internet in safety.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate and I fully appreciate the action taken by her young constituent to gain some protection for himself. That was entirely commendable and we shall ensure that the case is referred to the taskforce, so that it can learn the appropriate lessons.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Art Exports
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he intends to undertake reviews of the National Museum of Science and Industry, Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London, National Maritime Museum, Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection. [156815]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As part of the Department's programme of quinquennial reviews of its public bodies, I am today announcing that this summer we will be starting reviews of the National Museum of Science and Industry, Geffrye Museum/Horniman Museum/Museum of London (jointly), National Maritime Museum, Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection.

  The reviews will include an evaluation of the role and functions of these bodies and how those functions can best be carried out, and a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of the way in which they deliver services to their users. We estimate that the reviews will be completed next spring. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Law Officer's Departments' Departmental report will be published. [156220]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can confirm that today copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the average time taken between the receipt of(a) an asylum appeal and (b) an immigration appeal to the Independent Appellate Authority and an appeal decision, for the latest period for which figures are available. [156261]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority, from receipt to determination in the period 1 April 2000 to 28 February 2001, is 21.2 weeks for an asylum appeal and 28.6 weeks for an immigration appeal.
  788W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the average annual cost is of employing(a) a full-time adjudicator and (b) a part-time adjudicator to hear immigration and asylum appeals. [156262]

  Jane Kennedy
  The average annual direct cost of an adjudicator, with effect from 1 April 2001, will be £106,201. The fee for a part-time adjudicator is calculated on a pro rata basis from the annual salary cost of a full-time adjudicator. The average cost is therefore identical.

DEFENCE

  Northwood
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the HQ at Northwood will close; what sites are being considered as a replacement; and if he will make a statement. [155802]

  Mr. Spellar [holding answer 27 March 2001]
  I have authorised the start of formal consultations with the departmental trades unions regarding the proposed streamlining and relocation to Portsmouth of elements of the Commander in Chief Fleet's Headquarters. Under these proposals the Commander in Chief Fleet, who also holds key NATO appointments, would remain at Northwood with his national and NATO operations staffs and other site occupants including the Chief of Joint Operations. Northwood will remain a core MOD site for the foreseeable future.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to review the levels of service pensions of men and women who retired before 1975; [156116]

  (2) when he will publish the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement; [156114]

  (3) what plans he has to increase service pensions to the widows of service men who married after the service man's retirement and before 1978; [156118]

  (4) what steps he is taking to address the differences in widows' service pensions between the widow of a service man who retired in the period up to March 1973, and the widow of a service man who retired after April 1973. [156115]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 756W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy). The review proposals do not include recommendations to introduce changes to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme retrospectively. This is in line with public sector pension policy maintained by successive Governments.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the agreement between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Police Complaints Authority signed on 23 June 1988. [156005]

  Mr. Spellar [holding answer 29 March 2001]
  Yes.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many civil servants and at which grades are charged with carrying out the preliminary sift of applications for a people's peerage. [155588]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that a small team of 10 civil servants, led by a member of the Senior Civil Service, has assisted the Commission in sifting applications for recommendation as a non-political peer.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the President of the Council if the Government will seek to increase the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards(a) to provide independent advice to Ministers on their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code, (b) to appoint independent investigators of alleged breaches of the code and (c) to report to the Prime Minister and the House. [156207]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government's position on the provision of independent advice on allegations of breaches of the Ministerial Code is set out in the Government's response to the sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Miners
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reinstate the miners sacked in 1984–85 into the Miners' Pension Fund. [156110]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 27 March 2001,Official Report, column 586W.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new proposals he has to protect and promote British intellectual property. [156075]

  Dr. Howells [holding answer 29 March 2001]
  Protection for British intellectual property (IP) is central to our objectives for European and international activities in this area. Towards the end of last year the European Commission adopted an Action Plan on Counterfeiting and Piracy. This promises a Directive aimed at strengthening enforcement of intellectual property rights 790W
  across the Community through harmonisation of legislation and procedures, and establishing a general framework for co-operation between member states. The Action Plan is in line with work, especially on promoting co-operation between enforcement bodies, which we have already begun here. Internationally we are working closely with our European partners to ensure that IP rights and their enforcement are available to British industry in all members of the World Trade Organisation, especially in our major trading partners, through full implementation of the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Where British interests are disadvantaged by failure to provide the required standards of IP protection we continue to use internationally recognised WTO disputes resolution arrangements.

  We are also strengthening measures to protect IP in the United Kingdom. For example, the Government are supporting a private Member's Bill (The Copyright etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Bill) currently before Parliament that will bring into line criminal provisions in copyright with those in trade marks law, and so make enforcement actions more effective.

  Promoting IP and its value to us all is a key task. The Patent Office continues to undertake events and workshops aimed at promoting IP, raising awareness in general and in particular communities such as small businesses and business intermediaries. The aim is to create understanding and respect for IP throughout the society and the community. For example last November a new portal website for IP (www.intellectual-property.gov.uk) was launched that provides information for both creators and users of IP and provides links to many other useful sites. The Patent Office's own recently improved website (www.patent.gov.uk) has won an award in the Government Website Awards announced last week. We have also undertaken research into people's understanding of IP to identify the right messages to improve awareness and are exploring how to improve education about IP in both schools and higher education.

  Phoenix Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial targets are to be set for community finance initiatives funded from the Phoenix Fund by the Small Business Service; and if he will make a statement. [156259]

  Ms Hewitt
  CFIs can take a variety of forms, in a legal and operational structure as well as operation of different lending models. Combined with the fact that the CFI sector within the UK is still developing and a number are still in their formative stages, the imposition of operational financial targets as part of the Phoenix Fund support is not deemed to be appropriate at this time. All supported CFIs are being actively encouraged to work towards operational sustainability and this was considered as part of the application assessment process.

  The Small Business Service and HM Treasury are currently working with relevant private sector organisations towards formation of a high quality, professional and adequately resourced Trade Association for the community development finance sector. It is

  791W
  envisaged that any Trade Association will, once operational, formulate performance indicators to assist members with comparison of their performance to "best practice" and similar organisations. CFIs supported through the Phoenix Fund will be encouraged to seek membership of any such Trade Association.

  The purpose of the CFI elements of the Phoenix Fund is to encourage entrepreneurship within disadvantaged groups and communities, through stimulating the growth and development of the CFI sector in the UK. CFIs supported through this programme are required to provide quarterly reports in a format prescribed by the Small Business Service, in order to monitor the impact on the disadvantaged target group or community of each CFI.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to evaluate bids from community finance initiatives for Challenge Fund support from the Phoenix Fund; and if he will make a statement. [156258]

  Ms Hewitt
  CFI support from the Phoenix Fund is allocated on a competitive challenge basis. The assessment process has two elements being, (i) review by SBS against key criteria stated in the bidding guidance, (ii) an independent assessment panel to advise the SBS Chief Executive on the final award of Phoenix Fund support. In reviewing the bids the panel was concerned with the soundness of each proposal, its impact on entrepreneurship in areas of disadvantage, impact on the growth of the CFI sector in the UK and development of appropriate models and good practice.

  Bidding guidance for the first round of Phoenix Fund support for CFIs was issued in June 2000 and copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what priority is given to community finance initiatives that are national in scope within the Challenge Fund element of the Phoenix Fund; and if he will make a statement. [156260]

  Ms Hewitt
  CFI support from the Phoenix Fund is allocated on a competitive challenge basis. The assessment process had two elements being, (i) review by SBS against key criteria stated in the bidding guidance, (ii) an independent assessment panel to advise the SBS Chief Executive on the final award of Phoenix Fund support. In reviewing the bids the panel was concerned with the soundness of each proposal, its impact on entrepreneurship in areas of disadvantage, impact on the growth of the CFI sector in the UK and development of appropriate models and good practice.

  Within the context of this challenge process no preference or priority is given to whether an applicant organisation operates at a national or local level. The PAT 3 recommendation which underlies the CFI support programme was to support CFIs in disadvantaged areas and deprived groups. As part of the assessment against key criteria, consideration is given to whether an applicant
  792W
  organisation demonstrates a clear focus on disadvantaged areas or deprivation and how it compares against other applications which have a clear focus on social exclusion and deprived groups.

  Coal Health Compensation Scheme
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress there has been on reaching a settlement to enable compensation to be paid to surface only and mixed underground/surface claimants under the Coal Health Compensation Scheme. [156751]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department accepted liability for surface dust in a minute to Parliament dated 10 July 2000. However, questions remained over the extent of that liability.

  The Department's medical advice is that surface-only workers in jobs categorised as 'dusty' may well suffer from chronic bronchitis or temporary exacerbation of asthma because of exposure to the sort of particles which form visible dust. However, it is the much smaller particles of 'respirable dust'—not visible to the naked eye—which cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). At the respirable dust levels recorded by the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) and using the figures for loss of lung function accepted by the Judge, the Department's medical advice is that there is very little likelihood of men in surface-only 'dusty' work developing COPD, even over a whole working lifetime.

  Claimants' solicitors do not share the Department's position. To move matters forward, the Department and the claimants' solicitors are carrying out a joint study on surface dust issues. The results of the study will be put to each side's medical advisers and will help to inform any final settlement.

  The study is in two parts:

  (i) a study is being carried out of x-ray data from periodic health surveys of an agreed sample of collieries in England, Scotland and Wales; and

  (ii) 100 surface only claimants are being put through the MAP in normal priority order, to establish the prevalence of COPD and its causes among this cohort.

  On 'mixed' (underground/surface) claims, the Department has reached a negotiated agreement with claimants' solicitors and arrangements are being made to incorporate the claims within the terms of the Claims Handling Agreement so that compensation can be paid out as soon as possible. The position on mixed workers is different from surface only workers. The Department's view is that people with mixed claims may well have legitimate claims for dust-related COPD for the surface element of their claim because their exposure to dust underground will have taken them over the 'threshold' after which further exposure to dust will cause them further incremental disability.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on how much regional selective assistance has been offered to companies investing in the English regions since May 1997. [156753]
  793W
  Mr. Caborn
  A total of £581.6 million has been offered as follows:

  £million

  Region/county

  Grant value

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1.1

  Essex

  0.4

  Norfolk

  1.3

  Suffolk

  0.3

  Total

  4.5

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  6.6

  Leicestershire

  0.4

  Lincolnshire

  1.5

  Nottinghamshire

  32.2

  Total

  40.7

  London

  North East London

  2.6

  North West London

  3.4

  South East London

  0.4

  Total

  6.4

  North East

  Cleveland

  12.2

  Durham

  25.8

  Northumberland

  9.5

  Tyne and Wear

  106.3

  Total

  153.8

  North West

  Cheshire

  22.1

  Cumbria

  4.8

  Greater Manchester

  28.0

  Lancashire

  6.3

  Merseyside

  89.1

  Total

  150.3

  South East

  East Sussex

  1.8

  Isle of Wight

  3.4

  Kent

  12.4

  Total

  17.6

  South West

  Cornwall

  14.0

  Devon

  22.0

  Dorset

  1.6

  Total

  37.6

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  0.9

  Shropshire

  0.9

  Staffordshire

  9.7

  Warwickshire

  25.5

  West Midlands

  63.1

  Total

  100.1

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  Humberside

  15.5

  North Yorkshire

  0.3

  South Yorkshire

  48.9

  West Yorkshire

  5.9

  Total

  70.6

  Grand total

  581.6

  Absence Management
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on how employers manage absences. [156752]

  Mr. Byers
  The Green Paper, "Work and Parents:Competitiveness and Choice", indicated that my Department would be undertaking research on how employers manage absence.

  In the absence of that research, the costing of policy options considered in the Green Paper made an assumption about the cost to employers of covering for absences. The specific assumption made was that the cost of a week's absence to an employer was 24 per cent. of labour costs.

  Information gathered during the consultation process and emerging findings from research commissioned by my Department, suggest that this assumption was too high. It is important to distinguish situations where an employer covers absence by taking on a temporary replacement from situations where the employer manages absences by internal reallocation of work. The costs of each will be different. Where a temporary replacement is hired, the employer faces the one-off costs of recruitment. In contrast, if work is reallocated, there are no recruitment costs but there are likely to be recurring costs to the business. The decisions employers take on how to cover for any specific absence will depend upon the length of the absence, its nature (whether planned or unplanned), the size and nature of the business, and the skill level the post requires.

  The partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) given in answer to question number 156754 explores these issues further. Full details are given in Annexe 2 of this RIA.

  "Work and Parents" Green Paper
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a regulatory impact assessment for those measures that have been announced following the end of the consultation on the Green Paper,"Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice". [156754]

  Mr. Byers
  I am placing a partial regulatory impact assessment in the Library of the House for those measures which have been announced following the consultation on the Green Paper, "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice". A full regulatory impact assessment will be published when the relevant legislation is presented to Parliament.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Foot and Mouth
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the action being taken by his Department to help people affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [156749]

  Mr. Darling
  My Department has taken urgent measures to ensure that benefit claims from people who have been affected by foot and mouth disease are dealt with quickly and sensitively.
  795W
  We are preparing an information sheet for people living in affected areas listing the benefits most likely to be available to them, the conditions of entitlement and giving examples of the evidence needed to support their claims to ensure they are completed as quickly as possible.

  Jobseeker's Allowance, administered by the Benefits Agency, can help people whose normal work or business has been interrupted or who are workless. We have issued guidance to local Benefits Agency staff to remind them of the flexibilities in the benefit rules which are likely to apply to people making claims in affected areas. We are also giving local decision-makers direct access to specialist advice and guidance to ensure that any queries on claims are resolved without delay and are working closely with colleagues in the Employment Service.

  Housing Benefit, administered by local councils, is available to help meet the housing costs of people who rent their homes and who are out of work or have insufficient earnings. Social Fund crisis loans are also payable under normal rules to prevent people in affected areas from suffering hardship. We have taken steps to ensure that sufficient funds to meet such need are available to Benefits Agency districts covering affected areas.

  We are receiving regular progress reports from the Benefits Agency on benefit claims in affected areas and are keeping the position under close review.

  Departmental Report
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Departmental report will be published. [156750]

  Mr. Darling
  The Social Security Departmental Report, which sets out the Department's expenditure plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 and the Main Estimate for 2001–02, has been laid before Parliament. A copy has been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning recent attacks upon Rohingya Muslims by Rakhine Buddhist extremists in Arakan State, Burma; and if he will make a statement. [155348]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that the violence occurred in Northern Rakhine State, a remote part of Burma. Contacts with UNHCR and INGOs have confirmed reports that there was renewed violence in February 2001, which resulted in loss of life and destruction of homes. Intercommunal tension in Rakhine State is just one example of the suffering of the peoples of Burma. We will continue to press for change in Burma to bring about national reconciliation, full respect for human rights and a return to democracy.

  Minister for Europe
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas 796W
  visits, and to which countries, the Minister for Europe has undertaken on official business since assuming his office. [156762]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information is in the table.

  Overseas travel: Keith Vaz MP—Minister forEurope

  Serial number

  Dates

  Location

  01

  14–15 October 1999

  Tampere

  02

  18 October 1999

  Hungary

  03

  19–20 October 1999

  Warsaw

  04

  31 October—01 November 1999

  Yerevan

  05

  08–09 November 1999

  Paris

  06

  15–16 November 1999

  Brussels

  07

  17 November 1999

  Strasbourg

  08

  20–21 November 1999

  Florence

  09

  23 November 1999

  Luxembourg

  10

  09—11 December 1999

  Helsinki

  11

  16–18 January 2000

  Rome

  12

  19–20 January 2000

  Athens

  13

  22 January 2000

  Paris

  14

  24–25 January 2000

  Brussels

  15

  30 January—05 February 2000

  India

  16

  14 February 2000

  Brussels

  17

  18 February 2000

  Zagreb

  18

  28 February—01 March 2000

  Washington

  19

  15–16 March 2000

  Berlin

  20

  23–24 March 2000

  Lisbon

  21

  29–30 March 2000

  Brussels

  22

  10–11 April 2000

  Luxembourg

  23

  15–16 May 2000

  Porto

  24

  18–19 May 2000

  Gibraltar

  25

  23 May 2000

  Brussels

  26

  24–25 May 2000

  Spain

  27

  25–26 May 2000

  Lisbon

  28

  13 June 2000

  Luxembourg

  29

  18–19 June 2000

  Porto

  30

  04–05 July 2000

  Malta

  31

  10 July 2000

  Brussels

  32

  25–26 July 2000

  Athens

  33

  05–06 September 2000

  Slovenia

  34

  07 September 2000

  The Hague

  35

  11–12 September 2000

  Sweden

  36

  18 September 2000

  Brussels

  37

  12–13 October 2000

  Biarritz

  38

  18–19 October 2000

  Italy

  39

  08 November 2000

  Latvia

  40

  09 November 2000

  Lithuania

  41

  19–20 November 2000

  Brussels

  42

  28 November 2000

  Slovakia

  43

  04 December 2000

  Brussels

  44

  07–12 December 2000

  Nice

  45

  15 December 2000

  Brussels

  46

  22 January 2001

  Brussels

  47

  24 January 2001

  Prague

  48

  09 February 2001

  Helsinki

  49

  22–23 February 2001

  Stockholm

  50

  26 February 2001

  Brussels

  51

  28 February 2001

  Austria

  52

  14 March 2001

  Cyprus

  53

  19 March 2001

  Brussels

  54

  22–24 March 2001

  Stockholm

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 112W, for what reason the responsibilities of the Minister for Europe were expanded to include entry clearance. [156355]
  797W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Minister for Europe was asked to take on responsibility for entry clearance because he was the best man for the job. His stewardship of the portfolio since then has been an outstanding success, as has been recognised by many Members of this House. At home and overseas he has delivered a huge improvement in service. He eliminated the backlog of replies to Members' letters on entry clearance cases, and has achieved dramatic reductions in waiting times at overseas posts such as Islamabad.

  Iraq (Export Controls)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods subject to strategic export controls have been approved for export to Iraq in the last three months. [156755]

  Mr. Battle
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved licences to export 30 electronic exploder and four Hook and Line Kits, controlled under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, to the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) for use in a humanitarian mine clearance programme in Northern Iraq under the UN Oil for Food Programme. The export of these goods to Iraq has been approved by the UN Sanctions Committee.

  East Timor
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the deaths of newsmen in Balibo, East Timor in 1975. [156198]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Government continue to take an active interest in this case. When I met Sergio Vieira de Mello, Head of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), in London on 6 March, I asked him about the UN investigation into the deaths. Mr. de Mello confirmed that the UN police report had been submitted to Mr. Othman, the UN Prosecutor General, who has said that there are grounds to continue with the investigations but that the case is not yet ready for trial. We will continue to monitor developments closely.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what date(i) an official and (ii) a Minister from his Department first informed(a) an official and (b) a Minister in another EU member state that the UK had its first (1) suspected and (2) confirmed case in the foot and mouth disease outbreak; [156384]

  (2) on what date (i) an official and (ii) a Minister in his Department first informed (a) an official and (b) a Commissioner in the European Commission that the UK had its first (1) suspected and (2) confirmed case in the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [156385]
  798W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Government Chief Veterinary Officer confirmed the presence of foot and mouth on the night of 20 February. The Government were immediately in close contact with the European Commission and other member states. As lead Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has since then been in constant contact with European colleagues and the Commission. The FCO has supported through Embassies and Ministerial contacts. The Government have taken every step possible to protect our own industry and farming across Europe.

  Mapesbury Communications
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) present and (b) former (i) employees and (ii) directors of Mapesbury Communications have served as political aides or advisers to the Minister for Europe. [156077]

  Mr. Vaz
  None.

HEALTH

  Interest-free Mortgages (NHS Staff)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to promote interest-free mortgages to(a) ambulance service staff, (b) nurses, (c) professions allied to medicine and (d) other NHS staff, who are based in London. [142201]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service housing co-ordinator in support of the recruitment and retention campaign is developing affordable accommodation for NHS staff. He is examining a range of options for supporting low-cost housing for NHS staff.

  Operations
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) Great Britain and (b) each health authority in England, the number of operations (i) cancelled and (ii) cancelled with the patient not readmitted within one month, for each year since 1995. [149434]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department of Health in England monitors performance against the standard covering "last minute cancelled operations" for non-medical reasons which requires patients to be admitted (or readmitted) within one month following such cancellations. Monitoring in England is carried out on a quarterly basis at health authority level, and the results are routinely placed in the Library. The latest results cover the period quarter 3 1999–2000 to Quarter 3 2000–01. Quarterly results from 1994–95 are available in the Library.

  Information on cancelled operations for the rest of the United Kingdom should be obtained from the respective Health Departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in(a) Great Britain and (b) each NHS trust in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) each year from 1992 to the latest date for which figures are available. [149433]
  799W
  Mr. Denham
  The average daily number of available beds in England for 1979 and 1990–91 to 1999–2000 are given in the table. The first National Health Service trusts were established in 1991–92. Prior to this, information on bed numbers was collected from district health authorities and not individual units. Detailed information on the average daily number of beds in England is published annually in "Bed Availability and Occupancy, England", copies of which are available in the Library. Questions for Scotland and Wales are matters for the devolved administrations.

  Average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight, all specialties, England, 1979 and 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  Total beds

  1979

  361,670

  1990–91

  255,479

  1991–92

  242,677

  1992–93

  232,201

  1993–94

  219,476

  1994–95

  211,812

  1995–96

  206,136

  1996–97

  198,848

  1997–98

  193,625

  1998–99

  190,006

  1999–2000

  186,290

  Source

  Department of Health form KH03, SH3

  Latest figures collected on 1 December 2000 show an increase of general and acute beds. The NHS Plan will provide 7,000 extra beds nationally by 2004, including 2,100 on general and acute wards. Within this expanded bedstock, there will also be a 30 per cent. increase in adult critical care beds over the next three years.

  General Practitioners
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many GPs left practice in 2000–01; and how many of these were(a) part-time and (b) full-time equivalents; [152803]

  (2) how many new GPs were appointed in the financial year 2000–01; and how many of these were (a) part-time and (b) full-time equivalents; [152802]

  (3) what the net change in the number of full-time equivalent GPs was between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [152804]

  Mr. Denham
  Between 1999 and 2000 there was a net increase of 410 general practitioners or 190 on an estimated whole time equivalent basis. In addition, the number of GP registrars (trainees) continues to rise from its low point of 1,305 in 1996 to 1,659 at 31 September 2000. These are the GPs of the future.

  The table gives more details of joiners and leavers. It shows that, 203 unrestricted principal and equivalent GPs joined practice and 1,090 left. Within these totals the table identifies the numbers of full and part-time GPs in each category. It does not however show how many GPs who
  800W
  have stopped working as an unrestricted principal or equivalent continue to practise as, for example, locums, as part of the salaried doctor scheme, or retainers. That information is not held centrally.

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1:Joiners and Leavers2

  England

  Number (headcount)

  1999

  1999–2000

  2000

  UPEs1

  27,591

  —

  27,704

  All Joiners

  —

  1,203

  —

  of which:

  Full-time

  —

  723

  —

  Part-time

  —

  480

  —

  of which:

  New Joiners

  —

  958

  —

  of which:

  Full-time

  —

  597

  —

  Part-time

  —

  361

  —

  Rejoiners

  —

  245

  —

  of which:

  Full-time

  —

  126

  —

  Part-time

  —

  119

  —

  Leavers

  —

  1,090

  —

  of which:

  Full-time

  —

  748

  —

  Part-time

  —

  342

  —

  1UPEs includes Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  2Leavers are defined as UPEs recorded in the 1999 census but not in the 2000 census Joiners are defined as UPEs recorded in the 2000 census but not in the 1999 census although Rejoiners have been employed at some time prior to 1999 and new joiners are doctors who have not previously held a UPE post. Part time is a combination of three-quarter time, half time and job share.

  Source

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Nurses
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of Project 2000 upon nurse recruitment. [153793]

  Mr. Denham [holding answer 16 March 2001]
  Between 1997 and 2000 the number of qualified nurses working in the National Health Service has increased by 17,100.

  Nurse recruitment is influenced by a range of factors including pay and working conditions and it is not possible to identify the impact of Project 2000 on this separately.

  NHS Computer Systems
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many draft Full Business Cases for NHS hospital trust computer systems(a) are now held in each regional office of the NHS Executive and (b) were first submitted in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001, broken down by regional office. [153095]

  Mr. Denham [holding answer 9 March 2001]
  Six draft full business cases (FBC) for National Health
  801W
  Service hospital trust computer systems are currently held by regional offices. None of these were submitted in 1999, four of the six were submitted in 2000.and the remaining two in 2001. Details are given in the table.

  Regional office

  Number of draft FBCs Currently held

  Trust(s) submitting draft FBC

  Type of investement

  Draft FBCs submitted in 2000

  Draft FBCs first submitted in 2001

  North West

  3

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust and Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  Yes

  —

  Tamside Acute Services NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records and Picture Archiving and Communication System Electronic Patient Records

  Yes

  —

  Trent

  1

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  Pathology system

  —

  Yes

  West Midlands

  1

  Wolverhampton Health Care NHS Trust

  Radiology/Picture Archiving and Communication System

  —

  Yes

  South East

  1

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  Electronic Patient Records

  Yes

  —

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 19 January on behalf of his constituent Mr. Ball. [154728]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on 27 March 2001.

  Dentists
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in Battersea have expanded their practice to treat more NHS patients through the Commitment Payment Scheme since April 2000. [154832]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information required is not held centrally in the format requested. Information on dental practices is held by health authority.

  The number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority receiving commitment payments at the different levels for the June 2000 quarter and December 2000 quarter are shown in the table.

  Number of dentists

  Level of Payments

  April to June 2000

  October to December 2000

  Level 1–£25

  24

  18

  Level 2–£112.50 or £168.75

  8

  12

  Level 3–£222 or £333

  17

  12

  Level 4–£334 or £501

  32

  30

  Level 5–£445 or £667.50

  7

  12

  Level 6–£556 or £834

  16

  15

  Total

  104

  99

  The value of a commitment payment paid to a dentist in the GDS depends on their level of commitment. Those who qualify may get a payment ranging from £25 for those doing some work within GDS to £834 for those aged 45 or over who have the highest levels of commitment.
  802W
  Four regional offices (Northern and Yorkshire, Eastern, London and South and West regional offices) currently hold no draft FBC for NHS hospital trust computer systems.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the targets in the NHS Plan for additional doctors and nurses relate to additional whole-time equivalent doctors and nurses; [155399]

  (2) if he will place in the Library on the first anniversary of the publication of the NHS Plan and on each subsequent anniversary, figures indicating the Government's progress towards achieving the NHS Plan targets for additional (a) doctors and (b) nurses, expressed as whole-time equivalents; [155406]

  (3) by what specific date the NHS Plan targets for extra doctors and nurses are to be achieved. [155400]

  Mr. Denham
  The targets for doctors and nurses in the NHS Plan are all expressed in headcount as was made plain at the time of publication. We will provide 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more general practitioners and 20,000 more nurses by 2004.

  The Department's annual workforce censuses collect headcount and whole time equivalent figures as at 30 September each year and are routinely published and placed in the library.

  Looked-after Children
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the statutory right to advocacy for looked-after children. [155467]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  Following the recent consultation exercise on social services complaints procedures, we are considering whether it is possible to introduce a statutory right of access to an advocate under the Children Act procedures.

  Listening to the voices of looked-after children and young people is an integral part of the Quality Protects programme. The programme encourages the growth of high quality independent advocacy services in every council and allocates special grant funding for this

  803W
  purpose. There are already many good examples of advocacy in social services and we recognise how vital it is to listen to children and young people.

  The local authority circular (LAC(2000)22), issued on 13 November 2000 continues to place listening to children as a priority area for 2001–02 and requires local councils to involve young people collectively and to enhance their individual voices through, for example, the development of independent advocacy services. In addition, local councils are encouraged to speed up the complaints procedures, so that children's concerns can be dealt with promptly and sympathetically.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the pay of paramedics. [155952]

  Mr. Denham
  All ambulance staff on national terms and conditions, including paramedics will receive an above inflation increase of 3.7 per cent. from 1 April 2001. Increases of 3.7 per cent. are also made to on call, standby and London allowances. Advance letters promulgating the pay award were issued to National Health Service employers on 1 March to allow increases to be paid in April salaries

  Drugs
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government's response to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report on Reducing Drug Related Deaths. [156547]

  Ms Stuart
  The Government are publishing their response to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report today. Copies will be placed in the Library. This is the first stage of our response—we are also preparing an Action Plan to reduce drug misuse related deaths which we intend to publish this summer. This action plan will set targets for agencies and Government departments.

  Child Welfare Guidance
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to local authority social services departments on the(a) residence and (b) family circumstances under which a local authority is financially responsible for a child whose mother has been murdered by his father. [156008]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under Section 17(1) of the Children Act 1989 the duty of every council with social services responsibilities is to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and, so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs. Section 23(2) of the Children Act requires such councils to provide accommodation and maintenance for any child whom they are looking after by placing them with a family; a relative; or any other suitable person, on such terms as to payment as the council may determine. The Benefits Agency may have a role to play in providing financial assistance for a person caring for a child in such circumstances.
  804W
  Ten volumes of guidance accompanied the Children Act. The "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families," published in 2000, provides vital new guidance in assessing the development needs of children and the capacity of their families to respond to these needs in the short and longer term. This guidance was developed to assist councils with social services responsibilities to assess and provide effective services for children in need and their families.

