Sitting of 6 November 2001

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

    Scottish Parliament
    John Robertson: If she will make a statement on proposed changes to the Scotland Act 1998 to alter the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. [10309]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): As hon. Members are aware, the Scotland Act is designed to produce a reduction in the number of MSPs in the 2007 election and thereafter, following the anticipated reduction in the number of MPs. The Government have made it clear that we would take into account the experience of the first years of the Scottish Parliament's operation and be pragmatic in our response to that. I can therefore announce today that I shortly intend to launch a consultation exercise on the size of the Scottish Parliament. It will not involve any postponement in the boundary commission's on-going review.
    John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and for announcing the consultation exercise, but no change in numbers was envisaged under the Scotland Act—the numbers were built into the Act itself. Although I accept that a review may he necessary, does she not agree that, as a Government, we would leave ourselves open to the charge of the misuse of power? Does she also agree that the Act and the Scottish Parliament should be left alone, so that they have a chance to bed in before any review takes place?
    Mrs. Liddell: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the consultation is open ended. One reason why the devolution settlement has proved so successful to date is that it was built on a spirit of consensus and co-operation, and I shall seek to broker such consensus through the consultation exercise. I will not respond to the specific points that he makes, because that would pre-judge the consultation.
    Pete Wishart: The Scottish National party welcomes any consultation that might maintain the number of MSPs. Given that Civic Scotland agrees that a minimum of 129 MSPs are required for the Scottish
    92
    Parliament to function properly, why is this still a vexed question for the Secretary of State? That is puzzling. Does she agree that the Scottish Parliament, like any normal Parliament anywhere in the world, should have the power and responsibility to determine its own numbers? It should certainly not be subject to the machinations of Labour Members or any of their political manoeuvrings.
    Mr. Liddell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the devolution settlement, which is embodied in the Scotland Act, grew out of a consensus—of which, of course, his party was not a part—that embraced every aspect of Scottish civic life. I wish to proceed in the spirit of that consensus. Obviously, he has a completely different agenda, which Scotland rejected at the last general election.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on the consultation exercise, but will she widen it to take other opinions into account? For example, many people are worried that defeated Scottish Parliament candidates can lose constituency seats, scuttle around and come in through the back door as list Members. Surely that is wrong. The Scottish Parliament has been up and running for more than two years, so we should consider how it is working. Surely we should be entitled to give our opinion during that consultation and say that things are wrong and that we need to change them.
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government have no plans to alter the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament, but I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to press his case on those matters.
    John Thurso: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement on the consultation exercise; we on the Liberal Democrat Benches look forward to seeing how that will go. Like me, does she consider the undoubted success of the Scottish Parliament to be due in no small measure to the success of the Committee system and to participation and consultation? Now that the Scottish Parliament has been working for two years, does not experience show us that any significant reduction in the number of MSPs would hamper the Committee system and the consultation process? Now is not the right time to change the procedure.
    Mrs. Liddell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. His promotion is rapid after such a short time in the House, although I suppose that he served his apprenticeship in another place.
    I do not wish to prejudge the consultation exercise, but one of the great successes of devolution is the spirit of partnership that has developed between the Government and the Scottish Executive and between individual MPs and MSPs. If the consultation exercise concludes that the number of MSPs should remain at 129 or thereabouts, while the number of MPs is reduced, real and practical issues relating to how that relationship works will need to be addressed.
    For the anoraks, that issue involves the co-terminosity of constituencies. Those of us who deal with those matters as part of our day-to-day living have a contribution to make. In all seriousness, I urge all Members to turn their

    93
    attention to how we can make things work where the boundaries for Westminster constituencies do not match those for Scottish Parliament constituencies.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: My right hon. Friend will agree that there have been two great successes for the Labour Government—the creation of devolution and the reduction of unemployment. However, does not she think that we have more important things to do than pass legislation that will protect, at most, 15 or 20 jobs? Such legislation would be seen as self-serving by the people of Scotland, who have far higher priorities than looking after 129 people in Edinburgh who are doing not too badly at the moment.
    Mrs. Liddell: I say to my hon. Friend that the Labour Government have scored rather more than two conspicuous successes. On his other point, I repeat that the success of devolution is down to consensus. Views have been expressed for and against opening up the Scotland Act, but it would be remiss of me to go against the spirit of consensus that we have had for more than 10 years in Scotland and to come to a conclusion without fully consulting all the interested parties. Like any other Member of the House and those beyond, my hon. Friend has an opportunity to make his views known.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It might be worth your while, Mr. Speaker, to note that that interesting and important announcement was published in today's Business a.m. and before Parliament was informed.
    As the Secretary of State has said that the consultation is open ended, will she confirm that there is absolutely no question whatever of retaining 72 Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster and that that is ruled out in the consultation?
    Mrs. Liddell: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. It is a very long time since we heard a Scottish voice from the Opposition Dispatch Box at Scottish questions. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Laing), who has been moved on to other matters. However, it is rare for a shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to have a Scottish accent.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) will bring her usual verve and vigour to the post. She is better qualified to speak than most on the Opposition Benches, because she knows what it feels like to be rejected by the Scottish electorate. Indeed, I voted against her in 1984.
    The hon. Lady's substantive point is about the number of Westminster MPs. The boundary commission is considering the matter and will report in due course. There is no reason to postpone its report or to seek to alter the commission's responsibilities. She should know that there have been extensive discussions over the past few months on those matters, so it is not surprising that the press are speculating about them.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank the right hon. Lady for her characteristically warm welcome. Had I known that she was one of my prospective constituents in 1984, I would have made a point of knocking on her door. I am sure that I would have converted her.
    94
    It is interesting to note that this is the first time, I think, that two women have represented Scotland at the Dispatch Box. The fact that two Strathclyders are facing each other is also unique. Scottish education was good, even in the 1960s. [Interruption.] I wear well.
    In the light of the consultation, does the right hon. Lady wish that her predecessors had taken the advice of Tory Members of both Houses of Parliament and, in particular, of the late and much lamented Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish to decouple in the Scotland Act the relationship between the number of Westminster and Holyrood Members? Does not she hope, just a little, that the consultation and the boundary commission recommendations will redistribute out from under the Scottish First Minister the boundaries of his constituency?
    Mrs. Liddell: No.

    Civil Aviation Industry
    Jim Sheridan: If she will make a statement on the impact on the civil aviation industry in Scotland of the terrorist attacks in the United States. [10310]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The terrorist attacks in the United States have had significant implications for the aviation industry worldwide. It is inevitable that airline operations in Scotland should be similarly affected. The Government have already announced measures to assist airlines in dealing with the immediate implications of the events of 11 September and I maintain contact with the industry to monitor further developments. Indeed, I am calling senior representatives of the industry together on 3 December so that we can have fuller discussions on those matters.
    Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She may be aware that my constituency, like many in Scotland, is heavily dependent on air and sea transport, so will she assure the House that, following the events of 11 September, the Government will seek improvements in all transport links throughout Scotland and between Scotland, Europe and beyond? That would protect jobs in that vital industry.
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I would expect nothing less from him given the nature of his constituency and its history of shipbuilding. It is important to the economy of Scotland that we have the best possible transport links to our main markets in Europe. I am therefore pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions today agreed in principle to provide £12 million of freight facilities grants to Forth Ports plc and Superfast Ferries SA to establish a ferry link between Rosyth and Zeebrugge in Belgium. The grant is subject to state aid clearance by the European Commission, and that is being sought. The service will save thousands of long-distance lorry journeys on Britain's roads and will be of enormous help to Scotland's exporters.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Labour Government's privatisation of National Air Traffic

    95
    Services is predicated on £1 billion of private investment coming from the partner airlines. Following 11 September, it is highly unlikely that that will be forthcoming, which puts in doubt the air traffic control centre at Prestwick. What steps are she and her Department taking to ensure that the project proceeds?
    Mrs. Liddell: The events of 11 September have caused much rethinking across the aviation industry and my office is in constant contact with it. Although we are disappointed with the delayed start of the second centre, we are encouraged by the fact that the commitment to it remains in place. I intend to invite representatives of NATS to meet me to discuss how quickly we can get the project up and running again.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Rolls-Royce has announced some 3,800 redundancies in the United Kingdom as a result of 11 September. We are not aware of the extent of redundancies at individual plants, but given that there is a plant at Hillington in my constituency and the likelihood of a knock-on effect, will she use her good offices to do everything she can to assist Rolls-Royce to deal with that blow to Paisley, North?
    Mrs. Liddell: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, she has articulated it to me before. We are all aware of the importance of Rolls-Royce to the economy of the west of Scotland, but all companies that are involved in the aerospace sector need to balance capacity with demand. Yesterday, however, Emirates Airlines announced a £15 billion plane order that will benefit Rolls-Royce to the tune of at least $50 million. That may not have an immediate impact on the redundancy programme, but it is good news for the company and the industry, as is the Lockheed-Martin joint strike fighter announcement. If my hon. Friend wants to bring representatives of the company and work force to meet me and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I am happy to afford her that facility.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Is the Secretary of State aware that the consumer confidence barometer—a monthly survey compiled for the European Commission—shows an alarming drop in confidence in the UK, including Scotland? That is bad news for the aerospace industry and jobs, as is the Prestwick announcement. Does she know that the figures show the biggest drop in confidence since last year's fuel crisis? Have not increased taxation, increased red tape and increased burdens on business—all of which were introduced by Labour in Scotland—left the aviation industry less well placed to face a world economic downturn?
    Mrs. Liddell: On confidence in the airline sector, in September 2001 BAA released figures on airport usage in Scotland. Compared with the previous year, passenger numbers through Edinburgh have risen by 13.4 per cent., through Glasgow by 6.9 per cent., through Aberdeen by 0.5 per cent. and through Prestwick by a massive 37.9 per cent., so there is still confidence in the airline sector.
    On confidence in the economy overall, we are now seeing the sense of the measures taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1997 to introduce stability to the
    96
    economy and move away from the boom and bust of 18 years of Tory rule. It has never been more important for us to have stability in our economy, as a result of which unemployment in Scotland is at its lowest for 40 years and we have historically low interest rates. There are more people in employment than there have been since the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and I were at Strathclyde university.

    Poverty Policies
    Mr. Iain Luke: If she will make a statement on the joint work of the Government and the Scottish Executive to combat poverty. [10311]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): We work effectively together on our anti-poverty strategy, as we do on many issues. For example, the Executive played a full part in preparing the UK national action plan on social inclusion, which we recently submitted to the European Commission.
    Mr. Luke: I commend my hon. Friend for his evident commitment to the joined-up campaign to banish all aspects of poverty, which afflict both young and old, to the dustbins of Scottish history. Does he agree, however, that despite the progress that has been made, areas such as mine still suffer from high levels of poverty and unemployment? Will he give a commitment to visit Dundee to meet the organisations and agencies involved in the anti-poverty strategy, including the very active pensioners groups, to review what more the Government can do to remove the blight of poverty from my city?
    Mr. Foulkes: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already visited Dundee, but I should like to take up his kind invitation. I want to go up there to say what the Government are doing for pensioners: the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel allowance and the pension increase, which this year is higher than inflation. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] We are going to do more. We are introducing the pension credit. I told all that to the Scottish Pensioners Forum, which is led by my old friend Phyllis Heriot, when it visited the Secretary of State and me at Dover house today, and I am willing to go to Dundee, or anywhere else in Scotland, to say what we are doing for pensioners.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the Minister aware that poverty in Scotland does not end at Stepps or Abington? With farm incomes declining to new lows—the Government's own figures suggest as low as £30 a week—sub-post offices closing from Wigtownshire to Shetland and rural business closing under the weight of Government red tape, what will the Government do to reverse the decline into devastating poverty of Scotland's rural communities?
    Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend congratulated her friend from Strathclyde on her appointment. May I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman, because it would have been nice to have a shadow Secretary of State who represents a Scottish constituency and who can speak from personal experience that is current, rather than from the 1960s?

    97
    The Government have committed £7 million to help Dumfries and Galloway, because of foot and mouth disease. We have made a pledge that no rural post office will close unnecessarily. [Laughter.] None has closed in my constituency in the past four years. If any post office in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has closed, he can come and see me afterwards and I will take the matter on board.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Privilege and special treatment.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why not?

    Voter Registration
    Mr. Tom Harris: What steps she is taking to encourage people in Scotland to register to vote. [10312]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): In February this year, my right hon. Friend launched a major publicity campaign to encourage people in Scotland to register to vote, following the introduction of rolling registration by the Representation of the People Act 2000. However, from 1 July, encouraging people to participate in the democratic process became the responsibility of the new Electoral Commission.
    Mr. Harris: During the general election, I encountered a number of constituents, many of them young people, who had not registered to vote despite being legally obliged to do so. Is my hon. Friend aware that Glasgow city council expects to identify no more than 80 per cent. of all eligible voters for inclusion in next year's electoral register? Given that it is pointless to encourage people to come out and vote unless they are registered in the first place, does he agree that it is about time that we reminded the public that they face individual fines of up to £1,000 for failing to return a completed electoral registration form?
    Mr. Foulkes: Low registration certainly depresses me. Glasgow city council aims for 100 per cent. registration, and I encourage people to register. After all, women fought for the vote—they chained themselves to railings and threw themselves in front of race horses to get the vote. When visiting Chile after the dictatorship, I saw people queueing to vote because they recognised the importance of democracy. After 11 September, we, too, ought to recognise the importance of democracy. Young people, above all, should recognise that, register to vote, then vote—and vote Labour.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Legislation (Amendments)
    John Robertson: How many Bills in the Scottish Parliament the Advocate-General has sought to amend since May. [10333]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since May. eight Bills have been passed. My legal officials and I considered those Bills during the various procedural stages. If necessary, informal discussions took place about competence issues, to try to resolve them without the use of my powers under section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 to refer the matter to the Privy Council. Amendments are the responsibility of Members of the Scottish Parliament.
    John Robertson: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Scottish Parliament has now passed the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001. Does the fact that she did not refer that Bill to the Privy Council mean that she will intervene to support that important Scottish legislation if it is challenged in the Scottish courts?
    The Advocate-General: That is certainly possible. I intervened to support Scottish Parliament legislation when the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 was challenged. Any challenge to the 2001 Act intimated to me as a devolution issue will be carefully considered on its merits.

    Devolution
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What recent discussions she has had on the interrelationship between the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998. [10335]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: The inter-relationship of those two important Acts was discussed in the recent case of Kenneth Mills, in which I appeared personally. Questions had arisen as to whether an issue under the Human Rights Act could now be raised directly without raising a devolution issue, even though the question might relate to the powers of the Lord Advocate. My argument, which the court accepted, was that such a matter is a devolution issue under the Scotland Act and must therefore be intimated to me as Advocate-General.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: Do my hon. and learned Friend's discussions indicate that there have been any problems in the operation of the Scotland Act since the Human Rights Act came into force?
    The Advocate-General: The case of Mills was one solution to a problem that had arisen, but my impression is that the legal profession in Scotland is doing well and is well informed about that important legislation, and citizens are not slow to take advantage of the new rights and remedies that the Government have provided. Through his writings and his expertise in that area, my hon. Friend has done much to raise debate about such matters.

    Asylum Seekers
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to asylum cases. [10336]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland): I give advice on a range of matters as and when required. I am aware of the Home Secretary's proposals for treatment of asylum seekers and of the need to ensure that their treatment continues to comply with convention rights.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Advocate-General in a position to tell the House this afternoon what her advice would be in a case in which an application was made for the deportation of a person deemed to be a threat to the security of Scotland, and whether there are any contra-indications in the Human Rights Act that might be invoked in defence?
    The Advocate-General: The hon. Lady knows, because I have told her on two occasions, if not three, that Law Officers' advice is always confidential. That was the case under previous Administrations and I see no reason to alter that convention.
    Annabelle Ewing: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of legal representation available to asylum seekers in Scotland. [10337]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland): Legal aid is a matter devolved to the Scottish Ministers, so the provision of legal representation available to asylum seekers in Scotland is a matter for them.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Advocate-General for yet another interesting almost non-answer, but may I point out that whereas the provision of services, and therefore of legal services, to asylum seekers is a devolved matter, policy on asylum seekers is set by the United Kingdom Government? What additional resources will be made available to the Scottish Executive to meet the costs of implementing UK Government policy in that respect?
    The Advocate-General: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to address that matter to the responsible UK Minister. Scottish legal aid is a matter for the Scottish Executive. It is a policy matter and not a matter for me. I am a Law Officer.

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

    Children and Family Services
    Mr. David Kidney: What action he is taking in response to the High Court decision relating to self-employed guardians ad litem and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [10338]
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. [10339]
    Paddy Tipping: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of CAFCASS during its first six months of operation. [10340]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): CAFCASS is a new organisation that brings together the Family Court Welfare Service, the Children's Division of the Official Solicitor and the local authority panels of guardians ad litem in one unified service. It began only on 1 April 2001.
    Since the inception of CAFCASS, the dispute over the guardians' contractual terms has taken a vast amount of time and effort and has diverted attention from other important issues. In response to the High Court decision relating to self-employed guardians, the Lord Chancellor issued a statutory direction to CAFCASS to begin consultations, and that process has begun. I receive weekly reports from the chairman of CAFCASS and have regular meetings with him.
    Despite the problems, the evidence is that the service on the ground has generally continued to be provided as before. We value extremely highly the work of all the guardians and other CAFCASS staff, whether they are employed or self-employed, and I hope that all sides can now move on to develop the child-focused service that I am sure we all want to achieve.
    Mr. Speaker: That answer was far too long.
    Mr. Kidney: Is my hon. Friend aware that some very effective guardians have been made to feel unwelcome in the new service merely because they are self-employed? What does she say to the managers of the new service: are self-employed guardians welcome or unwelcome?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been difficulties with self-employed guardians. We are consulting every self-employed guardian on the issue of self-employment. He will be interested to know that CAFCASS has accepted the National Association of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers proposal that the consultation process be led by an independent chairman and that the results be independently assessed. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance about the position of self-employed guardians.
    Dr. Cable: Does not the Minister accept that the quango has been guilty of extraordinary incompetence, not merely in acting illegally and alienating a crucial profession, but in driving 20 of its 54 regional managers to resignation in six months? As the management appears to be denying its accountability to Parliament through the hon. Lady, will she assert its accountability by having these people dismissed?
    Ms Winterton: I reiterate that, throughout, our central concern has been to provide a good service to vulnerable people. All who are involved with CAFCASS share that aim. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that CAFCASS is a non-departmental public body, and as such it is governed by a framework document. Over and above that, it is a publicly funded body. It is fully accountable to the Public Accounts Committee, for example, and subject to regular scrutiny. The evidence from our independent inspections is that the service on the ground is generally being delivered extremely well. That is a tribute to all those who work for the service.
    Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting that there have been problems—understandable, perhaps—in setting up CAFCASS. Does she share my belief that the resignation of 22 of the 55 panel managers is genuinely worrying? Is the driver behind that an insufficient budget for CAFCASS and, perhaps, poor management? I know that there have been difficulties with management in the organisation. Is my hon. Friend confident that those problems have now been resolved?
    Ms Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend is extremely concerned about that situation. He gave figures for panel managers; my figures show that, actually, 16 panel managers will have left the service by the end of December, but that includes a number who will have retired and some who have been promoted. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that of the 729 guardians who were self-employed on 1 April, only 29 have left the service; 175 have now accepted employment contracts. Of course we accept that there have been difficulties in the service. However, I repeat that I am meeting the chairman of the board weekly and am receiving regular reports from him. I am determined that the service will work for the children whom it was set up to look after.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not recognise that all the problems were entirely predictable? Indeed, they were predicted by Opposition Members. I know that that is not the Minister's fault, because she joined the Department only after the relevant Bill became law. However, if she studies all the debates, both in the House and in Committee, on the Bill that set up CAFCASS, as I hope she will, she will find that my hon. Friends and I repeatedly predicted the problems with CAFCASS that have now occurred.
    The Government were arrogant and dismissive, and did not take a blind bit of notice. Having sown the wind, they have now reaped the whirlwind. Will the Minister undertake to look again at those debates and learn the lesson that, in future, she and her new ministerial colleagues need to listen to Opposition Members with experience of this legal field?
    Ms Winterton: I will of course listen to representations, particularly from professionals in the field. However, when the service was set up, it was widely accepted that bringing all the disparate groups together in one unified service was the best way forward for vulnerable children. I will of course listen to representations, but evidence from independent assessments shows that, on the ground, the service is generally working well.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for the encouragement that she has given the guardians in her responses. When will it be possible to fill the substantial number of administrative and legal vacancies at all levels of CAFCASS in Wales, so that the service to vulnerable children to which she referred will not be harmed?
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend and reiterate the high value that we place on the work done by the guardians. Perhaps she will be reassured to know that, as
    102
    I said earlier, of 729 guardians who were employed on 1 April, only 29 have left the service; 175 have now accepted employment contracts. In addition, 197 candidates eligible for appointment as guardians have been recruited, which should fill any gaps in the service. Of course, if my hon. Friend has any particular points that she feels we need to look at, I hope that she will write to me; I give her an undertaking that I will look into them.
    Mr. William Cash: In the light of that sorry tale and the High Court proceedings, will the Minister explain why, when CAFCASS made decisions that the guardians found unpalatable, it told them that the Lord Chancellor was responsible? When the Lord Chancellor made inconvenient promises, however, CAFCASS told the court that it was independent of the Lord Chancellor.
    Ms Winterton: The hon. Gentleman and I have been together upstairs, but I take this opportunity to welcome him to his new position on the Floor of the House. I quite look forward to working with him.
    As for the legal position, some of the points that were made in court referred to a technical matter that was raised by NAGALRO—the National Association of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers. I assure him that we are working closely with the board of CAFCASS to ensure that the service is delivered. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not join me in praising the very hard work and dedication not only of those employed but of the self-employed and other staff at CAFCASS. I hope that he may in future take the opportunity to do so.

    Petty Sessional Areas (Leeds)
    Mr. Colin Challen: What steps he proposes to take to obtain equal representation of all areas in Leeds following the merger of the existing petty sessional areas into one area [10341]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Michael Wills): The distribution of magistrates in the area will remain the same after the amalgamation. Magistrates in the existing petty sessional areas will serve on the amalgamated bench with effect from 1 January 2002.
    On the wider question, the Lord Chancellor requires that each bench should broadly reflect the community that it serves, in terms of gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread, occupation and political affiliation. The Leeds advisory committee will continue to strive to achieve a balanced bench following amalgamation of the petty sessional areas. However, when recruiting new magistrates, the pre-eminent requirement is that a candidate must be personally suitable for appointment, possessing the six key qualities required in a magistrate.
    Mr. Challen: I welcome the response, so far as it goes. I also welcome the words of the Lord Chancellor, who wrote in this week's edition of The House Magazine about the importance of community representation on magistrates benches. In Morley, 91 per cent. of those serving on the bench are local, but we are to be subsumed into the Leeds bench, on which only 66 per cent. of people who serve are local. So we need a determined attempt to secure more resources, recruit locally, and ensure that

    103
    low-paid people, for example, or those who are self-employed in Morley have an opportunity to serve on magistrates benches.
    Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I pay tribute to his hard work on behalf of the magistracy in his constituency. I have been conscious of that since I took this job and since he was elected. I assure him that we share his view of the importance of local justice and of local people being involved in the lay magistracy. The Lord Chancellor has gone to much trouble to involve local people and ensure that groups in our communities that are not adequately represented on the bench at the moment are so represented in future.
    It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know about the hard work that has gone into trying to get more people from ethnic minorities involved in the lay magistracy. The Lord Chancellor has enlisted the help of Operation Black Vote, for example, to run a scheme involving job shadowing, education and training in order to encourage people from ethnic minorities to apply for appointments. The scheme has been run in seven pilot areas. People who will shadow magistrates have been identified in Bristol and Birmingham. Recruitment of participants and magistrates is—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I concern myself with getting through the Order Paper, and that is very difficult when answers are so long.

    Domestic Violence
    Margaret Moran: What plans she has to introduce third party orders for cases of domestic violence. [10342]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. The Government are concerned to ensure that the range of remedies available to survivors of domestic violence provides sufficient support and protection. I am therefore pleased to be able to announce that we will be conducting a short research project fully to assess the implications and benefits of introducing third party orders, as provided under section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996. We will work closely with stakeholders and interest groups to ensure that the project addresses the diverse needs of all who need to use the court system.
    Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. When she is taking evidence for the research, which will be most welcome, will she look into work undertaken in New South Wales, in Australia, where third party orders are used, police prosecute on behalf of victims of domestic violence, satisfaction levels are over 77 per cent. and the safety of victims has been vastly enhanced? Will she take that on board so that we can quickly enact section 60 of the Family Law Act to provide greater protection for victims of domestic violence?
    Ms Winterton: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has carried out as chairman of the all-party group on domestic violence. I know that she recently made an extremely useful visit to Australia, and I look forward to receiving her assessment of how the third party scheme works there.

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

    Parliamentary Timetable
    Caroline Flint: What proposals he has to reform the timetable of the business of the House. [10353]
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What proposals he has for reform of the pattern of sittings of the House; and if he will make a statement. [10357]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I recognise the wish of many Members for sitting hours and a parliamentary calendar that are more predictable and allow them better to balance their commitments to Parliament with those to their constituencies and families. The Modernisation Committee will address these matters in this Session. I announced the dates of the next recess in our first week back, and I will make every effort to announce parliamentary recesses as early as possible to allow Members to plan their time more effectively.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that timetabling of business is a good way to ensure better scrutiny of the legislation that we take through the House, and that the Opposition could make good use of that process? Is he not shocked, as I was, to hear that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is advising his masters not only to have their MPs do one day a week, but to pass legislation unscrutinised to the House of Lords?
    Mr. Cook: I would not wish to suggest that anything that the right hon. Gentleman proposed would necessarily shock me, but I was startled to see that he had suggested to his Leader that the Conservatives be organised on a one-day-a-week rota. I have no objection to their organising themselves as they wish, but I hope that they will not then object if we try to achieve reasonable hours for those on the Government side who come to Parliament four days a week.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right in a democracy for the Government to be awarded a holiday from scrutiny for nearly three months every summer? Has not the time come to consider September sittings?
    Mr. Cook: The issue of September sittings will have to be part of any overall review of the parliamentary calendar. The Modernisation Committee in the last Parliament suggested that September should be used for Committee weeks for Select Committees to sit. So far, relatively few have taken the opportunity of that invitation. My hon. Friend may wish to discuss that with the members of his Select Committee.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that instead of talking about timetables and changes to the timing of business, a more effective way for the House to perform

    105
    its function of scrutinising legislation would be to enable every Standing Committee that has charge of a Bill to take outside evidence before it begins the scrutiny of the Bill for which it is responsible?
    Mr. Cook: I understand the case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes. There is provision in Standing Orders for that to happen, and I hope that in the case of one or two Bills that will come before us in this Parliament, that practice will be invoked. I hope that we can move to a situation in which more Bills are published in draft long before they reach Standing Committee. That would give an opportunity for the Select Committees and the public to comment. To achieve that, we need a rolling programme of legislation, rather than one crammed into a tight Session that provides half a year for legislation.
    Mr. Greg Knight: Does not the right hon. Gentleman have a dilemma, however, in that the word "reform" means different things to different people? To the Opposition and the country at large, it means changing our procedures to be more effective in our scrutiny of legislation, whereas to some hon. Members on the Government side, it is a euphemism for fewer votes, less work and early nights. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that in any package of reform that he agrees to bring before the House, his overriding aim will be to improve the scrutiny of the Executive by the Chamber, not merely to court popularity with Members on his own side who do not like working after 5pm?
    Mr. Cook: That is remarkable effrontery on the part of Front-Bench Members who are scheming to send imperfectly scrutinised Bills from this place and urging their leader to call them here for one day a week. For the record, there was no overall reduction in the hours that we sat during the past Parliament, and no one seeks such a reduction. However, it may make sense for us and for the scrutiny of legislation to ensure that those hours conform to the working practices of the world outside. We would possibly get more respect from our constituents if they saw us living in this century rather than two centuries ago.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Would not our commitment to our constituents be greater if we were full-time Members of Parliament and some of us were not involved in other activities, and if we reduced the 13-week summer break when we are Members without a Parliament and cannot use the avenues available to question the Executive? I hope that those points will be seriously considered when we modernise our procedures.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is a sterling example of a full-time Member of Parliament. I—and, I hope, others—take to heart his observation that those who are not necessarily as full time as he should be careful about casting stones at others.
    I do not believe that there is any appetite in the House or among our constituents for us to spend less time in Parliament, but there is a case for ensuring that the time when Parliament sits is more evenly spread. I am willing to consider that if we can reach a consensus.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House accepts that providing adequate
    106
    time for opposition is a vital part of our democratic process. Will he confirm that the Modernisation Committee, which he chairs and on which I sit, and the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour to chair, are currently considering ways in which the House can scrutinise the Executive and hold them to account more effectively, not least through altering our method of dealing with oral and written parliamentary questions? Does he accept that all Opposition parties have a vital part to play in the effective operation of the United Kingdom's democratic parliamentary system?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, which underline the fact that the Modernisation Committee has managed to proceed in a way that is not party political but acknowledges our common commitment to making a success of Parliament. I hope that the debate on modernisation will not proceed on the basis of antithesis between Government and Parliament. It remains my guiding principle that good scrutiny makes for good government. We need an effective Opposition and effective scrutiny in Parliament to achieve that.
    The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was asked—

    Recycling
    Ms Joan Walley: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what his targets are for the recycling of paper on the parliamentary estate. [10354]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The House authorities follow the Government targets of 40 per cent. recovery of waste, with 25 per cent. of that being recycled. We currently exceed those targets, with 100 per cent. of waste recovered. In the current financial year, we expect 50 per cent. of that to be recycled.
    Ms Walley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I have long supported genuinely effective paper recycling at the House of Commons. Approximately six years ago, some mysterious brown paper bags became available in our offices. There were rumours that they were going straight to landfill or incineration, and not for recycling. How does the hon. Gentleman monitor recycling here? It is crucial that the House set an example of "do as we do" rather than "do as we say". We need to implement our commitment.
    Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Lady is right and makes a valid point. We have not properly considered the disposal of paper in the past. In the current financial year, we have started to disaggregate the amount of paper that we collect. I believe that paper constituted 30 per cent. of the total waste material recovered last year. However, I cannot tell the hon. Lady the exact proportion of recycled paper. I take her point to heart, and I shall ensure that the disposal of parliamentary rubbish is put on the agenda of the appropriate Committee at the earliest opportunity.
    The President of the Council was asked—

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. David Heath: If he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons for reform of the process for tabling parliamentary questions. [10355]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Parliamentary questions provide an important mechanism for Members of the House to hold the Executive to account. The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an investigation into the system for tabling parliamentary questions, and into the possibility of tabling questions and motions electronically. I look forward to its conclusions being brought to the House for our consideration.
    Mr. Heath: Setting aside the fact that it would be nice if written questions for a named day could be answered on that day, does not the two-week delay between tabling an oral question and having it answered mean that Parliament often appears blithely oblivious of the topics of the day outside the Chamber? Does it not also mean that hon. Members have to apply absurd circumlocutions to make a question relevant to the question on the Order Paper? If civil servants can prepare appropriate notes for Ministers replying to Adjournment debates, other debates or private notice questions in a matter of days, why can they not do the same for oral questions at departmental Question Times?
    Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with my predecessor a year ago, and it is certainly not a new matter for the House. The Procedure Committee reported on it more than 10 years ago, and at that time proposed a reduction in the notice period to five days. That proposal was rejected by the Government at the time. Hon. Members on both sides of the House look forward to the outcome of the present deliberations of the Procedure Committee, when we shall have the opportunity to consider the matter again. Clearly, this is a question of striking a balance between ensuring the topicality that the hon. Gentleman seeks and ensuring that hon. Members asking questions are given fully briefed answers.
    Mr. Peter Pike: While I recognise that government does not come to a standstill when the. House is in recess, is it not time to reconsider whether we should be able, in a sensible way, to put written questions to the Executive during parliamentary recesses?
    Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend has raised this matter on a number of occasions, including through his membership of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I do not know whether the Procedure Committee is examining the matter—but I see that the Chairman is nodding, so perhaps it is. That will, therefore, be one of the conclusions that we shall be able to consider when the Procedure Committee reports.

    Online Consultation
    Margaret Moran: What plans he has to allow online consultation on draft Bills. [10356]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg): New forms of information and communications technology provide important opportunities for widening public participation in the democratic process. It is for individual Committees investigating draft Bills to decide how to conduct their investigations, but I welcome the fact that Committees are making greater use of the internet. On the Government side, draft Bills are now routinely published on the internet, and consultations invite e-mail responses.
    Margaret Moran: Is my hon. Friend aware of the online interactive dialogue called Women Speak, which was held by the all-party group on domestic violence with survivors of domestic violence? It involved voices largely unheard by hon. Members, including Irish women travellers and Bangladeshi women. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the House, when considering legislation, should hear the voices of those who usually go unheard? Will he actively encourage more online interactive consultation on draft Bills?
    Mr. Twigg: Yes. I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done on domestic violence and in pioneering e-democracy. I also pay tribute to her ingenuity in raising the matter twice in different sets of questions this afternoon. It is clearly vital that we use all the forms of technology available to us to encourage an interactive approach for members of the public. Important lessons can be learned from the Women Speak pilot that my hon. Friend mentioned. As of January 2001, all Government documents have routinely been published on the internet. That is an important first step, but we have a long way to go to ensure that we use all these forms of technology properly.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Are the Minister and his right hon. Friend aware that this proposal has been given its current impetus by early-day motion 347, led by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is not in his place this afternoon? Is the Minister aware that the context for this is that hon. Member's splendid diatribe on the growth of presidential power in No. 10, and that this is an attempt somewhat to redress the balance of power by bringing back to the House of Commons the opportunity to scrutinise legislation and Executive actions more effectively? Have the Minister and his right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see an advance copy of their hon. Friend's book? If so, perhaps the Minister would like to give us his reaction?
    Mr. Twigg: I am tempted to say that my hon. Friend is not here because he is working on his computer. I have not had a chance to see his book either online or on paper, but I look forward to doing so. It demonstrates that there is a continuing and important debate to be had about constitutional reform and about how we can strengthen this Parliament. The task of the Modernisation Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, is very much concerned with strengthening Parliament and its ability to serve as an effective forum for national political debate.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in response to my private notice question about Railtrack, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions said—speaking of the chairman of Railtrack—
"the chairman had come to me on 25 July and said, 'If you don't give me more money, I cannot make a statement on the 8th of November that we are a going concern.'"—[Official Report 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 26.]
This morning, on Radio 4's "Today" programme, the chairman of Railtrack was interviewed. James Naughtie said:
"Yes but he's saying that you said to him that unless you got something like you wanted you feared that the outfit might not be a going concern in November. Is that true or not?"
The chairman replied:
"No it is not true."
I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish Members to be given a misleading impression of the nature of that meeting, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any approach from the Secretary of State indicating that he wishes to come to the House and make a statement?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me reply to the point of order.
I have had no communication from the Secretary of State on that subject.
Mr. John Burnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, you had to admonish Ministers twice for their prolix replies. Is there any further action that you can take if that conduct continues? Some of us suspect that Ministers are trying to avoid difficult questions further down the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that Ministers have taken my advice on that.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have been very determined in your
110
attempts to safeguard the privileges of this House. In view of what you heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr. May) about the conduct of a Minister, can you advise me what action can be taken if that Minister is unwilling to come to the House and answer those serious charges? How may I ensure that he will deliver his minutes of the meeting? If Mr. Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, is prepared to deliver his version of events, surely the Minister ought to deliver his minutes so that we can see who is telling the truth—because shareholders have been defrauded by the actions of this Government.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes. Why on earth should we believe Robinson?
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it about the same matter? I have stated my case on that: it is nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Robathan: It is not about the same matter.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I spent a quarter of an hour and more talking to one of my constituents, a Mr. Evans of Broughton Astley. He expressed in strong terms his feelings and those of, I understand, a quarter of a million or so other people who had invested small amounts in Railtrack. They wanted to hear answers from the Minister yesterday, and did not. [Interruption.]
. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is perfectly proper for a Secretary of State to put the minutes of any meeting in the Library of the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Movement of Farm Animals
3.33 pm
David Taylor: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit journey times in respect of the transport of animals to slaughter; to promote the establishment of a network of local slaughterhouses; to limit the frequency with which animals may be brought to market in any twenty-day period: and for connected purposes.
The purpose of my Bill is to implement a series of practices that will improve safeguards against the spread of contagious diseases such as foot and mouth among farm animals. It is also designed to promote responsible purchasing practices among supermarket chains, and better working practices among cattle, pig and sheep farmers and dealers. Both would reduce significantly the possibility of a further epidemic.
Eight months on, Government, farmers and scientists are still speculating over the causes of the current foot and mouth outbreak with no one apparently having proof positive of the specific origin. Despite that uncertainty, it seems very likely that the rapid and extensive spread of the disease was due to multiple journeys and lengthy journeys. Animals were transported in quick succession in and out of markets and elsewhere by dealers looking to maximise their profit on each animal, which simultaneously exposed the greatest possible number of animals to any infected ones.
Lengthy journeys to slaughter became widespread in the meat and livestock industry in the 1990s. As well as the obvious and real implications for tracing a subsequent outbreak of a contagious disease, multiple journeys and long trips to slaughter have serious consequences for farm animals' welfare. Long periods of travel lead to fatigue, dehydration and distress. One does not need the brains of a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food scientist to realise that consistently exposing an animal to a cramped, hot and noisy environment is intrinsically traumatic, and can lead to a compromised immune system and greater vulnerability to contagious and generally debilitating diseases.
A factor in the upsurge of such commercial practices has been the centralisation of supermarkets' distribution networks, which they present as driven by consumer demand for cheap food. Disingenuous claims such as those prolong the use of questionable methods, which the supermarkets frequently practise outside the gaze and perception of the consuming public.
In the United Kingdom, 80 per cent. of the market is now controlled by the five largest retail chains, including Wal-Mart, whose recent arrival is both a challenge and an opportunity for the Government to enact coherent legislation regulating the movement of animals to market and slaughter, and the location of that slaughter. My Bill helps in the formulation of such legislation.
The provision in the Bill to impose a maximum limit of eight hours on the transport of animals to slaughter is, as Compassion in World Farming points out, rather limited, but it is, regrettably, the shortest limit that the European Union allows member states to impose on journeys to slaughter. CIWF believes, as I do, that those journeys should be as short as possible. Not only does that accommodate farm animal welfare considerations but, from commercial and public health perspectives, it improves the quality and integrity of the product.
112
Extensive and ever increasing journey times have followed the closure of hundreds of local abattoirs. The network of abattoirs is shrinking, and in the past 15 years in England alone over 60 per cent. of abattoirs have closed, leaving barely 300, with all the attendant adverse impact on animal welfare. Producers and dealers have often ignored using local abattoirs in favour of the marginal increases in profits gained from those larger abattoirs that have the seal of approval of supermarket chains, despite the distances involved in getting the animals to slaughter.
The second part of the Bill is designed to promote the continuance, or in some cases reopening, of a network of local abattoirs. The spate of abattoir closures in the 1990s coincided with tougher EU meat hygiene laws, which smaller operators found expensive to comply with. That extra cost was compounded by the supermarkets' decision to source their meat from a handful of large remote abattoirs whose prices had not risen as significantly as those of smaller local ones.
Further closures of local abattoirs need to be arrested and some that have closed must be encouraged to re-open. In order to achieve that, the Government must examine ways of providing financial assistance to them, through EU structural funds perhaps, and stimulating investment in local abattoirs. The Government should also enter into negotiations with our EU partners to secure a revision of EU meat hygiene law that creates a better balance between high standards of hygiene and ensuring the economic viability of more local abattoirs.
Farmers should be encouraged to use local abattoirs. One possibility may be to make a proportion of their subsidy dependent upon the use of local abattoir facilities. Supermarkets should be encouraged to relax their policy of sourcing from a few large abattoirs and to buy meat from local producers. Their present, no doubt efficient, centralised distribution networks raise serious health and welfare concerns. Supermarkets need to be persuaded to adopt a more holistic approach to the communities to which they sell goods and in which they carry out their business. Whether that change of direction is best achieved by fiscal inducement or legislative constraint is a matter for a future debate.
The third provision in the Bill would place further restrictions on the movement of farm animals in the UK market and auction network. When an animal has been brought to market, it could not again be brought to that or any other market for a period of 20 days.
If any good has emerged from the foot and mouth disease debacle, it is that the transient spotlight of political concern has focused for the moment on the transportation, marketing and dealership of sheep, a multi-sale culture that the RSPCA believes should be substantially reduced or, better still, eradicated. The 1997 RSPCA survey of 200 livestock markets showed starkly that the vast majority were failing to adhere to legislation in some key welfare areas.
The adverse impact on animals of repeated loading and unloading, the potential for spreading disease, and their welfare track record calls into question the whole future role of markets. Poorly trained and supervised drovers, inadequate animal holding areas, few if any drinking facilities and serious overcrowding: does not that litany of market abuses merit the immediate action that the Government were swift to take in other markets?

113
In the internet age, is not a thorough review urgently needed of the archaic and often cruel system that we use to buy and sell animals? My Bill takes a worthwhile step down the road of reform. My suggested movement control is hardly a provision pitting the country dweller against the urban masses. Even the Livestock Auctioneers Association has called for a 20-day moratorium on the movement of animals to market.
The practice of purchasing cattle, pigs and especially sheep at market and then transporting them speedily to another or to several different markets to increase the profit made on each individual animal has to be checked, and swiftly. The final part of my Bill would, I believe, make an important contribution to arresting the culture of multiple market journeys that has taken root in the live animal industry in this country.
Animals are sentient beings. They are a type of stock very different from the intangible ones moved around by the barely animate lads in eccentric jackets and loud ties—but one would not always think so. Animals have a right to far better treatment from us. Like us, they have feelings, even if they do not have reason and language. If we, ourselves animals, have rights, then it is both logical and moral to extend them to other animals.
We should respect those rights. As the present dominant species in the natural world, we have the right to use its resources, but only if we balance that with our duty of stewardship over that natural world, and with a duty of care to and for other animals. That duty includes protecting them from unnecessary physical pain, emotional distress and commercial exploitation.
If foot and mouth disease has taught us anything, it is that neglect and abuse of sentient beings in the pursuit of maximum commercial gain can have the most serious consequences, in both welfare and economic terms.
Compassion in World Farming has described my Bill as
"a vital weapon in the fight against infectious animal diseases".
I hope that the Government agree with that assessment, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Mr. Adrian Bailey, Colin Burgon, Mr. David Drew, Paul Flynn, Judy Mallaber, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Bob Russell, Dr. Howard Stoate and Mr. Mark Todd.

Movement of Farm Animals
  MOVEMENT OF FARM ANIMALS
  David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to limit journey times in respect of the transport of animals to slaughter; to promote the establishment of a network of local slaughterhouses; to limit the frequency with which animals may be brought to market in any twenty-day period; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July 2002, and to be printed [Bill 43].
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Education and Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the mounting evidence of crisis throughout education; deplores the Government's conduct in first ignoring evidence of fraud involving Individual Learning Accounts and subsequently stopping ILAs without notice; regrets the growth of paperwork that is driving good teachers out of schools; further regrets the failure of the Government to allow parents a real choice of schools for their children in many parts of the country; condemns the Government's system of student support, which has discouraged applicants from poorer families and urges the Government to institute a proper public consultation on its replacement; congratulates those teachers and students who are achieving good results despite the Government's interference: and believes that standards will not be improved if the Government maintains its current policy of constant interference in the day-to-day running of education.
  Let me break the normal rules of an Opposition day debate and start on a note of agreement with the Government. We agree that education matters as much as any public service. We believe, as I hope the Government do, that opportunities should be equally available to all children, whatever their background, and to all adults who need training. We recognise that teachers work hard and effectively in schools and colleges throughout Britain. But, and it is a serious but, this House needs to debate education today because in too many areas of education and lifelong learning there are widespread, chronic and growing problems. That is not because of any lack of interest from the Government in those matters. I know that the Secretary of State is deeply sincere in her commitment to the subject. The charge we make today is not malice or neglect: it is simple incompetence, combined with an irresistible desire to meddle in too many things.
  During the past few months, the country has seen how the Government are visibly failing on issues such as transport and health. In education, the problem is subtly different. We are having a quiet crisis in education—in teachers' morale, in student debt and in adult training. The Opposition will not allow that crisis to remain quiet any longer. Today and every day, we will fulfil our duty to point out the many and growing failures of the Secretary of State's Department and in doing so we will defend the interests of those who work as educators and those who need to benefit from education.
  I shall start with the current chaos over individual learning accounts, partly because the failure is serious in itself and also because it symbolises why the Government so often fail to turn good intentions into good policy. The simple truth is that the Department for Education and Skills, in the face of stiff competition, is the Whitehall champion in being driven by tomorrow's headlines and only tomorrow's headlines. "Announce in haste and repent at leisure" is the Department's motto. Never has that been more apparent than in the case of ILAs.