  It is not therefore anticipated that further guidance is necessary.

  NHS Plan
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received on the cost of production and distribution of the NHS Plan document; [155912]

  (2) what the cost is of (a) publication and (b) distribution of the NHS Plan Document; and if he will make a statement. [155752]

  Mr. Denham
  To my knowledge no representations have been received on the cost of production and distribution of the NHS Plan document.

  The publication and distribution of the NHS Plan cost £175,050 and £268,856 respectively.

WALES

  Opinion Polling
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative analytical work his Department has commissioned from GGC/NOP since 1 May 1997; and what was (i) the cost of the contract and (ii) the specific nature of the work commissioned. [155669]

  Mr. Paul Murphy [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  The Wales Office has not commissioned any quantitative or qualitative analytical work from GGC/NOP since it was established on 1 July, 1999.

  Information for the period 1 May 1997 to 30 June 1999 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions are taken by his Department's vets and officials to avoid spreading foot and mouth disease when they move from farm to farm. [154995]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 22 March 2001]
  All officials and contractors must observe stringent cleansing and disinfection procedures when entering or leaving a premises where disease has been confirmed or suspected. Any official or contractor who enters a premises where disease has been confirmed may not enter another premises which contains susceptible species for a period of three days. In certain areas of the country, and in very limited circumstances, this period has just been reduced
  805W
  to 24 hours. In these cases, the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease from the person concerned is far less than the risk that would result front the delayed identification of other infected premises.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department was first informed of the possibility of a suspected case of foot and mouth disease at Heddon-on-the-Wall, Northumberland. [154956]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 22 March 2001]
  The Ministry first became aware of a suspected case of footland mouth in pigs at a farm in Heddo-on-the-Wall on 22 February and confirmed disease on the following day.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the recommended permitted time is from the culling of an animal to the disposal of its carcase. [153953]

  Ms Quin
  Our objective is to slaughter affected animals within 24 hours of disease having been confirmed, and then to dispose of the carcases within a further 24 hours. There have been problems in achieving these targets, primarily in areas of high disease incidence particularly with the disposal of carcases. Extra operational support has been brought in, in particular logistical help from the armed forces to improve the planning, co-ordination and management of the slaughter and disposal process.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reason it is taking five days for pigs in some areas to be slaughtered after being diagnosed as infected with the foot and mouth virus. [155077]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  We are not aware of any occasion where it has taken five days to slaughter pigs after disease has been confirmed. If the hon. Member can provide me with details of cases he has in mind, we will look into the matter further.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the reason is for the length of time taken for tests on livestock for foot and mouth disease to be completed and reported. [154994]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 22 March 2001]
  Currently, well over 90 per cent. of foot and mouth cases are being confirmed on the basis of clinical evidence by the veterinary officer who inspects the animals concerned. Where it is necessary to take samples for testing, these are collected, packaged and despatched to the Institute for Animal Health (IAH) at Pirbright in Surrey. The IAH carry out an ELISA test which takes about 5–6 hours to complete. Positive results are then faxed to MAFF's Emergency Control Centre in London for immediate action. The ELISA test can give false negative results and so all negatives are checked by attempting to isolate the foot and mouth virus in a cell culture. This process can take 4–5 days to complete.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the amount of information available to farmers concerning the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and what steps he is taking to ensure that farmers are kept fully informed. [155018]
  806W
  Ms Quin
  Since the beginning of the outbreak Ministers have held regular, wide ranging meetings with farming and other organisations to ensure they are kept informed of developments. These meetings have provided the Ministry with direct feedback on the information that farmers need to help them cope with the outbreak.

  MAFF has a foot and mouth website which is updated at least twice a day to provide the latest news and information. A helpline is open seven days a week from 8 am to 11 pm to answer queries from farmers and members of the public. We have also produced a series of fact sheets on foot and mouth disease which have been sent to every farmer in England, Scotland and Wales. Supplies are held in Animal Health Offices and copies placed in Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has held with the Department for Education and Employment about(a) closure of schools and other education institutions,(b) enforced absence of pupils and the provision of education by other means and (c) staff absence, owing to residence in areas affected by foot and mouth disease. [154674]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 21 March 2001]
  From the beginning of the outbreak Ministry officials have maintained close contact with officials from the Department for Education and Employment, for example over the advice which the Department for Education and Employment provided to local education authorities on school closures, and staff and pupil absences resulting from the outbreak.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if foot and mouth disease can be spread by exposure to plants and grains; and if he will make a statement. [154949]

  Ms Quin
  Plants and grains do not become contaminated if they grow on land which had previously been grazed by animals affected by the disease. Their surfaces can become contaminated if they have been in physical contact or close proximity with an infected animal.

  MAFF has posted on its website a general assessment of the implications of the foot and mouth outbreak for the grain trade. No movement of grain is permitted from UK farms where foot and mouth is suspected or has been confirmed. There are no restrictions on the drilling of crops on premises where disease is known or thought to exist. There are, however, restrictions on the movement of plant and machinery to or from such premises.

  Sir John Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has established the cause of the current foot and mouth outbreak. [155040]

  Ms Quin
  Detailed epidemiological investigations are being undertaken into the source of the outbreak. Initial findings suggest that the earliest outbreak was at a pig premises in north-east England and that infection spread from there through the movement of animals, particularly sheep, before the first case was found in Essex on 19 February. However, it is still unclear how the infection entered the United Kingdom. Information on the initial epidemiological findings will be published.
  807W
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to bring in extra veterinary surgeons from other countries to assist with the foot and mouth disease outbreak. [154950]

  Ms Quin
  Over 100 veterinary staff have arrived or are due to arrive from the official veterinary services of 11 different countries. There are now over 1,200 veterinarians involved in controlling the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department was first notified of a possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease at Wick Farm, Laye-de-la-Haye, Essex; when the outbreak was confirmed; when the slaughter of livestock was(a) commenced and (b) completed; when the destruction of carcases was (i) started and (ii) completed; and if he will make a statement. [154720]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 20 March 2001]
  The information requested is as follows:

  8 March 2001—A MAFF Veterinary Of leer visited Wick Farm, Layer-de-la-Haye, Essex as part of a foot and mouth disease tracing from an export animal collection centre in Kent.

  9 March 2001—Foot and mouth disease confirmed.

  9–10 March 2001—All susceptible livestock slaughtered.

  11 March 2001—The fire was started. The carcases would have been destroyed within 24 hours. The fire remained under supervision throughout.

  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request the suspension of non-essential maintenance work by utility companies which involves work on farm land during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [154789]

  Ms Quin
  The utility companies have suspended non-essential work within foot and mouth infected areas.

  Advice and precautions to be exercised by people working in the countryside has been posted on MAFF's website www.maff.gov.uk. 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.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his departmental policy was during 2000 in respect of the disinfecting of lorries used for movement of animals, between such movements. [154666]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 20 March 2001]
  The rules covering the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles used for animal transport were consolidated in the Transport of Animals (Cleansing and Disinfection) (England) (No. 2) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1618), which came into force on 6 July 2000. This Order requires that, subject to certain 808W
  exemptions, livestock transports should be cleansed and disinfected after each use. It also requires livestock transports that have become soiled, which may give rise to a risk of transmission of disease since last being cleansed and disinfected, to be cleansed and disinfected again before they are next used.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when farmers will be compensated for the problems faced due to the foot and mouth epidemic. [154030]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 16 March 2001]
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 13 March 2001,Official Report, column 565W.

  The Department aims to pay compensation for animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease as soon as possible after valuation, confirmation of slaughter and checking of claims. As at 3.30 pm on Friday 23 March, 121 claims which total £12.7 million have been paid and a further 138 claims which total £10.5 million have been approved and will be paid shortly.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what level of compensation he will give to farmers affected by the recent foot and mouth outbreak, with particular reference to(a) farmers having infected animals slaughtered, (b) farmers affected by the ban on movement and (c) farmers suffering loss of income through lack of bed and breakfast bookings; and if he will make a statement. [154285]

  Ms Quin
  Compensation is payable for the market value of animals slaughtered to control foot and mouth disease. It is not payable for the consequential losses for example caused by movement restrictions. There are no plans to make such payments in response to the current outbreak, but the situation will be kept under review. On 22 March we opened the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme to deal with livestock facing serious welfare problems as a result of foot and mouth disease control measures. Where the welfare issue can not be resolved by other means, livestock farmers may enter the animals into this voluntary scheme for removal and disposal at the Government's expense, and receive a payment.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also announced measures to assist businesses affected by the outbreak. The Taskforce which he is chairing will continue its work and the Government will want to consider any further response in the light of the latest developments.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Lacock falls within a restricted foot and mouth area. [155332]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  Lacock falls within the foot and mouth infected area defined in the Foot and Mouth Disease Declaratory (No 30) Order 2001. A copy of the Order and a map of the infected area has been posted on the Ministry's website http:// www.maff.gov.uk/.
  809W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department is giving to farmers about drilling crops on holdings that(a) have been or (b) may have been affected by foot and mouth; and if he will make a statement. [155334]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  MAFF has posted on its website a general assessment of the implications of the foot and mouth outbreak for the grain trade. No movement of grain is permitted from UK farms where foot and mouth is suspected or has been confirmed. There are no restrictions on the drilling of crops on premises where disease is known or thought to exist. There are, however, restrictions on the movement of plant and machinery to or from such premises.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department was first notified of a possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease on Boydale's Farm, Neatherfield, Essex; when the case was confirmed; when the slaughter of livestock was(a) commenced and (b) completed; when the destruction of carcases was (i) commenced and (ii) completed; and if he will make a statement. [155376]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  The information requested is as follows:

  14 March 2001—A MAFF Veterinary Officer visited Boydale's Farm as a result of an animal movement tracing.

  14 March 2001—Disease confirmed.

  14–15 March 2001—Livestock slaughtered.

  15 March 2001—Fire started. The carcases would have been destroyed within 24 hours. The fire remained under supervision throughout.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations he has carried out, with what results, into the sources of meat used in meals served by schools in(a) Sunderland and (b) Gateshead from which the outbreak of foot and mouth disease may have emerged; and if he will make a statement. [154713]

  Ms Quin
  Investigations into the source of the foot and mouth outbreak are continuing. When we are in a position to draw firm conclusions they will be published.

  Veterinary Investigation Centres
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the veterinary investigation centres which were closed between 1980 and 1997. [155602]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 27 March 2001]
  I refer the to the letter from the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency which lists the number of closures between 1980 and 1997.

  Letter from Steve Edwards to Mr. Richard Livsey, dated 30 March 2001

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your request for a list of Veterinary Investigation Centres (VICs) that were closed in each year between 1980 and 1997.

  The attached table lists the VICs that were closed between these dates as well as new ones opened.

  In 1995 the VICs were renamed regional Laboratories (RLs) when they merged with the Central Veterinary Laboratory to become the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

  Centres were closed and new ones opened as follows:
  810W

  Centres were closed and new ones opened as follows:

  Centre

  Closed/opened

  Centre

  Closed/opened

  1980

  —

  Aberystwyth

  —

  Bangor

  —

  Barton Hall (Preston—moved from Liverpool)

  Cambridge

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  Carmarthen

  —

  Gloucester

  —

  Langford (Bristol)

  —

  Leeds

  —

  Lincoln

  —

  Moulton (Northampton)

  —

  Newcastle

  —

  Norwich

  —

  Penrith

  —

  Reading

  —

  Shrewsbury

  —

  Starcross (Exeter)

  —

  Sutton Bonington (Loughborough)

  —

  Thirsk

  —

  Truro

  —

  Weybridge

  —

  Winchester

  —

  Worcester

  —

  Wye (Kent)

  —

  Total

  24

  1981

  Weybridge

  Closed

  Total

  23

  1982

  Chester (Sub centre of Shrewsbury)

  Opened

  Total

  24

  1983–1985

  —

  Total

  24

  1986

  Cardiff

  Closed

  Chester

  Closed

  Gloucester

  Closed

  Leeds

  Closed

  Moulton (Northampton)

  Closed

  Total

  19

  1987–1990

  —

  Total

  19

  1991

  Bangor

  Closed

  Lincoln

  Closed

  Wye (Kent)

  Closed

  Total

  16

  1992

  —

  Total

  16

  1993

  Cambridge

  Closed

  Norwich

  Closed

  Worcester

  Closed

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Opened

  Luddington (Stratford-upon-Avon)

  Opened

  Total

  15

  811W

  Centres were closed and new ones opened as follows:

  Centre

  Closed/opened

  1994

  Reading

  Closed

  Total

  14

  1995–2001

  Aberystwyth

  —

  Barton Hall (Preston)

  —

  Bury St. Edmunds

  —

  Camarthen

  —

  Langford (Bristol)

  —

  Luddington (Stratford-upon-Avon)

  —

  Newcastle

  —

  Penrith

  —

  Shrewsbury

  —

  Starcross (Exeter)

  —

  Sutton Bonington (Loughborough)

  —

  Thirsk

  —

  Truro

  —

  Winchester

  —

  Total

  14

  Abattoir Closures
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has undertaken to assess the effects of closure of abattoirs on(a) direct farm sales and farmers' market sales, (b) the viability of independent butchers, (c) the viability of (i) small, (ii) medium and (iii) large livestock farms, (d) the animal welfare implications and the costs of transporting livestock extra distances to abattoirs and (e) the number of jobs lost through closure. [151821]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 28 February 2001]
  The Ministry has undertaken no studies to assess the above effects of abattoir closures.

  As announced in the Rural White Paper published on 28 November, Agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Foods Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04; this will enable the FSA to implement the principal recommendation of the Taskforce chaired by Colin Maclean, to revise the method of charging for Meat Hygiene Service inspections in abattoirs and cutting plants.

  Vets
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets were employed by his Department in(a) 1971, (b) 1975, (c) 1980, (d) 1985, (e) 1986, (f) 1987, (g) 1988, (h) 1989, (i) 1990, (j) 1992, (k) 1994, (l) 1996, (m) 1998, (n) 2000 and (o) 2001. [155623]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  The number of veterinary surgeons (full-time equivalents) employed by the State Veterinary Service since 1979, the earliest date for which we have accurate figures, is given in the table. The hon. Member may wish to know that since 1980 the State Veterinary Service has changed several times. The Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL), which previously formed part of the State Veterinary Service, became the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) in April 1990. The CVL figures are incorporated 812W
  in this return for the years 1 January 1980 to 1 January 1990. From 1 June 1990 the figures do not include the CVL. The Veterinary Investigation Service became part of the VLA on 1 October 1995 and is not included in these figures from that date. In 2000, there were 99 veterinarians employed by VLA. Much of the information presented was previously given in the answer of 27 February 1997, Official Report, columns 323–24W.

  Of the 285 full-time equivalent veterinarians employed by the State Veterinary Service in 2001 as a whole, 220 veterinarians are employed as field veterinary officers. The work of these officers is supplemented by about 100 Temporary Veterinary Inspectors (TVIs) from the private sector in normal times.

  Year

  Number of vets

  1979

  597.5

  1980

  580.5

  1985

  527.5

  1986

  506.5

  1987

  464.5

  1988

  444.5

  1989

  422.0

  1990

  430.5

  1992

  414.5

  1994

  408.3

  1996

  301.2

  1997

  289.5

  2000

  284.0

  2001

  286.0

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many livestock farms there were in the St. Ives constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [155740]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  There were 815 main agricultural holdings in the St. Ives constituency with livestock (cattle, sheep, pigs or goats) in the June 2000 Agricultural and Horticultural census. Parliamentary constituency level data are not available for June 1992 or June 1997.

  Pig Movements
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if healthy pigs can be moved to abattoirs for killing(a) under the Welfare Destruction Scheme and (b) for normal food purposes; and if he will make a statement. [155621]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  Pigs and other livestock experiencing serious, insurmountable welfare problems due to foot and mouth disease control measures would be eligible for the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme (LWDS). Livestock entered into LWDS would normally be slaughtered in specially designated abattoirs but, where this is not possible they would be killed on-farm. Through the Slaughter Under Licence Scheme, around 80 per cent. of typical slaughter levels of pigs for normal food purposes are currently being achieved.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average income per farm for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the region including the Lewes constituency in each year since 1979 was in current prices. [155600]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  The information requested is given in the table. The Eastern region is the smallest regional level covering the Lewes constituency for which figures are available. However, the East covers a large area of England from Lincolnshire to Hampshire and therefore is not necessarily representative of farming in the Lewes constituency.

  Average net farm income for all types of full-time farm businesses in the United Kingdom and the East (current prices)1, 2

  £000/farm

  UK

  East

  1979–80

  6.7

  9.4

  1980–81

  7.0

  10.1

  1981–82

  10.0

  11.1

  1982–83

  11.3

  14.8

  1983–84

  10.7

  16.5

  1984–85

  11.8

  18.2

  1985–86

  6.7

  5.4

  1986–87

  10.0

  13.5

  1987–88

  10.4

  5.9

  1988–89

  12.0

  7.9

  1989–90

  15.1

  18.7

  1990–91

  13.7

  19.0

  1991–92

  14.8

  20.2

  1992–93

  19.6

  23.5

  1993–94

  20.7

  25.5

  1994–95

  23.7

  33.5

  1995–96

  31.9

  46.8

  1996–97

  24.6

  36.6

  1997–98

  10.7

  16.3

  1998–99

  7.3

  13.2

  1999–2000

  5.7

  n/a

  2000–01³

  5.4

  n/a

  n/a = Not available

  1Estimates for the Eastern region before 1988–89 and for the United Kingdom throughout the period, exclude horticulture.

  2There have been a number of methodological changes which mean that the data are not directly comparable over the full period. A significant change is the move from an 'as received' to an 'as due' basis for livestock subsidies effective from 1994–95.

  3Forecast.

  Source

  Figures for the UK are derived from information from the Farm Business Surveys supplied for 'Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom'. Figures for the Eastern region are published in 'Farm Accounts in England'

  Foot and Mouth (Compensation)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers his officials have to speed up the destruction of livestock affected by foot and mouth disease, and in particular to deal with cases whereby owners have delayed settlement of compensation. [154317]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  The power to slaughter animals affected with foot and mouth disease is contained in the Animal Health Act 1983. The Act does 814W
  not specify how slaughter should be carried out, but, in the vast majority of cases animals are slaughtered very quickly following confirmation of disease.

  An Order has been made to change the valuation procedure for animals slaughtered for foot and mouth disease. This Order gives farmers the option of receiving payments at standard rates or of having animals valued by a valuer. This is intended to help speed up the valuation process and so ensure that animals can be slaughtered as quickly as possible. Where matters are delayed because an owner has disputed the valuation, all animals clearly affected with the disease are slaughtered without any further delay. The valuation of these animals is resolved after slaughter.

  There have been some localised problems. Officials are working with a number of experts, including those from the armed forces to improve the planning, co-ordination and management of the slaughter and disposal process.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the procedures for compensating farmers whose stock have had to be destroyed because of foot and mouth disease; [154315]

  (2) if he will investigate the administration mechanism which applies where agreement has not been reached as to the amount of compensation to be paid to stock owners for animals destroyed because of foot and mouth disease. [154316]

  Ms Quin [holding answer 19 March 2001]
  The normal process of paying compensation involves an independent valuation of the animals which are to be slaughtered. Valuers are employed by the Ministry for this purpose, and where appropriate this can mean a specialist in the particular class or breed of animals involved.

  If the owner disputes the valuation prior to slaughter, he may call his own valuer so that evidence is available when the matter goes to arbitration.

  We have introduced arrangements to streamline this process by using a flat rate method wherever possible. The farmer will however retain the right to seek a specific valuation.

  If agreement can not be reached quickly on the value of animals due to be slaughtered, all animals that are clearly affected with the disease are slaughtered without any further delay. The valuation of these animals is resolved after slaughter.

  Procedures are in place to fast track the processing and payment of claims, a soon as they are received. We aim to pay compensation within a week of slaughter taking place.

  Pig Swill
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the feeding of pig swill to pigs. [155078]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 27 March that we could consult on the principle and detailed application of a ban on the use of pig swill. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Spending Plans
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out detailed future spending plans for his Department. [156816]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today published my Department's Annual Report for 2001, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The Report sets out the Department's achievements over the last year and its detailed plans to continue to meet our over-arching; aim of improving everyone's quality of life, now and for the future.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses were received to the public consultation on proposals to permit technetium-99 radioactive discharges from licensed nuclear reprocessing sites. [156398]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency published a consultation document on 30 November 2000 outlining proposals for the future regulation of technetium-99 discharges from the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield. The Agency has advised that it received 97 responses to its consultation which ended on 5 March 2001.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with(a) MAFF and (b) the Environment Agency, in respect of the environmental hazards posed by the burial of animal carcases arising from the animal slaughter undertaken because of the spread of foot and mouth disease. [156403]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is working in close co-operation with MAFF and the Environment Agency to ensure the fulfilment of the environmental requirements of Article 3(2) of the Animal Waste Directive (90/667/EEC) on the burial of animal carcases. Each proposal for the burial of carcases is the subject of a site-specific risk assessment carried out by the Agency. No carcase burial has been carried out at a site where, in the view of the Agency, there is an undue risk of environmental pollution (eg contamination of groundwater).

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include Stafford Borough Council in the list of authorities able to give relief from business rates to rural businesses affected by the foot and mouth outbreak. [156255]

  Mr. Meacher
  Any local authority can give discretionary hardship rate relief and the Government underwrite 75 per cent. of the cost. As part of the package of measures to help business meet the costs imposed by the effects of the foot and mouth outbreak, Government have agreed to increase their support by underwriting 95 per cent. of the costs of hardship rate relief in 151 rural local authorities for properties below £12,000 rateable value. The list of rural local authorities, which does not include Stafford Borough Council, is based on sparsity of population, a standard definition of rurality.
  816W
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a summary of the measures he is taking to promote economic recovery from the effects of foot and mouth disease. [156201]

  Mr. Meacher
  I set out a package of short term practical measures to help rural business in my statement to the House on 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 191–210, which included the deferral and rearrangement of payments to Customs, Inland Revenue and of business rates. I also announced a new scheme to enable rural local authorities to offer discretionary hardship rate relief of which further details were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, columns 425–26W. The Rural Task Force is continuing to look at the scope for additional measures to help rural businesses severely affected by the effects of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what basis he set the limit of rateable value for businesses able to claim serious hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease. [156117]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no such limit. All businesses irrespective of their size that are adversely affected by the foot and mouth outbreak, or are suffering hardship for other reasons, may be granted rate relief at the discretion of local authorities. The authority granting rate relief on these grounds is required to fund 25 per cent. of the cost of providing that relief with central government meeting the rest.

  On 22 March, the Government announced an increase in the central government contribution from 75 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the cost of giving hardship rate relief to small businesses which are suffering from the adverse effects of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. This financial help is being made available to local authorities and targeted at vulnerable small businesses, where rates liabilities represent a greater proportion of turnover and profits than for larger firms.

  This additional funding is available for relief granted in 151 rural local authorities in England to properties with a rateable value of up to and including £12,000. This will embrace 77 per cent. of the total number of 494,000 business properties located in these areas. This level of rateable value is used in targeting relief on small businesses in other parts of the rating system. Discretionary relief is made available under the village shop rate relief scheme for properties within that threshold, and it is also used to define a small property outside London for the purposes of the transitional relief scheme introduced following the revaluation on 1 April 2000.

  Access to Ports Services
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a consultation paper on the proposed European Directive on access to ports services; and if he will make a statement. [156825]

  Mr. Hill
  I have today launched a consultation paper on the recently published European Commission Communication on Ports, which included a Proposal for
  817W
  a Directive on Access to Ports Services. The consultation seeks views on the Communication and, in particular, on the potential impact of the proposed Directive.

  The consultation paper has been sent to some 300 people and organisations including ports, port users, port service providers, trade associations, trade unions and others with an interest in the ports industry. It is also available on the DETR website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The deadline for responses is 30 June 2001.

  The Commission's proposals raise a number of important issues including:
  Whether the proposed Directive helps to further the government's aims of a successful, sustainable and safe ports which benefits its customers and the wider UK economy;
  Whether the proposed directive would help to achieve the Commission's objectives in an appropriate and proportionate way;
  Whether the proposed directive takes sufficient account of the structure of the UK ports industry; and
  Whether the proposed Directive adequately addresses the issues of public funding and state aid.

  Considerable clarification of the proposed Directive, and the intention behind specific requirements, will be needed before an accurate assessment can be made of the full potential impact on the port sector and its users.

  The responses received as a result of this exercise will be used to inform a detailed Regulatory Impact Assessment on how the proposed Directive might affect the ports industry and to formulate the Government's response to the Commission on its Communication.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2001,Official Report, column 11W, on the Sellafield MOX plant, if he will list the consultants which have been chosen to undertake the review of the revised BNFL economic case for SMP; and if he will place a copy of the BNFL submission in the Library. [151603]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, columns 629–30W. I shall publish the name of any consultants once they are appointed.

  Byker Incinerator
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the documents that have been used to identify the sites where Byker ash has been deposited. [155392]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  The Environment Agency used the following documents to identify the sites where ash from the Byker Reclamation Plant has been deposited:

  (a) Newcastle City Council's response to the Agency's letter of 2 February 2000 seeking details of the dates, locations and quantities of ash used;

  (b) Correspondence between the Agency and the City Council clarifying details; and

  (c) Copies of the records kept by the City Council under the duty of care imposed by section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  818W
  The Agency advise that they are unable to release the documents referred to in (a) and (b) because of the need to avoid prejudicing their current prosecution of the City Council and Contract Heat and Power Ltd. I am arranging for copies of (c) to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites which have(a) received and (b) been cleared of Byker ash. [155378]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  The Environment Agency sought details from Newcastle city council of the sites which had received ash from the Byker Reclamation Plant; and these sites are listed. I have been informed that the ash has now been cleared from all of these sites. However, while the city council's records indicated that ash had been sent to the path beside Feversham School, site inspections by the Agency and the city council did not identify any ash at that site.

  Paths/Bridleways

  Blayney Row, Newburn

  Coronation Road, North Walbottle

  Dinnington Recreation Ground

  Feversham School, Walbottle

  Reigh Burn and Coach Lane, Throckley

  Stamfordham road (link with North Walbottle road)

  Three Hills, Hazelrigg

  UFAMS, Newburn

  Walbottle Dene. Walbottle

  Jesmond Dene

  Welbeck road (derelicted land)

  Leightwood Avenue, Scotswood

  Allotments

  Blayney Row, Newburn

  Blucher Terrace, Walbottle

  Braxton B, Walker

  Christen road, Gosforth

  Coxlodge

  Denton Bank

  Denton Dene

  Fenham Model

  Hulne Terrace, Lemmington

  Jesmond Premier/Vale

  Keeledale Pigeons, Walker

  Little Moor (off Jesmond Dene road)

  Ridgewood Crescent

  Salters Lane, S. Gosforth (off Hollywood Avenue)

  St. Michaels A, Walker

  St. Michaels B, Walker

  Union Hall road, Lemmington

  Walkergate Hospital. Walker

  Walkergate 3A (Welbeck road)

  Walkergate 3B (Spinney Terrace)

  Westmacott street. Newburn

  Whinneyfield road, Walker

  Moorside, Fenham

  Nu's Moor, Cowgate

  Tweedstreet

  Hexham Avenue, Walker

  St. Gabriels, Heaton

  Farms

  Anfield Plain

  N. E. Mason Farm and Bigg Waters, Brunswick.

  819W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tonnes of Refuse Derived Fuel pellets from the Byker waste plant were delivered to the Cruddas Park residential and shopping complex in Newcastle in each year between 1979 and 2000; and what investigations have been undertaken into the combustion, air emissions and ash-handling at the Cruddas Park complex. [155343]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  The manufacture of fuel pellets at the Byker Refuse Derived Fuel plant ceased in December 1998. I understand that approximately 1,000 tonnes per annum of refuse derived fuel, from the Byker plant, was burned at Cruddas Park between 1989 and 1996. I will write to the hon. Member with specific details as soon as more information is available.

  The only investigations into the combustion, air emissions and ash-handling at the Cruddas Park complex were carried out by the operator at the commissioning stage in 1989. I understand that these records no longer exist.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) of 1 February 2001,Official Report, column 253W, on waste disposal, if he will list the incinerators which exceeded authorised emission limits, indicating the number of times they exceeded the limits for each type of breach; and if he will list successful prosecutions by the Environment Agency in relation to these breaches. [155393]

  1 January 1996 to 31 December 1998

  Air

  HCl

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  Particulate matter

  Temperature

  Iodine

  Metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  Dudley MES

  58

  1

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton MES

  28

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyseley

  90

  0

  23

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  13

  2

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  7

  4

  7

  42

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke MES

  12

  1

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edmonton

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham, SELCHP

  93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton (not operating)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  302

  11

  34

  65

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Annual average1

  101

  4

  12

  22

  6

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  1Data rounded up to nearest whole number except HF

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999

  Air

  HCl

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  Particulate matter

  Temperature

  Iodine

  Metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  Dudley MES

  54

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton MES

  23

  13

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Coventry

  8

  0

  12

  33

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyseley

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  6

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  17

  8

  6

  64

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke MES

  19

  5

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  820W
  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 23 March 2001]
  The data upon which the answer was provided for my hon. Friend are presented in the following tables.

  The Agency successfully prosecuted Sheffield city council, in respect of its Bernard Road municipal waste incinerator, for failure to comply with an enforcement notice served on 11 January 1999. Following a succession of breaches, the Notice required the Operator to reliably comply with the emission limits into air by 31 March 1999. The Operator was unable to reduce the number of breaches to a level acceptable to the Agency and therefore failed to comply with the Notice. The Operator was successfully prosecuted in Sheffield magistrates court on 8 December 1999. The breaches of emission limits were principally in relation to carbon monoxide although releases of nitrogen oxides and hydrogen chloride also exceeded the limits. The breaches were of short duration and unlikely to have given rise to any measurable environmental impact.

  The Environment Agency initially categorises incidents in accordance with environmental impact on four levels, major, significant, minor or none. The enforcement response is driven in general by this judgment of severity. Most breaches of authorisation have minor or no impact and in these cases prosecution has only been used as a last resort where other more proportionate methods, for example serving enforcement notices have not proved successful. However, the Environment Agency appreciates that repeated minor breaches can demonstrate a lack of control and is revising its guidance accordingly. Under this guidance prosecutions will normally be pursued for minor incidents where the operator has shown a history of non-compliance sufficient to call into question the effective management of the site/operation or to prevent effective regulation by the Agency.
  821W

  1 January 1999 to 31 December 1999

  Air

  HCl

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  Particulate matter

  Temperature

  Iodine

  Metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  Edmonton

  7

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham, SELCHP

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton (not operating)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  142

  42

  29

  107

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Air

  HCl

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  Particulate matter

  Temperature

  Iodine

  Metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  Dudley MES

  12

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton MES

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  7

  0

  0

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyseley

  5

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham

  7

  6

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  15

  3

  5

  22

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoke MES

  9

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edmonton

  0

  0

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham SELCHP

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  60

  13

  27

  41

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites which received Byker incinerator ash for use(a) in building bricks, blocks, paving stones and building materials, (b) in public and private roads and streets, (c) in compost, potting soil, growing medium and fertiliser and (d) on farms, livestock/poultry holding sites and feedstuffs companies, indicating the dates on which materials were received and the quantities involved. [155337]

  Mr. Meacher [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  I have separately provided the hon. Member with a list of the sites which have received ash from the Byker Reclamation Plant (ie paths/bridleways, allotments and farms). I have been advised by the Environment Agency that it has no knowledge of ash from the Plant being used in(a); no knowledge of its use in (b) other than paths/bridleways; and no knowledge of its use in (c) other than where it has become entrained in soil on allotments at which ash has been used for path construction.

  In relation to (d), the Agency understands that poultry may have been kept by the plot holders at some of the allotments at which ash was received. Ash was also received at the following farms:
  N E Mason Farm, where 80 tonnes was deposited in 1996–1997; and
  Anfield Plain, where 30 tonnes was deposited (year not known).

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles were involved in road accidents in Britain in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [155989]

  Mr. Hill
  Data on foreign-registered vehicles involved in road accidents are not available.

  GM Maize (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the GM maize plantings in Shropshire by Ordnance Survey grid reference; and if he will make a statement. [155968]

  Mr. Meacher
  EU Directive 90/220, on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the environment, recognises two types of release. The first, known as Part B releases, are carried out for research purposes and must be notified to the Government. Their location must be advertised locally and made publicly available through the register of releases held by my Department. The second type of release, known as a Part C release, is for commercial purposes. Such releases do not have to be notifited to the Government, as the crops have undergone detailed safety assessments at European level and been approved for commercial use. However, where such releases are carried out as part of the farm scale evaluations or as part of the National Seed List trials then their location is notified to Government and made publicly available.

  The public register of releases shows that no GM maize is presently being grown in Shropshire under Part B consents. I also understand that no National List trials of GM maize are presently taking place in Shropshire and that no GM maize is presently under cultivation as part of the farm scale evaluations. However, the locations of the next round of GM maize sites for the evaluations will be announced shortly by my Department. The sites are likely to be sown from the end of April. Details of their locations, including Ordnance Survey grid references, will be placed on our website at www.detr.gov.uk. We will also write to parish councils in whose area an evaluation is to be sited to provide information about the release.

  Department Policies (Luton, South)
  Ms Moran
  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 constituency, the effects on the Luton, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156165]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Luton borough council from 1997–98 is shown in the table. These figures include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Revenue Support Grant

  75.478

  81.382

  82.804

  89.299

  —

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  41.033

  42.769

  46.379

  51.567

  —

  Local Government Reorganisation

  Supplementary Credit Approval

  3.575

  2.160

  0.186

  —

  —

  Housing Investment Programme

  3.337

  2.978

  1.843

  5.920

  2.952 +

  (MRA of 5.691)

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  6.939

  6.262

  5.889

  5.597

  —

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.481

  1.664

  1.843

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.250

  0.106

  –

  —

  —

  SRB funding

  1.430

  1.570

  2.000

  1.250

  2.900

  New Deal for Communities Funding

  —

  —

  —

  0.300

  20.100

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.754

  ERDF funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.224

  0.268

  0.307

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.224

  0.268

  0.307

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.704

  0.913

  3.730

  2.574

  4.919

  1Where known

  2The NDC funding is for the Marsh Farm estate, a project in the Luton, North constituency.

  3Not yet known—13 wards in Luton have been designated for assistance under the new Objective 2 Programme (2000–06). Formal approval of the programme is expected soon.

  Roadway Drainage
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines he issued and responsibilities he has for ensuring that roadway drainage systems and ditches are maintained, particularly in relation to rural roads in England, Wales and Scotland. [156074]

  Mr. Hill [holding answer 29 March 2001]
  Guidance on the maintenance of drainage systems and ditches on all local authority roads in England is contained in the local authorities' Code of Good Practice for Highway Maintenance. The responsibility for maintenance of these roads rests with the local highway authorities.

  The Secretary of State is directly responsible for trunk roads and this responsibility is exercised through the Highways Agency. Appropriate guidance has been issued to the Highways Agency's contractors.

  £million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  63.8

  73.0

  75.5

  72.5

  78.7

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  63.4

  66.2

  71.9

  81.5

  79.3

  Housing Investment Programme

  4.9

  4.6

  4.8

  7.2

  10.5

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  —

  —

  7.7

  —

  —

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.6

  1.9

  1.9

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.7

  0.5

  0.6

  —

  —

  824W
  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Luton, South. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  The transport allocations shown are for the Luton/Dunstable conurbation, which includes part of South Bedfordshire district. Similarly, the Single Regeneration Budget partnership operates across the conurbation—the figures given are an estimate of the amount going into Luton.

  Road maintenance in Wales and Scotland is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Departmental Policies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  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 Hazel Grove constituency, the effects on Hazel Grove of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156178]

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal kinds of funding which this Department has provided to Stockport in 1997–98 to 2000–01 are shown in the table. These include grants and borrowings approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much money has been spent on Hazel Grove. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are invested.
  825W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1959–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.9

  0.5

  0.6

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.4

  0.7

  0.8

  1.9

  3.2

  Capital Challenge:

  Supplementary Credit

  0.7

  0.5

  —

  —

  Basic Credit Approvals

  —

  1.5

  1.0

  —

  —

  1 These figures have not been adjusted to make year on year comparisons possible

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the underground railway being built at Heathrow Airport between Terminal 4 and the proposed Terminal 5. [156170]

  Mr. Hill
  No London Underground railway is currently being built between Terminal 4 and the proposed Terminal 5 at Heathrow. The proposed extension of the Piccadilly Line to the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow was considered at the Terminal 5 Inquiry. The Inquiry Inspector's report has been received and a decision on Terminal 5 will be issued as soon as possible consistent with full and careful consideration of the report.

  Business Rates (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to delay the introduction of supplementary business rates on businesses in the tourism industry. [156332]

  Ms Armstrong
  In our Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government Finance" (September 2000) we sought views on the details of a scheme which would give local authorities limited freedom to vary the business rate in their areas. A summary of the responses to the Green Paper has been published on the DETR website. We are currently considering the issues raised in the responses with representatives of business and local authorities.

  Key outputs resulting from the schemes over the period

  Sandwell SRB

  Sandwell Learning

  Rounds 1, 2 and 3

  Smethwick SRB

  Plus SRB

  Jobs created

  1,006

  115

  —

  Residents accessing employment through training, advice etc.

  2,429

  419

  —

  Number of business start-ups

  234

  33

  —

  Private sector leverage

  £48,194,000

  £3,750,000

  —

  Note:

  There are no "headline" outputs from the Sandwell Learning Plus scheme yet as it commenced in December 2000 and is still in its development phase. One of the main objectives of the scheme is to increase the number of adults in Sandwell studying for a qualification from the current level of 17 per cent. to 30 per cent.

  £.million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Revenue Support Grant2

  133.47

  146.27

  153.25

  150.62

  160.34

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates2

  64.12

  66.51

  71.80

  80.88

  78.68

  Local Government Reorganisation Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  0.000

  Housing Investment Programme

  9.04

  7.98

  8.75

  24.02

  8.36

  Additional PSRG3

  —

  2.64

  3.775

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  47.27

  43.41

  41.77

  40.62

  6—

  Departmental Policies (Sandwell)
  Mr. Bailey
  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 borough, the effects of his Department's policies and actions on the metropolitan borough of Sandwell since 2 May 1997. [1563791

  Ms Armstrong
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to Sandwell since 2 May 1997 is shown in the table. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  SRB

  There are currently five SRB schemes in Sandwell:
  a merged SRB Rounds 1, 2 and 3 scheme which covers the entire borough, with broad based regeneration objectives, which commenced in 1995
  a Round 4 scheme which is targeted at Smethwick, which commenced in 1998
  a Round 6 scheme, Sandwell Learning Plus, which aims to promote lifelong learning in Sandwell and which also covers the entire borough, and Which commenced in 2000.

  SRB funding targeted at Sandwell under these schemes over the

  period April 1997 to March 2001

  £ million

  Sandwell SRB Rounds 1, 2 and 3

  28.885

  Smethwick SRB Round 4

  3.750

  Sandwell Learning Plus SRB Round 6

  0.350

  Total

  32.985

  827W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  1.89

  6.54

  6.63

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.3

  0.26

  —

  —

  —

  Major Repair Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19.77

  SRB funding (see previous)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Communities funding

  —

  —

  0.4

  2.5

  5.2

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.03

  ERDF funding (Obj 2)

  1.99

  3.19

  2.56

  4.10

  1.97

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  1.82

  1.15

  0.95

  —

  0.45

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  1.82

  1.15

  0.95

  1.43

  1.20

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  1.34

  1.33

  1.57

  6.54

  9.46

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant4

  —

  —

  —

  0.42

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant5

  —

  .08

  .07

  .08

  0.11

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit a and Basic Credit Approvals)

  0.95

  3.37

  4.72

  —

  —

  Notes

  1 Where known

  Revenue Support Grant:

  2The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and Income from the National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Report 2000" respectively.

  Housing:

  The Housing subsidy figure for 2000–01 is still provisional.

  The reduction in HIP resources for 2001–02 is due to the introduction of the new Major Repair Allowance i.e. a new way of allocating resources for works to Council stock; the table shows Sandwell's indicative figure for 2001–02.

  We have no data for Loan Charges Defective Housing.

  3PSRG = Private Sector Renewal Grant Resources (programme ended in 1999–2000)

  ERDF:

  Future budgets are allocated on a competitive basis and we cannot predict how much will be drawn into the area at this time from the new programmes. (Note the figures quoted for 1001 are from old programme projects spending in the final year.)

  Transport:

  4Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for the schemes awarded funding may cover more than one year.

  5Rural grants paid to West Midlands PTA/E

  6Not available

  Economic and Physical Regeneration
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways the region-by-region allocation of the Department's funds for economic and physical regeneration initiatives is influenced by the availability of previously developed land and buildings. [156197]

  Ms Armstrong
  A formula was used to allocate 80 per cent. of the Land and Property Programme for 2001–02 to the Regional Development Agencies. The allocation criteria was designed to reflect the economic, social and physical needs within each region, and the anticipated level of support from local business to build upon public sector investment. Seven equally weighed indicators were used in the formula:

  GDP per capita;

  Those not in employment;

  The number of people living in the most deprived local authority districts;

  The amount of derelict land;

  North Cornwall District Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  72001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  3.435

  3.162

  3.262

  3.231

  3.544

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  2.468

  2.524

  2.738

  3.072

  3.040

  SSA Reduction Grant (SSA Review)

  0

  0.040

  0

  0

  0

  Housing Investment Programme

  21.024

  0.944

  1.018

  32.300

  43.018

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  1.908

  1.665

  1.435

  81.295

  —

  828W

  The amount of previously developed land as a proportion of all urban land;

  The number of housing transactions; and

  The level of VAT registrations and survival rates of business.

  Departmental Policies (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  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 North Cornwall constituency, the effects of North Cornwall of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156122]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to North Cornwall district and Restormel borough councils and to Cornwall county council in the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 is 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 has been spent on North Cornwall constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  829W

  North Cornwall District Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  72001–02

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.170

  0.549

  0.553

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.026

  0.025

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.005

  0.005

  0.005

  90.005

  90.005

  Restormel Borough Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  72001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  4.386

  3.784

  3.836

  3.672

  4.057

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  2.863

  2.870

  3.110

  3.476

  3.477

  SSA Reduction Grant (SSA Review)

  0

  0.252

  0.055

  0

  0

  Housing Investment Programme

  21.047

  1.005

  1.007

  32.123

  41.063

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  2.383

  2.514

  2.053

  5n/a

  5n/a

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  0.212

  0.630

  0.564

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.080

  0.080

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  Loan Charges Defective Housing

  0.007

  0.007

  0.007

  90.007

  90.007

  Cornwall County Council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  72001–02

  Revenue Support Grant1

  129.412

  133.560

  139.493

  135.599

  146.727

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates1

  93.491

  98.020

  107.287

  122.050

  120.054

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  3.474

  1.205

  1.631

  0

  0

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  3.474

  1.205

  1.631

  0

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0.875

  0.994

  2.472

  7.138

  14.920

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant6

  0

  0

  0.157

  0.845

  n/a

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  1.098

  1.115

  1.221

  1.559

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit and Basic Credit Approvals)

  2.057

  2.830

  3.013

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1 The amounts of Revenue Support Grant and income from National Non-Domestic Rates shown for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are the revised amounts allocated under "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98 Amending Report 1999" and "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99 Amending Report 2000"respectively.

  2 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  3Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  4Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. North Cornwall's MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £1.793 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIF allocation above. Restormel is a transfer authority and is not entitled to MRA.

  5Restormel borough council completed the transfer of its housing stock in February 2000.

  6Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for schemes may cover more than one year.

  7Where known.

  8Provisional.

  9Estimated.

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)

  Parts of the constituency are included in two SRB schemes. Funding provided for these schemes since1997–98 is included in the table.

  £ million

  SRB scheme

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Cornwall Developing in Partnership

  1.196

  1.218

  1.466

  1.323

  1.540

  RADICAL

  0.050

  0.021

  0.029

  n/a

  n/a

  1Where known.

  European Funding

  North Cornwall constituency was included in the South West Objective 5b programme that closed for new applications at the end of 1999. Major projects in the constituency which have received funding since 1997–98 include Bodmin Town Centre Environmental Enhancements (£0.2 million grant), Newquay Town Centre
  830W
  Enhancements (£0.2 million),Bude-Stratton Business Park (£0.3 million) and Bude Canal Sea Lock (£0.2 million).

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have been designated an Objective 1 area, of which North Cornwall constituency is a part, and stands to benefit from £315 million of European Funds over the next seven years.

  Non-native Species
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the review of non-native species policy outlined in the Government's rural White Paper will commence. [156758]

  Mr. Meacher
  A review group, consisting of Government and non-Government organisations, will start work early next month to carry out the review of non-native species policy. The review process will:

  Evaluate the effectiveness of current statutory or non-statutory procedures for dealing with the introduction and establishment of non-native species and identify examples of current best practice within the United Kingdom and abroad.
  Identify the main vectors for the introduction and spread of non-native species.
  Put forward practical and proportionate costed proposals for improving measures to limit the ecological and economic impact of non-native species in Great Britain and recommend measures to limit the impact of the introduction of native species beyond their natural range. These could include proposals for statutory or non-statutory measures in areas of research and monitoring, trade, and control of non-native species.
  Identify appropriate organisations to take forward any measures recommended.

  The review should be completed by the end of 2001.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's review of competition in the water industry in England and Wales. [156760]

  Mr. Meacher
  Following further work on the options for extending competition in the water industry in England and Wales, the Government have decided to boost the opportunities for competition. Our proposals will bring customers the prospect of more choice, keener prices and better services. We propose to license new entrants into the market for production and retail activities, while the incumbent water companies will remain vertically integrated statutory undertakers, retaining their important strategic water resource and environmental duties. Companies will be given clearer rights to enter the water market, providing the opportunity for innovation and efficiency gains to give customers better deals. We will continue to ensure that public health, the natural environment, and the high quality of drinking water is safeguarded, and that water services remain affordable for customers. We will publish a consultation paper on the proposed legislative and regulatory framework in the summer.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on arm's length management of local authority housing in response to the consultation paper,"Arms Length Management of Local Authority Housing". [156817]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am today placing in the Library of the House the text of guidance on arm's length management of local authority housing and on the availability of the additional resources made available in 832W
  the spending review. This will very shortly be made available on the Department's website, and printed copies will be available in due course.

  I am grateful to those who responded to the consultation paper; I am placing a summary of responses in the Library of the House. We have made a number of changes to the proposals set out there in the light of comments.

  Many authorities asked for a pre-allocation of resources so that they could proceed to plan and to consult their tenants in the knowledge that, if they meet all the requirements, a known amount of additional resources will be available. We will be setting up such a system, and will be making the resources available over two years so that authorities will have longer to spend the resources they have been allocated. The guidance suggests that authorities wishing to seek resources for 2002–03 should aim to let the Department have an early indication of their intention to seek a place on the list by July 2001 and full supporting information by the end of September.

  Many authorities have expressed concern that the requirement to obtain a 3* (excellent) rating from the Housing Inspectorate is very demanding. We are, however, quite clear that additional resources should be linked to the highest standards of service. But we recognise that those authorities that develop the first arm's length proposals will face a particularly challenging task, and are prepared, for 2002–03, to make a part payment to those authorities that demonstrate that services are well on the way to achieving a 3* rating. In such cases a 2* (good) rating together with an assessment of "likely to improve" or "will improve" will attract 50 per cent. of the full amount subject to an agreed plan to achieve 3* standard. The full amount will be payable once the 3* standard is reached.

  We have made a number of other changes to the proposals in the consultation paper to reflect concerns expressed in responses and to give further detail on some points. In particular, the guidance makes clear that there will be some flexibility in the limit of 12,000 dwellings for an individual company; that tenant representatives on company boards should be elected; and that there should be clearly defined responsibilities between a local authority and a company in relation to the authority's strategic functions.

  I believe that arm's length management is an exciting new opportunity for authorities and tenants. I am encouraged by the enthusiasm with which the idea has been received, and I hope that many authorities will give it serious consideration. The Department will be working closely to establish template documentation with those who are looking to be the leaders in this field.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Physical Education
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students graduated from a physical education teaching course in each year since 1995. [154481]
  833W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of people obtaining qualified teacher status in England who had physical education as a recorded subject in their teaching courses are as follows:

  Year

  BEd

  PGCE

  1995

  737

  721

  1996

  747

  678

  1997

  847

  711

  1998

  684

  848

  19991

  678

  769

  1Provisional

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

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train as 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).

  Education (St. Ives)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies for teachers there were in the St. Ives constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [155741]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not held centrally. The number of vacancies at January each year and the vacancy rate for the local authorities Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, in which the constituency of St. Ives lies, are given in the table.

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  Year

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (Percentage)

  1992

  3

  0.1

  1997

  10

  0.3

  2000

  11

  0.3

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

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train as 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).

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of full time students stayed in education in the St. Ives constituency after the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2001. [155743]

  Mr. Wicks
  At the heart of our drive to improve participation and attainment is the new Connexions Service which we will be phasing in from April this year.834W
  The service will provide information, advice, support and access to personal development opportunities for all 13–19 year olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to 18 year olds not in education, employment or training in England fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 157,000 1999.

  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs, and participation rates by LEA are only available for 16 and 17 year olds.

  The percentage of 16 year olds in full-time education for Cornwall LEA, which includes the constituency of St. Ives, was 78 per cent. in 1992–93, 75 per cent. in 1997–98 and 76 per cent. in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Post-16 Education (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of full time students remained in education in the Romsey constituency after the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 years in the last year for which figures are available. [155851]

  Mr. Wicks [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  At the heart of our drive to improve participation and attainment is the new Connexions Service which we will be phasing in from April this year. The service will provide information, advice, support and access to personal development opportunities for all 13–19 year olds, whatever their needs and circumstances, to keep them learning. Latest figures show that the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training in England fell by 28,000 from 185,000 in 1998 to 157,000 in 1999.

  Data on the percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs, and participation rates by LEA are only available for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  In 1998–99 (the last year for which figures are available) the percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education for Hampshire LEA, which includes the constituency of Romsey, was 70 per cent.

  Teacher Vacancies (Romsey)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies for teachers there were in the Romsey constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001 at (i) Key Stage 1, (ii) Key Stage 2 and (iii) Key Stage 3. [155862]

  Ms Estelle Morris [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  The information requested is not held centrally. The number of vacancies in January each year and the vacancy rate for the local authorities Hampshire and Southampton, in which the constituency of Romsey lies, are given in the table.

  Southampton and Hampshire

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (Percentage)

  1992

  53

  0.5%

  1997

  76

  0.7

  2000

  167

  1.8

  835W
  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for 10 years and 6,900 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train as 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).

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if proposals for write-off of student loans for student teachers initiated by his Department are planned to extend to all shortage subjects. [155870]

  Ms Estelle Morris [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  Detailed proposals for the write-off of student loans are still being developed by my Department. Current plans are that they will not extend beyond trainee teachers in shortage subjects—for secondary schools, these are Maths, Science, Technology, Modern Languages and English.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of higher education students had independent status in each of the past five years. [155873]

  Mr. Wicks [holding answer 28 March 2001]
  In England and Wales students eligible for support under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations or the Education (Student Support) Regulations were assessed for contribution on the basis of the income of, for dependent students, themselves and/or their parents and, for independent students, themselves and/or their spouse.

  The proportion of students who had independent status in each of the past five years is shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Proportion of eligible

  students with

  Academic Years

  Independent Status1

  1994–95

  23

  1995–96

  23

  1996–97

  22

  1997–98

  21

  1998–99

  Mandatory Awards Scheme students2

  18

  Student Support Scheme students3

  19

  All students

  18

  1Independent students are assessed for a contribution towards support based on their own income and that of their spouse. A student is regarded as independent if he/she is aged 25 or over on the first day of the academic year for which they are applying; if both parents have died; if he/she has been self-supporting from earnings for 3 years; or if he/she is irreconcilably estranged from his/her parents.

  2Students who entered higher education up to 1997–98 and those who entered in 1998–99 to whom existing arrangements applied.

  3Students starting their course in 1998–99 under the new arrangements. Data include an estimated 600 students who, because they did not expect to receive a contribution to their fees from public funds, did not make an application to their authority.

  Source

  F503G survey

  Sport (Further Education)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he issues in respect of participation in sport in further education colleges and sixth forms in addition to the academic timetable. [155910]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have offered no specific guidance to further education colleges or to schools with sixth forms on the place of sporting activities for their students.

  Day Places
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many day places were available for(a) children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and (b) autistic children in the United Kingdom(i) from 1990 to 2000 and (ii) in 2000–01. [155954]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected on the available places for children with particular categories of special educational needs. This would be impracticable because the majority of these children are educated in mainstream schools which respond to the unique needs of each of their pupils. Special schools will often also comnionly include a diverse range of pupils.

  School Admissions Policy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if grammar schools are permitted to object to appeal panels which consider issues other than those defined by the school's admission policy; and if appeal panels are able to consider levels of prior and projected academic attainment of pupils. [156001]

  Ms Estelle Morris [holding answer 29 March 2001]
  Appeal panels should consider whatever evidence is presented to them by appellants in support of their case. They may also request from the admission authority whatever additional information they themselves consider necessary to aid them in reaching their decision. Although there are statutory matters that must be taken into account by the appeal panel, such as the school's admission criteria, they may consider that other factors are also relevant to an individual case; this is for them to decide. The decisions of appeal panels must be complied with by all parties to the appeal; they can be challenged only through the courts. Guidance on appeal panel procedures is given in our Code of Practice on School Admission Appeals, to which all involved in the admissions process must have regard.

  Threshold Assessment
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost is of recruitment, training and management of the Threshold Assessment; and what the cost is of delivery of the assessment as a service to schools. [156099]

  Ms Estelle Morris [holding answer 29 March 2001]
  The DfEE holds a contract with Cambridge Education Associates for the provision of threshold assessors and external advisers.

  The value of the contract in each year of operation is subject to the volume and quality of assessor and adviser activity. The first threshold round will be much larger

  837W
  than in following years because of the large number. We expect the costs to come down significantly in future years.

  In the first 18 months of operation we expect the total contract costs to be in the range of £22 million to £24 million. Around half of this relates to adviser provision and half to assessors, and includes start-up and administration costs.

  The DfEE also holds a contract with Centre for British Teachers for the training and accreditation of threshold assessors, external advisers and performance management consultants; and the training of headteachers in the introduction of the threshold and new performance management arrangements.

  The value of the contract in each year of operation is subject to the volume and quality of the training provided. Costs for the first round of training will be significantly higher, as they include set up costs and cover the vast majority of training required to introduce the new arrangements. Again, we expect costs to come down in future years.

  In the first phase of operation we expect the overall cost to be in the range of £12 million to £14 million, including start-up and administration costs.

  Astra Pension Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that the calculation by the State Pension Scheme Office of the Guaranteed Minimum Pension for members of the Astra Pension Scheme is completed as a matter of urgency. [156109]

  Mr. Wicks
  The National Insurance Contributions Office is in contact with the trustees of the Astra Group Pension Scheme and is dealing with these calculations as a matter of urgency.

  Departmental Policies (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the North Cornwall constituency, the effects on North Cornwall of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156124]

  Mr. Wills
  Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the North Cornwall constituency and Cornwall LEA.

  Sure Start

  Sure Start Kerrier was established in Camborne in September 2000 to provide support services to families using the facilities and expertise provided by the Children's Society, Cornwall Association for the Blind, and the local Education Action Zone. As well as offering advice on general family problems, specialists offer guidance on playgroup locations, speech and learning difficulties, as well as providing a playbus and sensory trail for blind children.

  Beacon Schools

  Delabole Community primary school—was awarded Beacon status on 1 September 2000 for leadership and management, early years provision, literacy and numeracy, geography, parental and community involvement, and special educational needs.
  838W
  Schools with specialist status designated since 1997

  Launceston College—technology college

  Newquay Tretherras school—technology college.

  School Achievement Awards

  Eleven schools in the constituency were among 51 in Cornwall to be allocated a total of £343,750 in March 2001. Awards were around £5,000 for a typical primary school and £25,000 for a typical secondary school. Staff at the 11 schools received Improvement Awards because pupil performance in 2000 was substantially better than in 1997, or because schools had come out of special measures.

  Education Action Zone

  Camborne, Pool, and Redruth Success Zone includes one special school, 26 primary, and three secondary schools. It commenced in May 2000, and is intended to raise standards, motivate pupils, reduce exclusions, and involve parents directly in their children's education.

  Key activities include: a new Early Years curriculum, greater parental involvement and guaranteed child care provision. Increased computing for Key Stage 1,2, and 3 pupils. Development of community learning centres. New approaches to teaching and learning and a new career structure for "para-professionals". Key partners in the Zone include Barclays Bank, Cornwall and Devon Careers, Cornwall Social Services, the local education authority, and 49 national and local businesses.

  Class Size Plan

  The September 2000 figures show that there are now only 255 (1.7 per cent.) pupils remaining in infant classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1997 was 4,667 (29.5 per cent.).