  115
  I shall take the House through the salient points of the 13-month disaster. The scheme was launched in September 2000, with great goodwill from those in the training industry who welcomed the idea of the Government providing £150 to help adults receive training. What has become apparent from our investigations over the past week is that the Government wilfully ignored warnings, even before the scheme started, that it was flawed. I hope that the Secretary of State will address that point directly in her reply, because the Government have tried in the past few days to give the impression that they became aware of the problems with fraud only in recent months. Letters that I have received today show that that was not the case.
  On 20 September last year, before the scheme was launched, James O'Brien of the Pitman Training Group wrote to the then Secretary of State:
  "As more details of the scheme have emerged, we have expressed our concern both to DfEE officials and to Capita plc that there was insufficient detail in the rules of the initiative. As a responsible training provider we worried that this lack of detail left the scheme open to abuse, which would not be helpful to either the initiative itself, or the majority of the training sector."
  The Department tried to address that issue with a cap on the value of the training, but the effect of that was not to stop fraud but to damage the programme, as Mr. O'Brien pointed out in a letter to the Secretary of State in October last year, which said that
  "the government has put a very ill-advised cap on the value of the training. From 20 October 2000 government will only make the 80 per cent. funding available on the first £250.00 of eligible training in any one year—a very low figure for worthwhile IT training."
  Throughout the life of the ILAs, the Government should have been aware of the potential fraud problem. They may have chosen to ignore the training experts, but one accusation I would never make of the Government is that they ignore the press.
  So what have the Government been doing since 6 May, when the News of the World produced the characteristic headline "Mr. Big Cashing in on Blair Millions"? The article revealed one of the many scams that have been uncovered. In this case, a company pocketed the £150 from the Government, and in return offered only a few leaflets to would-be trainees.
  The problem that the Government have failed consistently to address is that no real checks were carried out on anyone posing as a training provider. Even if some old Labour remnants on the Government Front Bench will not read the Murdoch press, I am sure that they read The Mirror, which ran a story exposing ILA fraud on 13 July. Why, therefore, did the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills issue a press release on 20 July that was headed "Individual Learning Accounts to Continue into New Era—Healey"? The release began:
  "Adult Skills Minister John Healey today confirmed details of how the successful introduction of Individual Learning Accounts over the last year will be followed up."
  After that press release was issued, further stories about fraud appeared in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, the Birmingham Evening Mail and the Sunday Mercury. They detailed the various scams. There were even stories in The Irish News, so people in Ireland knew that there was a fraud problem. Only the Government appeared to be in the dark about it. Finally, on 24 October, the Government suspended ILAs. They gave the priceless reason that ILAs were being shut down because they were too successful.
  116
  However, that was not the end of the story. Two days after the ILAs were shut down, the Department for Education and Skills produced its key document for this Parliament, entitled "Delivering Results: A Strategy to 2006". Hon. Members from all parties will have read every word of this document but, in case they did not reach it, I merely draw their attention to the rather attractive pull-out section at the back. The section is called "Milestones on the Road to Delivery". As ever with this Government, the milestones get bigger the further away they are: more jam is promised for the day after tomorrow than for tomorrow itself. The key point is that there is only one milestone in the Government's education and skills policy for 2002, and the House will wish to know that that is to expand individual learning accounts.
  The Government talk about joined-up government, but they cannot even join up the work of one Department. It is not a case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing: in the Department for Education and Skills, the first finger does not know what the second finger is doing.
  Mr. David Cameron: I fear that my hon. Friend has missed one vital component in the network of Government incompetence that he has set out. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills wrote to every hon. Member to explain the collapse of the ILAs. Is my hon. Friend aware that that letter made no mention of fraud at all, even though 279 fraud cases are being pursued by the police? Does not my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of letters addressed "Dear Colleague" should be to tell colleagues in the House what is going on—not to put about Labour party political propaganda?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes a good case. Did the Government continue not to know what was going on, or were they simply—and characteristically—trying to disguise what was going on? I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity today to enlighten the House as to which of those options hon. Members should decide is the truth. The Government have one policy milestone for next year, and they have missed it already. That is not merely a shambles, it is a scandal, and someone should own up to the responsibility.
  I hope that the financial implications will be investigated fully, because many millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on the ILA scheme. Moreover, many genuine training providers throughout the country who were doing an extremely good job for people requiring training are now under threat. In Liverpool, the Everton Development Trust offers vital computer training to a deprived local community, but it is already considering making 10 people redundant.
  Henley Community Online in Oxfordshire is seriously considering its future, although it provides exactly the kind of information technology skills that we need to create a modern and competitive economy. No wonder Mr. O'Brien, who has seen this sorry saga coming from the beginning, wrote again to me this week, saying:
  "The current situation is wholly unsatisfactory. The suspension of the scheme—with no indication of whether or not it will restart, when that might be, or what might take its place—has created a vacuum in this vital sector. The legitimate training providers and the learning public are being penalised for the shortcomings of both the unscrupulous traders and the Department."
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Neither the Government nor I would defend fraud, but would the hon. Gentleman care to estimate what proportion of people with ILAs receive fraudulent training? Is not that a tiny proportion of the 2.5 million people who receive ILA training?
  Mr. Green: I hope that the proportion that receives fraudulent training is very small, but my point is that neither I nor the Government know. The Government have been shelling out tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money not knowing whether the training is genuine or fraudulent in any individual case. That is why have referred the matter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Gentleman raises the central issue: how much money is being spent on fraudulent training? Why did the Government not know that that was happening during the 13 months of the scheme? The House deserves to hear an answer to that question today.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: As my hon. Friend has twice mentioned Mr. O'Brien's experience, he may be interested to know that Mr. O'Brien approached me last autumn, when I had some responsibility for such matters. Is it not entirely characteristic of the way in which the Government handle things that, last autumn and again this year, they have arbitrarily withdrawn a scheme at short notice? Last autumn, they reduced the entitlement and capped the scheme, without consulting the participants in the industry and with no attempt to remedy the alleged ills that caused them to take that entirely arbitrary action.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. The charge is twofold; there has been wilful neglect over many months, followed by panic—a reaction that penalises the innocent along with the guilty—and the Government are equally culpable on both counts.
  Another body that has been involved from the start is the Association of Computer Trainers. I repeat that all hon. Members know how important it is to develop computer skills in this country. Retraining adults, giving them computer skills, is often the best way to provide them with opportunities in life that they would not otherwise have had, so I hope that the Minister will take to heart the contents of the letter that I have received in the past two days from the ACT, which states:
  "no consultation has taken place with any of the members of ACT…despite numerous attempts by the ACT members to point out the flaws in the ILA scheme and the reporting of those 'cowboy' companies to various Government bodies…very little action was taken at the time and certainly no consultation took place as to how these situations could be addressed. In fact, despite the best efforts of the members of ACT they were completely ignored when it came to the question of what to do to ensure that the ILA could work properly."
  Mr. Phil Willis: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the role of Capita, which received £50 million from the Government to manage the scheme? Will he comment on Capita's management of the scheme and its efforts to tell the Government that real faults existed?
  Mr. Green: I am not sure about the details of Capita's involvement and whether it brought such issues to the Government's attention. If the hon. Gentleman has more
  118
  to add, I suggest that he join me in giving evidence to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The one thing that is beyond doubt is that all the serious bodies and all the genuine training providers in this country warned the Government throughout that there was something wrong with the scheme and that it was wide open to fraud, but the Government did nothing. That is unarguable, and it is the main burden of the charge that the Government have to address.
  I have described the most dramatic recent collapse of the Government's policies for education and skills, but there are far too many more examples. One of the crises in our schools is that in teacher morale. I have already observed that the Department's besetting sin is that it prefers to sort out the press coverage rather than the underlying problem.
  For example, in a case study last week, the National Union of Teachers commissioned Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson of Liverpool university to examine why so many teachers were leaving the profession. I shall come to the reasons in a minute, but it is worth noting that the Department's immediate reaction was to rush out welcome figures about teacher recruitment in the hope of muddying the waters for 24 hours—as ever, spin first, substance second.
  Of course, that exercise did not work. Frankly, there is little point recruiting more trainee teachers if they never get in front of a class of children. On that specific point, the NUT's findings are stark. Of every 100 final-year student teacher, 40 do not make it to the classroom and another 18 leave in their first three years of teaching. In total, 58 per cent. leave within the first three years. That means—it is worth the Secretary of State considering this—that, for every final-year student teacher under the Labour Government, there is a better than even chance that they will not be teaching in three years' time. Is she proud of her Government's record on that?
  Mr. Anne Campbell: I have been listening intently to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that teacher numbers have risen by 11,000 since 1997? Does that not show that the Government's policy is having success in keeping teachers in the classroom?
  Mr. Green: It is not immediately obvious that the hon. Lady has been listening carefully, but I welcome her to the debate. If she wants to dispute the fact that teacher morale is low and that there is a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, she will not have to dispute it with me. She will have to dispute it in every staff room in the country. She is a conscientious constituency Member and I am sure that she visits schools in her constituency. She will find that there is a crisis in morale.
  I was asked whether the Secretary of State was proud of her predecessor's record. It is a shame that he is not here, because I discovered that the crisis in numbers is acute in Sheffield, his former bailiwick. Last week, The Star in Sheffield reported:
  "A Sheffield education department spokesman said there were still problems with certain subject areas such as science, languages and maths.
  `It seems for many schools the vacancies reported in the summer have not been filled.' he said."

  119
  The Star adds:
  "During the last academic year the worse difficulties were experienced in January and February".
  That sums it up. Vacancies have not been filled and we have still not reached the worst part of the year. Things are likely to get worse before they get better.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: On the point about recruitment and retention, does the hon. Gentleman recall that Conservative Essex county councillors said at the beginning of the year that Essex schools were on the verge of a four-day week? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that that dire prediction has been proved to be completely without foundation? Although recognising the challenge that recruitment presents, is it not incumbent on all politicians not to exaggerate the situation for our own party-political ends? We should particularly bear in mind that there are 11,000 more teachers in schools today than there were four years ago.
  Mr. Green: Loyalty should be rewarded. To correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact, the director of education in Essex made that point.
  Mr. Rammell rose—
  Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. If he talks to his colleagues in the county, he will find that Essex schools, like schools all over the country, are working extremely hard to solve the problem. That is why there was only a minor crisis in the summer. He will also find that teachers who are not qualified to teach a particular subject are increasingly being put in front of classes. That is how schools are trying to get around the crisis, and it is not ideal. The hon. Gentleman invites us to celebrate what is going on, but the NUT survey—[Interruption.] I am especially delighted that members of the Government Front Bench are prepared to pour scorn on the teaching unions; I am sure that that will be noted outside the House.
  According to the NUT survey, 60 per cent. of teachers say that the work load caused by unnecessary paperwork is one thing that makes them want to leave. One teacher in Surrey wrote to me saying that in the first nine days of the autumn term he received nine different documents from the Government—a directive every day. As he says, no wonder there is no time for him to teach. Such nonsense discourages people from teaching.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I read the NUT report. and it is worrying. It refers to teacher retention and recruitment. On the age range of teachers, however, it states that they are predominantly over 40. Why is that? Why has it been difficult to recruit teachers who are now in their thirties? Is not it because the hon. Gentleman's Government did not recruit teachers? This is not a party political point.
  Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman was doing well up to his last comment. It used to be possible to recruit teachers and it is increasingly difficult now. All those teachers who are now in their forties were recruited in the 18 years of Conservative government. The mantra that Labour Members were taught in 1997 to blame everything on the previous Administration has run out. This is the second
  120
  term of a Labour Government. The previous Administration is their Administration. If there are problems with teacher retention and recruitment, it is their problem; it is not the responsibility of teachers or a previous Government.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is that we do not know whether that is the case because education spending did not increase in real terms during the four or five years up to 1997? Since then, there has been, certainly in East Sussex, a 25 per cent. increase in education spending. Is not that the real issue?
  Mr. Green: Every single one of those facts is wrong. Average spending in the period 1992–97 was higher as a proportion of gross domestic product than in the first term of this Government, who cut education spending in real terms. That is why there are so many problems.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) read the NUT survey, and I hope that Ministers have read it, because a lack of classroom discipline is cited ahead of pay as a reason for teachers being driven out of the profession. Some 45 per cent. of them say that that is a reason for leaving, yet the Government have consistently taken disciplinary powers away from head teachers over the past few years. If they do nothing else in schools in the next year, I urge the Secretary of State to return disciplinary powers to heads and teachers so that they can decide what happens in their schools.
  I also urge the Secretary of State not to believe that she can spin her way out of the crisis. When the Government stifle teachers with bureaucracy and prevent heads from enforcing discipline, it steadily drives good teachers, who all our children need, out of the profession. Teachers are too intelligent to be fooled by the Government spin machine. They will not let their crisis in morale be buried, and neither will Conservative Members.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one unintended effect of abolishing corporal punishment in schools is that if a teacher lays a finger on a child, or is accused of doing so, he or she is suspended and investigated, which often results in undeserved professional ruin?
  Mr. Green: There is a problem in the length of time that it takes to hear cases against teachers, so many of whom are acquitted. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber.
  Mr. Green: If Ministers do not think it a problem that teachers are suspended from work for a long period and then acquitted, with inevitable damage to their professional career, I feel sorry for them, because that is a serious crisis, which many teachers recognise.
  The Government cannot hide from the fact that standards In maths for 11-year-olds slipped this year. if the Secretary of State is willing to take the credit when exam standards rise, she cannot evade responsibility when they fall. Her predecessor famously said that he would resign if the targets were not met by 2002, and I

  121

  understand that as 2002 approaches, the right hon. Lady is prudently withdrawing from that commitment. However, parents cannot withdraw, and they want to know what is happening and what the Government are doing about it.
  Parents also want to know why popular schools are too often prevented from expanding. I have received a copy of a letter sent to a woman in the west midlands whose experience is typical of parents throughout the country. The letter suggests that as she is unlikely to get her first choice of school for her children, she should put down three choices, but it then says that she is unlikely to get any of the other choices. The problems experienced by parents in exercising the choice that all parties want them to have is another crisis that the Government need to address.
  Mr. Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crisis in teachers' morale is certainly not helped when they find that their hard work with their pupils is not rewarded when exams come to be marked? At Doctor Challoner's high school in my constituency, which is an excellent grammar school, all the key stage 3 English tests had to be remarked, resulting in 54 pupils having their levels raised and five pupils having them dropped. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need reliable test results in which teachers, parents and pupils can have confidence?
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend is right and she makes a powerful point.
  I know, as the Secretary of State does, that there is much good work in our schools, but there would be so much more if the Government stopped interfering and let schools make more decisions for themselves. She and I were at the national teaching awards last week, and I am sure that she, like me, was in awe of some of the work being done by the best teachers and the best schools. I put it to her that no decision or interference by her, by me or by any other politician would improve the standards of such teachers and, too often, politicians are the problem, not the solution, in our schools.
  Ms Claire Ward: If the hon. Gentleman believes that parents should have the right to choose the school, why did he support the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he said that he believed the Conservative party would free schools so that they could select between 20 and 40 per cent. of their pupils? Surely that is hypocritical if the hon. Gentleman believes that parents should have the choice.
  Hon. Members: Ask the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Green: As my hon. Friends say, the hon. Lady should ask the Prime Minister, but she should also ask the Secretary of State and consider her Government's policies on specialist schools. The idea that schools should be able to select a proportion of their pupils does not divide the two Front Benches, so if the hon. Lady believes what she said, and she may do so honourably, she is opposing the policy of her own party.
  The crises are not confined to schools. The student loans system has hit so many problems that even the Department has noticed and decided to start again. Debt
  122
  problems have become such a burden for so many students that all the Government's rhetoric about encouraging students from different backgrounds to go to university has been shown to be so much hype.
  Not only was that crisis predictable, it was predicted. Four years ago, we said that the Government's combination of loans and fees would not work, and it has not worked. Our criticism now is that having messed it up once, the Government are not willing to have a full and open debate about how to do it better next time. Instead, they are going back inside Government to cook up another policy internally; only after they make a decision will they deign to have what they will, no doubt, call consultation, but which will in fact be nothing of the sort.
  Further education is not spared the crisis. Teacher morale in FE is arguably lower than in schools, yet where is the money going? It is going into central bureaucracy. In The Times Higher Education Supplement last week, John Brennan of the Association of Colleges pointed out that the old system of funding FE and the training and enterprise councils cost £150 million, whereas the new system of the Learning and Skills Council will cost £193 million next year—that is £43 million less for front-line services.
  Across the board, there is a crisis in education. The Secretary of State should learn from her predecessor, who spent his first few weeks at the Home Office undoing some of the worst policies of his predecessor and moving towards some of the policies first advocated by the Opposition. If he can do it, she can. The right hon. Lady has been left a legacy of too much interference, too much paperwork, demoralised teachers, angry parents, disillusioned students and an education sector that demands and deserves much, much better. I commend our motion to the House.
  4.16 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that by 1997 the education system had suffered from 18 years of neglect, schools funding had been cut, nearly half of 11 years olds were failing to reach expected levels in maths and English. teacher numbers had fallen by 30,000, nearly half a million infants were in large classes and roughly seven million adults suffered from inadequate basic skills; welcomes the substantial progress made since then, including: education spending rising as a share of GDP to 5 per cent., record results at Key Stage 2, 11,000 more teachers in schools and infant and primary class sizes reduced; further notes that recruitment to initial teacher training rose by 5 per cent. last year, the second year's rise after eight years of decline; supports the Government's plans for continued investment in and reform of education, and its central goals of transforming secondary education to ensure higher standards for all, giving more people the chance to learn; further supports the Government's pledge to expand higher education so that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30 year olds can benefit from higher education by 2010: welcomes the announcement of a review of the student support system in the light of this recent pledge; recognises the success of Individual Learning Accounts, while understanding the necessary public interest case for suspending them; and believes that the Government's education policies form a coherent and radical programme that will deliver its ambitious targets and move the education system away from the neglect and waste of individuals' talents between 1979 and 1997.".

  123
  I, too, attended the teaching awards last weekend. I have nothing but praise for the organisers and especially for the teachers throughout the regions and the nation who were applauded at that event. However, the teachers with whom I spoke that evening would not have recognised the school system that the Opposition spokesman describes. They were talking not only about high standards and how enjoyable and fulfilling they found their job, but about extra resources, the success of the literacy and numeracy strategies, repairs to school buildings and the opportunity to be paid more for the job that they do.
  I listened carefully to the speech that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made to his party conference last month, in which he spoke of the importance cif talking about the good things and of not knocking teachers. Today, I listened in vain for any acknowledgement of the improvements and achievements of the past four years. I shall not go on about the failures of past Governments—the hon. Gentleman is right, it was a long time ago—but I shall take a few minutes to describe the successes of the past four years, which have not so far been mentioned.
  We have made incredible progress in raising standards in reading and writing, but the really magical aspect of the literacy and numeracy hours is where the most improvement has been made. Taking local education authorities throughout the country, we find that the greatest improvement has been achieved in Tower Hamlets, Newham and other deprived London boroughs on which the Conservative central Government turned their backs year after year. The success of the literacy and numeracy hours is not just that between 12 arid 14 per cent. more children now enter secondary school with the basic skills they need to learn effectively, but that under the Labour Government we are for the first time beginning to close the gap between those who achieve and those who do not.
  That success can be seen in GCSE performance statistics. We have almost reached the target of 50 per cent. of pupils getting five A-starred to C grades, but what is even more important is that the best progress is being made in areas of great urban deprivation under the excellence in cities programme. At the end of the first 18 months of that programme, the improvement in GCSE performance—pupils achieving five A-starred to C grades—in those areas far exceeded the improvement achieved throughout the country.
  The hon. Gentleman argues that if progress has been made, that has been done by the teachers, but if progress has not been made, that has been done by the Government. In fact, progress has been achieved through partnership. Yes, teachers have done the most work and should receive the most credit. Yes, the reason that standards have risen is that the quality of teaching in our classrooms has improved in the past four years. However, for the first time in two decades, teachers have had a Government who support them. That has not been confined to investing in education. I defy the hon. Gentleman to enter a school that does not acknowledge that it is getting more money in its budgets year on year now than it ever had under the Tories. I deny that he would find a school where an increase in capital cannot be found. The achievement has been brought about by dint of better quality teaching. That has been supported by greater investment in teachers and greater investment in building. There has been good solid work to ascertain
  124
  what succeeds in terms of the literacy strategy, the numeracy strategy, excellence in cities, education action zones and the key stage 3 strategy.
  All this has seen 40,000 more classroom assistants in our schools and more computers for children than we ever saw under the previous Government. It has brought about an increase in standards for which every person in the education service—not only teachers and government but local authorities, local advisers, governors and all those who work itn supporting our schools—has reason to be proud.
  I am not complacent. I know that there is still an historic connection between social class and education attainment. I know that for every child who goes to school and cannot read effectively by 11, there is a life chance denied. We face that and we challenge that. We come to terms with the situation and overcome it. That is done day on day. Four years of partnership and determination to address and raise standards has brought about the highest increase in standards at every age group that we have seen for many a year.
  Mr. John Hayes: The right hon. Lady talks about standards improving over the past four years. Surely she would acknowledge that standards of behaviour in our schools have not improved over that period. Standards of behaviour, quality of life and discipline in our schools have deteriorated under the Government. That is the opinion of the chief inspector of schools, who highlighted the problem in his annual report, as the right hon. Lady will know. Why have the Government not addressed the problem? Why is the problem getting worse, and what will she do about it?
  Estelle Morris: I shall start the second part of my speech by being in agreement with what the hon. Member for Ashford said in the first part of his. I agreed when he said at the Conservative party conference that a child who has never heard the word no by the age of five can hardly be thought to have the skills, confidence and ability to behave well at school, and that teachers pick up these problems. I do not differ substantially from what he said. I think that the behaviour of some children in schools is far worse than when I taught, and far worse than a generation ago. However, that is not the fault of the education service alone. It is often the fault of parents who do not bring up their children with the discipline and structure that they need by the age of five, and that is when it matters. Every child of that age should go to school knowing how to behave.
  We are doing something about the situation by means of sure start and working with parents. We have spent £2 billion on early years rather than the £1 billion that was spent by the previous Government. There is an early years place for every four-year-old. There has been a massive increase in places for every three-year-old. This means that more parents—most parents want to be able to discipline their child—will have support before their child reaches the age of five and goes to school than ever before.
  A third of our secondary schools is covered by excellence in cities. We have a programme of learning mentors that teachers tell us is helping them, and that is not only to deal with the problem of teaching other children, but to deal as well with the very children whose