  Cornwall Performance Data

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Key Stage 2, percentage of pupils achieving level 4

  English

  LEA

  67

  66

  73

  76

  England

  63

  65

  71

  75

  Maths

  LEA

  67

  62

  72

  72

  England

  62

  59

  69

  72

  Science

  LEA

  74

  74

  82

  85

  England

  69

  69

  78

  85

  GCSE—percentage of pupils achieving

  5+A*-C grades

  LEA average

  48.8

  51.1

  51.6

  52.6

  England average

  45.1

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  5+A*-C grades

  LEA average

  91.4

  93.2

  92.7

  92.4

  England average

  86.0

  87.5

  88.5

  88.9

  No passes

  LEA average

  4.0

  2.6

  3.4

  3.3

  England average

  7.7

  6.6

  6.0

  5.6

  Average point score

  LEA average

  n/a

  39.9

  40.2

  40.5

  England average

  n/a

  37.0

  38.1

  38.9

  839W

  A/AS Level and Advanced GNVQ

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Average points for 2 or more A/AS levels

  LEA average

  17.8

  18.9

  17.8

  England average

  17.8

  18.2

  18.5

  A/AS average per entry

  LEA average

  5.2

  5.3

  5.1

  England average

  5.4

  5.5

  5.5

  Cornwall LEA Capital funding

  £000

  Credit approvals

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  ACG

  6,372

  6,251

  6,573

  7,445

  7,100

  33,741

  SCA

  355

  724

  520

  280

  —

  1,879

  PFI Credits

  —

  —

  —

  51

  —

  51

  Grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS

  1,019

  1,501

  2,803

  5,923

  —

  11,246

  NDS Condition Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,291

  1,291

  NGfL

  —

  979

  651

  1,763

  —

  3,393

  VA Grant

  225

  176

  160

  388

  532

  1,481

  Devolved Formula Capital

  —

  —

  —

  3,828

  2,060

  5,888

  Science Lab

  —

  —

  —

  275

  275

  550

  Access Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  465

  465

  Energy

  —

  145

  —

  —

  —

  145

  AMP Support

  —

  —

  80

  —

  —

  80

  SEED Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  274

  310

  584

  Class Size Initiative

  —

  55

  834

  340

  —

  1,229

  Outside Toilets

  —

  538

  —

  —

  —

  538

  Schools Security at 75 per cent.

  137

  171

  175

  176

  125

  784

  SSLU's

  —

  —

  —

  106

  92

  198

  Total

  12,250

  20,849

  11,796

  10,540

  8,108

  63,543

  Space for Sport and the Arts scheme

  Kilkhampton Junior and Infants and Warbstow County Primary are to benefit from this scheme, details of which were announced on 27 March 2001. A joint DCMS and DfEE national initiative offering up to £130 million means that these two schools can now develop plans to meet local community needs for sport, arts, and social activities that will benefit pupils, teachers and their communities. A further six schools throughout Cornwall have also been included in the scheme.

  New Deal for Schools allocations for schools in the North Cornwall constituency

  Year/School

  Project details

  (£000 Grant awarded)

  1998–99

  Bodmin Community Primary

  General building repairs

  66

  Camelford Primary

  Upgrade classroom block

  51

  St. Petroc's CE Primary

  General improvements

  15

  1999–2000

  Bodmin Community College

  Fire precautions

  43

  Budehaven Community

  Fire precautions

  33

  Budehaven Community

  Structural repairs

  32

  Launceston College

  Fire precautions

  37

  Launceston College

  Structural repairs

  32

  Launceston College

  Replace temporary classrooms

  473

  Summercourt Primary

  Fire precautions

  2

  Treviglas Community College

  Fire precautions

  24

  Treviglas Community College

  Dust extraction

  32

  Wadebridge School

  Fire precautions

  32

  Newquay Tretherras

  Fire precautions

  46

  Sir James Smith Community

  Fire precautions

  25

  Sir James Smith Community

  Replacement of time expired temporary classrooms

  28

  Sir James Smith Community

  Replace failing window walling

  23

  840W

  A/AS Level and Advanced GNVQ

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Average point score GNVQs

  LEA average

  10.1

  10.5

  10.5

  England average

  9.6

  9.9

  10.1

  Funding per pupil

  In Cornwall LEA, funding per pupil has increased by £370 in real terms between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Classroom of the future

  Cornwall LEA was allocated £624,000 in February 2001. The project will be based at Camborne School and Community College, but will be accessible electronically and physically to all schools in the Camborne, Pool, Redruth (CPR) Success Zone. The project offers a space mission control centre and real time night astronomy during daylight hours in the UK—through remote control of satellites on the dark side of the planet and international links. Collaboration is taking place with the National Space and Science Centre in Leicester. Input is also promised from the Royal Navy.
  841W

  New Deal for Schools allocations for schools in the North Cornwall constituency

  Grant

  awarded

  Year/School

  Project details

  (£000)

  2000–01

  Blisland Community

  Part of 36 school package for primary fire precautions

  169

  Bodmin Community Primary

  Boscastle Community

  Cardinham School

  Berrycoombe School

  Part of 16 school package for playground repairs

  1139

  Bodmin Community Primary Junior

  Bodmin Community College

  Camelford Primary

  Indian Queens Primary

  St. Merryn School

  2000–01

  Bodmin Community College

  Part of 13 school package for structural repairs

  1435

  Trevisker Primary

  Part of 8 school package for electrical works

  1210

  Berrycoombe School

  Part of 37 school package for flame failure devices on school kitchen ovens

  1115k

  St. Mary's CA Primary

  Bude Infant

  St. Columb Minor School

  Trenance Infant

  Beacon Infant and Nursery

  1Denotes total allocations made to Cornwall LEA for package projects covering a number of schools throughout Cornwall, including those shown in the constituency

  Further Education

  Student numbers at all FEFC funded institutions where home postcode is in the Local Authority District of North Cornwall.

  1996–97 to 1999–200

  16–18

  Adult

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  FEFC funded

  1996–97

  616

  398

  180

  5,089

  1996–98

  587

  379

  210

  4,831

  1998–99

  583

  346

  249

  4,538

  1999–2000

  621

  336

  251

  4,444

  Non-FEFC funded

  1996–97

  30

  92

  29

  318

  1997–98

  29

  120

  43

  340

  1998–99

  30

  141

  76

  658

  1999–2000

  30

  143

  111

  534

  Modern Apprenticeships

  Information on Modern Apprenticeships for all English constituencies will be placed in the Library by the end of March.

  New Deal for Young People

  In the North Cornwall constituency, 1,219 young people have joined the New Deal to end December 2000. 745 have found jobs, 609 of which are sustained.

  Labour market statistics

  The working age employment rate in Cornwall in autumn 2000 was 71.8 per cent., below the UK rate of 74.7 per cent. The rate in autumn 1997 was 75.6 per cent., in autumn 1998 70.9 per cent., and in autumn 1999 69.9 per cent. These figures are volatile at this level, and our best interpretation of the trend in the employment rate for Cornwall since 1997 is that it has been broadly flat.
  842W
  The claimant unemployment rate has fallen from 8.2 per cent. in February 1997 to 5.0 per cent. in February 2001 in the North Cornwall constituency.

  School Achievement Awards
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have won school achievement awards; and if he will make a statement. [156759]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  About 7,000 schools have won Achievement Awards worth about £5,000 for a typical primary school and about £25,000 for a typical secondary school. These will enable schools to pay bonuses to staff teams.

  About 5,000 of these schools have been awarded improvement awards. There have been some amendments to the original list of improvement awards because of a statistical error in the calculation of the 1997 average point score for Key Stage 2 tests. The final lists have been placed in the Library. The lists also update answers previously given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) about School Achievement Awards on 20 March 2001, Official Report, columns 160W, 165W and 168W, and provide rankings of improvement award winners by the differences between their average point scores in 1997 and 2000. Schools that had improved, but with the statistical change would not have merited an improvement award, will not lose financially as a result of these changes.

  Schools (Finance)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to standardise the financial information required of schools. [156546]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am pleased to announce that we have today, in partnership with Ofsted and the Audit Commission, published a consultation document seeking
  843W
  views on the introduction of consistent financial reporting for schools maintained by local education authorities in England. The exercise closes in July. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library. Copies can also be obtained from the DfEE's publications centre and on-line from the Department's Consultation Unit website www.dfee.gov.uk/consultations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Government will respond to the recommendations of the Third report of the Select Committee on Public Administration,'The Ministerial Code: Improving the Rule Book'. [156208]

  The Prime Minister
  The Third Report of the Public Administration Select Committee,"The Ministerial Code: Improving the Rule Book", was published on 14 February. The Government will respond in due course.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the amounts(a) in current prices, (b) in constant 2000–01 prices and (c) as percentages of personal income, taken by (i) income taxes, (ii) national insurance contributions, (iii) value-added tax, (iv) other central Government indirect taxes, (v) the aggregate of (i) to (iv), (vi) average council tax payments and (vii) the aggregate of (i) to (iv) and (viii) for (1) a single person,(2) a married couple without children, both working and(3) a married couple with two children, husband in work, wife not working, in each case at 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 per cent. of average earnings for the financial year 2000–01, taking account of changes announced in his Budget Statement and previously announced changes and for each of the years (v) 1996–97, (w) 1997–98, (x) 1998–99, (y) 1999–2000, (z) 2000–01. [153381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The available information, which shows income tax (including Child Benefit and Working Families Tax Credit from its first full year of implementation) and National Insurance Contributions, at multiples of median full-time earnings of all employees is given in the table. The figures are shown in current prices and as percentages of income, for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02, and take account of changes announced in the Budget. Estimating the impact of indirect taxes on these very specific family types is meaningless because spending patterns vary considerably between households of the same type and income. The level of council tax payments will also vary depending on where families live.

  The figures use median all-employee earnings. However, the data are only available since 1983. Looking over a longer time period, using male mean earnings, the series shows that the direct tax burden on a single earner family on average earnings and with two children in 2001–02 will be the lowest since 1972.
  844W

  Multiples of median earnings

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  Single person

  1996–97

  £ per week

  Gross income

  153.98

  230.97

  307.96

  461.94

  615.92

  Income Tax

  16.58

  35.06

  53.53

  90.49

  135.94

  NICs

  10.52

  18.22

  25.92

  40.62

  40.62

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  10.8

  15.2

  17.4

  19.6

  22.1

  NICs

  6.8

  7.9

  8.4

  8.8

  6.6

  Tax and NICs

  17.6

  23.1

  25.8

  28.4

  28.7

  1997–98

  £per week

  Gross income

  160.37

  240.55

  320.73

  481.10

  641.46

  Income Tax

  16.63

  35.07

  53.51

  90.40

  137.78

  NICs

  11.08

  19.09

  27.11

  41.54

  41.54

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  10.4

  14.6

  16.7

  18.8

  21.5

  NICs

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  8.6

  6.5

  Tax and NICs

  17.3

  22.5

  25.1

  27.4

  28.0

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  166.35

  249.53

  332.70

  499.05

  665.40

  Income Tax

  17.22

  36.36

  55.49

  93.75

  142.81

  NICs

  11.52

  19.83

  28.15

  43.38

  43.38

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  10.4

  14.6

  16.7

  18.8

  21.5

  NICs

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  8.7

  6.5

  Tax and NICs

  17.3

  22.5

  25.1

  27.5

  28.0

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  172.23

  258.34

  344.45

  516.68

  688.90

  Income Tax

  16.69

  36.49

  56.30

  95.91

  146.93

  NICs

  10.62

  19.23

  27.85

  43.40

  43.40

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  9.7

  14.1

  16.3

  18.6

  21.3

  NICs

  6.2

  7.4

  8.1

  8.4

  6.3

  Tax and NICs

  15.9

  21.6

  24.4

  27.0

  27.6

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  179.98

  269.96

  359.95

  539.93

  719.90

  Income Tax

  17.53

  37.33

  57.13

  96.72

  152.41

  NICs

  10.40

  19.40

  28.40

  45.90

  45.90

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  9.7

  13.8

  15.9

  17.9

  21.2

  NICs

  5.8

  7.2

  7.9

  8.5

  6.4

  Tax and NICs

  15.5

  21.0

  23.8

  26.4

  27.5

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  188.07

  282.11

  376.15

  564.22

  752.30

  Income Tax

  17.85

  38.54

  59.23

  100.60

  159.93

  NICs

  10.11

  19.51

  28.91

  47.72

  48.80

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  9.5

  13.7

  15.7

  17.8

  21.3

  NICs

  5.4

  6.9

  7.7

  8.5

  6.5

  Tax and NICs

  14.9

  20.6

  23.4

  26.3

  27.7

  Two earner married couple, no children

  1996–97

  £ per week

  Gross income

  153.98

  230.97

  307.96

  461.94

  615.92

  Income Tax

  0.00

  12.07

  28.96

  64.95

  101.90

  NICs

  5.64

  13.34

  21.04

  36.43

  51.83

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  0.0

  5.2

  9.4

  14.1

  16.5

  NICs

  3.7

  5.8

  6.8

  7.9

  8.4

  Tax and NICs

  3.7

  11.0

  16.2

  21.9

  25.0

  1997–98

  per week

  Gross income

  160.37

  240.55

  320.73

  481.10

  641.46

  Income Tax

  0.00

  11.72

  28.83

  64.86

  101.74

  NICs

  6.12

  14.13

  22.15

  38.19

  54.23

  845W

  Multiples of median earnings

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  0.0

  4.9

  9.0

  13.5

  15.9

  NICs

  3.8

  5.9

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  Tax and NICs

  3.8

  10.7

  15.9

  21.4

  24.3

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  166.35

  249.53

  332.70

  499.05

  665.40

  Income Tax

  0.00

  12.16

  29.88

  67.23

  105.49

  NICs

  6.40

  14.71

  23.03

  39.67

  56.30

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  0.0

  4.9

  9.0

  13.5

  15.9

  NICs

  3.8

  5.9

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  Tax and NICs

  3.8

  10.8

  15.9

  21.4

  24.3

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  172.23

  258.34

  344.45

  516.68

  688.90

  Income Tax

  0.00

  10.94

  29.59

  69.20

  108.81

  NICs

  4.02

  12.63

  21.25

  38.47

  55.69

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  NICs

  2.3

  4.9

  6.2

  7.4

  8.1

  Tax and NICs

  2.3

  9.1

  14.8

  20.8

  23.9

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  179.98

  269.96

  359.95

  539.93

  719.90

  Income Tax

  2.37

  15.94

  35.07

  74.66

  114.26

  NICs

  3.20

  11.80

  20.80

  38.79

  56.79

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  1.3

  5.9

  9.7

  13.8

  15.9

  NICs

  1.8

  4.4

  5.8

  7.2

  7.9

  Tax and NICs

  3.1

  10.3

  15.5

  21.0

  23.8

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  188.07

  282.11

  376.15

  564.22

  752.30

  Income Tax

  2.56

  16.28

  35.70

  77.08

  118.46

  NICs

  2.58

  10.81

  20.21

  39.02

  57.83

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Income Tax

  NICs

  1.4

  3.8

  5.4

  6.9

  7.7

  Tax and NICs

  2.7

  9.6

  14.9

  20.6

  23.4

  Single-earner married couple, two children

  1996–97

  £ per week

  Gross income

  153.98

  230.97

  307.96

  461.94

  615.92

  Income Tax

  11.41

  29.89

  48.37

  85.33

  130.78

  NICs

  10.52

  18.22

  25.92

  40.62

  40.62

  Child Benefit (CB)

  19.60

  19.60

  19.60

  19.60

  19.60

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  7.4

  12.9

  15.7

  18.5

  21.2

  NICs

  6.8

  7.9

  8.4

  8.8

  6.6

  Net income tax + NICs—CB

  1.5

  12.3

  17.8

  23.0

  24.6

  1997–98

  £per week

  Gross income

  160.37

  240.55

  320.73

  481.10

  641.46

  Income Tax

  11.35

  29.79

  48.23

  85.12

  132.50

  NICs

  11.08

  19.09

  27.11

  41.54

  41.54

  Child Benefit (CB)

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  7.1

  12.4

  15.0

  17.7

  20.7

  NICs

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  8.6

  6.5

  Net income tax + NICs—CB

  1.5

  12.0

  17.2

  22.2

  24.0

  1998–99

  £ per week

  Gross income

  166.35

  249.53

  332.70

  499.05

  665.40

  Income Tax

  11.74

  30.87

  50.00

  88.27

  137.33

  NICs

  11.52

  19.83

  28.15

  43.38

  43.38

  Child Benefit (CB)

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  7.1

  12.4

  15.0

  17.7

  20.6

  NICs

  6.9

  7.9

  8.5

  8.7

  6.5

  Net income tax + NICs–CB

  1.5

  12.0

  17.3

  22.2

  24.0

  846W

  Multiples of median earnings

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  1999–2000

  £ per week

  Gross income

  172.23

  258.34

  344.45

  516.68

  688.90

  Income Tax

  12.90

  32.71

  52.51

  92.12

  143.14

  NICs

  10.62

  19.23

  27.85

  43.40

  43.40

  Child Benefit (CB)

  24.00

  24.00

  24.00

  24.00

  24.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  7.5

  12.7

  15.2

  17.8

  20.8

  NICs

  6.2

  7.4

  8.1

  8.4

  6.3

  Net income tax + NICs—CB

  –0.3

  10.8

  16.4

  21.6

  23.6

  2000–01

  £ per week

  Gross income

  179.98

  269.96

  359.95

  539.93

  719.90

  Income Tax

  17.53

  37.33

  57.13

  96.72

  152.41

  NICs

  10.40

  19.40

  28.40

  45.90

  45.90

  Child Benefit (CB)

  25.00

  25.00

  25.00

  25.00

  25.00

  Working Families Tax Credit

  82.27

  48.62

  14.96

  0.00

  0.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  –36.0

  –4.2

  11.7

  17.9

  21.2

  NICs

  5.8

  7.2

  7.9

  8.5

  6.4

  Net income tax + NICs—CB

  –44.1

  –6.3

  12.7

  21.8

  24.1

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross Income

  188.07

  282.11

  376.15

  564.22

  752.30

  Income Tax

  7.85

  28.54

  49.23

  90.60

  156.57

  NICs

  10.11

  19.51

  28.91

  47.72

  48.80

  Child Benefit (CB)

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  Working Families Tax Credit

  79.98

  44.81

  9.64

  0.00

  0.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  –38.4

  –5.8

  10.5

  16.1

  20.8

  NICs

  5.4

  6.9

  7.7

  8.5

  6.5

  Net income tax + NICs—CB

  –46.7

  –8.0

  11.3

  19.9

  23.9

  Notes

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. (Median earnings are more representative of the population as a whole than mean male full-time earnings.)

  3. A family with two children is assumed to have both children aged under 11.

  4. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, Child Benefit is treated as negative income tax.

  5. Working Families Tax Credit is included from its first full year of implementation in 2000–01.

  6. For the two earner family it is assumed that earnings are split 60%:40%.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for answer on 9 March (Ref 153381). [156436]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have done so today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the name of the United Kingdom Passport Agency; and when he will publish the Agency's framework document. [156761]
  847W
  Mr. Straw
  Following a Quinquennial Review in January 2001, an announcement was made that Ministers had agreed that the Passport Agency should retain its status as an Executive Agency for another five years and that it should continue to manage the Criminal Records Bureau. The Agency will be changing its name to reflect its broader responsibilities and will now be called the Passport and Records Agency. The Agency's Framework document has been published today. Copies of the revised document will be placed in the library.

  Immigration
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make authorisations under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) in respect of the carrying out of immigration functions. [156766]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have today placed a copy of the authorisation made under section 19D of the extended Race Relations Act in the Library, together with a brief explanatory note. Decisions on immigration and asylum applications will continue to be made on the merits of each individual case in accordance with immigration legislation and policies approved by Ministers. The authorisation mainly concerns the process by which such decisions are reached, and covers the following areas:Examination of passengers by the Immigration Service at ports of entry;
  Persons wishing to travel to the United Kingdom (to enable the operation of a flexible immigration control, including pre-clearance overseas);
  The setting of removal directions; Asylum work streaming;
  Permission to work in relation to the British Universities North America Club programme, the Japan Youth Exchange Scheme and certain British Dependent Territories citizens;
  Translation of documents.

  Additional authorisations will be made by Ministers as and where necessary, including, where justified by intelligence or statistical evidence of a threat to the immigration control by those seeking to enter the United Kingdom by deception, specific authorisations to immigration officers at ports to examine passengers more closely in limited circumstances on the basis of ethnic or national origin. The Race Monitor to be appointed under section 19E of the Race Relations Act (as amended) will report to Parliament via the Secretary of State on the likely effect of authorisations made by Ministers and on how they are operated in practice by officials.

  National Technical Assistance Centre
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the development of the National Technical Assistance Centre. [156765]

  Mr. Straw
  I announced my intention to establish a Government Technical Assistance Centre, using £25 million of Capital Modernisation Funding, in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 1W.
  848W
  The facility will now be known as the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC). This is to reflect clearly that it will provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies nationwide. NTAC will be a 24 hour centre operated by the Home Office on behalf of all the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies, to process lawfully intercepted communications and lawfully acquired material and make it intelligible to intelligence analysts. It will also support criminal investigations through the provision of evidential material derived from electronically protected data.

  Although, for reasons of physical security, NTAC will be located within the headquarters of the Security Service, the Home Office will retain responsibility for the day-to-day management of NTAC beyond when it acquires an initial operating capability. Once the operation of NTAC is firmly established, that decision will be reviewed.

  NTAC will handle material obtained under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and be subject to review by the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner. It will also be subject to the safeguards contained in that Act.

  NTAC may also process material lawfully acquired under the Security Service Act 1989, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997 for which it will be subject to review by the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Surveillance Commissioners. It will also be subject to the scrutiny of the courts in respect of its handling of lawfully seized material and material lawfully acquired through the exercise of other statutory powers.

  The first head of NTAC will be Assistant Chief Constable, Ian Humphreys, who has joined the Home Office on secondment from Kent County Constabulary where he was Head of Criminal Investigation.

  Active Community Grants
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the Active Community grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2001–02. [156764]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am today announcing grants of over £18 million that have been allocated to boost the work of 149 voluntary and community organisations across the country.

  For 2001–2002 a total of £18,060,937 will be awarded to cover a wide range of volunteering and employee volunteering schemes, and community development projects. Forty-seven organisations will receive grants for the first time.

  The amount available for these grants has been increased by £8 million over the next three years, with organisations sharing an extra £1 million this year, a further £3 million in 2002–03 and an extra £4 million in 2003–04.

  A list of the successful applicants has been placed in the Library.

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will authorise the use of intrusive
  849W
  surveillance by Her Majesty's Prison Service under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; who in the Prison Service may apply to use the power; and if he will make a statement on the use of intrusive surveillance in private prisons. [156763]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Secretary of State will authorise the use of intrusive surveillance carried out by Her Majesty's Prison Service under Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) on application by persons holding an office, rank or position in Her Majesty's Prison Service itself. In practice, the Governor in charge of the relevant prison will make the case for such an application to be made. This case will be submitted to a Senior Civil Servant with operational experience within Prison Service Headquarters who will be a Gold Commander (in the case of a hostage situation) or, otherwise, an Area Manager or the Head of Security, one of whom will formally make the application to the Home Office. This process will be laid down in the Security Manual followed by Her Majesty's Prison Service. Within the Home Office, applications will be scrutinised by a dedicated warrants unit, headed up by a Senior Civil Servant charged with providing advice to the Secretary of State. A full audit trail will be available to the Chief Surveillance Commissioner who has a statutory responsibility to oversee the use of intrusive surveillance by Her Majesty's Prison Service.

  Intrusive surveillance may be used in private prisons, and will be regulated by Part II of RIPA. A Senior Civil Servant with operational experience at Gold Commander, Area Manager or Head of Security level within Prison Service Headquarters will make an application to the Home Office in response to a case made by the Director of the relevant prison. Authorisations will be given by the Secretary of State. Private prisons are contractually obliged to follow the procedures set out in the Prison Service Security Manual which will set out how the application process will operate.

  Volunteering
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to encourage and enable people aged 50 years and over to volunteer and become involved in their communities. [156756]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received the report of the advisory group of experts, drawn mainly from the voluntary sector and chaired by my noble Friend Baroness Greengross of Notting Hill, whom the Government asked last year to develop a plan to enable those aged 50 and over to become or continue to be involved with their local communities.

  The report recommends the establishment of an independent Experience Corps Company to take forward action. The Government warmly welcome this proposal and will be providing funding of £19 million over the next three years to facilitate it. We will be working with Baroness Greengross, as the company Chairman, to develop an agreed way forward. A copy of the group's report has been placed in the Library.

  Police Numbers (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) funded and (b) actual police
  850W
  officers were in post in each of the Welsh constabularies on (i) 31 March 1997 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available. [154812]

  Mr. Charles Clarke [holding answer 22 March 2001]
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures for funded officers have been provided by the Chief Officers of Police of the four Welsh forces.

  The Chief Constable of North Wales Police has devolved decisions on police numbers to divisional commanders and therefore cannot provide information on funded numbers. However, it is the policy of the force to replace all leavers with new recruits.

  31 March 1997

  31 January 2001

  Actual

  Actual

  Funded

  number of

  Funded

  number of

  Force

  officers1

  officers1

  officers1

  officers1

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,007

  1,005

  1,067

  1,063

  Gwent

  1,241

  1,243

  1,270

  1,265

  North Wales

  n/a

  1,369

  n/a

  1,432

  South Wales

  2,994

  2,976

  3,036

  3,103

  Total

  n/a

  6,593

  n/a

  6,863

  1All figures are full-time equivalents.

  Departmental Policies (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  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 North Devon constituency, the effects on North Devon of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155904]

  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 is available in the Library. 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 House of Commons 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 North Devon constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  North Devon district council was awarded approximately £153,000 for a 13-camera system covering crime hotspots in the Barnstaple area, including two car parks that are not covered by the current CCTV system. The scheme aims to significantly reduce violent crime, disorder and vehicle crime, also reducing the number of repeat victims and generally improving the quality of life for local residents.
  851W
  Youth Offending

  Devon Youth Offending Service (YOS) was one of the initial pilot areas for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and also piloted Parenting Orders and Child Safety Orders. The Devon YOT is one of the largest in the country and is divided into a three team structure: North Devon (North Devon, Torridge, West Devon districts); East Devon (Exeter, Mid Devon, East Devon districts); South Devon (Teignbridge, South Hams districts). With regard to habitual re-offending it is still early days for measurement, but a re-offending figure of 9 per cent. with all Final Warnings has been achieved since June 2000, (compared with a figure of 40 per cent. for all cautions over the previous two years). In addition a drop of 23 per cent. in youth crime for the period of October to December 2000 has been recorded Intervention with young offenders is occurring earlier resulting in the teams having worked with over 1,000 young people by the end of this financial year against approximately 450 in the last full year pre YOT (1998).

  Overall youth crime in Devon is lower than the National and Regional average with one offence per one 106 of the 10–17 year old population. There was a reduction in 10 out of the 13 categories of crime from quarter 2 to quarter 3 2000–2001. Racially aggravated youth crime is very low (only nine offences) despite a Devon and Cornwall Constabulary figure that has grown by over 100 per cent. in the last year post recommendations following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry encouraging greater reporting of racial incidents.

  The YOS has installed a dedicated Information Technology (IT) network and database— "Youth Offending Information Systems" (YOIS). Over 2,500 records have been inputted onto this system. Full data return have been made to the Youth Justice Board (YJB) for all three first quarters. An electronic 'ASSET' assessment tool has also been installed and electronic case management training is scheduled for 2001.

  The YOS has successfully integrated into the strategy groups of all eight District Crime Reduction Partnerships. The YOS is also involved in the Cornwall and Devon `CONNEXIONS' pilot with 'personal advisers' working in all three units. This scheme is a Department for Education and Employment (DFEE) and Government initiative to provide young people between the age of 13–19 with advice regarding education and careers and is based in schools, particularly targeting those at risk of underachieving. The YOS Manager is on the new Devon Drug Action Team and YOS team staff are involved with all eight district Drug Reference Groups/Drug Strategy Groups. Staff from all three teams have been trained in Restorative Justice techniques, victim awareness and Cognitive Behavioural work. The Devon YOS are currently operating with an average arrest to sentence time for persistent young offenders of 65 days (below the Government target of 71 days and the second best figure in the country). The YOS are implementing five YJB grant aided projects: `Mentoring' (North Devon); `Restorative Justice', 'Intensive Supervision and Support', `Parenting' and 'Bail Supervision and Support' across all three YOS teams.
  852W
  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of North Devon 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).

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was to make(a) an initial decision and (b) a final decision on asylum applications, in total and for (i) individual and (ii) family applications last year; what the average time for initial decisions was in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [155574]

  Mrs. Roche [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  The majority of new substantive family applications lodged between 1 April 2000 and 31 December 2000 had an initial decision within two months.

  Information regarding the average time taken to make an initial decision is not available for the whole of 2000. The table provides an average for the period of October to December 2000. The average decision times have been calculated using all decisions made for which data are available, including a number of cases decided under the backlog criteria, as well as new cases. These data are still subject to revision following quality checking. Data for earlier months are not available.

  Information relating to the final decision is not available.

  Average time to initial decision1,2 for the period October 2000 to

  December 20005

  Months

  All initial decisions3,4

  14

  of which:

  Family

  5

  Individual

  14

  1The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the month in which the decisions were made.

  2Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  3Based on data from ACID (Asylum Cases Information Database).

  4Excluding dependants.

  5Provisional Figures.

  Average time to initial decision 4, in months, 1991–19991,2,3

  Applications

  Applications

  All

  lodged pre

  lodged post

  Year of decision

  applications

  July 1993

  July 1993

  1991

  16

  16

  n/a

  1992

  20

  20

  n/a

  1993

  20

  20

  n/a

  853W

  Average time to initial decision 4, in months, 1991–19991,2,3

  Applications

  Applications

  All

  lodged pre

  lodged post

  Year of decision

  applications

  July 1993

  July 1993

  1994

  17

  26

  6

  1995

  18

  41

  9

  1996

  17

  52

  11

  1997

  22

  64

  14

  1998

  17

  78

  12

  19995

  35

  91

  16

  n/a = Not applicable

  1Excluding dependants.

  2Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  3Based on data from Refugee Index.

  4The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the year in which the decisions were made.

  5As at the end of December 1999, excluding cases waiting an initial decision.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to achieve his targets for the time taken to process asylum applications(a) for initial decisions and (b) final decisions; and if he will make a statement. [155575]

  Mrs. Roche [holding answer 26 March 2001]
  In line with the 1998 White Paper, we expect to be making 60 per cent. of initial decisions in new substantive asylum cases within two months from April 2001.

  The Court Service is aiming to complete 65 per cent. of asylum appeals through both tiers of the Immigration Appellate Authorities within four months from April 2001.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) general guidance and (b) specific instructions are issued to chief constables on the contacts they may have with hon. Members in the run up to a General Election by (i) him and (ii) other organisations. [155733]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No such guidance or instructions are issued by the Home Office. I understand that the President of the Association of Chief Police Officers has written to Chief Constables' colleagues requesting that they facilitate visits to forces and local police stations by parliamentary candidates during a general election campaign.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review into the workings of the asylum support system will be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [156092]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 8 January 2001,Official Report, column 413W.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are being supported by NASS in each area of the country; and if he will make a statement. [156089]
  854W
  Mrs. Roche
  The number of asylum seekers (including dependants) allocated support by National Asylum Support Service (NASS), as at the end of February 2001, were as follows:

  Allocated

  voucher

  Allocated

  support

  Region

  accommodation

  only

  Total

  East Midlands

  1,200

  220

  1,420

  East England

  40

  810

  840

  Greater London

  420

  8,120

  8,540

  North East

  4,010

  30

  4,040

  North West

  5,100

  220

  5,320

  North Ireland

  40

  1—

  40

  Scotland

  2,280

  160

  2,440

  South Central

  270

  1,530

  1.790

  South West

  520

  180

  700

  Wales

  30

  70

  100

  West Midlands

  2,330

  210

  2,540

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,180

  100

  5,280

  Total

  21,410

  11,630

  33,040

  1Indicates between 1 and 4. All figures rounded to the nearest ten so may not add up to totals.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the fraudulent use of vouchers will be part of the review of the working of the voucher support system; and if he will make a statement. [156090]

  Mrs. Roche
  A number of respondents to the review of the operation of the asylum voucher scheme have commented on the fraudulent use of vouchers and their comments will be taken into consideration.

  Thouria Zaghali
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department received an application from Mrs. Thouria Zaghali (reference B469820–2) for leave to settle in the United Kingdom as the spouse of a British citizen; and when he will take decision on the application. [156085]

  Mrs. Roche
  Mrs. Zaghali's current application for leave to remain was made in December 1999. It has now been decided to grant her leave to remain on the basis of marriage.

  Passports
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask, the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish a more secure method of delivering passports to UK citizens who have had their passports renewed. [156000]

  Mrs. Roche [holding answer 22 March 2001]
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency regularly reviews the methods it uses to send passports to its customers. The vast majority of the five million passports the Agency issues annually by first class post arrive safely at their destinations. The Agency has no plans to change its present arrangements, but is working closely with the Royal Mail to improve security of passports in the post.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his current policy is with regard to the licensing under the Animals (Scientific
  855W
  Procedures) Act 1986 of the production of monoclonal antibodies by the ascites method; and if he will make a statement. [156757]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We announced in November 1997 our decision to phase out the licensing under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 of monoclonal antibody production using ascitic mice unless exceptional scientific justification exists. Under this policy, new licences are not issued unless clear evidence is presented that in vitro attempts at production have failed or that the use of animals is justified for specific diagnostic or therapeutic products. An outright ban is not possible without primary legislation, and it is recognised that monoclonal antibodies have particular value in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and in the treatment of some types of cancer.

  Only three new authorities have been issued for this work since this policy came fully into effect on 1 January 1999. I shall personally consider any future proposal to grant a licence using this procedure.

  Departmental Policies (North Cornwall)
  Mr. Tyler
  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 North Cornwall constituency, the effects on North Cornwall of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156125]

  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 is available in the Library. 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 North Cornwall constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Restormel borough council in partrmship with Devon and Cornwall Constabulary were awarded £70,000 under round 1 of the CCTV Initiative for a mobile scheme consisting of one vehicle and two cameras. This will compliment the existing town centre schemes at Newquay and St Austell allowing crime and anti-social issues to be targeted in a borough council area which is predominantly rural.

  Targeted Policing Initiative

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary were awarded £950,000 under round 2 of the Targeted Policing Initiative for a project to reduce violent crime linked to alcohol abuse (Operation Amethyst). The project will provide
  856W
  immediate support to victims of domestic violence at hospital Accident and Emergency Departments. It will tackle on and off licensed premises selling alcohol to those under the legal age limit. A media campaign will be launched to publicise the negative effects of alcohol. Youth workers will be provided to work with those people misusing alcohol. Other aims of the project include:creating an Alcohol Assessment Stabilisation Programme in conjunction with an arrest referral scheme; management of the licensing environment; creation of a Safety Advisory Group to provide guidance and advice, and provide education about alcohol.

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary in partnership with North Cornwall District Council were awarded approximately £5,000 for a project in Launceston aimed at elderly residents. The proposed interventions include training for dealing with callers, a media campaign, life-line alarms and other security upgrades and community awareness training.

  Youth Offending

  North Cornwall is covered by the Cornwall Youth Offending Team (YOT). The YOT directly provides assessment and intervention work in support of: final warnings; bail support and supervision services; supervision of youth court orders and throughcare and post release supervision for young people sentenced to custody. The YOT also provides responsible officers for child safety and parenting orders. The YOT also manage the delivery of services supplied by other agencies including: drugs misuse assessment and intervention accessed through the RAPIDLY project. which is funded with the assistance of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Health Action Zone; and the Hot Spot project dealing with young fire setters, which operates as a collaborative venture involving the Fire Service, Dreadnought and Social Services. The YJB are contributing approximately £197,000 to the RAPIDLY project. This project aims to reduce youth offending by rapid intervention with persons who are offending through substance misuse. The objective is to reduce young people's involvement in substance abuse, directly and indirectly related to youth offending, improve their health, education and employment. The level of intervention varies ranging from information and education, counselling and an activity based programme to medical treatment. The YJB is also contributing £125,000 to a Bail Support Scheme. This project aims to enable more young offenders to remain in the community or in non-secure accommodation prior to sentencing.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of North Cornwall 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 49,690 by the end of February 2001; 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).

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the regulatory impact assessments published during the latest six month period. [156748]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish Regulatory Impact Assessments for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing Regulatory Impact Assessments published between 1 July and 31 December 2000. Copies of those listed have been placed in the House Libraries. This is the fourteenth such Command Paper.

  Drug Addicts
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will estimate the number of drug addicts in the UK. [156203]

  Mr. Stringer
  The number of problematic drug users—usually characterised as'addicts'—in the mid-to-late 1990s, has been estimated at 266,000 for England, Scotland and Wales.

  Foot and Mouth
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions she has had with(a) the Prime
  858W
  Minister and (b) other Cabinet colleagues on whether the foot and mouth epidemic would justify declaring a state of emergency; and if she will list the dates of such discussions. [156205]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, information about internal discussions is not disclosed.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 472W, if she will reconcile her statement concerning the classification of the requested data by public and private sector with the answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 20 March 2001, Official Report, columns 196—97W. [155397]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The answer I gave to the hon. Member on 12 March 2001,Official Report, column 472W. was partly inaccurate. The correct position has been 5 out in a letter to him dated 20 March 2001 from the Director of Social Statistics in ONS, Official Report, column 197W.

  Chief Scientific Adviser
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the role of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser in the work of the Hawley Group. [154517]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Chief Scientific Adviser has been kept fully informed of key developments stemming from the work of the Hawley Group.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Business of the House: Standing Order 40
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken immediately after the Social Security (Breach of Community Order) Regulations 2001.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2001
11.5 a.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under paragraph 1(1) of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000. The purpose of the draft order is to make the bodies listed in the schedules "public authorities" for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Those public authorities will be subject to the statutory duties set out in Section 75(1) and (2) of the Act, requiring them to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between specific groups.
The House is aware that equality of opportunity and treatment are issues that are of particular importance in the context of Northern Ireland, and that the promotion of equality was at the very heart of the Good Friday agreement. The Good Friday agreement laid the foundations for a new dispensation based on respect for rights and the principle of equality. All those who were parties to the agreement affirmed their commitment to,
"the right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity, regardless of class, creed, disability, gender or ethnicity".
This Government remain committed to ensuring the full implementation of the agreement. This order is a further step in that important process.
Public authorities are required to produce an equality scheme that sets out how they will fulfil those functions. The schemes will cover the full range of the organisation's functions in Northern Ireland. They
536
will include arrangements for policy appraisal, public consultation, public access to information and services, monitoring and timetables. Those schemes will be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The Equality Commission will advise on, validate and monitor the Section 75 statutory obligation and will investigate complaints of default. Section 75(3)(b) and (c) of the Act automatically brought the vast majority of public authorities in Northern Ireland—around 120—within the scope of the statutory equality duty.
However, the Act also provides the power for the Secretary of State to designate other organisations as public authorities for the purposes of Section 75. The first designation order was made under this power last summer. It covered mainly Whitehall departments and other UK-wide bodies that carry out functions in Northern Ireland.
I said at the time that we intend that the statutory duty should, in time, embrace as many bodies as possible. It is the Government's policy that non-designation should be the exception, not the rule. Since the last order was made, we have continued our consultation with the Equality Commission to consider what other bodies might need to be designated.
I am pleased to be able to report to the House today that many of the bodies which the commission felt should be designated are included in this order; not least, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland and the further and higher education institutions in Northern Ireland, including the Open University.
But this is still not the end of the process and we will bring forward further designation orders as and when required. More important, the statutory duty represents the beginning of a process of increased dialogue between the public sector and community and voluntary bodies, putting equality at the heart of the policy-making process. This can only help lead to better, more responsive services for the people of Northern Ireland.
We remain determined to build a society where the active promotion of equality and good relations is seen as an integral part of public life. Section 75 is the key to that goal and I am pleased to be able to extend its reach to these further organisations. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I welcome this extension to the list and thank the Minister for his elucidation. Perhaps I may ask for further clarification on one point. How often is it intended regularly to review this matter? Is it to be every nine months or so? Secondly, if there were particular reasons for specific corporations and bodies to be included, is it possible to add them to the list between reviews?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I too welcome the order, but perhaps I may also seek some further

537
information from the Minister. Religious discrimination is forbidden in Northern Ireland but not yet in Britain. Racial discrimination is forbidden on both sides of the Irish Sea. The Race Relations Act will impose similar duties on central government departments here. In order to achieve some kind of symmetry across the Irish Sea in relation to public authority obligations of this kind, what will be the position in regard to central government departments like the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department? Is it contemplated that their functions in relation to race and religious equality in Northern Ireland will also bring them within this scheme in due course or is there to be an anomalous position in which those two departments—the Home Office and I think the Lord Chancellor's Department—will be outside the scope of the duty?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I have no particular objection to this order. However, I repeat and support what has just been said. We need to be careful that we do not create too much of a gap between the other side of the Irish Sea and this side, particularly in regard to the other devolved regions in Great Britain. I am afraid that from past experience I have discovered that the racial safeguards have been neglected and overlooked to a great extent by the type of legislation which is brought forward here this morning.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, when I was in Northern Ireland recently for a conference on asylum, I was told that representations had been made regarding the designation of the Home Office under Section 75. While it was appreciated that there had to be certain exceptions so that discrimination was permissible under the Asylum and Immigration Act for certain limited reasons, and that those had been accommodated in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, it should have been possible similarly to designate the Home Office under Section 75.
I earnestly appeal to the noble and learned Lord to see whether the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland could be accommodated so that there is harmonisation of jurisdiction on both sides of the Irish Channel. What they ask for is simple. With a few exceptions, Section 75 could be applied to the Home Office. Therefore, it should be accommodated within their legislation as it is on our side with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support given to the order. I shall deal with the specific points raised and turn first to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. There is no specific period of time for reviews. We regard this as ongoing work in progress. We are looking to see whether those bodies which are not designated can be designated. We would not think it appropriate to set a time of six months. However, we are in accord with the view expressed by the noble Lord. We are looking to have as many bodies designated as possible. However, work needs to be done and consultation must take place.
538
I thoroughly understand and endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. A significant number of central government departments were designated in the previous order; namely, the Northern Ireland Office; DCMS; DTI; the Northern Ireland court service—that is the only emanation of the Lord Chancellor's Department in Northern Ireland. Therefore, although the LCD is not designated; the relevant part of its activities is—Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. Again, we take the point raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a point regarding the Home Office. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act made a specific exemption from the Great Britain race equality duty to exclude immigration from the necessity of promoting equality of opportunity. That exemption reflects a unique requirement for immigration entry clearance officers to discriminate on grounds of nationality and ethnic or national origin. There is no such scope for an exemption within Section 75. There are difficulties, therefore, concerning designating the Home Office in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may say, for the record, that the Home Office is keen to comply with the spirit of Section 75 on a voluntary basis in respect of all its other functions relating to Northern Ireland. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised the same point. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will feel able to approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

General Commissioners of Income Tax (Costs) Regulations 2001
11.15 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001. These regulations have been considered in another place and a Motion to approve was passed on 27th March 2001.
Section 102 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 inserts Section 2A into the Taxes Management Act 1970 which prevents a court ordering a general commissioner to pay the costs in any proceedings in respect of an act or omission of a general commissioner in the execution or purported execution of his duty. That immunity does not apply where a general commissioner is being tried for an offence, is appealing against a conviction or acted in bad faith. Where the court is prevented from making such an order against a general commissioner, the court may instead order the making by the Lord Chancellor of a payment in respect of the costs of a person in the proceedings.

539
In parallel, Section 98(1) of the Access to Justice Act inserts Section 53A into the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 which makes similar provisions in respect of justices and their clerks. Section 53A will prevent the court from making an order against a justice in respect of any act or omission of his in the execution or purported execution of his duty or a justice's clerk when exercising, by virtue of any statutory provision, any functions of a single justice. As is the case with general commissioners, where the court is prevented from making such an order, the court may instead order the making by the Lord Chancellor of a payment in respect of the costs of a person in the proceedings. That immunity against costs does not apply where a justice or a justice's clerk is being tried for an offence, is appealing against a conviction or acted in bad faith.
The regulations, each containing the same provisions, provide first that an order for payment of costs by the Lord Chancellor cannot be made in respect of the costs of a public authority. Secondly, when such an order has been made, they make detailed provision for how the costs shall be determined. The Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001 apply in England and Wales. Northern Ireland will shortly be making its own regulations that are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The General Commissioners of Income Tax (Costs) Regulations 2001 apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland will be making its own regulations separately. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to go through each regulation, as they mainly concern detailed provision about the determination of costs. In outline, they provide that a costs order cannot be made in favour of a public authority and, where a court orders that the Lord Chancellor makes a payment in respect of a person in the proceedings, they detail how costs shall be determined.
In my view these regulations are compatible with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulation to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Tavenie: My Lords, it is right that we should examine these regulations. I have looked at what was said in the other place. This is rather like occasions many years ago when I was at the Bar, when one was instructed in court simply to say, "I agree", or "I have no objection", except that on those occasions one might even be paid a fat fee. I suppose that here one might say that one can collect somewhat modest expenses for turning up on a Friday morning.
It seems to me that there is no objection to the reegulations. I hope that they will be accepted.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Justices and Justices' Clerks (Costs) Regulations 2001
11.20 a.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint committee].—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Churchwardens Measure
11.21 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Measure has the support of the General Synod of the Church of England, has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee, and has been passed in another place. I hope that on Friday morning your Lordships will not be long delayed in completing the parliamentary process on this matter.
In the light of some of the controversy that surrounded earlier versions of the Measure, perhaps as a bishop I may say that churchwardens are not only the senior lay officers of the parish and the bishop's key people in maintaining the structure and mission of the Church in each community. They are also, in our experience, highly valued by all bishops for the outstanding service that they offer to the people of our country. Let there be no doubt concerning the sense of vocation, dedication to duty and professional skill of the tens of thousands of men and women in our country who perform this service.
Last year in my own diocese I conducted a formal episcopal visitation of the diocese. In that process, I oversaw the admission of the newly elected wardens to their office. In advance of that, I sent out a formal set of articles of enquiry to all wardens requiring them to respond. I had the temerity to ask them 100 questions. I had a 100 per cent response of a quality and depth of insight which gives enormous hope for the future. That opened up for me some far-reaching conversations with the wardens and the parishes about how we fulfil our duty to the people. The point I make from my own experience is that we are wonderfully served by all these people.
The Measure is necessary because of problems surrounding the process for election, admission and the handling of such matters as vacancies. The office needed protection from unsuitable persons and to be brought into line with contemporary professional expectations. The Measure before the House sets out a clear and comprehensive set of provisions to deal with all aspects of the process. It will help the Church to carry forward its work with greater precision and clarity.
I am aware that the Measure has had a prolonged and disputed life as the representatives of the Synod sought to agree its contents with the Ecclesiastical Committee. Not least, there were long debates about

541
the original provision to give the bishop the power to suspend wardens in certain circumstances. That clause has been removed at the request of the bishops. The substance of the Measure is of such importance that we are concerned to see it supported and enacted.
The bishops would have valued the power which the original clause gave them. In very rare instances it might have been useful in protecting both parishes and parish clergy. Nevertheless, I have to say that in six or more years as a diocesan bishop I cannot recall a single instance where I would have needed such a power. It would be easy to have got that issue out of all proportion to its significance. Far more important are the excellent provisions of the Measure to ensure the rights and duties of parishioners in electing churchwardens and those provisions which set out the processes surrounding the office. That is why we are more than content to see the Measure progress in its present form.
Churchwardens are elected by the whole parish, not just by those on the electoral roll of the church. That is because every person has rights in their parish church. Although not all people choose to exercise them, they do possess them. The results of the visitation to which I referred indicated that at least one in three people make use of the services of the church in any one year. These rights include matters concerning holy baptism, holy matrimony and the burying of the dead. In the name of Christ and on the foundation of the faith once delivered to the saints, the Church has a duty to be open to all. Churchwardens are the visible sign of that duty in our historic parish structure.
Churchwardens are further required to work in close co-operation with the parish priest. Indeed, this relationship is of such importance that the Measure includes provisions in the elections in those occasional instances where there are,
"serious difficulties between the minister and the person in carrying out their respective functions".
They are elected by the people in the parish, work collaboratively with the incumbent and, finally, act as the bishop's lay officers in the parish, for the people, with the priest, on behalf of the bishop.
It is an unrivalled, historic and simple arrangement for bringing together the people, the priest and the wider universal Church represented by the bishop. As a sign and symbol of our common duty, it is they, the churchwardens, who, carrying their wands of office, lead the bishop into the church whenever the bishop visits the parish. It is my custom, whenever possible, to spend time with the wardens after divine service in order to have conversation about our shared responsibility.
Every parish, every parish priest and every bishop needs good churchwardens. With rare exception, we have them. In passing this Measure, the House will be giving them support and help in the work they do in this historic office. I hope that the Measure will have approval today and I commend it to the House.
542
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Churchwardens Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Guildford.)
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate can explain one matter. I remember the row about the bishops having the right to remove a bad or unsuitable churchwarden. As that provision no longer exists, how are inappropriate churchwardens removed, or are they not?
Lord Newby: My Lords, in speaking to the Measure, I must declare an interest as I am married to a priest in the Church of England. It is a particularly topical matter as my wife is in the process of seeking a parish and I am only too well aware of the powers of churchwardens in that process. I echo what the right reverend Prelate said about the dedication of churchwardens. In parishes where my wife has been involved I have been impressed by their care, attention and hard work in making the parish a viable entity.
I declare a different interest. During my career I have been involved in drafting the constitution of two political parties. I see in the Measure issues similar to those which have exercised politicians in deciding how people should be appointed, elected and removed from office.
One of the interesting aspects of the Church of England is that there is a huge dichotomy between its form and substance. The form is one of almost rigid hierarchy. At least that is how it appears to outsiders. One would have thought that that meant the power structure was clear and rigid. The truth is that the Church of England is one of the most devolved institutions in the land. As a result, individual parishes and churchwardens have great autonomy in the way they go about their business. That led to the great row associated with the Measure over whether bishops should have the power to suspend in certain circumstances. As an outsider and former general secretary of a political party, I am all in favour of the centre being able to suspend people who misbehave. My vote would probably have been for the bishops. I saw the votes cast in the General Synod which clearly expressed an alternative view. There is now a consensus in the Church, with the bishops on the back foot, I suspect, in respect of the Measure.
I was also struck by the fact that the working party set up to revise the Churchwardens Measure was appointed in 1993. Four years ago, the General Synod voted almost unanimously to adopt the Measure. In those circumstances, and given the huge debate that has taken place, the time has long passed for the Measure to be approved and sent on its way. I happily support it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate a question for clarification about the rare cases of cathedrals which are also parish churches. I speak as a former rector's churchwarden of Southwark Cathedral. The

543
constitution of that cathedral and of the other one, which is also a parish church, allows for two churchwardens. One can be appointed directly by the dean and the other is elected as the people's warden. The practice in Southwark is that they are both elected. I have always welcomed that because it gives a great deal of confidence to the holder of the office to have been elected and not appointed. I see no provision in the Measure which mentions such cathedrals. Does the matter fall under Clause 10(1)(a) which allows the bishop to make special arrangements for cases which are not covered by the Measure, or is there some thought that the post of rector's warden will be totally eliminated? I should be very grateful for clarification.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. Perhaps I may respond to one or two questions that noble Lords have asked. In reply to the noble Lord's question about powers of removal, the Measure does not contain a power to remove a warden. In terms of the formal legal process, that is entirely a matter for the electorate at the annual meeting. In terms of pastoral reality, the kinds of situation that the bishop has in mind, for example those involving sensitive child protection issues, will be dealt with by careful pastoral conversation. Wardens have been known to resign following such conversations, but formally they can be removed only at the annual meeting.
As to the comment about the form and substance of the Measure, I entirely endorse what has been said. If the noble Lord's wife still seeks a parish I am always on the lookout for a good parish priest. In response to the noble Baroness who asked about cathedrals, I shall write to her with a full answer when I have checked the position. However, I assume that the parishioners of the parish of Southwark Cathedral have exactly the same rights as any other parishioners. Therefore, the Measure's provisions should apply. The statutes of the cathedral must be in line with the law of the land with regard to wardens. I shall check the matter and ensure that the noble Baroness receives an accurate reply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway) (England) Regulations 2001
11.32 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to allow highway authorities to levy charges on undertakers where the latter fail to complete works to the highway by an agreed deadline. The Government are very much aware of the increasing concern of the public and businesses at the level of disruption caused to road-users by street works carried out by statutory undertakers or their contractors.
544
I find it almost impossible to believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not in his place on this occasion as we owe more than a little to his tireless work on this subject. At the end of 1999 we launched a consultation on possible options for reducing disruption. After considering the responses, we announced last April that we intended to activate the powers in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to charge for works which overrun. In the event, it proved necessary to take some additional powers in the Transport Act 2000 to allow a charging regime to operate effectively. The regulations which are before us today are the result of wide consultation with highway authorities, the utilities and many other interested bodies.
In addition to the regulations, this year should also see the introduction of regulations or codes of practice, in some cases both, on a number of aspects of street works practice, including inspection of works, safety and the effective co-ordination by utilities and highway authorities of different works. We shall also be issuing next week a best practice guide aimed at both utilities and authorities with a view to bringing the worst performing practitioners up to the standard of the best.
Perhaps I may turn now to the regulations themselves. Under the charging scheme undertakers will have to inform relevant highway authorities of forthcoming works, and works in progress, by means of a system of notices. For example, they will need to provide notice of the start date of individual works and to agree with the highway authority a reasonable date for completion of those works. They will also need to confirm that works have been completed to allow the highway authority to determine whether the works have finished within the agreed deadline, or, if they overrun, to calculate the charge to be levied on the undertaker.
Obviously, the disruption caused by different works will vary according to the size of the works and the amount of traffic on particular roads. The regulations take account of this by setting different maximum daily charges for different types of works. The charges which authorities can impose range from £2,000 a day for major work on the busiest roads to £100 a day for minor works of short duration on less busy roads. We recognise that there are some works which need to be carried out urgently or which are emergencies; for example, gas leaks where lives could be put at risk. The regulations take account of that by setting lower charges than for ordinary works.
It is for individual local authorities to decide whether they want to adopt these new powers. As disruption is clearly a greater problem in some parts of the country than others, it makes sense to allow decisions to be taken locally. More than 75 authorities have already informed us that they intend to operate charging schemes. The powers have been designed specifically to allow authorities to tailor the details of the charging scheme to the situation in their area. For example, they can choose to reduce or waive charges in particular cases if they consider that there are

545
extenuating circumstances, or they can concentrate on particular roads, or even particular undertakers, if they deem it appropriate.
These regulations are not an end in themselves. We have recently appointed Halcrow as consultants to monitor closely how well the new powers work. If it turns out that they do not lead to a sufficient improvement in the current situation and a reduction in the level of street works disruption, the Government will not hesitate to activate the powers in the Transport Act 2000 to allow highway authorities to charge undertakers from the start of works a so-called lane rental. I have little doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, will also be monitoring the efficacy of the new measures.
To sum up, the regulations provide highway authorities with important new powers to reduce disruption, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments about my noble friend Lord Peyton. We all acknowledge that he has been very persistent in this matter. I, too, am sorry that my noble friend is unable to be here today to hear the plaudits from both sides.
I should like to raise only two issues. First, these regulations affect only about 50 per cent of the work done to the roads. The utilities do not cover the totality of the people who dig up the roads. Does the noble Baroness believe that these measures are sufficient to cover all aspects and it will be unnecessary to introduce further ones in future to cover the 50 per cent who do not come within these regulations?
Secondly, the noble Baroness dealt with the question of what happens if disruption is not decreased. What about the benchmarking that should have been undertaken to judge whether or not disruption is taking place? The regulations do not appear to contain any benchmark as of now by which local authorities are to judge the situation. How will the monitoring by Halcrow take place? Who is to lay down the benchmarks for monitoring, and when will further regulations, if they are necessary, be introduced?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, these regulations were discussed at length in another place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I shall not repeat that long discussion. However, I have one or two queries.
I shall start where the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, ended, with the question of benchmarking. The Minister mentioned that 75 local authorities had already indicated that they were keen to implement these new regulations. Is there a basis on which to measure a possible reduction in disturbance and
546
nuisance? Some boroughs, particularly London boroughs, may have good records of who has dug up the road and for how long they have been on the road. I do not know, and it would be interesting to learn, whether that is the case. Otherwise it is difficult to know how one is to measure improvement.
Supposing one can measure whether or not these regulations are effective, what if they are ineffective for perfectly legal reasons; for example, the number of necessary interventions in the road surface is increasing or there is an enormous amount of building and construction going on in every urban centre? How will that impact upon the effectiveness of these new regulations?
Finally, there is the question of lane rental, which would have the effect of increasing the costs to the statutory undertakers of any work. Bearing in mind that some of that work is to supply necessary services, does that mean that the cost to the consumer will rise? If that appears to be a danger, how will the Government tackle that issue?
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, as one of the army of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in one or two of his debates on this subject, I, too, welcome the thrust of these regulations. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about in future charging not just overstayers but for lane closures.
I have one question about the local authority's autonomy over its charges. When we are considering the building of new roads, assessments are made of the time saved by building that new road and of the disruption caused by it. Values are put on those matters. A proper economic assessment is done before deciding whether to go ahead with it. From the point of view of an economist, the right way to charge for overstaying would be to assess the time wasted by motorists while they are sitting in traffic jams because of these road works and make the charge equate to or slightly exceed the cost of the time that they are losing.
To do a proper assessment for minor road works might be more trouble and expense than it is worth. Perhaps the Minister, as she assesses the progress of this scheme, will bear in mind the need and desirability for a more sophisticated system of charging which relates not just to local authorities having a look to see what jams there are but the actual time that is wasted as a result of these dratted works.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I declare a personal interest in the subject matter of the debate in that, day after day, I have to proceed by one form of transport or another along Kensington Road to its junction with Kensington Church Street. I query what powers of real enforcement there are within the regulations we are discussing. For the past two months, opposite the Royal Garden Hotel in Kensington Road, about a quarter of a mile before the junction of Kensington Church Street, the road has been up—if that is a term of which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would approve. Certainly, there are road