  125
  behaviour is causing a problem. There were no learning support units on site under the previous Government. These units are helping too because teachers can now ask a child to leave a class in the knowledge that he or she will go to an on-site learning support unit where they will receive the support that they need.
  If a child is excluded, he or she does not get only two hours of education a week, which is what we inherited from the previous Government. We are moving so that by September 2002 we shall have reached our target of every excluded child getting full-time education. It is a disgrace that in 1997 the Conservative Government were prepared to allow some of the most vulnerable children not to receive full-time education if they were excluded. That is another example of how we are helping. I am not complacent, but our record of helping schools to cope with behaviour is better than it ever has been.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Estelle Morris: I will give way once more and then I will make progress.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The right hon. Lady made a statement that was factually incorrect. Back in 1984, under the last Conservative Government, I taught in a school with an on-site learning support unit. Frankly, I do not know why she is talking such rubbish.
  Estelle Morris: Of course I accept that individual schools had learning support units, but there was not a planned programme called "Learning support units"; that was initiated by the present Government—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) must be calm.
  Estelle Morris: Wise words, Mr. Speaker.
  There was not a concerted plan, with money committed year after year, called "Learning support units", which has now been rolled out in urban secondary schools. I do not deny that some schools made their own arrangements to deal with badly behaved children. In fact, like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), I taught at a secondary school with its own unit, but it was not called a learning support unit; there was no plan for a roll-out of learning support units, nor were there sufficient pupil referral units off-site or full-time education for pupils needing learning support.
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Estelle Morris: If the hon. Gentleman remains calm for a little longer, I may look on him kindly later, but not now.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell rose—
  Estelle Morris: I may look even more kindly on the right hon. Gentleman if he sits down and lets me make a little progress. I want to have time to address individual learning accounts; I am in danger of not being able to do that if I do not make progress.
  126
  Before doing so, however, I shall touch on two issues raised by the hon. Member for Ashford as I am keen to set the record straight. For the record, last Thursday. the Teacher Training Agency published figures on teacher recruitment and retention, and we issued a supporting press notice. The figures had been planned by the TTA for a considerable period and, if the hon. Gentleman checks, I believe that he will be happy to withdraw his allegation that they were rushed out at the last minute in response to a survey and report by the National Union of Teachers.
  Teacher recruitment figures are good and they demonstrate progress and success. They should be welcomed and applauded; they are a good thing for our education system. There are more teachers going into teaching than at any time since 1992; there is a second successive increase in the number of people choosing teaching as a career. More importantly, in almost every shortage subject, there is an increase in recruitment; there has been a 20 per cent. increase in maths and a 10 per cent. increase in other shortage subjects. I know that that is not enough and that we have not yet reached our targets but, after all, we have told the House that we inherited a historic failure to achieve targets; we achieved our teaching recruitment targets only during times of economic recession.
  The important thing about the last two years is not just that we have improved teacher recruitment but that we have done so against the background of a tight graduate recruitment market. Graduates have real choices about where they go, with excellent financial offers from the private sector, the City and other companies. Nobody has to recruit as many graduates as the teaching profession, the Government and local authorities; if we include those who train through work-based routes, we have recruited more than 30,000 teachers this year, which is an 8 per cent. increase. I know that that is not enough—I am not claiming that for a minute—but hon. Members should remember that teaching is the first-choice career of most people leaving university in this country. There is not one profession, job or employer recruiting the number that we manage to recruit to teaching. In the past four years. against the background of a tight recruitment market, we have stemmed, slowed down, stopped and reversed the decline in the number of people going into teaching.
  Mr. Boswell: The Secretary of State talked about quantity and the number of teachers recruited. Will she give similar assurances about the quality of teacher recruitment?
  Estelle Morris: I think that they are a smashing bunch; the people coming into teaching now are of a better quality than ever before. The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party that has talked about teacher morale; I cannot think of a worse way of attacking teacher morale than saying to young people joining the profession now that they are not as good as their predecessors a generation ago. They deserve our thanks, our confidence, our praise and our best wishes for entering the fine profession of teaching.
  The hon. Gentleman might say that that is Government hype or a case of trying for headlines. He is generous in nature and I know that he is serious about his commitment to education. I take his comments seriously, which is why I advise him to look at the Ofsted report. It says that inspectors have found that newly qualified teachers are now as good as our more experienced staff. I sense that

  127
  and see it when I go around schools. The NQTs are better prepared; they are good teachers; they have a real choice of careers to follow.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Estelle Morris: I may shortly, but I first want to move to the issue of retention.
  I know that there is a problem with retention, but let us look at the figures. About 12 to 15 per cent. of those entering teacher training do not go on to teach. I am not saying that that is acceptable—I wish it were better—but it is probably reasonable. There have always been some who have gone into teacher training but not entered the profession. The drop-out rate from under-graduate courses is about 17 per cent. It is lower in teaching than in other courses. Some of the trainee teachers will not be good enough to pass the course; some will not like teaching; some will finish their teaching practice year but find that the profession is not for them. The figure of between 12 and 15 per cent. has remained pretty constant over previous years; it has always been the way. Others drop out before the end of five years' teaching. Again, some will have found that the profession is not for them. That figure has been pretty consistent, but I acknowledge that it rose last year.
  The figure concerning teacher retention that is never quoted is that, of those leaving the profession, 13,000 a year return. They do not go for ever; they do not vanish never to be seen again. Let us remember that 70 per cent. of the work force is female and that many will leave for career breaks, to have children and to bring up families. Of course I worry about teacher retention. Retaining those whom we have done so well to recruit is always at the top of my priorities, but I ask Conservative Members and those outside the House to remember that 12,000 to 13,000 teachers a year return to the profession. I know that there is more to do on retention.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Estelle Morris: As the hon. Gentleman is incredibly calm, I shall take an intervention from him.
  Mr. Gray: I shall remain incredibly calm, despite the right hon. Lady's speech. She talks sensibly of the very high quality of young teachers, and we on the Conservative Benches of course entirely agree with her, but she seems a little complacent about morale in the teaching profession. How does she react to the headline in The Times Educational Supplement, no less, which reads: "Labour fails to stem the exodus of teachers"? Does she agree with that?
  Estelle Morris: For a headline in The Times Educational Supplement, that is par for the course—although I suppose that that is a different problem.
  I thought that I had made the position clear. We have done more than any Government on recruitment. I know that we have more to do on retention, but we cannot keep teachers until we have them in the first place. When recruitment was a problem, I answered—I think—three Adjournment debates on the failure to recruit to the
  128
  teaching profession. Now we have this debate about retention, but we should think about both matters, and that is a hugely important job.
  I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what I think about teacher morale—and it is borne out by what people tell me when I go into schools. It presents a real challenge. When we question teachers on many of the initiatives that we have introduced, they say that they are good and that they work. They say that the literacy and numeracy strategies and booster classes work, but that in order to manage their jobs and to meet the requirements of those good initiatives, they need more support. That is why we have provided more classroom assistants and support for teachers.
  Mr. Gregory Barker: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Estelle Morris: No, I want to turn to individual learning accounts.
  I want to go through what I see as the order of events concerning ILAs. It is important to put on record exactly what has been happening, to offer reassurance where possible and to explain where there has been misleading information, let alone misleading selling. I return to why ILAs were launched. Let us remember that individual learning accounts were designed to attract people back to learning. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has always claimed that as a Lib Dem policy. No comment. Many of the people whom we were trying to attract back to learning had left learning at the age of 14 or 15 and never been back. Their memory of learning was of failure, low esteem, and getting nothing out of it. They did not feel that learning was for them.
  Whatever previous Governments did in that regard—the previous Government did not do much—did not work for such people. They did not go back to learning. They now work in a labour market where skills are crucial and learning is necessary, even if one has not done it for 30 years.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Estelle Morris: No, I must make progress, but I shall take interventions after my comments on ILAs. For all the best motives, we set out to design a system that was user-friendly, did not entail too much bureaucracy, did not involve sheaves and sheaves of paper and was not difficult for users or providers to access. ILAs were launched in September 2000. Within a year, by July 2001, we had 1.5 million account holders, far exceeding our expectations. We expected to have reached that figure a year later.
  Of those 1.5 million account holders, we received complaints from 0.19 per cent. Investigation showed that a minority of those complaints were about non-compliance. Every one of the complaints received by the Department in the first 10 months of operation was looked into. During that time, one company was subject to a formal departmental investigation. In that case, no fraud was found to have taken place. In January this year, we set up a learning provider support unit in the Department, which had the job of looking into complaints

  129
  from individuals and providers about non-compliance. Each of the complaints from the 0.19 per cent. of account holders was looked into.
  Mr. Gray: Six thousand.
  Estelle Morris: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The figure at that point was 3,000.
  Mr. Damian Green rose—
  Estelle Morris: I will take interventions in a while.
  At the end of July we noticed, because we collect the figures, a small increase in the number of complaints. As a result, we carried out a full re-registration process. which began at the start of July and was completed at the end of July this year. Far from failing to act in July, that is what we did because of the slight increase at the end of that 10-month period. As a result of the re-registration process, 700 providers lost their registration.
  Over the next two months, which takes us into September, the number of complaints increased to 0.25 per cent. of 2.3 million learners. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has the correct figure for that. More accounts were opened, and complaints were received from 0.25 per cent. of account holders. Again, we took action. We established a compliance unit with Capita, which worked closely with us on the matter. I am grateful to those involved. They are our delivery partner. The unit started work on 24 September this year, because of the increase in complaints from 0.19 per cent. to 0.25 per cent. between July and September. That gave us an additional resource to investigate the complaints.
  During September we decided to withdraw all non-personalised application forms, which is where we believed some of the abuse and mis-selling had taken place. Individuals could apply for their ILA only by contacting the ILA centre directly or through the ILA website. That took effect on 28 September. At the same time, we suspended the registration of all new providers, so that we could introduce a more robust registration procedure. In October the number of complaints was 8,000 or 0.35 per cent. of 2.5 million account holders. Over that three-month period, the number of accounts grew from 1.25 or 1.5 million back in July to 2.5 million in October 2001. That far exceeded our expectations about the amount of subsidy that the Government would pay and the number of account holders.
  We took action in July, monitored it and took further action in September. However, by October, there was another increase in complaints and an unusually high number of accounts had been opened. Consequently, we decided to withdraw individual learning accounts. The announcement was made to the House on 24 October. Since then, we have written to all account holders and providers to inform them of our decision. People who already hold ILAs have until 7 December—six weeks—to use them, but we shall not register new providers.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Estelle Morris: Before I do that, I want to give some more details of the 8,448 complaints. More than a quarter
  130
  are about providers not complying with the rules of the scheme, mis-selling or potential fraud. Three quarters of the complaints have nothing to do with non-compliance. They relate to 404 learning providers—5 per cent. of those registered. Every allegation is followed up by our compliance unit or the Department's serious investigation unit. Cases of suspected fraud are referred to the police.
  Until now, police have brought charges against four providers and 30 individuals. Radio 5 and the Radio 4 "Today" programme stated that 279 cases were being investigated by the police. That is not true. An Opposition Member repeated that figure; I understand that, given that it was broadcast by the BBC. I believe that the BBC has subsequently withdrawn the figure. I repeat that the police are investigating four providers and 30 individuals. I do not excuse what has happened; I do not like it, but it is important at the current stage in the development of adult learning and supporting adult education to put what has happened in perspective.
  I want to put on record exactly what else has happened to the 2.5 million account holders. The ILA scheme is probably the biggest and, despite what has happened, the greatest success in getting adults back to learning. It is all right to hold a debate on collecting figures for mis-selling and abuse because that has occurred, and we have taken action at every stage. However, it is also worth talking about our evaluation evidence for what is working. Ninety-one per cent. of account holders say that ILAs have supported learning and fulfilled or exceeded their expectations; 84 per cent. believe that they helped to improve their knowledge and 59 per cent. feel that they helped them to become more confident.
  There is nothing more serious than ensuring that we, as a Government and as a society, give every chance to people to return to learning, not only for skills but for leisure and fulfilment. The majority of people who have taken out ILAs experienced a quality of learning that exceeded their expectations. However, public expenditure must be as robust as possible and a good scheme must not be further damaged. I therefore believe that we took the right action in October. No one told us to do that; no outside body pulled us up but we monitored and investigated the complaints, kept track and tried to remedy the problems, and we made the decision that that was not enough and that we would withdraw the scheme. It was the right decision.
  I give a cast-iron guarantee that we will build on the huge success of ILAs in the next few months and ensure that further plans for progress on adult learning will take the best from the best scheme that has ever existed, but also remedy its shortcomings.
  Mr. Willis: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. We would like to associate ourselves with many of her comments about the influence that ILAs have had on an awful lot of adult learners. However, in her press release of 24 October, she said:
  "We have therefore decided to prevent any further take-up of ILAs. We are writing to all ILA account holders and learning providers registered with the ILA Centre to inform them that ILAs are going to be withdrawn and"—
  this is the crucial bit—
  "to assure them that the decision to end the programme has not been made lightly."
  From the Liberal Democrats' point view, that is a very serious statement from the Secretary of State. There has been nothing in her speech today to tell us whether this is

  131
  to be the end of the scheme. Will she give an assurance that the scheme is not going to end? If it is to end, that would create a far more serious situation than the one we have contemplated so far.
  Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. He will appreciate that we have to have an evaluation of the scheme's strengths and weaknesses, and of what action we need to take. Without taking any more time than is necessary, we want to ensure that we remedy the scheme's shortcomings. I can give the hon. Gentleman a cast-iron guarantee that this is not the end of Government funding for adult learning, or of Government support for all those who find a lack of money a barrier to returning to education, learning and training. I am hesitating a little because I am loth to say whether the future provisions will be called ILAs or something else, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait a while for that decision.
  The key is that, for everyone out there who benefited from the ILA scheme, this is not the end of the Government's commitment to adult learning, in terms of energy, resources, commitment or anything else that we can do to make it work. We are not, however, about to reopen applications for ILAs next week. We need to ensure that we have overcome the inherent problems in the way in which the scheme was operating.
  Mr. Damian Green: May I tell the right hon. Lady why her explanation does not wash for a minute? She has spent 10 minutes telling the House that there were very few problems, that very little was wrong and that only four people were being investigated. Yet, completely out of the blue to everyone involved, she suspended this vital programme—I agree with her that it was vital—just like that, without any warning or any hint of consultation, leaving the training sector very angry. If there was only a very small problem, that is not the action of a responsible Government. Either the problem was much worse than the Secretary of State is telling the House, or the Government panicked and acted unreasonably in the face of what she describes as a very small problem. Which is it?
  Estelle Morris: I have laid out as clearly and straightforwardly as I can the number of complaints that have been received.
  Alistair Burt: Thousands.
  Estelle Morris: I have said that there were thousands. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to repeat it. I have already said that to the House; it is on the record.
  I have laid out as clearly as I can the number of complaints. Perhaps we have different standards from the Opposition, but I thought that the potential misuse of public funds was sufficient reason for the Government to take action in the interest of public funding and of the scheme. Obviously, we went through how we should do that. I shall tell the House exactly why we did it with no notice, and I think that we were right. There would have been a risk if we had said, "Hang on. We think there is a bit of abuse of the system. We give you notice that we are going to withdraw the scheme in four weeks' time." What would those who were abusing the system have done during that four-week period? They would have abused it more and more, because they would have seen
  132
  that the system they were abusing was going to be taken away. That is why we did what we did, and we did it absolutely fairly. That is why we said, "There will be no new accounts from tomorrow", or whatever the date was. Perhaps it was to come into force "in several days' time"; I stand corrected if it was not "tomorrow". We wanted to stop those very few rogue providers abusing the system further.
  We have been absolutely fair to the 1 million people who had already signed up for ILAs but who had not yet drawn them down. We gave them until 7 December to sign up for a course so that we could pay out the subsidy. We acted fairly. We honoured our commitment to those who had already signed up, and gave them six weeks to organise their course, but we gave those providers who were abusing the system not one day longer than they were entitled to in which to abuse public money further.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Estelle Morris: I have spoken for far longer than I should have done, and I want to let other hon. Members in. [Interruption.] Hon. Members' comments are very touching, but I shall have to resist their invitations.
  Let me return to where I began. I certainly view education—and the Government, my team and, I think, the whole House view it—as one of the most important public services in the country. We know that if we do not get education right as a nation, we shall not get anything else right.
  Every Government's capacity to deliver depends on their ability to get the education system right. That is why we are proud of our achievements in early-years education, child care, sure start, literacy and numeracy, class sizes, rewarding teachers, getting more people into higher education, increasing funds for further and higher education and adult learning. That is why we will continue to communicate with schools: we will continue to work with them to spread good practice, to learn from them what works, and to take them further forward.
  At the end of the day, I know what will deliver the quality education service that we all want. It will be teachers teaching well and lecturers teaching effectively—but they cannot do that unless the rest of the education service works with them. Every one of us has a part to play in that. I give a commitment to the House and the nation: this Government's record as a true, active, honest, good and worthwhile partner in the education service is a record of which we should be proud, and that is exactly the way in which we will go on working. We will not stop until the real problems of our education system have been overcome. As I have said, we will act in partnership. That is what we promised, that is what we have delivered, and that is what we will continue to deliver in the future.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: It is refreshing to hear both Front Benchers begin an Opposition day debate in a great deal of agreement. We associate ourselves with many of the comments of the Secretary of State and of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), especially his praise of teachers.
  At the much-shortened Conservative party conference, it was pleasing that the hon. Gentleman used his first speech as education spokesman to make it clear to all

  133
  teacher unions and, indeed, teachers that the Conservatives would now be the teachers' friend. He echoed those remarks today in quoting the National Union of Teachers extensively. Perhaps in future it will be Conservative policy that is made at NUT headquarters.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Dream on.
  Mr. Willis: One can always dream.
  The Conservatives are right to use a whole Opposition day to highlight the Government's failures. The Secretary of State tells a good tale, and is very supportive of what the Government are doing. No one would accuse her or her Ministers of not being committed to their briefs. The reality in the country, however, is very different, and we must address that reality today.
  Nowhere is there a more glaring problem than in the Government's promises on expenditure. In 1997, the Prime Minister made it clear that a Labour Government would spend more of the nation's wealth on education than the previous Tory Government—a firm commitment that has not been fulfilled. During the four years before this Government went to the country, they spent 4.6 per cent. of gross domestic product on education, compared with the 5 per cent. spent by John Major's Government between 1992 and 1997. That is the reality; that is the promise that was not kept during the first four years of Labour government. Only if the Government compare 2000–01, their best spending year, with 1996–97, the Tories' worst, do they come out better.
  The Secretary of State talked about every institution—schools, colleges and universities—having more money to spend, but she was disingenuous because it is only certain schools that have more money to spend. Certainly, if a school was part of an education action zone, it got some more money. If it is a specialist school, it will get more money. If it bids for the right amounts of the standards fund—or its local education authority does—it will get more money, but in reality a significant number of schools, colleges and universities are as short of cash at the end of four years of a Labour Government as they were at the beginning of Labour's term in office.
  Ms Ward: Every secondary school in my constituency received direct money from the Government around April each year, in some cases up to £60,000. Every primary school in my constituency received a direct grant. Many of them used that not just for additional items such as computers, but for important projects and extra classroom assistants. I do not understand why the schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be any different from every other school in every other part of the country.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting one of the problems that her Government have not dealt with. Schools in my constituency happen to be in North Yorkshire, one of the 40 worst-funded authorities in the country. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady sighs. I recognise that it is a tiresome point that we keep making, but schools in the poorest-funded authorities fare worse.
  I recognise that that problem is historic and not particularly one of this Government's making, but they promised to solve it. There was a clear commitment
  134
  before 1997 that a Labour Government would reform the standard spending assessment. That has not happened. One of the problems is the money that goes to schools in poorly funded local education authorities.
  While the hon. Lady is in listening mode, I hope that she does not have any sixth forms in her constituency. If she does, she will suddenly find that they are being short-changed by a significant amount by this Government as a result of the sixth form funding guarantee.
  Some hon. Members in the Chamber were on the Committee that considered the Bill—now the Learning and Skills Act 2000—that set up the Learning and Skills Council. We were given a guarantee that for the first two years there would be no difference in funding. What we find is that the funding for any additional students in any of those sixth forms is not £3,500 for a four AS plus three A2 package, which is the current average—not the highest or lowest—but £2,600. That is £900 less per student. That is not simply disingenuous, it is dishonest.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Can the hon. Gentleman help me? I have listened carefully to his comments. Of course his support for many of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is welcome, but it is notable that unlike on past occasions the Liberal Democrats have not tabled an amendment to the Conservative party's motion. Could he or the one other Liberal Democrat who is attending the debate shed light on whether that is because of incompetence, lack of care or because they agree with the motion and intend to vote with us? Possibly, consistent with Liberal Democrat policy, it is all three.
  Mr. Willis: I shall come to Conservative policy in a second, but what my colleagues and I do with amendments is entirely up to us. At the end of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will see which way we vote.
  I return to the funding of sixth forms and further education colleges, which is a serious point. We were also promised during the passage of the Learning and Skills Bill that funding for the FE sector would be levelled up so that it would no longer have to languish miles away. In fact, for that same four AS, three A2 package, for which colleges currently get an average of £3,030, from next April, they will get only £2,600. a drop of 14 per cent. in their core funding, as a result of the introduction of the new funding mechanism with the Learning and Skills Council. However that is dressed up, it is a real-terms decrease in the resources going into FE colleges.
  The most serious point made by the hon. Member for Ashford, and the most serious accusation that we can level at the Government, is their failure to provide an adequate supply of teachers to our schools. In response, the Secretary of State made some clear points about what the Government have tried to do, but unless they can guarantee enough teachers of sufficient quality in our schools, the rest of their policy is of no consequence at all. Without the teachers, we have nothing.
  The former Education Secretary, now Home Secretary, said in opposition:
  "The Conservatives' failure to plan properly has created a ticking time bomb in terms of future shortage of suitably qualified teachers in key subject specialisms."

  135
  That was in The Independent on 1 September 1996. How right he was, but rather than doing something about the problem in his four years as Education Secretary, he lit the fuse to make it worse. Secondary vacancies have trebled under this Government, according to their own figures, not those of the National Union of Teachers, and primary vacancies have doubled.
  There has been a 51 per cent. increase in the number of instructors, meaning that more children in our schools are being taught by unqualified staff, no matter how that is dressed up. There is now an army of supply teachers who keep our schools going in terms of bodies in front of children. In key subjects such as maths, despite the golden hellos, there has been a fivefold increase in the number of vacancies since 1997, which is a serious problem.
  It is not surprising that we have a problem. There is low morale in our schools. Whether we like it or not, 2.5 million days were lost in teacher illness last year, often through stress and overwork. That has to be tackled. The NUT survey conducted by Professor Smithers and Dr. Robinson, which the Secretary of State frankly dismissed, is a damning piece of evidence. It shows that, last year, out of 100 final-year trainee teachers, 40 did not go into the classroom and a further 18 will leave within three years. The Government's own statistics show that in the past three years nearly 30 per cent. of newly qualified teachers had left their post by March of the first year of teaching.
  We cannot afford that level of wastage when we are desperately short of professional staff. The Government need to do something about that. What is their response to the teacher shortage crisis? First, there is fast track. Let us have a group of super-teachers, they say, to be recruited and deployed by the Department: £9.2 million was poured into that scheme, to provide 111 teachers. How on earth can anyone justify using such resources to produce such a low output?
  The targets for advanced level skills teachers were hopelessly missed, and those for initial teacher training have been missed every year since Labour came to power—to be fair, they were missed every year before that, too.
  Most staggering of all, with shortages staring the Government in the face, they deliberately reduced the number of training places for postgraduates. That is how they have been able to manage the discrepancy. That is why the numbers between the targets and actual recruitment have started to narrow. In 1997–98, according to the Library, some 19,169 postgraduate places were available. By 2001, that had been reduced to 16,611. How can a Government serious about trying to recruit more teachers be prepared to contemplate a reduction in the number of postgraduate places available?
  The undergraduate route into teaching is also being allowed to wither. We have seen a 25 per cent. fall in recruits in 1997. When the Minister responds to the debate, teacher recruitment and retention must be addressed up-front. We need answers on why the Government keep reducing targets while proclaiming a desperate need for teachers.
  All that is depressing, but it would be wrong to accuse the Secretary of State, or her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), of not being committed to education and the education brief. No Member of Parliament who had seen them perform would
  136
  do so. Indeed, I would be the first to admit that when the Government came into power in 1997 they were left with a daunting mountain to climb. I like Conservative Opposition day debates, because they are like reading an annual report from Hogwarts school—there is always a little something missing.