547
works there which have effectively narrowed the already existing bottleneck, so that, after a certain time of night, it is almost impossible to pass that way.
I have watched very carefully indeed the progress of these works. In most instances when I have passed the works there has been no one working there. That situation has gone on for approximately two months. To people's increasing irritation, there has been a considerable delay to traffic all the way along the road. Sometimes one passes the works and finds that one person is in charge of an operation on both sides of the road, with a great deal of spoil and various abstractions. Considerable amounts of timber are left lying idle day by day without any apparent endeavour to relieve the situation which I have described.
I have no wish to niggle over what is possibly to others a small point, but to thousands of Londoners who have to go that way it represents a considerable inconvenience for which so far there is no apparent relief. I repeat that I have no wish to niggle about this purely because I am personally involved, but I am bound to say that every time I pass, whether day or night, I wonder how often and how effective the powers of enforcement are on the various regulations and indeed Acts that are passed in this place on the assumption that they will become effective law and be effectively enforced.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by saying to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington that he has outlined the reason why noble Lords should support this measure. The regulation has to be seen in the context of the other measures that are already being introduced—the best practice, to which I referred, the code of practice, the co-ordination and the launching of, in Middlesbrough and perhaps elsewhere, lane rental pilot schemes. That deals with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
Several noble Lords have indicated that they will monitor carefully the efficacy of these measures. If we think that the disruption is not being sufficiently cut, there are possible new measures; for example, there could be a national launch of lane rental and, if necessary, greater powers could be given to highway authorities to control works.
My noble friend Lord Bruce referred to Kensington Church Street. These regulations should encourage works to be done more quickly. Those carrying out the works will incur significant fines if they are not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of whether the cost to consumers could rise. That will depend on the powers of the regulator or the particular utility. It is possible that some cost could be passed on to consumers. We do not envisage that being a major problem. The local highway authorities will be co-operating with Halcrow. It will make a study of the data held by those authorities in drawing up arrangements for monitoring and it will make recommendations to us. We shall try to take into account all the factors in deciding whether there is a need for further measures to be taken.
548
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of the level of charges and the sophistication of the scheme. We believe that operating on a sliding scale will allow highway authorities to target the highest fines on those major roads where disruption occurs and where that disruption is most likely to be severe. We believe that it is important to leave to individual local authorities the decision whether to reduce or waive charges. For example, there might be conditions of particularly adverse weather that would allow authorities to make judgments in a locality.
The contributions made by noble Lords demonstrate that Halcrow, the department, the Government and local authorities will have to be stringent and sensitive in monitoring what happens. It is clear that, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, many other noble Lords step in to fill his place.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, somewhere along the line my questions—perhaps I did not ask them correctly—have not been answered. First, I pointed out that the utilities cover only 50 per cent of the road work. I asked whether the noble Baroness was satisfied that the other 50 per cent were already covered by regulations or whether, if necessary in the future, regulations would be introduced to deal with the other 50 per cent provided by private companies, builders and so on. My second point related to the fact that so far there is no benchmarking on which Halcrow can base its estimates for the future of what disruption is being caused and whether it is being lessened. I asked whether that benchmarking should not have been undertaken before the regulations were laid. As it has not been, will that benchmarking be undertaken urgently?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe I am correct in saying that the process of developing benchmarking and looking at how to access and evaluate levels of disruption needs to be carried out in the context of the best practice that will start that process but also in co-operation with local authorities because of the varying issues. It will also have to be sensitive. We believe that this measure, alongside the other measures, will be very effective. I note the concerns and potential doubts raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. As I said earlier, greater powers could be given to highways authorities if, in the light of experience and following the detailed analysis, we felt that it was necessary to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 2001
11.53 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

549
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to specify seven new initiatives that will be funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund.
When in 1997 the Government proposed introducing a sixth good cause for health, education and the environment there was widespread public support for targeting lottery funding in those areas. Since then the New Opportunities Fund has made a real difference to people's lives—£1.5 billion has already been committed to six successful initiatives.
There are two of those existing schemes which we now propose to expand, in addition to the new initiatives which are the main focus of the order. Two hundred and five million pounds has already been allocated to out-of-school-hours learning. In June 1999 we announced that £60 million would be made available through that initiative and through Sport England to establish and support school sports coordinators, who organise competitive sport and after school activities for young people. The out-of-school-hours initiative has been a popular one and less than we anticipated has been available to fund the activities of sports coordinators. We therefore propose to allocate a further £25.5 million to the initiative to fund the activities of sports coordinators and their equivalents across the UK.
Under another successful initiative, £250 million has provided ICT training for teachers and librarians. We know, however, that there have been concerns that home and hospital tuition service teachers have not been eligible to apply. We shall therefore allocate a further £1 million to extend the programme to cover teachers employed by LEAs to provide education for pupils at home or in hospital.
When the Millennium Commission's share of lottery proceeds transfers to NOF in August the fund will receive one-third of all lottery proceeds—amounting to around £500 million a year. That is why in November last year we issued the consultation paper New Opportunities from the Lottery to seek views on a range of new initiatives. Four hundred and thirty responses to the paper were received across the UK, the overwhelming majority of which were very supportive of the proposed initiatives. Our draft directions to the New Opportunities Fund, which set the framework for the new initiatives and were made available to Members on 9th March, have been developed with the benefit of the many useful comments made.
The New Opportunities Fund has so far done well to deliver a wide range of different initiatives. I am sure that it will rise to the challenge of getting the next tranche of programmes up and running as soon as it can, and we shall look at ways of helping it to do that, where necessary by removing inappropriate bureaucratic controls. There may be instances, for example, where published criteria make it clear which groups or areas are the intended beneficiaries of a particular programme without the need for formal
550
application procedures. We shall therefore consider whether there is a need to change the financial directions to reflect that.
I shall outline our proposals for new initiatives. Sport has an important role to play in inspiring young people and motivating them to aim high. The sum of £750 million for sport in schools will help to bring about a huge expansion in the provision of sports facilities for young people and the wider communities in which they live. Priority will be given to areas of urban and rural deprivation but all local education authorities will benefit.
This will also provide up to £50 million to support the building or refurbishing of outdoor adventure facilities, particularly where that will benefit young people who do not currently have ready access to such facilities. More than £44 million will allow young people to take part in adventure programmes and other challenging activities. Secondary school leavers who have no idea of what to do at the end of compulsory schooling are far more likely to slip into long-term unemployment. We want to improve their self-confidence and increase the number who go into further education, training or a job with training.
Over £213 million will be available to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, and to provide extra money for the existing initiative to beat cancer. The initiative will help improve diagnosis and treatment, areas often funded through appeals and charitable donations, leading to inequalities in provision. It will help to improve cardiac rehabilitation and palliative care by improving access to safe, modern and convenient facilities. It will take effective action to prevent coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer, focusing on areas such as stopping smoking, increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity.
The palliative care programme for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illnesses will support more patients, families and carers wishing to stay in their own homes and communities. It will provide support for carers during bereavement. Children's hospices will also be eligible for support. The sum of £84 million will be available for this initiative.
The sum of £198.5 million will be available for childcare provision, funding capital projects that benefit up to three year-olds in socially excluded communities. It will also provide further support for childcare projects in deprived areas.
The sum of £159 million will be available for a wide-ranging initiative to transform communities. Funding will help to improve the appearance and amenities of specific local environments in both urban and rural areas and will also be available to expand community sector waste re-use, recycling and composting. Fifty million pounds of the funding for this initiative will be available to develop renewable energy sources, building generating capacity for electricity from energy crops, building offshore wind electricity generation projects, and developing small-scale biomass heat and power projects. In Scotland, £10

551
million will be directed towards projects which explore new kinds of community rehabilitation of people who misuse or have misused drugs.
Awards for All has been an extremely popular and successful programme under which distributors have joined forces to help support local groups in making small-scale grants. Sixty million punds over three years will allow NOF to join the programme and fund a wide range of health education and environment projects of between £500 and £5,000. The fund will make some of this funding available to support projects which celebrate the Queen's Jubilee in 2002.
The response to public consultation has shown overwhelming support for our programme proposals. The creation of the New Opportunities Fund has already helped thousands of communities to improve health, education and local environments. The latest round of grants will make a real difference to school sports facilities, as well as helping local communities to create a better environment and provide much-needed care support. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Noon
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As so often happens in this House, the noble Lord has managed to be more concise and clear than his colleagues in another place, for which I thank him. We do not oppose the making of the order and as my honourable friend John Greenway explained in another place we confirm that, if we were in a position to do so, we would honour the government funding pledges made in this order. At some stage in the future we would wish to review the scope of NOF activity, but as a fund it would not be abolished. However, that does not mean that the order should go through on the nod and I have one or two questions which need to be answered. I have limited my questions to only a few to reflect the fact that the Minister has been concise.
As he concluded his explanation to this House, the Minister referred to the popularity of the fund. In another place, the Minister, Kate Hoey, told the House that additionality was a recurrent theme contained in the responses sent in to the consultation paper, New Opportunities from the Lottery. She explained that respondents wanted assurances that the initiatives funded by NOF would be additional to and not substitutes for government spending—and quite right too. That is a theme to which I have returned again and again during our debates on the lottery and I do not apologise for returning to it once more today, however briefly.
We have been told repeatedly that the New Opportunities Fund does not breach additionality and yet, in the same breath, Ministers then often go on to explain how it does so. For example, one of the schemes which we have been told about today will provide teachers for pupils to be taught at home. I am puzzled why that is not the responsibility of the DfEE
552
budget. Surely such a provision should be the subject of core funding. There is also the question of childcare, again a project which we wholeheartedly support. It is clear that it is a good project. But it seems odd that it has become a lottery responsibility. Why have the Government shuffled this away from the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and on to the lottery?
I was also interested to hear that the Government are continuing to use the NOF to bypass the authority of other lottery funding bodies such as Sport England. We welcome wholeheartedly lottery support for schools and arts projects; indeed, especially those projects aimed at schools. When we set up the lottery we made quite sure that such projects were defined as good causes. Why have the Government funded sports coordinators through the New Opportunities Fund? Why do they not trust Sport England to take decisions as regards the priorities for lottery spending in sport and make those grants direct? Why add yet another layer of bureaucracy to the granting of lottery money?
Will the Minister answer the question put in another place by my honourable friend John Greenway, but which the Minister for Sport failed to answer? How many sports coordinators are in place this month? When my honourable friend asked that question, the Minister rather unhelpfully gave him the number that will be in place from September rather than now. The Minister has said that the Government wish to see around 1,000 sports coordinators in place by 2004. Is it intended that they should be in place by the beginning or by the end of that year? It is important that we are given an idea of when the coordinators will be fully in post.
As we have said on past occasions, we value those proposals which relate to matters such as cancer care, always provided that they are additional to the care that should be made available through the National Health Service. We welcome, too, the proposals in paragraph (8) and those that are partly included in paragraph (7) to support schemes that will help our community life to prosper. Certainly, if we had the opportunity, we would wish to establish a community fund for that very purpose. In particular we welcome the plans indicated in the order to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee next year.
I have one or two questions to put to the Minister about those proposals. First, why is lottery money being used to fund schemes to generate heat and power? That merely seems rather quirky. Secondly, can the Minister confirm today that New Opportunities Fund money for community renewal will be made available in particular to those rural areas hit so disastrously by the foot and mouth outbreak?
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for explaining in such detail the specific initiatives contained in the order. We have nothing particular add to the points raised by the noble Baroness. Indeed, we support her in her remarks about the need for further clarification on the additionality aspect of this funding.

553
As regards the initiative to offer funding that will enable children to be taught at home, will that include the increasing number of disruptive children who are being excluded from school, no doubt for perfectly good reasons? That appears to be a matter well outside normal funding arrangements in education and I hope that that will be reflected in this new initiative.
As I have said, the matter of additionality needs to be explained a little further. A number of initiatives are not defined clearly as falling outside the accepted scope of funding, but they are subject to certain budgetary constraints which may well be got round by putting them into a list such as that contained in the order.
Having said that, the success of the New Opportunities Fund depends on the continuing success of the lottery—and a grand success it has been. I am sure that the Minister recognises that more than most, in particular in the area of the arts. Let us hope that that will continue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Of course the important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, recognised—she has been consistent in making the point, but I do not complain about that in any way—is the issue of additionality. The best way to make clear how we are preserving additionality is to say that additionality does not mean that we shall spend money only on matters on which central government could not spend money, but also on matters on which central government would not spend money. The Government and the taxpayer can pay for anything they like. In that sense, any expenditure of lottery money involves issues of additionality.
But the example of childcare given by the noble Baroness illustrates my point most effectively. We introduced the National Childcare Strategy in May 1998. It aims to ensure the provision of good quality, affordable childcare for children aged from 0 to 15, and up to the age of 16 for children with special needs. The Government have already made provision from central funds—from the taxpayer—of £300 million towards the strategy for 1998–2003. What we are doing with the money targeted for funding childcare here is adding to public expenditure, particularly in deprived areas as well as for capital projects which it would not otherwise be possible to realise from the money which has been allocated by the taxpayer. That illustrates the difference between the two sources of funding and why these proposals do not breach additionality.
The noble Baroness asked me about the relationship with Sport England and the sport lottery distributors. The policy directions which were made available to the House state that NOF projects should be complementary to, and not in competition with, planned provision from other lottery distributors. That means that NOF will work with the sport lottery distributors to ensure that the money goes where it is most needed. In England, the school sports allowance
554
will be very important in the implementation of this initiative. So they are genuinely complementary rather than competitive.
So far as concerns school sports co-ordinators, there are 145 in place now; there will be approximately 200 in September; and we aim to have 1,000 by the end of 2004. However, in practice, with any luck, it could be earlier than that. So we have kept the matter deliberately vague in that sense.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me how expenditure on heat and power generation was appropriate. The answer is that these are part of community initiatives. It is when communities wish to save themselves money by setting up installations for a wide variety of renewable energy that NOF money would become available for that purpose. It is rather different from commercial energy policy.
As to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in regard to home teaching, yes, of course, the teaching of disruptive children is included. However, as the money is not to pay the basic costs of home teaching but to provide ICT training for home teachers and teachers in hospitals, it is not quite as fundamental as it might appear. In any case, there is only £1 million available for that purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limited Liability Partnerships (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2001
12.12 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained when we debated the limited liability partnerships regulations on 16th March, due to an administrative error an earlier set of fees regulations had to be withdrawn and a new set laid. I should like to assure the House that the regulations before us today contain the correct incorporation fee for limited liability partnerships, which is £95. We have also taken the opportunity to propose a minor change to fee No. 4, which has been reduced from £20 to £10.
In setting the level of fees for limited liability partnerships, we have made every effort to ensure that it is as near as possible to the level of fees for companies. Following the revocation of the earlier fees regulations, we looked again at the fees applied to LLPs and concluded that fee No. 4 could be reduced to bring it in line with companies. However, because of the need to set up a separate registration system for LLPs, it has not been possible to do this in all cases, although six of the nine fees applied to LLPs are in line with companies.
Companies House is responsible for the incorporation and dissolution of companies and the publication of financial and other information

555
supplied in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act. The Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 gives it similar responsibilities for LLPs.
Clearly, one of the fees that is higher for LLPs than for companies is the registration fee. I should like to explain why. The demand for LLP incorporation is unlikely to be on anything like the scale of company registrations. Market research carried out for Companies House suggests initial volumes of some 8,000 LLPs over the first three years, although, of course, there is considerable uncertainty about any estimate of that kind.
The administration of the LLP regime requires the creation of a dedicated team within Companies House. The fees charged for LLPs need to recover these costs, the cost of developing the necessary computer systems and the costs of provision of information to the public. As a result, the projected unit costs for the registration of an LLP gives a fee of £95. By contrast, there are 1.4 million active companies and some 200,000 new company registrations per year. This brings substantial economies of scale and accounts for the much lower registration fee of £20.
It is not permissible for Companies House to cross-subsidise LLPs from the moneys received from the registration of companies. Companies House has been an executive agency since October 1988 and has operated as a trading fund since October 1991. As a trading fund, Companies House must recover the costs of providing its services from fees. It must also aim to achieve a net return of 6 per cent on its assets, on average, taking one year with another. Within this framework, Companies House must also avoid, as far as possible, cross-subsidy between its various activities. So each major product and service category has to be broadly self-financing.
Companies House also has to finance development programmes from fees and charges. This includes the costs of continuing to invest in new IT systems. These costs must be charged to and spread across the relevant components of Companies House products and services.
As part of the modernising and e-commerce agenda, Companies House is putting a great deal of effort into systems which will widen the scope of electronic filing, permit electronic incorporation and make company information available over the Internet—a great relief to those of us who had to use the old microfiche system. At the same time, it is putting the final touches to a project to make all information held available electronically. Information up to five years old is already available electronically.
The users of information on limited liability partnerships will benefit from these changes immediately. Later on, there will be benefits for LLPs in terms of registering information electronically.
Companies House, as a DTI agency and a trading fund, is set strict public targets. Among those targets is a requirement to recover its operating costs from the fees it charges. In this way, it is self-financing and makes no demands on the public purse. It has made efforts. year by year, to reduce the unit cost of
556
processing information by almost 20 per cent in real terms over the past four years. The result is that the fees for the incorporation of companies and registration of returns are quite exceptionally modest. The proposed fees for LLPs are inevitably higher for the reasons that I have given.
In the longer term I expect that the systems for capturing, holding and disseminating information on both companies and LLPs will come together. We can then look again at the relative level of fees, but I hope that I have explained why the fees for LLPs in these regulations are both reasonable and reflect the expected cost of Companies House administration. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 14th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations so thoroughly. I should like to say a word on behalf of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
As the Minister explained, the regulations are before us almost for the third time of asking and certainly for the third time of printing. Unlike negative instruments, affirmative instruments normally sail through the Joint Committee on the basis that Members of this House and another place have to examine them for themselves; they have to be debated. However, when the original regulations were before the JCSI, they were accompanied, a few orders down in the pile, by the relevant companies order. It was, therefore, easy to see that the fees were different. So the Joint Committee decided to put in an artful little question to the Minister's department asking why they were different.
I am glad that the Minister has explained why they are different. I am even more glad that fee No. 4—the fee for the performance by the Registrar of Companies of his functions—has been reduced from £20 to £10. I am sure that the Joint Committee would wish me to congratulate the Minister on that. However, it does not alter the fact that this should never have happened in the first place.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I thank the Minister for his customary courtesy in describing the regulations to the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that there has been a bit of a muddle about a point echoed by my noble friend.
We on these Benches are happy to accept that this confusion was the result of an administrative error. I leave it at that except to say that, inevitably, it takes some of the gloss off the Government's pride in introducing for the first time in nearly a century a change to business entities in Great Britain.
As to the substance of the regulations, I understand that it has always been the Government's aim to ensure that fees for LLPs are as near as possible to those for companies. In those circumstances I simply ask: is £95 really as near as possible to the £20 that it would cost a plc for what is essentially the same service?

557
I am, of course, aware of the regime under which Companies House operates. The Minister was good enough to explain it in some detail today. What I fail to understand is why the Government felt it necessary for Companies House to introduce a discrete system, with the properly trained staff, to deal with LLPs.
The Minister will be aware that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said:
"The Government have carried out what we consider good, exhaustive market research on just how many limited liability partnerships there may be. We think that there may be about 8,000 during three years"—
a figure repeated today by the noble Lord. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell the House what was the cost of the market research and from which departmental or agency budget it was drawn.
Against the background of 1.4 million existing company registrations at Companies House and 200,000 new registrations each year, what sense does it make to set up an entirely new and discrete system for LLPs? Surely a more cost-effective—perhaps the phrase "best value" would be more appropriate—way forward would have been to take advantage of the existing companies database and software and bolt LLPs on to that.
As my honourable friend Mr Gibb observed, a unit handling 8,000 registrations during three years will be a tiny unit within Companies House. I repeat: are these regulations really consistent with the aim of making fees for LLPs as near as possible to those for companies?
With the leave of the House, I turn to a related matter. The Minister will recall that, when the House debated the limited liability partnership regulations on 16th March, my noble friend Lord Burnham sought clarification of a discrepancy relating to subsection (5) of Section 391A of the Companies Act. As my noble friend explained, this is the introduction of a fine and a criminal record when no such sanction applies against company directors. In other words, secondary legislation has been used to introduce a new criminal offence.
At the time, the Minister maintained a contrary view. I make it plain that I am not in any way impugning the integrity of the noble Lord. This is a highly technical matter. None the less, as he will know, his letter of 21st March to my noble friend Lady Miller accepts our interpretation that a new criminal offence has been created, albeit with the qualification of being only in "the very narrowest sense".
We can perhaps agree to differ on that point. The fact remains that under the regulations a failure to communicate an auditors' report to members of an LLP has become a criminal offence, whereas a similar misdemeanour in the case of an ordinary limited company is not subject to any sanctions against its directors. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to take this opportunity to confirm this for the record.
558
Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord to give the House an undertaking that, in future, across all departments, every effort will be made to ensure that there is no repetition of this. For our part, we on these Benches deplore the use, however inadvertent, of secondary legislation as the mechanism to create new criminal offences. Such matters should be dealt with in primary legislation. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord could also indicate that the Government share this view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept the rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. It is even more embarrassing that we did not discover the point ourselves; it was discovered by the Opposition in the course of proceedings in Committee in the other place.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked whether the difference between £95 and £20 is the real difference in cost. I have explained that the costing system and the pricing system which Companies House has to adopt derives from its status as a trading agency. That, in turn, derives from decisions of the government that the noble Earl supported at the time.
On the practicalities, clearly we are talking about something that will happen in the future. I said in introducing the regulations that there would have to be a dedicated team. Indeed, at the outset, there will have to be such a team, probably of six people, because they will be working up the forms, the software and the procedures. If there is a wrong estimate of the numbers or if the numbers fall off after the beginning, clearly the dedicated team will be diverted to other activities. There is no point in keeping a team of people twiddling their thumbs. Our calculation is based on the best estimates of the likely number. I do not know the cost of the market research. It was carried by Companies House and comes from its own development budget and is, therefore, in turn paid for by fees from companies and in future from LLPs.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that the workload of the team will be monitored so that we can keep the fees in line with changes in demand. If this is enormously successful and there are hundreds of thousands of them, clearly the fees will come closer to those applied to companies.
Finally, the noble Earl asked about an issue that was raised when we debated the other LLP order on Section 391A. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on that point and I have copied the letter to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. The noble Baroness has written to me again and I am preparing a reply to her letter at the moment. Since it does not raise a matter covered by these regulations, I believe it is better if we keep it in the realm of correspondence at present. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) (Amendment) Order 2001
12.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order permits the use of 70m1 capacity measures for use for trade for the purpose of measuring gin, rum, vodka and whisky—collectively defined as "intoxicating liquor".
Under the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, as amended, gin, rum, vodka and whisky, when sold by the glass for consumption on licensed premises, may be sold only in quantities of 25ml or 35ml, or in multiples of 25ml or 35ml. In practice, other spirits are also sold in the prescribed quantities.
The purpose of selling spirits in prescribed quantities is to enable consumers to make price comparisons and to provide protection against short measure. In practice, 25ml and 50ml—what the consumer. is taken to order when he or she asks for a "single" or a "double"—are the quantities which are most commonly served in the UK. However, 35ml and 70ml quantities are also sold, principally in Scotland.
These quantities can be measured in a number of different ways. Spirit measuring instruments, generally of the push-up type, are very common; but some establishments prefer to use capacity measures, otherwise known as thimble measures.
Thimbles of 25ml, 35ml and 50ml are already provided for in the legislation. The order adds 70ml "double" capacity measures to be used where customers request a "double" serving. The benefit deriving from this is that bar staff can carry out a single measuring operation where a "double" measure is requested, without having to fill a 35ml capacity measure twice.
The purpose of prescribing capacity measures is to provide an accurate measuring instrument to enable bar staff to measure the prescribed quantities. I should point out that the introduction of 70ml capacity measures does not mean that such measures must be held by establishments selling intoxicating liqueur; the change merely provides them with an optional alternative means of measuring and serving 70ml of intoxicating liqueur. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister explained the order very well, but his explanation was not as clear as some of the comments made in the regulatory impact assessment, a copy of which I took the trouble to obtain this morning. In view of my long association with the all-party group on alcohol misuse and my connections with various treatment centres for drug and alcohol abuse, it would be remiss of me—indeed, it would be perceived as such—not to delve a
560
little into the background of alcohol consumption and its associated problems. If this order had been dealt with on another day—not a Friday—someone else would have spoken for these Benches. I apologise because, in that case, noble Lords would not have had to listen to me drawing their attention to the fact that this seemingly innocuous measure, which appears to be just a tidying-up measure as regards weights and measures, has implications that need to be mentioned.
Most of the alcohol abuse in this country that grabs the newspaper headlines—though probably not enough headlines—relates to binge drinking, which is mainly indulged in by young men between the ages of 14 and 18, and does not involve the kind of alcoholic beverages that are featured in the order now before the House. That is a particular case apart but is of much concern to this Government, as, indeed, it was to previous governments. Older people tend to drink whiskey, gin, rum and vodka, which for the purposes of this debate are what we are discussing. The original single tot of 25ml could be served as a 50ml double under Schedule 3 to the weights and measures Act. However, as regards the additional 35ml measure, it is now proposed that it should be possible to have a 70ml measure served as a large double.
When I sought a copy of the regulatory impact assessment, I was interested to find out what the benefits of the order would be. Quite simply, the benefits are that bar staff serving large double measures of intoxicating liqueur will need to fill a measure only once, not twice. As I believe the Minister explained, that increases the speed of service—if, indeed, that is a good thing, bearing in mind the constraints on people's drinking time, and so on. However, I accept that point.
Perhaps I may illustrate the concern that many people may have in this respect. I telephoned Alcohol Concern this morning to find out what the relationship was between a double if it was served as a result of this order—a 70ml double—and the permissible amount of alcohol that is allowed to be in the blood for those driving motor vehicles. As far as concerns the measurement of the lowest tot or measure of 25ml, I was told that four of those measures would put the average 11-stone man just below the limit allowed to drive a motor vehicle. For a small man or woman, that measurement would put them just above the limit. We are talking about 100ml. In that case, a 70ml double would put a small man or woman just about on the level of what is permissible to drive a motor vehicle.
As a result of this order, I suggest to your Lordships that at times when people are accustomed to drinking more—for example, Christmas, Easter, public holidays and at other times of celebration—it will be more common for people to go for the "double"; indeed, they will probably have two doubles. If you have two doubles, which amount to 140ml, you will, no matter what size you are, be above the limit permitted in this country for driving a motor vehicle. At Christmas and at other times of celebration, people are most at risk from being injured by motorists who do not obey the law. Unhappily, there are still far too many casualties as a result of drink driving, although

561
it must be admitted that there has been a welcome culture change in the attitude towards drinking and driving, especially among young people. That is why I make the point. However, that change does not apply quite so much to older people, who tend to run a pretty fine line between what is and what is not permitted. I believe that more people may well fail the breath test at such times as a result of this order.
I have a further point to make regarding those who travel abroad. I have in mind France in particular, which, after all, is the most favoured country for tourism. When driving, the permitted level of alcohol in the blood in that country is only just over half what is permitted here. If people become accustomed to drinking a double measure of rum, gin, vodka or whiskey and they believe that they can do so in France, they will have to be extremely careful. They could put themselves above the permitted level. The authorities in France are very harsh in this respect. People could run the risk of being arrested, having their cars impounded, and so on. I shall not spoil noble Lords' weekend by delving further into the horrifying consequences that face those who abuse the laws in that country.
Therefore, the order is not quite as simple as it appears: it is not just a tidying-up measure. Its implications will be watched most carefully by organisations like the government-sponsored body, Alcohol Concern, the all-party group on alcohol misuse and all those bodies that are pressing government—and, indeed, pressed successive governments—to take a more serious attitude towards the abuse of alcohol in this country. After all, alcohol abuse is responsible for many more deaths, fatalities and illnesses and much greater family disintegration than drugs, either soft or hard. That is a matter of statistics. It just happens that drugs and their abuse are featured in newspaper headlines at present, while drink, because it is permissible, is the subject of general national denial, if I may put it that way.
I shall cease to harangue your Lordships on these matters further. In the past, when I used to speak more often on the subject, I did not have anyone sitting behind me on these Benches. I am happy to see that three of my noble friends are present today. No doubt they have been tricked into being here. I dare say that I shall be subject to some pretty grim looks from my colleagues later. However, we are discussing serious matters which must be addressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right in one respect: a 25ml measure is, indeed, one unit. Therefore, a 70ml unit is substantially more. It is roughly equivalent to half a gill in old measures. I totally reject his suggestion that this has anything to do with alcohol abuse. I simply do not believe that people drink more because it is possible for a bar tender to serve a Scottish double or a large double in one movement rather than in two.
If it were the case that the size of the measure used to pour alcohol affected alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse, one would not allow anyone to sell
562
anything in bottles. One would not allow people to order doubles; one would force them to go to the bar and buy another single. It just does not make sense. There is no connection between alcohol consumption and the way in which a measure is poured.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am not suggesting that there is any direct relationship between this order and an increase in alcohol abuse. However, those who are habitual drinkers of these kinds of alcoholic beverages are liable, perhaps unconsciously, to fall into the habit of ordering in larger quantities. I am talking about older people. Nevertheless the habits of young people in this country are directly related to the example set them by older people. That is another aspect of the matter. As I say, I accept that there is no direct relationship between the order and an increase in alcohol abuse. However, I thought it only right to point out the possible effects of the provision. The fullness of time will show whether I am right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not agree. People can order doubles, small doubles, large doubles or gills. My grandmother used to order a quarton of gin in the east end of London. I have no idea what that is. The point here is that we are providing for a different measure. We are not dictating what size drinks people should order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2001
12.42 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft regulations make detailed provision for holding referendums under Part II of the Local Government Act 2000. They set out the necessary requirements to ensure that local referendums are well conducted and put in place the technical provisions required to ensure that they run smoothly. The regulations follow as closely as possible existing provision for the conduct of elections and referendums set out in other legislation and take account wherever possible of new developments in the electoral process. I should also like to place on record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Councils are required to hold a referendum on proposals for executive arrangements in three main circumstances, the first of which is, when, following consultation, the authority draws up proposals for a form of constitution for which a referendum is required; in other words, a proposal that includes a form of elected mayor. Secondly, where a council receives a valid petition for a form of constitution that includes an elected mayor. Thirdly, when a council is

563
required to hold a referendum by a direction given by the Secretary of State for any of the forms of executive provided for in or under the 2000 Act.
These regulations will, subject to parliamentary approval, form an integral part of the Government's modernisation agenda for local Government and will allow councils to continue to progress their implementations of new constitutions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in another place these 120 or so pages of regulations were debated at such length that our colleagues ran out of time and the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply to points raised in the debate.
I have a number of questions which I am sure the Minister will have anticipated. Has the new electoral commission, or, at any rate, its shadow form, been consulted? The shadow chair of that commission has raised questions as regards the possible date of the general election. Certainly there is one solid proposal on the table. We hope that the regulations setting the process in train will prove to be robust and will work.
The wording on the ballot paper set out in Schedule 1 is crucial. Given the prescribed wording, I wonder how anyone could vote against a proposal for an elected mayor as no alternative arrangement is offered. In other words, the fallback option is not printed. My next question is not rhetorical. Why is there not a choice on the referendum ballot paper between the elected mayor proposal and the fallback arrangements as the existing arrangements will not be an option? How can electors understand what they are voting on when the fallback proposals cannot be promoted within 28 days of the referendum, as provided for by Regulation 5, or at any rate cannot be promoted by the local authority itself?
It seems to us that the main source of information on the fallback proposals will come from those who are campaigning on both sides of the elected mayor argument. The effectiveness of their campaigning will in large part depend on the cash available to the two sides. That is not a healthy situation. Over the past two or three years I have heard a number of criticisms not of the noble Baroness's department but rather of the Home Office with regard to the inadequacy of the information that it has published, particularly on the London referendum and the GLA elections. I hope that one might be able to learn from that.
The noble Baroness may be sympathetic—although she may not feel able to express this—to my question as to what help the Government are giving to ensure that the title of mayor does not give rise to confusion as between the elected mayor and the traditional mayor. In the past the noble Baroness has expressed concern on that point.
564
I turn to the question of expenses limits on referendums. Will the Minister explain the position as regards election expenses, particularly for local council candidates who are standing for elections taking place at the same time as the referendum and who want to express in their literature their view for or against the referendum position? As the noble Baroness will know, that is particularly important in Berwick-upon-Tweed which is the first authority to have received a petition for an elected mayor. Will council candidates who express a view, and perhaps explain their position on a mayoral ballot, be expected to apportion some of their own election expenses to the mayoral election expense limits? Is that simply part and parcel of standing for the local election and does it not count towards the mayoral election expense limits, or is that not the case?
I turn to campaign organisers. More than one is allowed. There is an expenses limit of £2,000 plus five pence per elector for each campaign organiser. The obvious question arises: can one side of the argument appoint more than one election organiser, thus upping the expenses limit? How will that work?
Regulation 13 concerns counting observers. Will the Minister confirm that it will be possible to appoint counting observers to represent those who oppose the proposition in the referendum question?
Finally—this point was not raised in another place—I refer to the hours of polling, from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. I expect the Government will express the view that the hours of polling for a referendum should be the same as for a local election. However, I believe that people are too often disenfranchised by the inability to get to a polling station within the prescribed hours and direct their minds too late to the need to apply for a postal vote even though those are now more widely available. I cannot let today pass without stating that polling hours for local matters should be as long as for general elections. I acknowledge that the authority may decide that the whole referendum should be conducted on a postal basis.
I apologise to noble Lords for taking a relatively long time. However, I believe that it is better to take time in this House to ask questions and receive answers than to go over past issues, as occurred in another place. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, my noble friend put forward a number of points that I had wished to raise. I shall not pursue them further, apart from one.
I wish to make three points. First, it seems extraordinary that a document of 96 pages is being given only this fairly rudimentary scrutiny. The document contains a number of complex points which must be got right. As my noble friend said, if the system goes wrong there are many ramifications.
The size of the statutory instrument makes the position difficult. The layout and design makes it difficult to get to grips with its exact meaning and how the system will operate. The large number of schedules set out in the form of amendments, additions, or new

565
applications to existing statutory instruments also make the situation difficult. In a previous professional capacity I used to be able almost to recite the principal areas rules without looking at them—we have all had sad experiences in our lives! So I thought that I knew my way around them. But I found it extremely difficult to work out exactly what the schedule means. I took the schedule to bed with me one night to study. I fell asleep long before I had achieved to my satisfaction my understanding of it.
Will the Minister confirm that once the statutory instrument is approved, the amended rules and regulations for running elections and referendums at different levels will be reprinted in a form which those involved in political campaigning, elections and council work can understand—although perhaps not the man in the street? If not, the position will be very difficult.
Secondly, there is provision for all-postal vote referendums. On their own, that is not a particularly dangerous practice. However, it is another extension of substantial postal voting in this country. As people in Northern Ireland know only too well—in Northern Ireland postal votes are not allowed—substantial postal voting can, unless there are careful safeguards, lead to very substantial electoral fraud and corruption. There seems to be a mood in the country, and a desire by the Government shared to some extent across all the political parties, that there should be substantial increases in postal voting and that this is a way of increasing participation in elections. I do not believe that people have considered the new safeguards which may be required. The obvious one—it has been resisted so far—is the provision after the election of a marked register of who has used his postal vote, as applies to those who vote at a polling station.
There are two fundamental principles underlying the system of secret ballot elections in this country: that it is secret; and that the identity of the person voting is checked to ensure that the vote is cast by the person who is supposed to cast it, the elector. Widespread postal voting potentially undermines both those fundamental principles. Although it is not a particular issue with regard to referendums—I cannot imagine that a lot of people will engage in a great deal of electoral fraud over this kind of referendum—the extension of postal voting in this country leaves the system open to a substantial increase in electoral fraud unless measures are taken. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the matter.
Thirdly, I refer to election expenses. I do not know whether I have missed a trick. In the district where I live the new referendum expense limits would come to about £5,500. Let us imagine a situation in which the council is controlled by one party which decides that it will go for an elected mayor. The other local political parties, of which there may be two or more, may decide individually to campaign against that. In addition, I might decide to campaign against that choice and set up a campaign, "Lord Greaves against a mayor". I cannot imagine what the acronym might be. My wife might decide to set up a separate campaign, "Lady Greaves against a mayor", and so on. What guarantees are there
566
that those expense limits on referendum campaigns mean anything at all? Everyone in the borough could set up their own campaign and the expense limits would become completely meaningless.
In particular, what is to stop a local election candidate setting up his own campaign against a mayor and suddenly having election expense limits in his own ward of £5,500? I am not clear about the safeguards. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall try to answer all the questions posed. I understand the circumstance referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about there being inadequate time at the end of the detailed debate in another place to allow these questions to be placed on the record.
With regard to the Government giving help to ensure that confusion over the title of mayor is minimised, our guidance is clear. Where a council which currently has a ceremonial mayor adopts a constitution with an elected mayor, the title of mayor will fall to the elected mayor and not to the chair of the council. The council will be able to decide which of these two people, the chairman or the elected mayor, takes formal legal precedence. The council will be able to choose which of them, or both, undertakes ceremonial duties. If such a council has en elected mayor, the chairman will have no statutory title so could be called anything other than mayor. None of this affects town mayors or lord mayors. Town mayors are unaffected because town councils cannot have a directly elected mayor. Lord mayors are unaffected because the title is easily distinguishable from that of mayor.
The noble Baroness raised the complex issue of whether fallback proposals should be included as part of the option. Including the issue of fallback would over-complicate the referendum question. More importantly, the referendum is to ask people whether they want a directly elected mayor, not whether they want to vote for the fallback. Regulation 5(2) does not prevent councils publicising their fallback proposals. In fact, Regulation 4(1)(b) requires them to do so.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred to expenses. Ultimately, it will be for the courts to decide on the circumstances of any particular case. Our intention in the regulations is that only activities that are directly attributable to a campaign seeking a particular outcome to the referendum would count towards the referendum campaign expenditure limits. If a candidate expresses a view on a referendum question in literature that he or she has produced for the purpose of seeking to persuade people to vote for him or her in the election, the costs of production should count only towardsthe candidate's election expenses limits. On the other hand, if a candidate were to produce literature that explicitly sought to persuade people to vote for him or her in the election and to vote in a particular way in a referendum—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves raised—the costs would have to be apportioned appropriately between the election expenses limit and the referendum expenses limit.

567
The department will produce technical and specialist guidance for the local authority returning officers in a document known as a Keeling schedule. It will show in full the relevant legislation, as altered, applied and modified by the schedules to these regulations, together with covering explanatory guidance. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, we shall do everything that we can, in addition to being clear and accurate, to make the guidance as comprehensible as possible.
The noble Baroness also referred to consultation with the Electoral Commission. We shall consider carefully its recommendations on polling hours. Once the Electoral Commission assumes its functions in respect of referendums under the Local Government Act 2000, we shall consult it on the regulations. That is in line with commitments that we have given to your Lordships and others. We shall also consult the commission on any amendments that we need to make to the regulations, such as those to specify further questions if a council with an elected mayor draws up proposals to change its form of executive. The commission assumes those functions on 1st July this year. We understand that it is fully aware of our intention to consult it on those issues.
The noble Baroness also raised an issue to do with expenses. It is correct that the regulations impose no limit on the number of individuals or bodies who can incur referendum expenses in a campaign, provided they are not spending money on each other's behalf. If each group is spending its own money, each will be able to spend up to the referendum expenses limit on its campaign. That mirrors the decision for referendum expenses in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which the Liberal Democrats supported. There is no limit on the number of organisations that can campaign in a national, sub-national or regional referendum.
However, it is not possible for one organisation or individual to get round its expenses limit by giving money to other individuals or bodies to spend in the campaign. If they did so, the money so spent would count against their own expenses limit. The draft regulations specifically state that referendum expenses are those incurred by or on behalf of any individual or body. Again, that mirrors the position for referendums covered by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. If, on studying the details of that reply, the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, wishes to write for further clarification, I am sure that the department will be delighted to help.
The noble Baroness also asked about counting observers. The counting officer for the referendum can allow anyone whom he or she thinks fit to attend and observe the count, whether they are in favour or against. We expect counting officers to choose carefully whom they allow to attend the count, ensuring that there is a fair balance between those who oppose the proposition and those who support it.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about postal voting. There was no evidence from last year's pilots of any increase in electoral fraud. We shall keep a close eye on how all postal voting progresses. The Government
568
deplore electoral fraud and will not tolerate it. We shall want to consider further the noble Lord's suggestion about the publication of the names of those who have voted.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the offer of further clarification on expenses limits in correspondence. I am not satisfied that it would be impossible for a number of campaigners to co-ordinate while carrying on separate campaigns. My noble friend Lord Greaves might campaign in week one, his wife in week two—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I would volunteer.
Baroness Hamwee: My noble friend Lady Thomas could do week three and I would do week four. That covers it. We might want to take that issue further.
The Minister also mentioned the proposed Keeling schedule. I hope that the detail can be made available to organisers and candidates in accessible form. As my noble friend Lord Greaves has pointed out, the issue is complicated. I do not think that I even got as far as he did in reading through the schedules. I also hope that the Government will consult the Local Government Association on the details of the schedule and any accompanying detailed guidance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we shall undertake to make the detail as accessible as possible, in both senses—as comprehensible and as widely available as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the way in which individuals could take part and talked about people forming a group together. I spent 20 years as a member of Lancashire County Council, where the noble Lord was also a member. From that experience, I think that it would be almost impossible for anyone to construct legislation that the noble Lord would not find some way of using to his advantage, while remaining strictly within the law. I shall give further consideration to his point. I remember being involved in a by-election in the Ribble Valley. During the course of the campaign, a lot of people came who had never been there before. They realised how beautiful the place was and that helped with the tourism industry there. If the noble Lord is inviting lots of people up to test the law, I know that they will want to return time and again to Pendle.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2001
1.9 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

569
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft regulations, which set out alternative arrangements, put in place the "fourth option" of a streamlined committee system with overview and scrutiny for district councils in two-tier areas with a population below 85,000. They fulfil the commitments made by the Government in accepting the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to last year's Local Government Bill.
The Local Government Act 2000 also provides for councils which wish to implement a form of executive arrangement that requires a referendum—that is, for a mayor and cabinet or mayor and council manager—to draw up proposals for fall-back arrangements to be implemented, should the local electorate vote "no" in that referendum. The alternative arrangements are one of two options that currently we intend will be available to councils in such circumstances.
I also want to place on the record that I am satisfied that these regulations comply with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Your Lordships will recall that during debates on the Local Government Bill we made clear our belief that executive arrangements provide the best new form of governance to replace the traditional committee system. Nevertheless, we recognised the views expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches and accepted the need for an alternative system for small shire districts of a streamlined committee structure with overview and scrutiny.
These regulations make available that streamlined committee system. They provide for a stronger role for the full council, setting the authority's budget and providing the policy framework within which the committee system will operate. Together with the guidance, they provide for fewer and smaller policy committees. Most importantly, they require each council which operates alternative arrangements to put in place robust arrangements for overview and scrutiny.
The traditional committee system has served local government well but it is now creaking at the seams. It is essential that councils adopt a more streamlined form of decision-making. The statutory limit on the number of councillors who can sit on committees, coupled with statutory guidance recommending that there should be no more than five policy committees, achieves that aim, while giving councils flexibility to meet local circumstances.
Having listened to representations made by the LGA and others, we have decided not to include regulatory committees in the description of committees to which the limitations apply. The regulations and guidance make specific exceptions for committees discharging quasi-judicial functions which, under executive arrangements, would not be the responsibility of the executive.
Regulations 7 to 17 deal with the overview and scrutiny of education where it is the responsibility of the authority concerned. They reflect the importance
570
which the Government attach to providing a voice for Church and parent-governor representatives in decision-making at school and local authority level.
The regulations provide for the appointment of Church representatives to overview and scrutiny committees whose remits include education. Representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are granted that right directly. Representatives of other faiths and denominations may be granted such rights on an authority-by-authority basis by direction from the Secretary of State. They also provide for at least two, but not more than five, parent-governor representatives on such overview and scrutiny committees.
The regulations will, subject to parliamentary approval, form an integral part of the Government's modernisation agenda for local government and will allow councils to continue to progress their implementation of new constitutions. I commend them to the committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am aware that representations were made in relation to the earlier draft, and I am glad that the Government were able to respond to them. While I thank the Minister and note the actions that the Government have taken in response to the points on which we bargained in a fairly hard-nosed fashion last summer, she will understand that, nevertheless, we wish that there were further discretion, and not only in relation to small authorities. We are dealing today with regulations for small authorities, and on these Benches we wish that the population limit had been increased to a higher number. I make those points for the record because I know that some people who read this may be new readers. Of course, the story does not start here.
The Minister will be glad to know that I do not want to raise as many points as I did in relation to the previous order, although I believe that my noble friend may have some searching questions. With regard to the detail of the regulations, I have heard that, although approximately half of the smaller councils, as defined, are likely to wish to use the fourth option—at any rate, they may not wish to use options 1 to 3—other small councils are wary of them—this is my point for the Minister—because they believe that they will be punished by the Government if they do so. I hope that she will take the opportunity today to put on the record that that is not in the Government's mind.
The first draft of this order caused much anxiety as to whether it would create an unworkable bureaucracy and whether the streamlining proposed by the Government was such that it would become impossible. I am glad to see that the committees, limited to five in number, now exclude regulatory committees. I believe that area and joint committees are also excluded. I do not believe the noble Baroness mentioned those. I am still not convinced that the limit is either needed or appropriate. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can confirm that it will be

571
possible to exceed five because, as I read it, the limit is set out in the guidance and not in the order. Perhaps she will confirm the position.
I believe that while the number is probably acceptable for small authorities, which have fewer functions, there could be a considerable problem in relation to all-purpose authorities, for which these will be the fallback arrangements in the events that we have just discussed.
That leads me to a question which the Minister will probably not want to enter into today but which I shall again put on the record. Why is this fourth option acceptable for fallback arrangements for all authorities but not an option on which they can consult in the first place? I wonder also why the limits on membership of committees have been set at 15 and 10. In addition, what are the criteria for the plans and strategies listed in Schedule 4 to which Section 101 of the 1972 Act is not to apply; in other words, the plans and strategies which must remain matters for the full council? We on these Benches do not intend to hold up these regulations. Authorities are required to submit proposals for new constitutions by the end of June, and we are already very close to the wire. Therefore, we support their passage. We have doubts about the underlying guidance, but that of course is more easily reviewed and revised.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for the very kind words that she said to me. I remind her that very often reformed poachers make the best gamekeepers. I also compliment her on the broadness of her back in reminding your Lordships, or, indeed, anyone else, about the Ribble Valley by-election.
I live in an authority which qualifies potentially for alternative arrangements because it has a population of fewer than 85,000. It is an authority in which I spent a great deal of time over the past three decades as a member. I also spent a large part of the 1990s looking for ways in which local government could be modernised—if I dare use that term—so as to become more efficient and more effective. At the same time, I looked for ways in which it could become more democratic and responsive to the people in the area and, indeed, involve them far more in the work of the authority. I refer, of course, to the borough of Pendle in east Lancashire.
I consulted the leading officers in Pendle about the statutory instrument and the guidance that they had received from the Government on the fourth option. In that authority, where the political will is to go for the alternative arrangements fourth option—a modified committee system—if that is sensible, I have to report that the advice that the officers are giving as a result of the guidance that they have received from the Government is that the approach may be unworkable and that if it is not unworkable it will certainly be extremely difficult. Their view is that despite the fact that the Government made such welcome concessions during the legislation's passage through Parliament, the Government are now attempting as best they can to obstruct those
572
authorities that wish to adopt the alternative arrangements fourth option. That is their view; it is not a political view. I have worked with those officers for a long time, I respect them and I trust their judgment.
The regulations are fairly innocuous—there is not much in them about which to complain. However, limiting the number of members of committees to 15 and the number of members of sub-committees to 10 is an arbitrary limit. People can obviously live with that. Such detailed and pernickety interference by central government in the work of local government gives central government a bad name. Such detailed prescription is ridiculous. Nevertheless, that is the way of the world at the moment.
The problems that people report involve the guidance pack, which is entitled, New Council Constitutions Guidance Pack: Volume 1. Look at the size of it! People are struggling with it. It contains statutory guidance. It may be true, as my noble friend said, that it has less legal effect than a statutory instrument, but the clear message that local authorities receive is that if they get statutory guidance from central government, they ignore it and attempt to act in ways that are contrary to it at their peril. So far as concerns local authorities, there is very little difference between a statutory instrument and statutory guidance. The message nowadays is very clear. Authorities are told, "You've got to do it. If you don't, we have all sorts of ways of twisting your arm and of penalising you". We all know that that is the case—it has been for many years and under various governments.
I regret the fact that the regulations are so slim compared with the document that we have not been asked to approve but with which local authorities will still have to comply. Even the section of the statutory guidance that refers to alternative arrangements—chapter 9—consists of 20 long and detailed pages. People say that the devil is in the detail. In this context, the devil is in the statutory guidance, not the regulations. The view of officers in an authority that has streamlined—it has only three central policy committees—is that if they are to go along the alternative arrangements route, they will probably have to increase rather than reduce the number of central policy committees. Most authorities may still be living in the Dark Ages and that provision would not apply to them.
We should not treat every small district council as if it suffered the abuses experienced by some of the large metropolitan councils or the problems suffered by large county councils such as Lancashire or big cities such as Manchester or Liverpool. Local democracy and traditional, local committee-based democracy have been thriving in at least some of the smaller districts—perhaps the system is easier to put into effect in them—in a sensible and modernised way.
I do not want to go on for much longer; I shall make one or two further points. The decision-making powers of sub-committees should be limited to time-limited projects only. That is again seen not simply as a pernickety national rule but as a rule that could

573
cripple an authority that is running efficiently. The suggestion that the leader of the authority in a small district should have the status that a big city leader might have is inappropriate. I am told by my officers that a leader who has to attend, vote and speak at all policy committees may be viewed with suspicion in some authorities. They understand that that could disrupt the co-operative arrangements between political parties. The proposal would introduce a new culture. That may be a new dynamic, leader-led culture, which may be what the Government want, but it is not necessarily the best way in which to run the smaller authorities, which can be run in a more traditional, co-operative and consensual way.
Another suggestion is that some members of authorities should sit only on scrutiny committees, not the main policy committees. Who will those people be? Where will we find them? Those questions have been raised with me. There is a limited pool of interest—I was going to use the word "talent", but that is the wrong word—in a small authority. There is a limited pool of people who are interested in getting involved in the technical aspects of scrutiny. Some councillors get elected because they want to be involved in policy decisions and in running the authority. That might be true of one-fifth of the members across the parties in a small district. Most of the other people become involved because they are interested in representing their areas and wards on the council. The idea that there is a great pool of talented people who can scrutinise and monitor but not otherwise become involved in the policy process is a myth. The view among the officers in Pendle is that that is a myth. The rules will force some councillors into a scrutiny and monitoring role that they do not want and in which they are not interested. That will stop them from doing what they really want to do and what they are really interested in; namely, representing their wards and being involved in taking policy decisions. The result will be that people will lose interest and give up when they would have been good councillors and done a good job in their field.
Such rules are not in the regulations, and I have no objection to agreeing to them. The problem lies with the rules, regulations and instructions that the Government send down to local authorities. There are too many rules and the system is altogether too complicated. In relation to smaller councils, the Government should pull back a little, let go and get away from the idea that they have got to tell everyone how to do things at every minute of every day.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by referring to the guidance pack, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It covers all aspects of executive arrangements and alternative arrangements. Only part of it is statutory; much of it is advisory and non-statutory. Much of its material was included as a result of requests from local government to provide that degree of information.
574
I make it absolutely explicit that there is no question of punishing councils for adopting alternative arrangements or of punishing any local authority that takes advantage of the wide variety of opportunities for making judgments on subjects that are matters of guidance rather than requirements from the Government. I hope that that reassurance will be recognised and transferred to others by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
It is quite possible, in alternative arrangements, to have one or even no policy committee. The guidance recommends no more than five such committees, but that is a different issue. We have consulted widely on the regulation, and to date, no one has expressed the view that alternative arrangements would be unworkable. The plans and strategies in the schedule were chosen to mirror those which, under executive arrangements, form the policy framework for approval by the full council. It would be strange if we had taken a different view of what constitutes key policy from that for councils operating executive arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the five committees point. That point is not covered by the draft regulations. It is purely a matter of guidance. The draft regulations specify only a maximum number of members of a policy committee. Such policy committees do not include area or regulatory committees. The draft guidance then goes on to say that for small district councils, there should be no more than five policy committees and excludes explicitly those area and regulatory committees. The guidance will be statutory guidance, to which councils must have regard. Some councils may decide that their local circumstances dictate that they should have more than five committees, but we cannot imagine those circumstances. As regards the larger councils, as I said, the draft guidance applies to the keeping of committees to a minimum.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of fall-back. The streamline committee system is also available as a fall-back for any council holding a referendum for a directly elected mayor. We are firmly of the view that such a fall-back is less likely than an executive-style fall-back—that is, a leader and cabinet—to deliver the efficiency, transparency and accountability that people want. But if local people are content with it, they will be able, in a referendum, to choose a streamline committee system.
As regards limits on membership, we made a judgment following widespread consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed concern about the people involved in the scrutiny process. My experience is that people become involved in the work of local government and local authorities when they are motivated to do so by a particular set of circumstances which has impinged dramatically on their own lives. Many of those people continue with that involvement.

575
We believe that the new arrangements will enable a wider cross-section of people to be involved in local government and that in many ways, particularly in the large authorities, the current system militates against having a full cross-section of the community.
Finally, the noble Lord said that I must have a broad back. It is impossible to lose spectacularly in a by-election without everyone knowing about it. I was only pleased that the Ribble Valley tourism did so well. At least someone got something out of it. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Road Traffic (Various Provisions) Order 2001
1.34 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I should say that, in my view, the provisions of the Greater London Road Traffic (Various Provisions) Order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Parliament has already agreed to provisions to allow Transport for London to operate a decriminalised parking regime on the main traffic routes in London, called GLA roads, in due course. The principal purpose of the draft order before the House is to fill a gap in the 1999 Act by applying to TfL the legislation relating to the removal, storage and disposal of illegally parked vehicles. TfL needs those powers to operate an effective parking regime when it is ready to do so.
The draft order also provides an opportunity to resolve two problems with the drafting of the 1999 Act. Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the draft order all make amendments to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 with the object of conferring on Transport for London, in relation to GLA roads, the same powers as the London borough councils with regard to the removal, storage and disposal of illegally parked vehicles.
Article 7 makes a consequential amendment to the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986. Article 3 amends Section 124A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as inserted by Section 272 of the 1999 Act. Section 124A enabled my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make the initial designation of roads or proposed roads as GLA side roads which are very short lengths of roads which, for the most part, connect with GLA roads. Section 124(4) of the 1984 Act, as inserted by Section 292(4) of the 1999 Act, provides that all references in the 1984 Act to GLA roads include references to GLA side roads. However, because it deals specifically with the designation of GLA side roads, it is important for the purposes of Section I24A that GLA side roads and GLA roads are defined separately. Article 3 makes it
576
clear that the references to GLA roads in Section 124A are not to be taken as including a reference to GLA side roads.
Article 8 amends the definition of a London authority in Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 as amended by Section 287(2) of the 1999 Act. The effect of the existing definition of "London authority" is that only Transport for London is able to collect parking revenues for parking places on GLA roads and side roads. This amendment will allow local authorities to continue collecting the revenue from any parking places which they have designated on GLA roads and side roads.
To sum up, the order provides Transport for London with powers which are necessary to allow it to undertake parking enforcement and clarifies two matters relating to the drafting of the GLA Act 1999. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I understand it, this order transfers responsibility for enforcement of red routes to the Greater London Authority. Will the Minister confirm that that enforcement will now be carried out by staff of Transport for London or will it remain in the hands of the Metropolitan Police? I believe it is fair to say that there has not been uniform approval of the standard of enforcement by the police on red routes. I seek clarification on that. Otherwise, I support the order.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is one of considerable controversy. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Greater London Authority. The Act does not allow GLA members to be members of the board of TfL, so I have no interest in that capacity.
I asked whether the GLA had any comments on this matter. I received a note yesterday which said that in the hurry to prepare and pass the Act, various parts were left out. I admire the Minister in another place who simply referred to "awkwardness". We support the order in order to assist enforcement.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I appreciate the different use of language in another place to deal with issues. I sometimes feel, as I am sure do others, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the rest of my life will contain just the odd adjustment to the GLA Act.
Transport for London will take over parking and enforcement on GLA roads; the noble Baroness was correct. I note the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the relationship

577
within and between her role, that of the Mayor and TfL. I am sure that we all want to see the operation of the best possible measures to ensure that traffic flows freely in London.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001
1.42 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvalerose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have before us today two orders under the Scotland Act. These are the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001 and the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2001. With the permission of the House, I shall speak to both orders together.
Noble Lords have in the past commented on the usefulness to them of seeing the executive notes prepared for the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive for the guidance of its Members on orders debated there. The executive note for the modification of Schedule 5 order has been made available to noble Lords here once again. I should explain that the consequential modifications order is debated only in this Parliament and so there is no executive note.
Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act forms part of the definition of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and sets out the matters which are reserved for the purposes of the Act. It represents a central part of the devolution settlement and changes to it must therefore be treated with particular care.
However, it was never the intention that the devolution settlement should be incapable of adaptation. Section 30(2) was included in the Scotland Act to provide a mechanism for Schedule 5 to be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the approval of both Parliaments. Such an order can be used to adjust the boundaries of the Scottish Parliament's legislative competence by adjusting existing reservations or their exceptions or by removing or adding them.
At present, Section C2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act specifies that certain matters relating to the insolvency of business associations are reserved to this Parliament. There are exceptions to this reservation concerning mainly the process of winding-up. The order adds an additional narrow exception to the reservation of insolvency. It brings legislation on various aspects of the insolvency process within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, that applies only in relation to the very specific issue of a moratorium on the disposal of property held by a registered landlord.
In preparing for its Housing Bill now before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive issued a consultation paper called Better Homes for Scotland's
578
Communities. In its response to that consultation, the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggested that the Bill should include measures to protect tenants, landlords and other lenders in the event of insolvency action by a creditor against a registered social landlord. The Council of Mortgage Lenders pointed to legislation which was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Housing Act 1996 which provides a model for this.
The Scottish Executive has taken up this suggestion and wishes to incorporate a provision to that effect in its Housing Bill. It will provide for a moratorium period in the event of insolvency action against a registered social landlord. During that period, the agency charged with regulating registered social landlords will be able to enter into negotiations with the landlord's secured creditors to agree proposals for the future ownership and management of its assets. The basic aim of the provisions will be to ensure that the regulator will have both the opportunity and the powers to ensure that tenants' interests are to the fore.
There is an additional benefit to the measures proposed by the Scottish Executive. Putting the insolvency regime for registered social landlords in Scotland on a similar basis to the one that currently applies in England and Wales will assist Scottish registered social landlords to see finance on a level playing field.
In considering the proposals, it has become clear that legislation to that effect would be caught by the reservations relating to insolvency in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Specifically, the reservation of,
"the general legal effect of winding up".
in paragraph (a) of Section C2 of Schedule 5 would cover a moratorium on the disposal of land and the related provisions about the ownership and management of such land.
There is also likely to be a provision giving a power to apply to the Court of Session in relation to the execution of the negotiations which take place during the moratorium which would be caught by the reservation in paragraph (c) of Section C2 of Schedule 5. Accordingly, the effect of the order will be to give the Scottish Parliament powers to legislate in this area. The relevant UK departments have been consulted and are happy with that change. That includes in particular the Insolvency Service, an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is responsible for the operation of the Insolvency Act 1986 in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
It is relevant that the general objective of the reservation of insolvency is to ensure the uniform treatment of business associations throughout Britain. That particular matter, however, has been dealt with through housing legislation in England and Wales and has not been regarded as problematic in terms of insolvency law. In practice, I believe that it has never been used. There seems no reason to deny the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to address the same issue of regulating social housing through its own housing legislation. It is perhaps an added bonus, if slightly ironic, that the outcome is expected to be uniformity with England and Wales.