  I have been reading the Conservatives' manifesto on education, produced for the general election, because I thought that it would be illuminating to find out what their policy was. The document starts with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) saying:
  "We present here the most ambitious Conservative programme for a generation."
  Let us remember that that was only five months ago. It was not an ambitious programme for under-fives, because they were not mentioned. That is 1.5 million children not involved in that ambition. The document contained no policies for young further education college students. Further education was not even mentioned in the document, even though it has become a big topic for debate today. That is a further 676,000 students ignored by the Conservatives. Adult learners did not fare much better, because they were not mentioned—another 1.9 million people not involved in the most ambitious Conservative programme for a generation. In fact, some 3.8 million individuals were ignored in that report from Hogwarts school—sorry, I mean from Conservative central office.
  We should recognise that the Conservative party has had nothing to say on huge areas of the education service for the whole of the past four years and has said nothing today about what it would like to happen in future. Lifelong learning, which is part of the motion before us, was hardly mentioned at all by the hon. Member for Ashford, except in his attack on individual learning accounts. That is typical of the way in which the Conservative party has operated.
  Mr. Boswell rose—
  Mr. Willis: I make an exception of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), to whom I shall give way.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I detect a certain pre-emptive nature to his comments. I simply wish to ask him whether, when we debated lifelong learning in Westminster Hall recently—a debate in which the Minister for Lifelong Learning and I both participated—he was able to share his thoughts with us at that time.
  Mr. Willis: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am rather busy. [Interruption.] I have a lot of activities. Members of the Conservative Front Bench can be replaced often, but I have to spread my talents around.
  The Government have failed most of all with those young adults who need their help the most. Last year, 23,000 pupils left our schools with no qualifications at all. The truth behind that statistic is that many of them played truant for one or two years before the end of their compulsory school lives. The provisional figure for this year shows a rise to 25,000 in the number of young people leaving school with no qualifications.
  The child poverty figures are similarly chilling. Despite the Government's rhetoric, 43 per cent. of children in London still live in poverty. In the borough of Tower

  137
  Hamlets, the figure is an appalling 74 per cent. Those statistics are also associated with a huge rise in juvenile crime, especially in those areas where there is a high incidence of young people leaving school with no qualifications. It is not rocket science. The problem has always existed, but it is a major problem and we ignore it at our peril.
  The Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government two other problems: one in four adults unable to perform the most basic mathematical computation, and one in three unable to find the name of a plumber in a telephone directory. Sadly, those ratios are exactly the same today. I accept that the Secretary of State has made inroads into the problems associated with primary and early-years education, but there is still a huge distance to go before that blight on our society is stamped out.
  What is the Government's response to the problem? The White Paper has been delayed, and I presume that the education Bill will also be delayed. I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will give the date on which that Bill will come before the House, so that we can dismiss the reports that have appeared in the media.
  Some of us still believe in the comprehensive ideal. I know that Conservative Members have never really believed in that, or been committed to it, but Liberal Democrat Members have. We are disappointed that, to tackle the root problem of youngsters who constantly fail in the education system, the Government are to introduce a programme of secondary schooling that sets out deliberately to tier our education system in such a way that those with the least continue to have the least.
  Liberal Democrats have no objection to specialisation, or to the idea that each school should have an ethos. That is nothing new: whether one likes it or not, every school that one visits claims to have its own, special ethos. We find it appalling that the Government should adopt a policy that allows them to decide which ethos a school can pick. The policy also means that only half of all schools will get the money to support that ethos. The Secretary of State tells us that in 2005 half of Britain's secondary schools will be specialist schools and will have received £500,000 in extra money. However, if those schools are not going to be measurably ahead of their counterparts that have not received the same resources, they should not be given the money in the first place.
  It is sad that although the schools that are doing well under Labour will be rewarded with more resources, those desperately trying to deal with the 23,000 to 25,000 youngsters without qualifications will not get any extra resources at all. That is not fair, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address the point.
  Estelle Morris: That is not so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this Government have taken more action to ensure that schools that serve particularly challenging areas are eligible, and succeed in applying, for specialist school status? If he were to consider the percentage of free school meals provided by specialist schools, he would find that we have shifted that immeasurably. Does he acknowledge that our programme for the 400 secondary schools in which less than 20 per cent. of pupils achieve five A-starred to C grades ensures
  138
  that they receive extra resources? He paints the picture as though the only extra source of funding comes from specialist school status. That is not the case; the funds are targeted where they are needed.
  Mr. Willis: I am more than happy to concede much of what the Secretary of State says. I have undertaken an analysis of the schools with specialist status, and she is right that such a shift has taken place, compared with the previous regime in which the very affluent schools in our communities were the only ones to be given that status. However, she would agree that, for example, the secondary modern schools in Kent have less and less chance to meet the Government's criteria, given that 45 per cent. of pupils are put into grammar schools in some areas and that children with real learning difficulties are often left out. She would also accept that many schools and many of the head teachers who speak to hon. Members say that they opt for specialist status not because they want to pursue a particular specialism, but simply because they want the extra £500,000 involved, which will improve the overall education of their youngsters.
  Finally, the absence of any comment on further education from the speeches of Conservative Members was telling. I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that unless we can turn on the further education sector so that it deals with the army of young people and adults who are ill-educated, under-skilled and ill-qualified, we shall not address many of the fundamental issues in our society.
  Many people in further education, especially college principals and lecturers, feel that the Government are paying lip service to that sector. There is a drift in policy between the Secretary of State, the No. 10 policy unit, which seems to control so many things these days, the Learning and Skills Council in Coventry and the 47 sub-regional learning and skills councils. The way in which the chief executive was so dismissive of the sector in his comments on the "Today" programme and the way in which the chairman classified the FE sector as market traders shows a lack of understanding and commitment at the very top of the Learning and Skills Council about the needs of the FE service.
  I and many Conservative Members who were involved with the Learning and Skills Act were promised that the reorganisation would result in a saving of £50 million, but we are now told that it has resulted in a £43 million excess cost—a difference of nearly £100 million. If that happened elsewhere, there would be a hue and cry, but it is not mentioned when it happens in education. That is unacceptable.
  The FE sector now faces one of the most difficult and challenging populations of young people that it has ever had to face. If the Government are serious about getting those young people into education and training, they must recognise that young people need a personal service, but the overall funding for the FE sector has decreased by 5 per cent. during the lifetime of the first Labour Government. Since 1995, the core funding for its basic budget is 9 per cent. lower. That does not emphasise the needs of the FE colleges. I have tried to raise the issue of those at the bottom of the spectrum.
  James Purnell: I have some figures that suggest that funding for further education has risen significantly—in fact, by £200 million. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that?
  Mr. Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reading his intervention so well. I urge him to take a serious interest in the FE sector, because if one examines FE budgets, one finds that core funding has gone down since 1995. Colleges have to bid for money from a standards fund, and that means that they face the same problems as schools. Unless they are successful in a beauty contest, they do not receive the money.
  Colleges in some of the most deprived areas where we are desperately trying to get people into college do not have the resources that they need. That leads to a perverse situation. If colleges do not meet their targets for 16 to 19-year-olds, they lose huge amounts of budget and that means that they cannot go into the market for those over 19. That is barmy.
  James Purnell: If the hon. Gentleman examines unit funding per pupil, he will find that the amount has been stabilised under this Government and is about to go up. Does he accept that the trend has been reversed?
  Mr. Willis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. He will know from the note that has been placed in the Library that that will not take place until 2002–03. We are not even there yet. It is hard to pay bills from something that one might be promised in two years' time. The Chancellor also tells us that we have a war to pay for, but I shall not go into that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on.") No, but I point out that it might be the next excuse for not being able fully to fund the public sector. We shall have to watch for that.
  The introduction of education maintenance allowances has been one of the Government's good ideas. Liberal Democrats supported them when they were introduced and we continue to support them. However, only 30 per cent. of the areas of Britain have access to them; why not everyone? They are easy to introduce and operate and they would encourage all 16 to 19-year-olds wherever they are. But the Secretary of State has not committed herself to that target.
  The national skills taskforce recommended that everyone should be entitled to level 2 training throughout their lives, but the Government have not responded to that recommendation. The taskforce also said that level 3 training was so crucial for 16 to 25-year-olds that it should be free up to level 3. The Government have not responded to that even though it is a major need.
  On individual learning accounts, I do not want to comment on the issues relating to fraud. We do not have access to the information that the Government and the Director of Public Prosecutions have, but we agree with the hon. Member for Ashford that there should be a full inquiry. All the details should be put on the record and the House should have a proper debate on what went wrong during the process.
  However, we urge the Secretary of State not to abandon the principle of individual learning accounts. Many students received their first access to further education through them, and Liberal Democrats are wedded to the principle behind them. She suggested, however, that a
  140
  scheme might be introduced to replace them. If so, a number of people might become disillusioned as one system finishes and another begins, and many providers might go out of business in that period. The Secretary of State will have our support—and I am pretty sure that of the whole House—if she ensures that young adults who want access to training can obtain it with the minimum of fuss. I urge her to try to sort out the mess as soon as possible and to have a replacement scheme on the blocks ready to go.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I apologise for briefly leaving the Chamber during the opening speeches, but there was an emergency involving some of my constituents, of which I gave the Speaker notice. It is not my usual practice, and I thank the House for its indulgence.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to his position as education spokesman for the official Opposition, and I look forward to listening to him in the coming months. I do not know how long his tenure will last, but I hope that it will be reasonably long. Continuity in education is everything. I saw him sitting at the back of the Education and Skills Committee recently and he is welcome to join us.
  I have high expectations of the hon. Gentleman because I know that he has an interest in and knowledge of education. My welcome is genuine; I am not merely going through the motions. However, I should note that I recently received an e-mail from a head teacher of a successful sixth form college in my constituency in which he said, "Please, Barry, don't send me any more of those dreadful Opposition day debates. I have tended to circulate them to the rest of the staff and they found that knock-about stuff so depressing that I would rather not have the material." Somewhere in the subterranean passages of Conservative central office, there must be an "invent a crisis" unit. That does not help anyone.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said that people would have to be deaf and blind if they did not know about the lack of morale in some parts of the teaching profession, but we must consider what we say in Opposition day debates and the way in which they are framed. He said that six things were dreadfully wrong with the education sector—perhaps he could have found even more. I entreat him to raise the tone of the debate, because we can have a good one that is based on the facts. We could agree that since 1997 the Labour Government have not got everything right and, as Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, I might even say that the Conservative Governments from 1979 on did not get everything wrong, although I am tempted to say that most of it was.
  There is a middle way. We can have a serious discourse on the future of the education sector. All hon. Members have a responsibility to raise the level of debate, rather than drag it down. Let us compare the tenor of today's debate with what happens in the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues participate in it—one of them is in the Chamber—and the quality of the debate is high. We are able to bury party differences in a constructive manner. I do not want the House to become a major Select Committee, but let us take our responsibility for the tone of the education debate seriously and raise its level. The hon. Gentleman

  141
  repeatedly referred to a crisis; according to his predecessor, there was always a crisis. Let us change the terminology.
  Let us give a sober assessment of the situation. We should accept that not everything that the Government have done since 1997 is wrong. If I were to do a proper school report on them I would say that their record shows them to be innovative, because they have tried new ideas and structures. Perhaps that is bad, but the Leader of the Opposition said on the "Today" programme this morning that the trouble with the Government's management of the health sector is that they are not introducing new ideas or partnerships and are not binding the private sector into the health service. In this debate, however, the Conservatives are saying that the problem is that the Government are innovative, that they have new ideas and are trying to introduce the private sector to education. They have been greatly criticised for that.
  Mr. Damian Green: I defy the hon. Gentleman to find in my speech any criticism of the Government for trying to involve the private sector in state education. I made no such accusation, and I believe the exact opposite. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does, too.
  Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until a little later in my speech, when I will turn to his remarks on individual learning accounts.
  Returning to the school report on the Government, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I find sure start very interesting and innovative. No one has mentioned sure start today, but much of the debate has been about how we can break the cycle of deprivation in education, and this Government, rather than previous Administrations, have introduced several exciting, innovating schemes that seem to contain the seeds of solutions to the problem of stimulating the imagination and creativity of children from birth to age eight. The Select Committee's report on early years education was very positive about sure start's achievements in areas of deprivation. In the school report, we can make a mark in the plus column for that.
  We have identified a critical point, at about age 13, at which many people from relatively deprived backgrounds lose interest in education. How do we keep them in education and enthuse them? Two policies are on the right lines. One aims to provide a genuine vocational path to young people who are not academic in the traditional sense. For years, as I say every time I speak in the House on this subject, all the academic accolades have gone to the bright pupils, the top third who achieve the best marks in maths and classical subjects. The rest of the class has received very little reward. What I like about some of the innovations to which we have been turning our minds in the past four and a half years is that they aim to engage and reward the young people in the middle and at the back of the class. The Government are taking steps to provide a proper, recognised vocational channel for young people, and that is a remarkably positive aspect of this period of educational change.
  Many of us outside education can see how important sure start is in breaking the cycle of educational deprivation, and we want to know when the Government will fully expand the policy. If sure start is successful,
  142
  why is it not being rolled out faster? We know that there is a problem in ensuring that later sure start programmes are up to speed and are learning from the earlier ones, and that is acceptable. However, there is lots of evidence that sure start is successful, so it is the Government's responsibility to roll it out faster, and I urge them to do so. In the school report, they get a little bit of a plus and a little bit of a minus for that.
  As with sure start, all the research that I have seen suggests that education maintenance allowances work: they retain young people in education and provide a stimulus that was lacking before. I understand that they are expensive, but we must be honest about our desire to achieve inclusion. Many hon. Members only see how much EMAs cost, and the considerable expense of rolling out the policy throughout the country. However, what is the cost of not doing so? The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned those who leave the education system with no qualifications. We know what that means in terms of the likelihood of such people suffering deprivation or achieving success, getting a job or falling into a life of crime. Such things can cost society a great deal of money. The cost of not rolling out sure start and EMAs has to be seen in that context. The final verdict is: interesting, but could do better.
  Literacy and numeracy appear in the plus column. Some remarkable results have been achieved, especially among children aged up to 11. Most fair-minded people would agree that that is true. However, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I see inspectors' reports, hear evidence from the chief inspector of schools and examine the data, and from that vantage point I can see issues that have not been tackled adequately during the Labour Government's first four years. One of those issues is the 11 to 14 age group.
  I understand that the Government's policy is to turn their mind to the question of how to achieve greater success with that group. In a sense, the Government are trying to apply the innovative techniques that have been used further down the age range to the 11 to 14 age group. I understand that the process will take time, but we must not delay tackling the problem of the performance of children who were previously doing quite well in school levelling off or declining after they turn 11. Remedying that problem presents a serious challenge. The news is not all bad: GCSE results for the top 50 per cent. of pupils are encouraging. However, as we know, the difficulty facing any Government is how to tackle the problem of the bottom 50 per cent.
  Many aspects of higher education appear in the plus column. The Committee has carried out two inquiries into higher education—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) has been a participant. We have found some interesting developments in HE. especially the consistency of money flowing into research. That is a plus, although everyone knows that if we are to have world-class institutions the commitment to research must be continued.
  On the other hand, there are serious problems in HE. If we do not tackle them soon, we will have serious trouble sustaining our world-class institutions. I am talking about the most exclusive club of HE institutions, including the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick and Nottingham and the London School of Economics.

  143
  We cannot continue to pay university teachers so little. I should declare an interest: when I worked for a living, I was a university teacher and I still have a vestigial connection with the Association of University Teachers. If we do not tackle pay, the quality of those who are attracted into universities and stay on to become professors will decline year on year. That presents a serious challenge to the Government, who must also tackle another significant problem that emerged from the Committee's inquiries: too few young people from the United Kingdom stay on to do postgraduate work, complete their PhD and go into university teaching. My interim verdict on HE—I intend to return to the subject shortly—is: a mixture of pluses and minuses.
  Further education currently gives rise to the most entries in the minus column, but that is not a final judgment—I hope that the Select Committee's inquiry into FE will stimulate an increase in Government activity in that sector. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is right to point out that FE did not appear in the Conservative party's manifesto. I know that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is interested in the sector, as he used to have ministerial responsibility for it. The FE sector is vital, not only for delivering conventional FE, but because many of the FE colleges will play an essential role in achieving the Prime Minister's target of 50 per cent. of young people entering HE.
  Further education now delivers far more HE provision than was provided by the entire FE system when the Robbins report was written. It is salutary to think about that. It is an enormous sector and we must get it right, including the resources that flow into it and the salaries that are paid. The problem with so many people being on short-term and temporary contracts is one to which the Government must turn their mind. At the same time, they are coming under pressure on student finance.
  Having agreed with a number of the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, we must fall out on something. I learned from the inquiry into access to HE and retention within it that there are no easy answers, so there is a great challenge. Perhaps most Members, or many—possibly those who do not have universities close to their constituencies form the higher percentage—do not recognise yet how vital the HE sector is to the future of our country in terms of competitiveness and producing the bright young people who will be the leaders in engineering, management and all the things that make the United Kingdom wealthy.
  If we do not invest in our universities and we do not get things right, we shall be in serious trouble. Perhaps there are three challenges. First, we must get pay right. The same can be said about the flow of postgraduates into HE. Secondly, we must recognise that universities have an enormous role in the community, and I mean that in a big sense. It is about time that we realised that most universities in most regions are the biggest employers. They are the biggest bringers of wealth, the biggest potential for change and the biggest potential for innovation.
  I would hate to see my constituency if the university were taken out. The same could be said of Manchester, with its four universities, and of Leeds, with its two great institutions. If HE institutions were removed from most of the towns and cities of our country, we would be left with an appalling tragedy. Indeed, there are certain areas
  144
  where we need more universities, not fewer. I think especially of Cornwall, Bolton and a couple of other places.
  Thirdly, some people said during our inquiry into HE, "The bravest thing that the Labour Government did after 1997 was to change the basis of student finance." We could no longer accept the situation that we found in our inquiry. It revealed that we spent roughly the same percentage per capita on HE as our major industrial rivals; we spent a bit less than many and a bit more than others. As a ball-park figure, the percentage was about the same. However, 40 to 45 per cent. of that spend was flowing into student support. That was double what any of our competitors were spending.
  It is necessary to make a decision on priorities at some stage. Is the priority the quality of teaching? Is it the quality of on-going research? Is it the quality derived from using universities as an agent of regeneration in communities and the regions? Alternatively, are we to reintroduce a system that makes it comfortable for people who should pay something towards their own education? I believe that it would be extremely dangerous if we chose to go back to the old system of student finance rather than looking forward and ensuring that we keep expenditure in balance.
  I wanted, as did the Committee, to have regard to the poorest students who were in trouble. Most of the evidence showed that there was a percentage of students from very poor backgrounds who were put off by the fear of debt and by the incomprehensibility of the system, which meant that they had to go to five different pots of money. We were also worried about the time that students were spending on part-time work. As I have said, these are matters of balance. I worry about the Government because they got the collywobbles about their resolve after a successful campaign by the Liberal Democrats during the election. Whatever interdepartmental inquiries are made, I hope that the repercussions for the rest of the system of starting to spend an enormous percentage of the higher education budget on student support are clearly understood.
  I shall say a word or two about individual learning accounts. I tried to produce a balanced report; the Government have done some good things and some not so good things. I tried to be even-handed, but the Government should deal with some things very soon. I came to education late. I went to a smart boys' grammar school, but did not enjoy it much; I lived in a part of the world where people from humble backgrounds were made to feel different. The school I went to is down the river from Westminster; it is now a private school, but it was not when I was there. I had four years in industry before I got back into education; people helped me, first, get into further education, then into higher education. When I got into the London School of Economics, I found it difficult to leave education at all.
  I like the fact that ILAs are there and that we introduced them.
  Mr. Barker: They were there.
  Mr. Sheerman: Let us be fair; I shall come back to whether or not they are in existence in a moment.
  ILAs are a wonderful idea. This is the first time that they have been introduced and they can bring about profound change. We often do not recognise in the House

  145
  that changing the culture of our country means reaching people who have never been interested in education and training and getting them into training; doing so is a sign of real success. It is all very well getting middle class professionals or the band just below them interested in education; the difficulty is reaching the third of our population that has never had decent education and training. ILAs were beginning to achieve that. Ruth Silver from Lambeth college gave evidence to the Select Committee and spoke about the way in which ILAs were getting through to the very people whom we need to target with education, training and skills. We should not write off ILAs, as they have achieved genuine success.
  I hope that the Secretary of State reads the Select Committee report, but I shall repeat what she told us. She said that ILAs would be frozen; there would be a period of suspended animation—to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker)—then they would be re-energized pretty quickly. That is what I understood, and I hope that it is true. However, the Department issued a press notices, which stated,
  "Individual learning accounts to be suspended".
  Two or three times the press release said that ILAs would be suspended, before going on to say:
  "We have therefore decided to prevent any further take-up of ILAs."
  To be polite, the language gets very dense; it is worrying that one does not know what is happening from that press release. To be fair, in the last Education questions, the Secretary of State, in the final sentence of one response, indicated that ILAs would be resumed in some form and would be back on track relatively quickly. There is one thing that Education Secretaries have to do; they have to do the job competently, which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend can do, but they also have to stand up to big brother. If big brother in No. 10 says, "I don't like what is happening with student support", he has to be stood up to and told the truth about student finance. If big brother in No. 11 says, "I don't like what is happening with ILAs", he has to be stood up to and told that, not only were ILAs very much his idea, but the money for them has to continue. ILAs are innovative, new, exciting and very largely successful.
  I heard "File on 4". It was an excellent programme, and very funny in parts. It told the story of a man who had been convicted of selling supposedly leather sofas at £6,000 a time. When people complained because the furniture was in fact plastic, he moved into the ILA market and sold worthless CD-Roms, presumably creaming off the £175. The programme was hilarious in some respects, although I doubt whether the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), found it funny. However, let us not obscure the fact that a small percentage of forgeries have been found in a very big programme, so the argument for reinstating ILAs quickly is made.
  From everything that I have heard in this debate, I conclude that ILAs should be back on track—albeit modified—and celebrating innovation. We should say to the Opposition that innovation sometimes brings problems, that those problems must be recognised and fixed, and that innovation should not be abandoned. Not
  146
  everything in good, innovative government will work, but some things should be tried. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) knows exactly what I mean, as he tried a few things at the Department of Health. A good Government and good Ministers see what works, fix what can be fixed, and retain the vision.
  One other chord has been struck in this debate: let us be real about the difference between what Ministers think is out there and what really is out there. I realised during the election campaign that if one does not let the people who are to deliver the vision construct that vision, they will not be keen on delivering it because they will not understand it. There is still a gap—I have said this to the Secretary of State on the record—between what the Government think they are achieving and what is translated to teachers, head teachers, support workers and others on the ground. I ask the Secretary of State to launch a campaign to reach out to those people. She has the right policies, and most of them attract more pluses than minuses, but she has a job in explaining them in order to deliver on her ideals.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell (Chamwood): I want to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in two respects. First, as one of the more short-lived predecessors of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I, too, welcome him to his responsibilities on the Front Bench. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he opened the debate. He focused the attention of the House in particular on the question of teachers' morale and the absurdity of the policy on individual learning accounts as it has turned out in practice—and did so extremely effectively.
  Secondly, I follow the hon. Gentleman into another aspect of education policy, which my hon. Friend mentioned relatively briefly but which did not merit a single complete sentence in the Secretary of State's speech: the shambles of the Government's policy on the financing and structure of higher education. The hon. Gentleman said that when we have a policy that does not work, we should acknowledge that fact. There are few better examples of a policy that does not work for which this Government are responsible than that which they introduced in the first weeks of the previous Parliament on the financing of students and on higher education more generally.
  Perhaps I should begin my remarks on higher education by stressing that although there are sharp differences between the two major parties on the way in which we are likely to deliver policy objectives in higher education, there is no major distinction between those objectives. It is a truism that higher education is hugely important in the modern world. If we are to earn our living in the globalised economy, we must be a knowledge-based society. I hope that we also agree that the case for a vigorous and expanding higher education system is not purely utilitarian, based on earning one's living. It is also based on providing people with the opportunity to lead more fulfilling lives. We should always restate those objectives in parallel, not seeking to emphasise one to the exclusion of the other.
  Furthermore, there is no divide between the two major parties—I hope—on the commitment to achieve the Prime Minister's stated objective of further increasing the