579
I turn to the second order, which is made under Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 105 enables existing enactments or instruments to be amended as necessary in consequence of the Scotland Act. The order amends the wording of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The changes are so that the post-devolution division of responsibility between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions are properly reflected.
In particular, the relevant definitions of "traffic authorities" and "roads authorities" in the two Acts I have mentioned need to be amended. This is a purely technical adjustment with no policy significance. This is precisely the kind of consequential modification for which Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998 was provided. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support both the orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this pair of orders to the House. That is not a complaint. It is inevitable that whenever an anomaly is identified of whatever magnitude, or whenever there is a new piece of UK legislation, there will be another Scotland Act order to rectify it or to bring it into operation in Scotland. I presume that the process will be ongoing and without end. It is undoubtedly characteristic of the devolution process.
A useful spin-off is that whenever that occurs we have a brief chance to debate Scotland. Wisely, in my opinion, the House has been anxious to avoid discussing Scotland following the moment of devolution. I believe that the return of national democracy in Scotland has taken substantial root and that it is now more secure than the Secretary of State's reference to it as being a "fragile flower" would imply. I therefore believe that Scotland ought to be discussed in this House, though perhaps along the lines of how it is "getting on".
Today, the problem is the division of responsibility for veterinary policy and it is a pity that the orders do not deal with that—they clearly do not. I hope that the unified British Veterinary Service can come to see the merit of a vaccination policy in England but not in Scotland. The consequences for Scotland's export trade must be kept firmly to the fore.
I turn to the order dealing with the modification of Schedule 5. That is the most comprehensible of today's three Scotland orders. Not only do I recognise it as a type A order requiring the approval of both Houses of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, but it is also supported by a descriptive executive note from Edinburgh. The noble Baroness will note my joy at that!
580
The order is simple and follows the devolutionary trend of which I approve. The devolution of responsibility for certain aspects of the insolvency of a registered social housing provider is not only a mouthful but is also precautionary in nature. However, I do not decry the order because it foresees the merit of instituting a moratorium into insolvency proceedings for the good reason that it ought to protect the position of the tenants of an insolvent registered social landlord.
The genesis for the order is undoubtedly the Housing Bill currently before the Scottish Parliament. The proposed new housing executive agency would use the 28-day moratorium to organise a rescue package for the assets and the tenants of the insolvent social housing provider. I hope that the legislation is never needed in practice, but I approve of its passage today.
I turn to the consequential modifications order, which is more narrowly focused. It is simple to comprehend and difficult to understand. As there is no executive note, it does not need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. We learn that the order carves up responsibility for trunk and other roads between the Secretary of State at the DETR and the Scottish Ministers. But then if fails to explain exactly how it does so.
I believe that it does not relate to motorways, which are apparently referred to as "special roads", so I am left to wonder what are the other roads. I can recognise a trunk road and I recognise that most of the road networks in Scotland are the responsibility of the 32 local authorities. If my analysis is correct, I hope that the Secretary of State at the DETR and the Scottish Ministers will be wiser than me.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments on the two orders. He is right that there will be the unavoidable, expected, logical and normal need to make such adjustments from time to time. Devolution is a process and we were always aware that there would be such requirements. For that reason, the Act contains built-in procedures under which adjustments can be made between reserved and devolved matters and in the interests of greater efficiency.
I noted the noble Earl's comments about a "fragile flower". However, although I accept and agree with his view that devolution is strong, my right honourable friend was correct in saying that the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement was one of the biggest constitutional changes this country had known for centuries. As regards its development, it behoves everyone to go forward with care. I do not believe that brutal attacks on the Scottish Parliament, which seem to be the preferred option of the Scottish media, help anything develop properly and well.
I am happy to say that vaccination has nothing whatever to do with the orders and I do not intend to comment on it. The noble Earl is right that the Housing Bill which is going through the Scottish Parliament necessitates one of the orders. Finally, he is

581
also correct in his assumption about the differentiation between the road systems. I hope that with those answers the House will approve the orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2001
1.56 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2001
1.57 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvalerose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order amends the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 which makes provision for the conduct of elections and the return of members to the Scottish Parliament. The order has been produced following consultation with election administration practitioners, and also with the Electoral Commission as required by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
All the changes being made to the 1999 order are necessary to take account of and reflect changes made by recent primary and subordinate legislation, which has previously been debated and approved by this House. The new order will align the procedures for registration and elections to the Scottish Parliament with those for other elections, including to the United Kingdom Parliament. Electoral registration officers, returning officers, candidates and their agents, and the electorate in Scottish Parliament constituencies would all face difficulties and confusion if the rules for the conduct of elections are not aligned.
The amendments introduced by this order are therefore not in general new ones, but simply apply changes already made elsewhere. No new issues of policy are raised. The amendments are needed as a consequence of changes made by the Representation of the People Act 2000; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the Postal Services Act 2000; and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001.
The main changes concern registration; absent voting; the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers; and election expenses. Other changes are made to take
582
account of the role of the new Electoral Commission and provisions on registration of political parties and the nomination of candidates.
The Representation of the People Act 2000 made two important changes to the law on elections. First, it altered the arrangement for registration of electors, by introducing a system of what is referred to as "rolling registration", by which the register of electors continues in force indefinitely. Additions to and deletions from it are made as and when required.
The other main change made by this Act is in respect of absent voting. In particular, it allows postal voting on request without the need for a special reason to be given; and in most cases applications for a postal vote can be made up to the sixth working day before polling day, instead of the eleventh day as previously. In addition, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 has established the Electoral Commission, whose functions include the review of electoral law, the registration of political parties and controls on national election expenditure by individuals and organisations other than political parties.
As a consequence of the changes introduced by the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 were made and came into force on 16th February. Some noble Lords may recall that they were debated and approved in this House on 7th February. These regulations, among other matters, made detailed provision for rolling registration of electors and extended or eased the registration process, eased the requirements for absent voting and improved the provision for disabled voters. The present draft order makes changes to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 1999 comparable with the changes which were made by the 2001 regulations for elections to the UK Parliament and also for local government elections in Scotland.
We have made available to the House Explanatory Notes which explain in detail, article by article, the specific changes introduced by this order. I shall, therefore, not take up noble Lords' time by repeating those details here. As I said at the outset, this order is needed to align the procedures for elections to the Scottish Parliament with those for other elections. Basically, it simply takes account of, and reflects, changes previously debated and approved by this House. I ask noble Lords to support the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this order brings into the Scottish Parliament's own elections substantial chunks of newly enacted UK legislation, primarily the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. The order does not appear to create anything new but, rather, transports the procedures under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act into the Scottish Parliament. I have been unable to

583
identify what type of order this is. Because it does not need to be approved by the Scottish Parliament we are deprived of its ever-helpful executive note. However, I was more than impressed by the clarity and comprehensibility of the order's own Explanatory Notes.
I certainly approve of the new rolling register which will do away with the substantial temporary disenfranchisement which was a symptom of the previous annual system, although citizens must still play their part by notifying the compilers of the register of any changes. I am interested in the widening of the scope for voting facilities for the blind, partially sighted and people with disabilities. I believe that this is a liberalisation of the special facilities regime to date, and I approve of it. I am also very interested in the liberalisation of the postal vote. I shall be encouraging people to take up that opportunity. I am impressed by the fact that there is to be even a stamped addressed envelope for a return which will ensure that in effect no one is disenfranchised for want of a stamp.
I have two questions about postal and proxy votes. Perhaps I should refer to it as "absent voting". First, is it the Government's hope and belief that postal voting should be encouraged and increased in scale, and even to become the norm? Secondly, is there an intention to move voters away from the use of proxy votes to postal ballots? I note the cautionary words of my noble friend Lord Greaves about postal votes. I believe that to prove the register of postal voters will be a useful activity in future.
This order brings to the Scottish Parliament elections two new institutions: the Electoral Commission—a substantive change and addition—and the clumsy new description "universal postal service provider", for what has always previously slipped off the tongue as "the Post Office". This order should be approved. The United Kingdom Parliament has reserved elections to itself and so Scotland must accept this order in that context.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to put one brief question to the Minister. Will Scottish members of the Armed Forces be able to enjoy postal or proxy voting?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his welcome for the order and also for his kind words about the memorandum prepared by the Scotland Office. I am sure that that department will welcome and note his complimentary remarks. I believe that they are very well deserved because I also welcome the detailed memorandum.
I share the noble Earl's view that liberalisation of the postal vote will encourage more people to exercise their democratic rights and use their franchise. The noble Earl asked what type of order this is. I am advised that this draft order is type C; that is, it is laid in draft and approved by each House of this Parliament, and it is only for this Parliament to approve it. As to proxy or postal voting for members
584
of the Armed Forces, of which I have experience as someone who was subject to the same rules while in Crown service abroad, they can use both or either.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001
2.7 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order allows a mandatory 50 per cent rate relief to a pub or petrol filling station in a village with a population of up to 3,000 provided it is the sole such outlet in the village and has a rateable value of up to £9,000.
The order will provide support to these businesses where they are the last such outlets in a rural settlement. It is intended to help ensure that isolated settlements continue to have access to essential community services. It was first proposed last September in the local government finance Green Paper and has been revised in the light of responses to that consultation. This additional help to rural communities will be even more welcome at this particularly difficult time.
Last September we published the Green Paper Modernising Local Government Finance. It included a proposal to extend the 50 per cent mandatory element of village shops rate relief scheme to certain pubs, petrol filling stations and food shops. the order will implement the relief for pubs and petrol filling stations. Primary legislation is needed to extend it to food shops. That is contained in the Rating, (Former Agriculture Premises and Rural Shops) Bill introduced on 16th March.
All small businesses in designated villages with populations below 3,000 are already eligible for discretionary rate relief of up to 100 per cent, providing that the local authority feels they are of benefit to the community. In addition, the existing legislation specifies that the sole general store or post office with rateable values of up to £6,000 should receive 50 per cent mandatory relief which the local authority may top up to 100 per cent.
The Green Paper proposed that the mandatory relief should also be given to singly owned pubs and petrol stations that were either the sole retail outlet or also provided a community service, such as cash-back facilities or meetings rooms, and that had a rateable value of no more than £6,000. That proposal was widely welcomed, although there were some concerns over the detail which, in some cases, was felt to be too restrictive.
In the light of these comments, under the order there will be no restrictions on ownership and no requirement to provide specific community services. Where there is just one pub or petrol filling station in

585
a village, it is, in itself, providing a service to the community which is worthy of support. Increasing the rateable value threshold to £9,000 reflects that pubs and petrol stations tend to occupy larger premises than shops.
Although this measure is not directly related to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, it will provide additional help to these important rural businesses in the short term and secure services to village communities in the longer term.
Our proposal to extend mandatory relief to all food shops with rateable values of up to £6,000 in qualifying villages will require primary legislation. That is because it cuts across the provisions in the Act limiting mandatory relief to the sole general store selling mainly food and household goods. The Bill will also implement a scheme of rate relief for new small-scale farm diversification enterprises. That was first proposed last March in the action plan for farming and last summer and autumn was the subject of consultation. It will provide 50 per cent mandatory relief for premises with rateable values up to £6,000 for a five-year period where they previously benefited from the agricultural exemption from rates. Local authorities can top up the relief to 100 per cent of the rates bill. That will help farmers move into other activities by reducing the costs of so doing. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as the order affects beneficially small rural areas we have no difficulty in supporting it. I hope very much that in the not too distant future one of the Minister's colleagues will be able to say that such similar help will be given to the farmers who are suffering so grievously from the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thought that I made clear that the Government have proposals that involve legislation which will help farmers. I am sure the House would not like me to detain it by going through the list of proposals. There have been a great many measures undertaken. I will ask that the noble Baroness is sent a copy of the measures being undertaken to help farmers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Relevant Authorities (General Principles) Order 2001
2.13 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbletonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for a new ethical framework to govern the conduct of members and co-opted members of relevant local authorities in
586
England. A key element of that framework is the general principles of conduct which are the subject of the order before the House today. This contains 10 principles which will provide a touchstone for councillors' behaviour and conduct. They require members to behave selflessly and serve only the public interest, to discharge their duties with honesty and integrity and to take decisions on merit. They stress that members should be open and accountable to the public and should treat people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The principles also require members to uphold the law, ensure the prudent use of council resources and to act in a way that preserves public confidence. In short, they provide a core set of values which exemplify the public service ethos. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and for bringing to the House the general principles that will govern the model code in due course. I want to ask about the model code. I am not clear whether the model code will be introduced by regulation or whether it will simply be introduced by consultation. I should like to draw to the Minister's attention the great necessity that the model code should not be too prescriptive. What is laid down in the general principles is self-evidently how someone in public life should behave. Therefore, the principles are really not controversial. But there is a danger with model codes that they become so prescriptive that people either ignore them or they do not have any benefit.
I hope that the model codes will leave room for local authorities to put forward their own regulations that are germane to their areas and that the model codes will just rely on the general principles laid out in the order and not go into too much extended detail. The more detail and prescription there is, the more vulnerable councillors and those in public life will feel. After all, what we are trying to do with all the legislation is to ensure that councillors feel that it is a job they want to do, that they are supported and that it is not something by which they will be harried in the future.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has just said. One could not object to the order, although it would come better from both Houses of Parliament if they had accepted explicitly for themselves the Nolan principles on which the order is based. I agree that it is sad that there has to be a statutory set of principles of what, as the noble Baroness said, is self-evident. As soon as one begins to codify certain principles, others, by definition, are regarded as excluded when perhaps they should not be.
I have a specific question about the paragraphs that are to have effect in relation to the activities of a member undertaken other than in an official capacity.

587
In other words, what is to be regarded as applying in private life? People in public life are too often expected in their private affairs to have standards of conduct which those criticising them are often not capable of achieving for themselves. I hope that I am not being thought to be overly pious, but it strikes me that paragraph 7, which is headed Respect for Others and refers to not discriminating unlawfully, and paragraph 10, which refers to supporting these principles by leadership, and by example, and acting in a way that secures or preserves public confidence, are ones that one would wish to observe at all times and are relevant to public perception as well as to private life.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in response to both noble Baronesses, the general principles will provide the basis for the national model code of conduct and it will contain key mandatory provisions that every local authority will be required to include in codes of conduct that they will be required to draw up later this year. Once councils have formally adopted their own codes of conduct, all their councillors will be required to sign up to them. Any allegations that a councillor has breached the code will be investigated by a new independent body, the Standards Board for England, and where it thinks there is a case to answer, an adjudication panel will be convened to consider the evidence. If a councillor is found to have breached the code of conduct, that person could be censured, suspended from office or even disqualified for up to five years in the most serious of cases.
The model code will be introduced by regulations subject to negative resolution. We shall keep the model code as simple and straightforward as possible. Furthermore, as I have said, local authorities will be able to add to the model. At the moment we are still consulting on the code. The closing date for comments is 24th April 2001. We aim to lay the regulations by the end of May so that they can come into force by the end of June. I thank both noble Baronesses for their comments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001
2.20 p.m.
Earl Attleerose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 28th February, be annulled (S.I. 2001/561).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for being available this afternoon. Noble Lords will be aware that she is held in very high regard in your Lordships' House. On previous occasions the noble Baroness and I have debated far more sensitive issues. In the course of the debate, when the Minister speaks, she speaks for Her Majesty's Government with full authority and on the record. However, she does not have ministerial
588
responsibility for these matters. Her noble friend Lord Whitty has that responsibility and, what is more important, he has detailed knowledge and experience in this area. Interested parties outside your Lordships' House will be, I believe, a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has found that he has more important business to attend to and that it was not possible to move this business to a time when he was available. However, I am sure that there are perfectly understandable reasons for that.
I have three concerns regarding these regulations. First, the effect on clutter. I prefer to see a plain number plate with no unnecessary symbols. During the passage of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley covered this point and I believe that it will be discussed later in another place. For that reason, I shall not weary noble Lords on that point.
Secondly, I have concerns as regards readability. The order provides for smaller and narrower characters and I believe that closer spacing must lead to reduced readability, at least to some extent. I hope that the Minister will be able to give noble Lords some reassurance on that point and that she will be able to offer evidence to demonstrate that both ANPR and the Mark One Eyeball can deal with such closer spacing. In particular, can she guarantee that these regulations will not result in any degradation of the capability of the automatic number plate reading system?
My third and most substantive objection is on the grounds of practicality; namely, I fear that the regulations will not work and that they will not solve the problem. Perhaps it would be useful to noble Lords if I outline the problem, which I believe to be a real one. The issue with which the regulations seek to deal is that of illegal fonts, in particular the use of italics and illegal techniques to foil the automatic number plate reading system as well as, of course, the well-known use of misleading spacing and misleading characters. I fully support the Minister's objectives in that regard.
However, I fear that the Minister has disregarded the needs of the "little man". In this case the little man comprises the owners of left-hand drive cars made in North America. I have to say that such cars are not quite my cup of tea, but I can understand the interest shown in those vehicles. There is no safety issue involved. We have in place the single vehicle type approval scheme which is implemented before registration. Without SVA, it is not possible to register such vehicles. However, American cars are designed to accommodate a 12x6-inch number plate. The number plates are often recessed into the boot. The recess in the boot is designed to ensure that the number plate is properly illuminated. However, the recess in the boot—and sometimes the one in the front bumper—will not accommodate a standard European-type number plate as provided for in the regulations.
This is not a problem for Japanese cars which are marketed both in the United States and in Europe because the Japanese and the Far East manufacturers will produce separate boot lids for the North

589
American market and the European market. These left-hand drive North American cars are imported in very low volumes, and therefore it is not reasonable to expect the manufacturer to produce a number- plate recess to suit the European market.
What is the Minister to do about this problem? Perhaps she can do nothing. The single vehicle type approval scheme is not helpful or relevant because its procedures take place before the vehicle is registered. It would be possible for an owner of one of these vehicles to get over the MoT test problem by temporarily fitting a number plate which meets all the safety requirements and is properly illuminated, but that would seriously damage the appearance of the car. After an owner has acquired an MoT, he or she could remove the temporary number plate and run the car with an illegal number plate. The Minister, of course, will not be surprised when I say that I do not support that solution. I recognise the pressing need to tighten up the regulations.
I suggest that we should perhaps consider using a 12x6-inch number plate, with the Secretary of State allocating only six characters for the vehicle registration number. That would fit in the space available on these cars. Alternatively, we could use a 12x6-inch number plate and use motor-cycle fonts. The motor-cycle font approved in the regulations is slightly smaller than the standard font used on a motor car and, therefore, it will fit in the space available.
I have photographs showing cars with this smaller font but, quite rightly, it would be out of order to display such photographs to your Lordships in the Chamber.
The final alternative is to modify the boot lid. However, this is highly skilled work and the appearance of the vehicle may be seriously damaged. It would also be extremely expensive; I estimate that it would possibly cost £1,000 per boot lid.
The Minister will have a well thought out argument but, from my point of view, I suspect that it will be flawed. She will say that if she adopts the motor-cycle size font, the automatic number plate reading system will not work. However, there are many more European vehicles than US vehicles running around in the United Kingdom with small fonts—we are talking about very low numbers—and, of course, these American cars are very distinctive. Most importantly, if a motor-cycle font is okay for a motor-cycle, why is it not okay for a motor car?
Noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking that I am taking a Conservative europhobic position. Nothing could be further from the truth, but is not the Minister experiencing difficulties in regard to Article 8 of EC directive 98/34? What concerns in regard to the free market has the Minister received from the European Union? How will she be able to meet those concerns? What possible technical, rather than legal, solution does she propose?
590
It seems to me that we are talking about the cast-iron inflexibility of officials, with no regard for the little man; there is no regard for an imaginative micro-business importing interesting American cars. Although, as I said, they are not my cup of tea, not everyone wants to run around in "euroboxes", no matter how efficient and good looking they are.
I find that our friends in Germany go in for far too much regulation. For instance, Germany has laws stating on which days of the week people can mow their lawns and on which days they can hang out their washing. But, interestingly, even the Germans can find a solution to this particular problem. Why cannot the Minister? I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by stressing that the Minister with responsibility for this area of policy intended no discourtesy to the noble Earl or to the House. I think noble Lords will agree that for the Minister in this House the workload is extremely heavy. He has departmental responsibility and is expected on many occasions to undertake ministerial responsibilities other than in the immediate London area, which inhibits his ability always to be present in this House at times which may sometimes be slightly difficult to predict and which may interfere with his ability to leave the London area. I know that he will read with great interest and fascination the points raised by the noble Earl and, if necessary—and should I prove to be inadequate to replace him—will supplement my answers in writing.
Control on number plates has been in existence since the Motor Car Act 1903, which first introduced measures to help to identify vehicles and drivers. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that it is vital that all motor vehicles should have clear and easy-to-read number plates. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, expressed his concern about the impact of new number plate regulations on the importation of American vehicles into the UK. These vehicles are designed for the American market; consequently, the space for fitting the number plates may, as the noble Earl said, be too small to fit a UK legal number plate. Representations have been made to the department by the importers of such vehicles that the new regulations should exempt them from the standard requirement. First, let me assure the House that the department considered these representations carefully. We understand that people importing these specialist vehicles do not wish to break the law.
The noble Earl has explained the cost involved in adapting such vehicles. However, I question slightly some of his remarks. In our opinion, it should be possible to fit a UK legal number plate without undue cost, although I accept that this may have a minor effect on the appearance of the vehicle, as a UK number plate would extend beyond the area designated to accommodate a US number plate.
The noble Earl referred to the low number of these imports. However, I should point out that it is not just American cars that have this problem. All vehicles that have been manufactured for the European market

591
have sufficient space for fitting a standard-sized UK number plate. However, vehicles are imported into this country from other markets, especially from Japan and the Far East. Like American vehicles, they are not manufactured to European standards and, similarly, may have difficulty in fitting a UK legal number plate. We estimate that up to 100,000 vehicles may be imported into the UK annually from these other markets. This is, therefore, not a small problem.
The noble Earl referred to the use of smaller plates on motor-cycles. Two-wheeled and three-wheeled vehicles, quadri-cycles, agricultural machines, work trucks and road rollers are permitted to use smaller characters on their number plates. In the case of two and three wheelers, the small number plates are necessary for safety reasons and the vehicles could not reasonably accommodate larger plates. The other vehicles that use smaller plates are tightly defined and are not generally used on public roads.
As the noble Earl recognised, we regulate number plates because we need to be able to identify vehicles. For example, the police value any information that the public can give them about a vehicle that may have been involved in a serious incident, such as a hit and run accident. Even remembering one or two of the letters of the number from a registration mark may narrow down police inquiries and help to trace the culprit.
However, in this day and age, it is no longer just the human eye that needs to read number plates; camera technology is vital to the police in enforcing some of our key road safety messages. Traffic speed cameras help to keep our roads among the safest in the world. The development of automatic number-plate readers for enforcement purposes has made it even more important that number plates should be legible. It is not just road safety that concerns us.
Vehicles are used in connection with many crimes, including terrorism. Vehicles caught on security cameras and CCTV can also provide vital evidence for the police. The new regulations therefore ensure that our number plates remain among the clearest to read in the world. Taking all those points into account, we decided that there should be no change from the existing position that American vehicles should fit standard number plates.
The noble Earl also referred to the issue of readability. I understood him to allege that we were altering the spacing. I can tell him that the spacing on acceptable number plates has not been reduced; it remains exactly the same. There has been a minimum reduction in the width of the characters from 57mm to 50mm. We are satisfied that that will not have a deleterious effect.
The EC has written to the UK Government on behalf of the importers to state that it reserves the right to challenge the regulations if they have an impact on trade within the European Union. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Earl.
I believe that the noble Earl briefly mentioned the issue of the position within the European Union. Noble Lords will be interested to know that these
592
regulations permit motorists to take advantage of an EU regulation that allows vehicles displaying the euro symbol on their number plates to dispense with the need for a separate national identity sticker for journeys within the Community. Our new number plate regulations do not require the use of that symbol. It is entirely up to the individual motorist to decide whether he wants to use that style of plate.
We believe that it is important for number plates to be clear. No one should customise them or try to make them different in any way. We can never meet everyone's wishes as regards personalising or moderating the size and the style of number plates in a way that is acceptable. I appreciate that the noble Earl has expressed strong feelings on the issue of number plates for American vehicles. I shall, of course, pass on his concerns to my noble friend Lord Whitty, the Minister responsible. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Motion.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my Motion. To begin with, I should like to point out that I wish the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, no discourtesy in this respect. With the planning of our business, it is unfortunate that he was unable to be here today. The noble Baroness knows very well that I work extremely closely with the noble Lord.
I did not quite catch all of the noble Baroness's reply with regard to the European Union. Unfortunately, I was being advised by one of my noble friends at the precise moment when she was saying whether or not she had received representations from the EU on the matter. The noble Baroness also referred to about 100,000 vehicles coming into the EU from the Far East. If our regulations and those of the EU discriminate against those vehicles by requiring them to be disfigured by the way that the number plates are fitted, it seems to me that we could experience some difficulty with GATT, let alone with the EU. She also said that she was happy for the number plate to extend beyond the original recess on the boot of the car. How will that number plate be illuminated?
I have a question on the Rover 75 car that is manufactured at Longbridge. If my memory serves me right, it has a half-elliptical rear number plate. It is stylish, but will it have to be disfigured in the future?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, not having the model of Rover car to which the noble Lord referred I find it impossible to answer his question either as regards its shape or whether it would require modification. Given my many years' experience of garages, I cannot believe that it is possible to create any problem that someone in a garage cannot solve. They sometimes have to have more than one attempt to achieve their objective, but I am sure that they would be able to provide the proper illumination to meet the legal requirements.

593
I repeat that the EC has written to the UK Government on behalf of importers to state that they reserve the right to challenge the regulations if they have an impact on trade within the EU. I think that that answers the point that the noble Earl raised. I do not foresee any difficulty with regard to imported vehicles that have been made for other markets. However, should I acquire any further Information, I shall, of course, write to the noble Earl.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I hope that at some time in the future
594
she will enjoy a Rover 75. It is unusual to vote on regulations on these occasions. However, the House would not hesitate to do so if that were necessary. That is not the case this afternoon and, in any case, the time is clearly not right. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before three o'clock.

  Voluntary and Community Organisations:Grants
  Voluntary and Community Organisations:Grants
  Zimbabwe: Arms Embargo
  Zimbabwe: Arms Embargo
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Council of the European Union: Forthcoming Business
  Visas: Correspondence
  Visas: Correspondence
  Iraq: Export of Controlled Goods
  Iraq: Export of Controlled Goods
  Operation Granby: Vaccination Materials
  Operation Granby: Vaccination Materials