  147
  participation rate in higher education from the 30-plus per cent. achieved by the previous Government, which has not yet been improved in the four and a half years under this Government, to 50 per cent. So far, so good; so uncontroversial.
  However, we must then address the question of mechanisms. I suppose that there is no surer sign of problems in the evolution of this Government's policy than that old staple of a Government looking for a way out of trouble that is the planted press story which appears on August bank holiday Monday. I have seen the inside of a Whitehall Department, and boundless though my admiration is for Sarah Womack, the political correspondent of The Daily Telegraph I very much doubt whether she picked up the following story on the grapevine on Bank holiday Sunday.
  The article was clearly the result of the Government asking themselves what story they could place in the empty newspapers on Bank holiday Monday. The headline reads: "Blair plans a U-turn on university tuition fees". If one is to manage a good plant on a bank holiday Monday, one must first identify the problem that one is going to solve and, secondly, state in unambiguous terms, so that headline writers on duty over a bank holiday weekend can understand, what one intends to do about it.
  On stating the problem, an unnamed senior Minister was wheeled out with a quotation for the article. He told The Daily Telegraph that the policy introduced by Labour in 1998 was a "total shambles". The quotation goes on:
  It's a disaster and hugely unpopular. It was a mistake, which came home to us on the doorstep when we were canvassing at the election, and that is being recognised in the Cabinet now."
  There we have the Downing street plant, ahead of the bank holiday weekend, asserting that their policy was a disaster. On considering what to do about the problem, the first line of the story makes it clear:
  "Tony Blair has ordered a rethink on university tuition fees".
  That is simple and straightforward.
  Then the briefing machine went quiet until the week of the Labour party conference. They use their material, these people in the briefing machine; one has to give them that. Kenneth Baker used to be told when Secretary of State for Education that he was never knowingly undersold. That principle could be applied more generally to this Government, as the story rode again.
  Clearly, there was a problem at the Labour party conference, because on 3 October a headline read: "Rethink on student loans is under way". The story said:
  "A full-scale review of university fees and loans has been ordered in an attempt to find the fairer system of student funding demanded … by Tony Blair."
  The same story was therefore announced twice.
  I invite the House to remember the days on which those two stories appeared. The first sighting of the story was on 27 August, and the second on 3 October. Eight days later, on 11 October, the review had obviously been completed because we found in The Independent:
  "The die has been cast. Tony Blair has spoken and the United Kingdom plans to become the first country in the world where graduates will have to pay a tax as a way of funding their university education."
  The story in The Independent continues:
  "No one expected the Government to come up with such a radical solution to the mess it created of student finance after the 1997 election. Not surprisingly, there is amazement all round. University vice chancellors are as gobsmacked as senior civil servants, and even New Labour insiders are left with their mouths open."
  148
  According to the next paragraph of the article in The Independent,
  "No details have been worked out and a number of real problems have to be overcome."
  The review was announced on 31 August, the announcement was repeated on 3 October and the conclusions were announced on 11 October. Clearly, there was a certain amount of surprise, which was accurately reported by The Independent. Somebody in the Department obviously pointed out to the Secretary of State that the review had not yet been formally set up. The results had been published, but the Department had not yet found a way of announcing that the review would take place.
  On 22 October, 11 days after the results of the review had been announced, another staple of ministerial life took place: a keynote speech to vice-chancellors. It was a perfectly unexceptionable speech; indeed, it contained some points with which I agreed, and to which I shall return. Of course, the real purpose of the press release does not become clear until one gets to the notes to editors. The first note to editors reads:
  "Estelle Morris began a review of student support arrangements in the summer."
  As far as I am aware, that was the first time that the review had been formally announced to the world. I am not making a narrow party point or just the procedural point that Parliament might have been told about the review, as it concerned a controversial policy that was approved by Act of Parliament. The question therefore arises whether the matter was correctly handled in procedural terms.
  Given the history of the past four and a half years on student finance, and given the fact that the Government have acknowledged that that was a shambolic failure, can we not learn from the mistakes of those four and a half years, and give ourselves more than 11 days from the announcement of the review to the announcement of its conclusions? In particular, perhaps we could have the 11 days the right way round, with the review announced before the conclusions. It is an absurd way to carry out the process of policy making in an area of vital importance to our national life.
  Having made those points about the way in which the issue has come back on to the policy making agenda, I shall be slightly less confrontational. I go back to my starting point: the policy objectives are largely shared by the two sides of the House. The Secretary of State's speech to the assembled company of vice-chancellors on 22 October set out two key issues, and I shall dwell on both in the course of my remarks. On both subjects, I wholeheartedly agree with the policy objectives that she set. I also agree with the implied criticism in her speech of her own Government's record. I do not believe that we have succeeded in delivering either of those policy objectives in the years since 1997. That is due in significant measure to the funding structure set up by the Government in 1998.
  The first issue that the Secretary of State highlighted in her speech to the vice-chancellors was equity of access. When she responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford at the beginning of the debate, the right hon. Lady made a powerful and emotional case that the Government had stood alongside pupils and students from low-income backgrounds and had sought to improve their life chances by using the power of the Government to improve the education opportunities available to them.

  149
  I do not deny that the Government have taken significant steps in some places to improve the school opportunities available to children from low-income backgrounds. I do not take that away from them, but I sought to intervene on the Secretary of State in order to remind her of the words that she used in respect of the higher education sector and the same social policy issue, and to ask her whether she was as pleased with the record of her predecessor as Secretary of State in improving equity of access to higher education as she clearly was with the improvement of the literacy and numeracy records for pupils from low-income backgrounds.
  I quote to the House the words used by the Secretary of State on 22 October. She said:
  "None of us can defend the position where five times as many young people from professional backgrounds enter higher education compared with those from unskilled and manual backgrounds—73–74 per cent. compared with 13–14 per cent.—and when that gap has not narrowed in recent time."
  That is as close as a Secretary of State in office is ever likely to come to condemning the record of her own Government on equity of access for students from low income backgrounds.
  The problem is not that that is new or unpredicted, or that no one knew that that would be the result of the policies introduced by the Government in 1997. We knew ahead of the event that that was likely to be the consequence of the policies that the Government introduced in 1997 and 1998. It was not just the Opposition who were arguing that that would be the consequence. It was one of the central findings of the Dearing report that if the Government followed the policy prescription that they ended up following in 1997–98, that would diminish the opportunity for equitable access, in particular for students from low-income backgrounds.
  Dearing's version of the statistic that the Secretary of State quoted on 22 October is more compelling than hers. As far as I know, it has not been updated, but perhaps it should be. Dearing examined the participation ratio of students with equivalent A-level qualifications. He looked at students with two A-levels, and reported that 77 per cent. of students with two A-levels from middle and upper income groups went on to higher education. The corresponding figure for students with the same intellectual qualification but with a low-income background was not 77 per cent., but 47 per cent. Dearing addressed the issue head-on, and it was one of the principal motivations for the policy mix that he recommended, which was not the policy mix for which the Government ended up legislating.
  The failure of policy in the past four and a half years was identified by Dearing, and he made specific recommendations on how to address it. Before we go rushing into the Prime Minister's latest attachment to the graduate tax, perhaps it would be sensible to spend a few days at least, and preferably much longer, looking again at the Dearing report to see whether the things that have happened were predicted—I believe that they were—and whether the findings of the Dearing report should now inform our policy making in a way that they were not allowed to do four and a half years ago.
  Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Was not the basic error that on the very
  150
  day that the Dearing report was published, the then Secretary of State came to the House with his conclusions, which differed from Dearing's? Is not the moral that a period of reflection on what had been offered to the country at great length and expense should have taken place then and ought to take place now?
  Mr. Dorrell: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It took Dearing 14 months to produce—if I remember correctly—18 volumes. It took the Secretary of State a matter of hours to receive the report and come to the House of Commons with his conclusions. It is a classic example of acting in haste and repenting at leisure. My central point this evening is that we are in danger of seeing exactly the same thing happen again, because the Prime Minister has rushed off to the newspapers with a press release, and six weeks later has rushed back to announce the conclusions, without allowing the policy-making process proper time to assess the alternatives.
  Mr. Sheerman: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. However, no one has found the answer to the problem about which he speaks. When we had full maintenance grants and no fees, we could not get young people from low-income backgrounds into higher education. The answer probably lies elsewhere: perhaps in education maintenance allowances for 13 and 14-year-olds, but not in the old system.
  Mr. Dorrell: It would be a mistake to rerun the Dearing committee's debate in an intervention and a response. Clearly, it is true that not only student finance has an impact on participation rates for students from low-income families. However, I have often said that although the Dearing report comprises 18 volumes, all of us who are interested in the issue should remember one sentence at its heart. The report traced the way in which the argument had changed during the committee's deliberations. The sentence states:
  "We did not end up where we started."
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was in the Department when the Dearing review was set up and perhaps he could confirm that the Conservative Government and the Labour Opposition expected Dearing to recommend the abolition of the maintenance grant and its replacement with student loans, but the continuation of free tuition. Everyone expected that, including, as he has often said, Lord Dearing. That is why the sentence that I quoted is so significant.
  The committee considered the evidence and the options and concluded that if public money continued to be directed at supporting students in higher education, equity of access should be provided by focusing public money on means-tested maintenance grants and expecting a private contribution from the individual through a tuition fee. Dearing's central conclusion was that we should have means-tested maintenance grants to support students from low-income backgrounds who go away to university, but that all students should be expected to contribute to the cost of their tuition from their future earnings through fees supported by a loan system.
  The Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State rejected that conclusion in a hurry at the beginning of the previous Parliament. I believe that the Government should

  151
  return to it and assess it more carefully at the beginning of this Parliament. Dearing's recommendation deals directly with equity of access, which is clearly and rightly important to the Secretary of State, given her earlier comments. However, Dearing also recommended that approach because he realised that if students pay tuition fees to universities, an important extra benefit accrues to the university system. It would make the universities more directly accountable to students and therefore, rightly, more responsible to the student body than to the Secretary of State and the Department for Education and Skills.
  I have not said so previously, but I sharply disagree with the policy in the Conservative party manifesto to sell the spectrum to endow universities. That is an original Father Christmas policy, which would undermine the objective of making the universities accountable to their students. It would make them accountable to nobody. That is an unattractive idea. Contemplating selling spectrum to mobile phone companies almost seems like another world. That policy now seems less attractive for many reasons and I hope that we shall not pursue it.
  Such a policy undermines the key message of Dearing: a proper, accountable and more independent university system, which moves away from the over-centralisation for which we were responsible in the 1980s and 1990s and gives universities genuine independence to develop a more flexible system, is provided through students being supported to pay fees. That would enforce a principle that the Government have not respected: extra money raised from students should be ring-fenced for the higher education sector. If students pay fees straight to the universities, that is the end of the problem.
  Mr. Levitt: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting contribution. Although we have a system of students paying fees and of accountability, half the students who go into higher education are not required to pay fees because of means-testing. Yet that has not tackled the problem of the differences in university attendance between the various social classes. On accountability to students, I am worried that the right hon. Gentleman comes close to advocating top-up fees, which the Government have rightly opposed. Will he clarify his position on that?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall not get into an argument on top-up fees, because I am basing my argument on the findings of Dearing. There are aspects in any document that runs to 18 volumes that I would not necessarily have written in exactly the same way. However, on policy mix for higher education, the Dearing report comes closer to setting out a coherent programme, which is likely to provide a vigorous university sector, than the policy that the Government have pursued in the past four and a half years or the policy idea in our manifesto for the general election.
  Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that we have moved on since the Dearing report? I agree with almost all his comments apart from his conclusions, about which we have always argued. Since the Dearing review, the Cubie commission was set up in Scotland and produced some compelling evidence, and the Rees review has taken place in Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman
  152
  believe that that academic research is a vital complement to the Dearing report? After all, Lord Dearing's inquiry began almost six years ago.
  Mr. Dorrell: Of course, I do not suggest that Dearing is the end of knowledge on the subject or that we should substitute one 11-day policy-making process for another. The lesson of events in the past four years is that we should take time to reflect. The Dearing report is the most serious, coherent and comprehensive review of the subject in the United Kingdom in the past six years.
  I want to emphasise the value to the higher education sector of creating a world where a larger proportion of university income comes directly from students and does not pass through the Department for Education and Skills. That would provide a more flexible and responsive higher education sector. Let us revert to objectives—a subject that is not controversial. The Secretary of State made it clear in her speech on 22 October that she agrees with that objective. She said:
  "Over the last ten to twenty years, the higher education sector has seen a huge shift from being an elite to being a mass system, but without anyone necessarily thinking strategically about what we want our universities to be achieving."
  That is a pretty damning criticism by a Secretary of State of a Government who have been in office for four and a half years. What type of institution will be required if we are to increase participation in higher education from the 30-odd per cent. today to the 50 per cent. that is the Prime Minister's objective? Surely it is absurd to believe that a vision of what a university ought to be, based originally on Oxbridge, the London School of Economics and a few other traditional universities, which had much less than 10 per cent. participation in the pre-1960 era, can be extended and made available to 50 per cent. of the population.
  I am certainly not arguing for a return to polytechnics and colleges for advanced technology, or for creating artificial pigeonholes; quite the contrary. I seek a system in which institutions are more responsible to their student body, and are freer to work through for themselves how to meet the needs of their student bodies more accurately.
  In this connection, it is worth recording the words of two distinguished people who have worked in the higher education sector and who have described in colourful terms what is wrong with the unduly straitjacketed world that higher education has become. Professor Zellick, the head of London university, states:
  "It's a pretty thoughtless way of getting people off the streets and out of the dole queues and it isn't what the country needs. Nobody says that, so we struggle on doing lots of silly things and wasting money. You've got people of moderate academic ability doing questionable academic courses culminating in degrees, leaving university, as they arrive, with inadequate literacy and numeracy."
  That is from the vice-chancellor of London university.
  The former principal of Strathclyde university, Professor Sir Graham Hills, states:
  "British universities are in decline. They are short of money, short of ideas and short of confidence. Within a generation they have ceased to be independent beacons of learning and radical thinking and have become obedient outstations of the Department for Education and Employment."
  There is no disagreement in the House that we want to create a system of world-class institutions with equitable access. However, I sometimes think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are in denial about the

  153
  consequences of the policy prescriptions that have been followed by the Labour Government over the past four and a half years. I do not absolve the Government who went before them from pursuing a policy of over-centralisation or from over-bureaucratising the university sector.
  World-class institutions will not be created by bureaucratic diktat from the Department for Education and Skills. They will be created by providing a framework within which institutions are able to develop genuine world-class expertise. That result would flow from a much more liberal system, of the kind that Dearing envisaged—a much more attractive and compelling vision than the one currently on offer from the Government.
  6.24 pm
  Valerie Davey: I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and his Front Bench colleagues, because I also had to leave the Chamber briefly to fulfil a long-standing commitment.
  I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who gave a succinct and clear analysis of the current position of higher education. I welcome what he said about the broad band of agreement about the objectives. One of those objectives is equality of access, and there is a range of reasons relating to that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned. One must be the quality of teaching that young people receive in schools to attain the standard to go on into higher education. I shall return to that aspect of the debate.
  The National Union of Teachers' report is an important document—I declare an interest here: I am still a member of that trade union—but it is only one document to be added to the totality of the debate about the recruitment and retention of teachers. It is interesting that there seems to be a shift of emphasis—this is evident not only from the NUT but from the other teachers' unions—in the last paragraph of the summary of that document, which states:
  "Policies for recruitment must be balanced by policies for retention."
  Recruitment numbers are going up, as the Secretary of State made clear today. More young people are being attracted to teaching now, and are going to university and into postgraduate certificate of education courses in order to get into teaching. The issue now is retention. The NUT document goes on:
  "It is important to listen to the teachers and address their concerns."
  I am equally sure that the Government will do—and are doing—just that.
  I would like to share my experience of schools in Bristol. I have visited schools and talked to head teachers and teachers about the present situation. I want to add my congratulations to teachers on all their hard work and commitment, because standards have gone up. For the Opposition to lead in this debate with such a tirade against teachers without recognising their achievements and the way in which standards have improved is nothing short of a disgrace. Standards are going up and there is a huge commitment from teachers. However, there is also a need to continue to retain teachers.
  154
  I want to speak briefly, from my experience, about the nature and quality of those being recruited and about the position of teachers leaving—and, indeed, returning to—the profession. I also want us to look at the profession in the same way that we are now beginning to look at other professions, because people no longer go into a profession and stay in it from their first day of work until they retire, as was the family tradition. People now move in and out of professions, often to the benefit of those professions; I believe that that is explicitly of benefit to the teaching profession.
  At one of the schools that I visited recently, I met the head teacher and we soon struck up a conversation that went something like this: "Yes, isn't it awful? I've advertised for a teacher and a deputy, and I've had so few applications. Instead of getting 40, I've got four." However, when I asked him about the quality of the applicants, he replied, "Oh, I've made a really good appointment." The people applying at present are of the highest quality.
  In a stable economy with high levels of employment, people who apply to work in teaching have made a firm commitment to teaching. The head teacher of that particular school readily admitted that the people coming through his door were of the highest quality. He now has a new deputy head teacher and two newly qualified teachers of the highest quality, following a tradition going back many years.
  We acknowledge that the number of applicants has gone down. There are more jobs—particularly for women—out there in the market, and fewer people are applying for the reason that it is traditionally expected that they would be a teacher. However, the quality of newly qualified teachers is important.
  Another school that I visited recently had three newly qualified teachers, all of whom had been mature students. They had gone back into education—in a way to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield referred—having experienced other employment elsewhere. They had tried other things. They had worked in retail, in business and in commerce. However, that work had not given those people the level of satisfaction that they had expected, and they had recognised, either through doing voluntary work with young people or through their own families, that teaching was an alternative. They came into teaching with good qualifications and with added experience. They brought to the classroom something more than those of us—I include myself in this description—who went from school to university to school without being able to bring a breadth of experience to young people.
  I recently heard an amusing anecdote about a young person who had said "My mum has just got a job in the school: she is going to be the careers teacher. I don't know what she will be able to tell them; she has never done anything but teach". We laughed, but there is a sound point there. I am sure that qualified teachers, with all their generic skills, have much to tell young people—on the basis of wide experience in their own families, and of work known to them through family connections—about what they might want to do. I am sure that they want to instil in young people the highest possible aspirations. How much better it would be, however, for school staff rooms to contain teachers who have worked in the travel industry or in engineering. I am thinking of those who, because of their wider background in, perhaps, farming,

  155
  can say to young people "There is a breadth of work out there that we can tell you about". That, I think, is enriching and good, and I think that the school to which I have referred, with its three NQTs—mature students—has acquired something that enriches both the staff room and the pupils.
  The head teacher of another school, a beacon school, has moved on to offer elsewhere the expertise that built up the school. The deputy head—acting head, at the time of my visit—was very excited about the job for which she was going to apply. She told me that, even if she did not get the job, it would have been a challenge and a rewarding experience to be the acting head of a beacon school with so much going for it, and that it would be very good for her CV.
  That teacher took me around the school and introduced me to two NQTs. Those young people had come straight from university. They had already worked in the school, they had been there as students, they clearly had aspirations and they were doing a really good job. The teacher then introduced me to one of the new nursery teachers, an older woman who had entered the school as an assistant teacher.
  That woman had found her way gradually through the system. She had done her studying at night, while in a part-time job, and she was now back as a fully trained nursery teacher. That was excellent: she was an older person who had brought up her own family, she had much to offer the school, and she was going to stay in the locality for a good while. I am sure that the diversity provided by those with wider backgrounds and different experiences will prove valuable.
  Subsequently, on a Saturday afternoon, I met a young man who has opposed me in two general elections, representing the Green party. He is a wonderful young man, very colourful—not just in terms of the name of his party, but in terms of all the work that he has done in youth clubs and with photography. He helped Sustrans, the cycling organisation, to get its million cyclists on the road for the millennium event. Although he had wide experience, however, he had never quite settled down—but now, he told me, he was doing a PGCE course.
  That young man has worked in secondary schools in Bristol, and he now realises what fun young people can be. He can offer them all his experience, and no one will be able to get the better of him—although I am glad to say that I did in the general election! He will make a superb teacher: he empathises with young people, he has a lot of experience, he has a lot of go and he will bring something rich and valuable to the staff room as well as to young people.
  Nowadays, it cannot be assumed that a teacher who enters the profession with qualifications at 20 or 21 will be a teacher for ever. I hope that such teachers will take a break, and then return. The Secretary of State suggested that we should consider not just the drop-out figures, but the figures for those returning to teaching. Surely it is beneficial for people to return with wider experience. I am thinking of those who may have entered the profession when young and then, perhaps, started a family. We should recognise the contribution made by women in bringing up children, and see it as a real plus on their CVs. Such experience—such "early years" work—is something they can bring back to teaching.
  156
  I am not as pessimistic as some have been today: I think that the figures should be viewed in more depth. We should understand what is happening in the profession as a whole. It is certainly becoming more demanding. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who said that young people themselves now presented a greater challenge. They too are more demanding and difficult, in many ways, than those of us whose teaching experience took place 20 or more years ago. If we take into account those who bring more maturity, more qualifications and more experience of life to the profession, however, I think we can view the profession positively. We should bear in mind that more young people are choosing it, more mature students are returning, and more people who have had a taste of teaching and then gained wider experience are also going back.
  I do not particularly want to return to the profession myself, but I recently replied to a student questionnaire that asked "If you were not a Member of Parliament, what would be your ideal job?" I thought about it for a long time—I thought of all the exotic things I might do—but, if I was to be honest, I had to write "Teacher". I did, however, add "On a good day".
  There is nothing better than teaching—on a good day. There is nothing more exciting in the world than the exhilaration of helping young people, seeing their eyes light up and knowing that something has been understood and aspirations have been extended. I am here because I want to ensure that that right is extended to more young people—that they will have better-qualified and more experienced teachers with wider experience and more maturity.
  We are fortunate in Bristol. I know that there are pressures on teachers in other parts of the country, which we do not experience to the same extent. We do not have as many applicants, but they are high-quality applicants—and in Bristol the idea of lifelong learning does not just mean adding a bit of adult education when people are older: that notion has now gone. Although it is a good thing, it is not what Labour Members mean by lifelong learning.
  In at least two parts of the city—we are looking for a third—we have established sure start. We are breaking the cycle of deprivation by helping not just the youngest but their parents—whole families—to recognise the importance of education. We are on a solid foundation in developing more nursery education—and it should be remembered that by doing that, and through the provision of smaller primary school classes, we have increased the number of teachers throughout the country by some 11,000 over the past four years. More teachers are working in, particularly, nursery and primary education, which is important and a good priority for the Labour party.
  That proud tradition has been built on in Bristol. In the primary school sector, there has been an improvement of 9 or 10 per cent. in literacy—in line with the national average—and a higher percentage improvement in science skills. I congratulate all teachers involved in that excellent work.
  My severest criticism and my real concern—I trust that the Government will address it—relate to key stage 3. I have seen skills in Bristol in which the level for those 11 to 14s has been maintained, or has dipped. I do not

  157
  think that that has been caused merely by the transition or the curriculum: I think we must look hard at the whole nature of what we are trying to achieve for the age group involved. We must target our interest in and support for teachers to ensure that this is another rewarding, improving step in education; otherwise those five A to C grades will not be achieved.
  The number of A to C grades is rising slowly. Hon. Members who know Bristol as well as I do recognise that we have a specific problem at secondary level. With the city-wide review of secondary education, we will, I trust, deal with that.
  On further education, the City of Bristol college, with its new site in the centre and its plans for the future, is drawing in more and more young people at 16. I want education maintenance allowances to be brought in widely across the city. I give every encouragement to the Front-Bench team to knock on the door of No. 11 and ensure that the finance is there to roll out education maintenance allowances across the country, including Bristol.
  On higher education, the university of Bristol is part of the Russell Group. I have been a member of the university's council. I have argued the case for more local and state students going on to higher education. We have a new vice-chancellor, whose brief is to ensure that more children from state education go to the university. I will do everything—I know that other Labour Members in the city will do the same—to ensure that that objective is achieved.
  We are fortunate. We also have the university of Bath and the university of the West of England. The work that they are doing in different ways to ensure internationally recognised excellence of provision and wide equality of access—the Prime Minister's goal is that 50 per cent. of people aged 18 to 30 have experience of higher education—will, I trust, be endorsed, encouraged and achieved with the contribution from the three universities in the Bristol area. Beyond that, we are encouraging people in Bristol to take part generally in wider access to education, ensuring that, through commerce and industry, there is the access; there is the motivation.
  I end with something that is near to my heart, which is ensuring that older people get into information technology. The city has a centre for IT training, which the college set up, but which is supplemented largely by the university of the West of England. For those of us who until recently had never wanted to put our hand on a mouse, classes start at 7.30 in the morning and go on until late at night. People can leave work and go in for an hour. That resource, which is enabling people of all ages, is remarkable and good.
  Only last weekend, I went to a fresh start course for the 45-plus age group to open an IT suite. I gather that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has the constituency with the most older people who are IT literate, but I assure him that the people of Bristol and outside are now looking to IT, if only to e-mail their grandchildren throughout the world.
  That is all part of the wider education to which many more people are now aspiring thanks to a Labour Government. Let us not knock what has been done. Let
  158
  us encourage it. Let us praise, particularly our teachers, and encourage more and more people of different ages to return to teaching.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Tire Boswell: The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made some constructive points, and the debate has been an unusual one for an Opposition day. It is easy to associate such a day with hard words and criticism. There has been some of that, rightly, but there have also been some constructive contributions. If I were to single one out, it would be that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who has caused me to attenuate a large chunk of what I might have said on higher education. I am sure that the House will have no difficulty with that.
  The underlying situation is that while we all understand that it is all very well to trade insults across the Chamber, there must be a common basis and understanding in our commitment to education. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was, rightly, at great pains not to challenge the motives of the current ministerial team or indeed the general competence of teachers. I strongly agree with him. We must start with a measure of consensus and make constructive—I hope—criticisms, but criticisms nevertheless. Motives and even some passion in the commitment to education are fine, but Governments must deliver.
  The debate highlights a problem that I have felt for some time that the Government are running into. They are what I call an adjectives, or an epithets, Government. There are some fine words. I select my special favourites: "modern", "joined up", "high quality" and even "world class". But the difficulty is that they do not always attach to nouns, or perhaps I should say that they are so portable that they are transferred between nouns and, in any case, the nouns do not attach to reality.
  When considering the Government's record on education, which, do not forget, now extends to nearly five years, I am reminded increasingly of the old story of the laconic teacher who completed the report in the Michaelmas or autumn term, "Trying"; in the spring term, "Still trying"; but by the summer term had got to "Still very trying."
  The House will understand that, as my specialist area is post-16 education, I shall not say much about schools, although many issues of morale, and indeed of Government behaviour towards schools, are mirrored in what has happened further on. As others have spoken on it, I shall touch briefly on the serious problem with teacher training, recruitment and retention. Of course, there are good teachers around, and good new teachers, but it is not always easy to secure them, and in certain places, the applicants for new posts are not as many as to give a realistic choice or the ideal choice.
  I find it predictable but depressing that the recent NUT survey showed that the main problems with teacher retention related more to pupil behaviour and the weight of Government bureaucracy than to teachers' pay. Perhaps we would take too long if we were to go into that tonight, but the Government will have to deal with all those issues. One in particular that they will need to look at afresh is the impact of housing costs in areas of high pressure.
  I turn to post-16 education. The main difference, it needs to be said, is that the education system at post-16 begins to deal with volunteers, rather than conscripts,

  159
  whether they are more or less willing to learn. Accordingly, issues of student recruitment are immediately relevant. In that area, the Government have been foremost in setting targets, and whether they have been fulfilled is an even more precise measurement than whether school standards have risen.
  That brings me to the withdrawal of individual learning accounts. The Government are guilty of two equivocations. The first—the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and others were right to mention it—is that we need to know whether it is a temporary suspension pending reintroduction. I can think of a number of things that have been withdrawn in the Chamber that have never come back. Secondly, there is the issue of whether the Government think that what they have done has been a success or a failure. The one will inform the policy decisions for the other.
  There has been much talk about fraud. No one holds any brief for that. It must be stopped, but it is extraordinary that on the back of a comparatively small amount of reported fraud, the whole programme has crashed within 12 months of its national roll-out. I cannot help feeling that there is an underlying motive of funding, bearing it in mind that the original estimates depended on 1 million people taking up the scheme, and that that was predicated on a reduction of money held in training and enterprise councils of £150 million—£150 each. If take-up has reached 2.5 million, that immediately creates a serious budget crisis for the Department.
  On the significance in practice of individual learning accounts, unusually, I pray in aid the Deputy Prime Minister, who pleased me on one occasion when he appeared at Prime Minister's questions by knowing about ILAs and being broadly, though not uncritically, in favour of them, but then he perhaps let himself down somewhat when he said:
  "they do the job that the Tories failed to do, which is to train our work force."—[Official Report 24 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 964.]
  If they did that job and they are being removed, that job is not being done. Frankly, I thought his remark a little offside, because I had as a Minister, and retain, a strong commitment to further education and lifelong learning. There is no difference between us on that. I differ from the Government on that only in their implication that such a commitment started only in 1997.
  It is disturbing that the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, in a recent briefing note, referred to
  "the way in which lifelong learning seems to have dropped down the agenda of DFES since the election."
  If nothing else, the Government can belie that by finding ways of supporting both providers and individuals who felt themselves cut off in midstream following the sudden announcement, and by instituting as soon as possible transitional arrangements, if necessary, and then replacement ones at the earliest possible moment.
  I hope that, in doing that, the Government will have regard to two matters of substance. First, the history of demand-led initiatives in FE and HE, under Governments of both parties, shows that they can escalate very quickly as the market responds, and a more measured pace of expansion may be appropriate. There is no point in having, to borrow a phrase, boom and bust.
  Mr. David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman will recall the notorious demand-led element
  160
  of the further education funding methodology, for which I think he had some responsibility, under the Conservative Government. Does he remember that that Government withdrew it at very short notice, causing chaos in the financing of further education colleges throughout the country?
  Mr. Boswell: I do not in any sense seek to act as an advocate for that demand-led element, which in fact came slightly after my time, but I was indeed, delicately, making the point that I thoroughly agree that all Governments must be careful not to lose control of the system, because there can be bad consequences if they do. Indeed, some reparatory work had to be done to ensure that the system could continue. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. We need a sensible pace of expansion, with the right kind and levels of incentive.
  The second matter to be considered is that support, including student support, may be better delivered through accountable local providers, in a decentralised way, than through cash handouts from the centre, which may be subject to abuse and more difficult to control. That is a matter for discussion.
  If ILAs have been successful in overshooting their target, they are perhaps the only element in education post-16 for which the Government have achieved that. What has happened to Government plans for an expansion of 700,000 students enrolled in FE over a two-year period that will elapse next year? In fact, such enrolments have been trending inexorably downwards by about 1 per cent. a year. As Ministers will know, the FE sector—I do not run it down, I report it as I see it—is characterised by financial pressures, staff stress and significant student dropout, which is highly wasteful, and that is even before various bits of the education establishment start hectoring FE on quality issues.
  The underlying causes of that must be tackled. It is important for Ministers to emphasise the distinctive virtues and roles of further education and vocational qualifications, rather than seeking falsely to assimilate them in some overall post-16 agenda, including higher education.
  The Government have set a 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education. By definition, that target cannot have been missed yet, because it runs through most of the current decade, but given the disappointing levels of higher education recruitment, especially in the access areas, for people from less-advantaged homes, I predict that it, too, will come under pressure, unless the revised arrangements that are to be phased in resolve the situation.
  Dr. Rudi Vis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the 50 per cent. target?
  Mr. Boswell: I have some scepticism about it. One needs to ask whether Ministers themselves agree with it. I think that they will seek to wriggle out of it by redefining either participation or higher education. If the Government say that they want 50 per cent. of adults to participate in some relevant and appropriate continuing education, without reference to level, location or timing, I am all for that—I want far more adults, at all levels and from all backgrounds, to participate—but I do not think that we should necessarily define what those adults are doing as higher education.
  Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real target that the Government need to set concerns 14 to

  161
  19-year-olds and the removal of the drop-off point at 16, and that unless we can get more young people to stay on in school or in education or training after the age of 16, targets of 50 per cent. in higher education are meaningless?
  Mr. Boswell: I have considerable sympathy with that view. I have myself spoken about the need for a more longitudinal approach. One has to recognise the individual segments and not try to put them all together, but what goes on in school must have an influence on what happens thereafter—on access and readiness to learn—and is highly relevant. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Mr. Chaytor: We agree about the importance of increasing participation at ages 16 to 19. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that further education is to be defined not simply in terms of three-year degrees, and that two-year foundation degrees, and the role of HNCs and HNDs, have been an extremely important part of it and will play an important part in meeting the 50 per cent. target?
  Mr. Boswell: Again, I have little difficulty in agreeing with that. Perhaps we are following obsolete models, or models that have a particular but not a universal relevance. I am anxious that Ministers should not disguise what they are trying to do by rebranding it to mean that everybody will go to university for three years and metaphorically carries an Oxford degree in their knapsack. That is neither appropriate nor necessary. I am sure that we can have flexibility in participation without eroding the differences between institutions.
  Behind this debate lies the Government's attitude to students. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood spoke most eloquently on the subject. The Government want to claim credit for more participation but are reluctant to fund it, so there is continuing pressure on the unit of student funding, challenging our universities' continuing ability to deliver excellence in teaching and research, and offering a miserable deal for some students. I expect that it is all right for those from more conventional backgrounds, who can fall back on a fairly conventional and professional home, where there may be financial support or help with resources, but it is hard indeed for the first-time access user, which is already reflected in recruitment figures.
  There is a danger that the social advance of the democratisation of higher education, which took place largely under the previous Conservative Government, might get lost. It is at least clear from the Government's review of their policies that they are worried that that might happen. I hope that any changes will devolve as much as possible of the access responsibility, provided that the funds are also transferred, to the institutions themselves.
  With regard to the interface with further education, the Government will have to pay attention to the overall financial mix and how that is to be balanced. That would be a better approach than some sort of notional fusion, at nominal cost, of the two sectors.
  The world of education now realises that for all the fine words of nearly five years of Labour government, and a growing and undeniable responsibility on the part of that
  162
  Government, nothing much in education has got better. The House will remember that as early as 1999 the Prime Minister called for a year of delivery. That year of delivery was supposed to have taken place in the last millennium. Our young people deserve access to high quality education. What worries us is that that might be progressively denied them, for one reason or another, but neither they nor us will forgive the Government if they fail now.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who speaks with sincerity and knowledge on post-16 education. I remember him as a responsive Minister, although we could never get any resources out of him or his Government. I intended to speak on one aspect of the decision on individual learning accounts, but I am tempted to pick up one or two of the other issues mentioned in the Opposition motion.
  I am not comfortable with several aspects of Government education policy, and my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench would not believe me if I said otherwise. However, the matters that cause me some discomfort are not mentioned in the motion. I am not uncomfortable with the school building programme, which has been incredible. In my part of the world, we are setting up a brand new high school, which will solve problems that have been festering in Ormskirk for decades. I am not uncomfortable with the direct funding that has gone into schools, for head teachers and senior staff to distribute as they, with their local knowledge, think fit. I am not uncomfortable with sure start, and the magnificent work that scheme has achieved in Skelmersdale. I am not uncomfortable with excellence in cities, or with excellence clusters—we have one in Skelmersdale that is doing wonderfully well in bringing learning mentors into our schools.
  Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I am a firm believer in the comprehensive ideal. I always have been and always will be. The comprehensive ideal was a failure only because it never properly existed. We were never able, with the best will in the world or with the power sometimes available to us, to bring in a system that did away with all the horrors of selection and the private system. The Opposition motion mentions
  "the failure of the Government to allow parents a real choice of schools".
  What does that mean? How can a real choice be provided? A person could have written that sentence only if he or she had never examined the situation and the complexity of the relationships between schools and their admissions policies—or the lack of them.
  The only comment that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made to support that element of the motion was the claim that the Government did not allow good schools to expand enough to give everyone real choice. What nonsense. The logic of that would mean we would end up with one school in Lancashire with everybody in it, because the parents all chose it as the best school. Many students already travel miles for hours every day to get to the schools that their parents think are most suitable. The selection that still exists in our system does not provide real choice for all parents.

  163
  The motion also mentions the issue of student finance, about which the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) talked cogently. The motion claims that the present system has
  "discouraged applicants from poorer families".
  Of course it has. We have never had a system that did not, and it would probably be difficult to invent one. Student finance has gone to pot ever since the Conservative Government started to fiddle about with student loans, and the Labour Government have not done anything satisfactory to solve the problem since 1997.
  My one serious criticism of the Government I support is that they have not significantly altered the numbers of young people from working class homes who have entered higher education. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the article in The Independent, because I jumped for joy when I saw the announcement of the possibility of introducing a graduate tax to finance students in higher education. I have always been a supporter of a graduate tax. It has always seemed to me the most efficient and fairest way to fund tuition fees, and I hope that any new scheme will also include a maintenance element. A graduate tax based on income means that we would not force people, as we do at present, to go for the highest-paid jobs. Many graduates are altruistic and wish to take jobs in the public services or overseas, which are not necessarily highly paid.
  In welcoming a better system of student finance for higher education, we must also remember that students in further education have a rotten deal. It has always been the Cinderella service in terms of resources. We must address the issue of the education maintenance allowance, and I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) that it should be rolled out across the country as soon as possible. Some of my constituents are students at Wigan college and Southport college, which are in different education authorities. My constituents do not get the allowance but they sit next to young people from Wigan and Southport who are doing the same course and who do get the allowance. Those young constituents ring me to ask why they do not get the allowance. That is understandable, because Skelmersdale is as deprived an area as Wigan.
  I taught in higher education for 20-odd years and I hope that if we introduce a graduate tax we also introduce an element that recognises that students have a responsibility to use their opportunity properly. One of the things that distressed me as a teacher in higher education was the small minority of students who utterly wasted their time at university. They did not turn up for lectures or produce assignments. They even skived off exams at the end and just dropped out of the system. We cannot introduce a good system of student finance unless we accept that students must bear responsibilities in return.
  The motion also criticises the Government's
  "current policy of constant interference in the day-to-day running of education."
  I am married to the head teacher of a large comprehensive school in a difficult area in Skelmersdale. She makes no complaint about the amount of interference or bureaucracy. She says that she goes through everything rapidly, picks out the essential stuff and ignores the rest. That skill, of picking out the essential materials in the information that is presented, is one that all hon. Members
  164
  have. We would have to work 24 hours a day to read all the tripe that lands on our desks. In the same way, good head teachers and teachers know precisely what they have to do. Teachers have always been able to manipulate whatever systems Governments put in place.
  However, although the Conservatives criticise the Government's "constant interference", the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said in an intervention that discipline in schools was going to pot and demanded to know what the Government were going to do about it. In other words, the hon. Gentleman was demanding Government interference in schools. The question is whether one is attracted by what the Government are trying to do, or not.
  I shall turn briefly to the difficulty of attracting people into teacher training and, ultimately, into the teaching profession. I think that, at a time of virtually full employment, it is remarkable that the numbers being recruited into teacher education should have risen. After all, who on earth would be a teacher when, to paraphrase George Orwell, prison is an alternative?
  Teaching can be a dreadful job. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said that on a good day it can be the best job in the world. I have been there and done that and I know that it was the best job in the world—on those good days. It can also be a job in which teachers put their personalities on the line day after day in front of 30 young people aged, say, 13 or 14—the age group that I have always found to be the most difficult. Teachers are tested and pressured, and it is no wonder that so many of them suffer stress.
  That stress is what accounts for the drop-out rate among those recruited into teacher training. A first-year student going into a school for teaching practice is usually quite coddled. I have done a lot of that in my time, and I know how it works. Such students are given a light timetable and a decent class in order to ease them into what is a difficult job. In their second or third years, however, or when postgraduate certificate of education students do their third teaching practice, the proposition is somewhat different. They are on their own in class. I intend no criticism when I say that many people find themselves constitutionally incapable of carrying on and decide to choose some other profession. That has always happened.
  I was involved in teacher education in the 1970s. We knew that a substantial proportion of our students would get through their courses successfully, and complete their teaching practices, but that they would go off and be accountants, for example, at the end. They would decide to use their brains in a different way, because teaching was not for them. We should not be surprised by the recruitment difficulties that are being encountered.
  I am delighted that the Under-Secretary for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), is back on the Front Bench, as I know that the aspect of ILAs about which I am most worried is really his pigeon. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that the ILA was a Liberal Democrat policy—no wonder then that it got into trouble. We should be more careful about to whom we listen.
  It is bitterly disappointing that the ILA has had to be suspended. It has been crucial to the Government's lifelong learning policies, which I regard as visionary, important and even, in many ways, inspirational. I understand that the suspension was needed to tackle

  165
  fraud in the system, but I suspect that the success of the ILA scheme, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has termed it elsewhere, meant that the sheer number of people who wanted to take advantage of it was the greater cause.
  We should not be surprised that people take the money that they are offered to go on courses. The more attractively and efficiently that that money is offered, the more people will pick up on it. Wherever public money is made available, even for the very best of causes, the parasites will gather to try to take advantage. We sometimes call those people entrepreneurs: my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that the leather sofas that such people sell are made of plastic, but they have also gone into the business of selling ILAs.
  I ought to point out that more than fraud is involved. Many people have encountered incompetence in the administration of the ILAs. My constituent, Susan Ashcroft, has allowed me to refer to her, but I have many other constituents in similar circumstances. She was working as a nursery nurse at a special school. She opened an ILA account to help her through a higher national certificate course in early childhood studies. She spent months inquiring into the ILA scheme, and had even contributed towards it, but no one at the ILA centre at Darlington could tell her what had happened to it. Eventually, she received an unsigned letter from Darlington telling her that her account was closed.
  By then, Susan Ashcroft was committed to a course costing her £425 for the first year, and £300 for the second. We are still pursuing that mystery, but I do not think that the problem had to do with fraud. I think it was a matter of sheer bloody incompetence.
  I believe that the Government should stamp ruthlessly on fraud and on bureaucratic incompetence, but I must explain to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary my serious concerns about the suspension of ILAs where that affects courses set up under partnerships between local employers, local further education institutions and trade unions.
  I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and I am chairman of the USDAW group of MPs in the House. I describe myself as an "allied worker". USDAW totally supports the Government's lifelong learning project, and was immensely successful in using ILAs in the most practical way—to give its members access to learning.
  The union has inspired partnerships with employers and FE colleges that have involved hundreds of courses and thousands of workers. Nearly all the workers involved have undertaken no formal education since they left school. By way of contrast, I understand that about 80 per cent. of all ILA applications came from people already participating in some form of lifelong learning.
  The bids for union learning funds were often very vigorously tested, with the active encouragement of the previous Labour Government elected in 1997. The lifelong learning courses set up under the partnerships that I have described are fully accountable, and fraud cannot be involved. I shall give one example of the work that went into such a venture.
  166
  Ann Hickson was the learning representative at a call centre in Bolton that has a staff of 900. She signed up 500 staff members for ILAs. She should get a medal for that: she should not have to see all her work, and all the hope that it engendered, snuffed out. Thousands of low-paid and unskilled workers are involved in the partnership schemes. Employers supply the premises, so there is no extra travelling involved. That is important to people who work long hours or peculiar shifts. The FE colleges supply tuition and equipment, which for the most part means computers.
  The union does the recruiting and negotiates the ILAs. That ILA component has been absolutely vital to ensure that low-paid workers participate. If nothing is done to address the current situation, those people are unlikely ever to apply for courses in future. That is the main problem. They have already been difficult to persuade on to courses, and the money available under the ILAs has just made it possible for the learning representatives to attract them. I prophesy that if things fall apart now, they will never come back to learning.
  USDAW learners are new to adult learning—they are the women returners, the manual workers and those who have few or no IT skills. They are often people with basic skills needs; people with no qualifications; and people who lack confidence, do not believe that they can participate in learning and thought that whatever learning days they had were over at the age of 15 or 16, or whenever they left school. To attract such workers, the courses have to be accessible to those who have busy working lives, affordable and confidence raising.
  No doubt, the partnerships involving other unions are exactly the same, but the USDAW partnerships have cracked all those problems through the work of their learning representatives. Learning centres have been or are being set up at Littlewoods in Bolton and Oldham; at Reality, which was once Great Universal Stores, in Wigan and Widnes; at Sainsbury's in Hoddeston and Haydock; at Kays in Leeds; Elthel Austins in Liverpool; and at Tesco in Welham Green.
  I shall pick out one of those centres, which is right next door to me. At Reality in Wigan, 12.8 per cent. of the work force signed up. That figure includes 103 people on computer literacy and information technology courses; 12 on European computer driving licence courses; 18 on basic skills courses; and 18 on a Spanish course—perhaps that relates to holidays. Without an ILA, a CLAIT course costs 90 quid—beyond those people's means. With an ILA, it costs £15.99, which they can manage, and they are happy to do so. Moreover, Wigan and Leigh college says that there is a much lower drop-out rate than on college-based courses, simply because people find it easier to go to the courses after work.
  The importance of that sort of development speaks for itself, and I ask the Minister whether he would consider a transitional scheme, especially for those current arrangements, to tide them over the period between the suspension and the emergence of whatever turns up after the reassessment. Perhaps equivalent funds, supplementary to those of the union learning fund, could be earmarked and administered through the union learning fund and Department for Education and Skills team. That could run until next summer, when the courses end, or until the new targeted scheme is in place, whichever is earlier.

  167
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had little choice but to do what she has done. I am grateful to her for the account that she gave in her opening speech about the measures that have been taken to address the difficulties that have come to light and for what she said was a cast-iron guarantee to commit funding to lifelong learning schemes, or whatever they are called, in the future. However, I hope that, in replying to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will address the specific issue that I have raised and that, if he is free later tonight or tomorrow morning, he can meet some USDAW representatives who are lurking about the House and dying to talk to him about it.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is indeed an honourable Member. I am not sure whether I should say this, but I had some sympathy with his views on the problems involved with the word "choice". Many of my constituents cannot have a choice about school; they live in small villages with one school or are served by just one high school, so there is no choice. Perhaps a happier word might be "diversity", and hon. Members on both sides of the House find themselves in considerable agreement about that issue.
  It is important to emphasise that we agree that not everything is bad in education. Far from it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said in opening the debate. We must remember that there are many fine teachers in many fine schools, and they are producing outstanding results for their pupils. There is no doubt that standards have been rising for a considerable period. The continuity in policies such as the national curriculum—introduced by the Conservative Government and maintained by this Government, although increasingly prescriptively—has contributed to that increase in standards.
  There is lots to agree about, but the Secretary of State does not quite understand that the job of Her Majesty's official Opposition is to oppose. It is not our job to list all the ways in which we agree with the Government; it is our job to explain what we disagree with them about and to point out failures in their policy.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: I happily give way on that philosophical point.
  Mr. Chaytor: On the philosophical issue of the Opposition's role, does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree with the Government about the record investment in the past five years, which has played such an important part in raising those standards?
  Mr. Luff: No, I absolutely do not. I am afraid that that is totally wrong factually, and I shall return to it later in my remarks. That is one of the great Labour lies that those at Millbank peddle so enthusiastically, and it has no foundation in reality whatever. Is that answer clear enough for the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Chaytor: On the philosophical point, is the hon. Gentleman saying that that investment has not taken
  168
  place? Is he saying that, if the Conservative party was in power now, it would immediately stop that investment? Would it continue that investment? He should tell us what his philosophy is.
  Mr. Luff: I am forced to anticipate a later part of my speech. The answer is that the Labour Government managed to spend 4.6 per cent. of gross domestic product during the previous Parliament, but the Conservative party usually managed to spend 5 per cent. of GDP. The Labour party spent less, as a proportion of national income, than we did, which is nothing to boast about.
  James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: No, I must get on. There will be a section on funding later in my speech, and if there is time I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman then; he will have a chance to intervene.
  I understand the concern expressed by Labour Members about the word "crisis", which features in the motion. I asked myself whether it is the right word to apply, and I think that it is. Teachers receive a new directive every day. Head teachers and governors are drowning in bureaucracy. Teachers are leaving in droves, no matter what the Government say. There are severe teacher shortages, and they are occurring in Worcestershire for the first time.
  This is no criticism of those teaching in Worcestershire's schools at present, but I have to tell the Secretary of State that there is a real problem with the calibre of applicants for vacancies in Worcestershire, and head teachers in my constituency are worried about it. People are being appointed not because they are the best applicant, but because they are the only applicant for a job, and there is a need to fill the classroom with a teacher.
  Mr. Levitt: Surely one reason that there are teacher shortages is that the number of teaching posts has been increased by policies such as reducing class sizes to 30 pupils at key stage 1. That policy has been achieved successfully and has generated many new teaching jobs.
  Mr. Luff: I am talking about secondary schools, where class sizes are rising, not falling—one of the other signs of crisis in the education system. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said, Ofsted has warned that discipline is decreasing in classrooms. Head teachers are no longer free to expel disruptive pupils, and the Government should intervene to give back head teachers their freedom on the issue and to remove burdens from them. The ridiculous exclusion targets represent a recipe for disaster in many schools in my constituency. Moreover, there are gross discrepancies in funding between local education authorities, to which I shall refer later in my remarks.
  Ms Ward: If the hon. Gentleman believes that head teachers should have more power to exclude pupils, perhaps he will tell the House what he thinks should happen to that increased number of excluded pupils? Does he think that we should return to the policy that operated under the Conservative Government, whereby excluded pupils received very little teaching time, which increased the problem for those pupils and society generally?
  Mr. Luff: I vow to speak more briefly than those hon. Members who have spoken before me, and I am being

  169
  lured into subjects that I did not really want to discuss in detail. I have sympathy with what the hon. Lady says, as I do so often. I am not suggesting that exclusion and expulsion should be the first resort for head teachers; they should be the last resort. But head teachers should be free to decide whether exclusion is right for the rest of the pupils in their schools. They should not have an eye on what the Department for Education and Skills says should be their exclusion target. They should take a pragmatic decision, with the utmost reluctance, to expel or exclude when they judge it necessary, and those who are expelled or excluded should be sent to pupil referral units, or similar organisations, which are now quite widespread in Worcestershire. That is where the trouble-making children who can destroy the opportunities of the other children in a school should be sent. Of course, systematic troublemakers should be taught and looked after, but I do not accept that they should be included in mainstream schools. Head teachers, not politicians or civil servants, should make the decision.
  I shall try to speed up now. My point about the Government is that, when it comes to public services—whether the schools, the police, hospitals or anything—they combine the two worst strands of communism: Stalinism and Trotskyism. They are Stalinist because they are fixated with central control and Trotskyist because they believe in permanent revolution, changing the goalposts all the time with innovation for innovation's sake. That is true of all the public services in my constituency. Targets are set from the centre and the structures around those targets change time after time after time.
  The previous Secretary of State was particularly guilty of those charges. He was a directive junkie. Every day, a new instruction told teachers their job; on almost every subject, he knew better than the teachers in my constituency. He also liked telling us what he was doing. Virtually every week a new glossy publication came through the letterboxes of Members of Parliament. I suspect that those publications were not designed to encourage our understanding of education, but to further his ambition to be the next leader of the Labour party.
  Each instruction for teachers means more change to absorb. Some of the changes are small and some are large, but there is always change. No wonder head teachers despair and teachers leave the profession. Recruitment may be up and we can rejoice at that. It is obviously a good news story, but there is no point in turning on the tap if the plug is out at the bottom of the basin. That is what is happening in teaching.
  What about local accountability? The Government derided the previous Conservative Government with just cause for excessive centralisation and for taking powers away from local authorities. However, what are this Government doing? Local education authorities are, at best, an irrelevance and, at worst, a serious inconvenience for them. That is why they are plotting the abolition of LEAs as part of the move towards regional government. LEAs, such as Worcestershire, now just administer the inadequate resources that they receive from the Government. LEAs are blamed for failure and ignored when they succeed; they are irrelevant to the Government.
  170
  Ministers prefer to constrain what schools can do through increased national funding, the prescriptions of the national curriculum and a multitude of funding streams that are all targeted to achieve the Government's objectives and not those of head teachers in individual schools.
  Mr. Chaytor rose—
  James Purnell rose—
  Mr. Luff: I promised that I would give way to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell).
  James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman referred to lies about funding, but I wish to correct him. He might like to comment on the fact that funding in the last term of the previous Conservative Government went down by £100 per pupil when, in the past five years of Labour Government, it went up by more than £500. Does he not accept that his GDP figure had more to do with the growth of the economy than with the status of education funding?
  Mr. Luff: I have news for the hon. Gentleman. Governments can spend only what they can afford to spend. I think that the Chancellor might face problems in that regard in forthcoming years in this Parliament. I warn the hon. Gentleman to be careful about such comparisons.
  Who do schools report to and who are they accountable to?
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: No, I have taken nine minutes already and I promised to try to be brief.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend has another half hour to go.
  Mr. Luff: I hope not.
  Schools should be accountable to parents, governors, pupils, councillors and LEAs. Is that end of the list? Heavens—no. A local head teacher sat down with me the other day and, off the top of his head, cited a few of the other bodies to which he was accountable. They include Ofsted, ConneXions, the Department for Education and Skills, the regulations implicit in the standards fund, external assessors for performance payments, visiting assessors for head teachers and governors, examination boards, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and—because he has a sixth form—the learning and skills councils.
  I should dearly like to explore the learning and skills councils at some length, but I will not. They are a subject for debate in themselves as they are a seriously pernicious influence in that they remove a large chunk of local accountability. The proposals on their powers that are currently being consulted on are an outrage that the Government should abandon.
  Not surprisingly, the problem with all these bodies is that they provide conflicting advice. The DFES often provides conflicting advice. At present, I am aware of a case—I cannot identify it because it is too sensitive—where the advice on exclusions is contradictory. The Protection of Children Act 1999 means that the head

  171
  teacher is obliged to exclude, but circular 10/99 on exclusions means that he cannot. He is bound to break one of the Government's directives whichever course of action he takes. Such cases are repeated in area after area of education.
  We can argue about the quantity that schools receive, but where do they get it from? Head teachers want a single metaphorical cheque in the post that tells them how much they will have for the next school year. They should be able to decide how to spend it. Instead, however, there are 29 streams of funding and the complexity of some of them—particularly the standards fund money—is so great that many head teachers say that they will not bother to apply for money any more. They do not want to go through all the lines of accountability and all the paperwork to obtain a relatively small sum of money. It is a big issue and the Government need to understand it.
  I recently tabled a written question to ask Ministers how many separate funding streams there were. It was a numerical question—it contained the term "how many"—and the Minister for School Standards supplied me with a lot of words but not with an answer. I am not surprised, because I do not think that it was an answer that he wanted to give.
  I shall not labour the point about GDP, but I remind Labour Members that the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, promised in the 1997 Labour party manifesto that
  "we will increase the share of national income spent on education".
  That manifesto pledge was spectacularly broken, and it is amazing that the Government amendment to our motion boasts about raising expenditure to the levels that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The amendment does not actually say that, but that is what it claims. The Government are taking credit for getting expenditure as a percentage of GDP back to the level that they inherited from us.
  There has been a significant underspend by the DFES recently. How I wish that that underspend—it comes to about £1 billion—had been parcelled up into cheques and sent to the 40 or so worst-funded LEAs.
  I said a lot about education spending in Worcestershire in a debate two weeks ago. I accept that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) cannot respond because he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the DFES, but he accused me locally of scaremongering. I wrote to him to say that I objected to that, because all I was doing was giving publicity to a parliamentary answer that I had received from a Minister.
  Mr. Dorrell: Scary.
  Mr. Luff: It was pretty scary. My right hon. Friend anticipates something that I may say later.
  Let me provide the background to this case. Earlier this year, head teachers in my county mounted an unprecedented lobby. They were concerned that Worcestershire receives £9 million a year less than the average shire county—a big shortfall—and that results in a real problem for our schools. I have sought to be fair by pointing out that the problem has been created by both parties. In 1991, the Conservative Government introduced a formula that led to the current situation but, in 1997, the incoming Government did nothing to address the formula.
  172
  They allowed the situation not only to go uncorrected, but to get worse. The major parties should hang their heads in shame; it is a problem for both.
  Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point. He said that this Government did nothing to address the problem, but that is not true. Earlier, he referred to the increasing use of centralised funding streams, but does he not agree that schools in Worcestershire, like the schools in my constituency of Bury, North, have benefited from the use of central funding streams? That money was top-sliced from the standard spending assessment and, had it been distributed through the SSA, the differentials in funding would have been even greater.
  Mr. Luff: I will not deny that there has been a marginal change as a result of that. The fact is, however, that Droitwich Spa high school in my constituency gets £460,000 less than a school in Hertfordshire. Therefore, there is still a huge problem. There has been some tinkering, but no attempt to tackle the real issues. However, we are promised a new formula in a year or so.
  It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Worcester and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who responded to a debate in Westminster Hall the other week, are trying to turn this into a highly partisan and political issue. The hon. Member for Worcester wrote to all the schools in his constituency with a letter that he wanted them to send to parents and that he wanted the parents to send back to him. I caricature the letter slightly, but it basically said that all the problems in education were the fault of the previous Government and that the only good things to have happened in schools were the achievement of the two Labour MPs for the county.
  That stretches credibility a bit. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the wise words of the Secretary of State who said, when she opened the debate, that the previous Conservative Government were in power a long time ago. It is time for the Government to stop blaming us for the problems that they have created or, at least, have been a significant party to. More important, I do not think that politicians should take credit for things that others have done. We all know that people power won Worcestershire the limited extra £1.35 million last year. It was no achievement of any of the MPs. We all helped the campaign along and I am proud to have done that. However, ultimately, the power of the people of Worcestershire won the money for the county. It was not a lot of money—£1.35 million against a shortfall of £9 million—but it helped. I was grateful for it, but it did not exactly solve our problems.
  In the debate last week, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, whether the money would be repeated, but he ducked the question. So I drafted a written question and, for once, got an answer. The Minister for School Standards told me:
  "We have no plans to pay transitional grant in 2002–03."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001: Vol. 373, c. 531W.]

  173
  I was told in a separate answer:
  "We have no current plans to make payments in addition to these general increases."—[Official Report, 26 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 465W.]
  Therefore, I was told categorically by Ministers that there are no plans to repeat that one-off payment.
  However, in a newspaper article the hon. Member for Worcester said:
  "It is far too early to say what the financial position for the county council will be because the full government grant is not announced until December."
  With respect, I have parliamentary answers on that and I do not like it when they are dismissed as irrelevant. They should not be, although for all I know that might be how the Government think of them. When he accused me of scaremongering, I was a bit upset and wrote to him. I said:
  "You allege I am `scaremongering' about the government's refusal to repeat the special £1.35 million again in the coming year, to Worcestershire's education authority.
  The enclosed"—
  a parliamentary question—I only sent him one; I could, and should, have sent him two—
  "shows I am not, and I will take a dim view of any repetition of this claim."
  The hon. Gentleman's reply surprised me. I thought about raising it with the Chair, but decided that I could take care of myself. His letter, which is written on paper with the House of Commons letterhead, said:
  "Dear Peter
  You will take a 'dim view'. Oh, I am frightened!"—
  he has, of course, nothing to be afraid of: if we met in a dark alley, he is a good deal taller than me and I know who would come off the worse—
  "Perhaps 'dim' is the best description I have over most of your comments to date on this matter.
  Mike F."
  I did not take kindly to being described as "dim". I always thought that I was quick on the uptake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.1 I am grateful for the approbation of my colleagues.
  If the hon. Gentleman is an hon. Member, which he is, and he implies that I am dim, he must be right, so I worried about it. When I told him to stop saying that I was scaremongering and he told me that I was dim, I realised that he thought that I was scaremongering. He must believe that parliamentary answers count for nothing, or perhaps there is another explanation. I thought a great deal about the problem and realised that he was right: I was scaremongering. According to the dictionary, it means to encourage panic, and the Government's education policies in general and on funding in particular should cause panic in Worcestershire. They certainly scare me. Clearly the hon. Gentleman agrees that they are frightening. When he accused me of scaremongering, he was praising me for drawing attention to the failure of Government policy, not criticising me. I was indeed dim, and I apologise to him for the misunderstanding. I am grateful for his support for my attack on the Government.
  I finish on a serious point. I received a note today from the Worcestershire head teachers forum about its fair funding campaign for 2001–02. It runs through some of
  174
  the problems that Worcestershire schools face as a result of unfairness in the funding system. It expresses concern that it might take a long time for a new formula to be phased in and another generation of Worcestershire school children could lose out. The note states:
  "Headteachers, Governors, Parents and other groups are now joining together to challenge this discrimination, if needs be through the courts. They are to raise funds to instruct a top London Barrister to formally challenge the SSA formula in the High Court under recent Human Rights legislation. The grounds for the challenge are that the government are knowingly not treating the children of Worcestershire equally as compared to virtually all other Education Authorities. Funds are available to correct this discrimination (the DfES had over £1 billion unspent in the last year) yet the government has 'no plans at present' to correct this iniquitous and discriminatory policy."
  It is unprecedented for head teachers to club together and to produce money out of their own pockets, and to ask their teachers and governors to do the same. No public money is involved. The money is purely private to fund a legal action against the Government. The crisis is so deep in Worcestershire that those people are prepared to take that extraordinary step. I believe that they are right and I invite all the county's MPs—Conservative, Labour and Independent—to return to bipartisan politics on this vital issue and support the head teachers.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. A large number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye and time is moving on. Unless contributions are considerably shorter than they have been, some of them will be disappointed.
  7.45 pm
  Ms Claire Ward: I listened intently to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). At first, I was lifted by his recognition of the improvements that have been made to the education system. He talked about the numeracy hour and literacy hour and what contribution they have made. Unfortunately, that feeling did not last long. He is wrong to say that it is the Opposition's role just to criticise the Government. He accepted that some good things have happened in the past four years, but one would not think that from the motion on the Order Paper. It refers to the "crisis" in our education system, and to problems in schools and with our lifelong learning policies.
  It is a shame that the Opposition have not only whipped up such great fear by suggesting that there is a crisis in our education system, but have provided no alternative policies. I listened, as always, carefully to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) when he introduced the debate. He said either nothing or little about what the Conservatives would do to improve the policies that they are criticising.
  I am not saying that everything that the Government are doing has produced an education system without fault. There are things that we can and should be doing, but we should recognise how far we have come in those four years. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that spending has fallen under this Government. When we came into power in 1997, spending on education as a percentage of gross domestic

  175
  product was 4.7 per cent. In the current year, it is 5 per cent. I know that maths is perhaps a problem for some Conservative Members, but I am sure they can work out that that is an increase, and we intend to increase our spending on education to 5.3 per cent. in the forthcoming years.
  The increase in education spending has made a difference to schools in my constituency, which is why I am disappointed to see references to crisis and falling standards on the Order Paper. That does not reflect what is going on in my constituency where 77 per cent. of all 11-year-olds reached the level expected of their age in English in 2000. That is up from 73 per cent. in 1999 and compares with an average of just 75 per cent. in England. So we are doing better than the rest of the country. The improvements in my constituency have been brought about by the literacy hour and the important support that we have given to schools to ensure that standards improve.
  However, the achievements of the literacy hour are not the only consideration; the numeracy hour is also important. Some 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds in Watford reached the level expected of their age in mathematics tests in 2000. That is up from 72 per cent. in 1999. It compares with 72 per cent. for England in 2000, which has increased from 69 per cent. in 1999. Again, those figures show improvements in the standards of literacy and numeracy for our 11-year-olds. They should be recognised, because the effort has been made not only by the Government, but by schools. Teachers in my local schools have worked hard and made improvements. Although Watford is a great place, one of the best in the country, I cannot believe that it is exceptional in that respect.
  I know that the Government have done a great deal to improve recruitment levels, and greatly improved figures have emerged in the past week, but there are staffing problems. Those are due not only to a reluctance to work in primary or secondary schools, but go much wider than that. People are discouraged by the high cost of living in Hertfordshire, London and other parts of the south-east. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that there is discrimination between Hertfordshire and Worcestershire in the funding of pupils, but he failed to recognise that the costs of public services are significantly higher in Hertfordshire and other parts of the country.
  Mr. Luff: With a national curriculum and national pay scales, which costs are significantly different?
  Ms Ward: People moving to Hertfordshire face a much higher cost of living, so the costs of building and cleaning schools and hiring support staff have to be built in to the schools' budget. I am conscious that many hon. Members who represent areas that do not benefit from the additional costs allowance are likely to descend on me shortly. That is why Hertfordshire, in its great wisdom, accepts that there should be a review of the additional costs allowance, although there should still be recognition of the high costs faced by areas such as Hertfordshire. The needs of other areas should also be recognised, and those involve deprivation, as well as high costs, but if changes are to be made, Hertfordshire should not lose out simply to provide more funding elsewhere. We should aim to raise standards throughout the country, rather than lowering them by failing to recognise the funding needs of schools.
  176
  There have been great improvements in the standards of school buildings in my constituency. A great deal of work has been done, due to money that the Government have made available over the past four years. However, I say to the Government, in constructive criticism, that there is a need for flexibility in capital grants. In late September and October, I spent some considerable time visiting many primary schools in my constituency, to listen to the views of head teachers and other staff and to see how they are getting on. They were enthused, and morale was certainly much higher than Conservative Members have suggested. However, teachers raised with me the need for flexibility in capital grants.
  Some schools had reached a good standard in care and repair of their buildings, but still had money allocated to them in capital grants. They would have liked to be able to spend that money on other, more important, needs, rather than being restricted to trying to find aspects of the building that needed improvement. I ask the Government to consider that carefully.
  Schools recognise the importance of having additional funding that head teachers can determine how to use. Many have spent it on computer suites and additional classroom assistants. Many have used it to try to achieve even higher standards in the numeracy and literacy hours and in standard assessment tests. I am greatly impressed by what those teachers have done, and I take this opportunity to say that, by and large, teachers do a fantastic job in what are often difficult circumstances. We should not pretend that that is the end of the story; we should set standards to encourage teachers continually to improve their work. I know that the Department has already reviewed the paperwork sent to schools, and we are already seeing a reduction in bureaucracy. It is important that we set high standards for schools and ensure that they reach them.
  I turn now to a school in my constituency which demonstrates the great improvements that have taken place under the four years of Labour government. When I first became a Member of Parliament, many parents did not want their children to go to Westfield secondary school, and it suffered from that lack of interest early in the selection round. However, there has been a massive improvement in the school over the past four years, thanks to the drive, determination and vision of the head teacher, staff and governors. Westfield is now a specialist technology school. Pupil numbers have risen; children go there not because they cannot get in anywhere else but because they and their parents make it their first choice. That is a sign that the Government's policies are working.
  Schools such as Westfield still face problems, however. They still have more than their fair share of children with special needs. I am referring not only to children with statemented special needs but to those who are on the special needs register, who may include pupils with problems of antisocial and unacceptable behaviour. The Government need to consider how we ensure that all schools take responsibility for sharing out such pupils. Ultimately, a bias in the number of special needs pupils within a school has an effect on its results and its place in the league tables. Parents look at those factors, but they do not see all the information behind them. Getting to grips with that problem would make a real difference in my area.

  177
  The debate is an important, valuable opportunity for me and other hon. Members to say that the Government have made genuine I mprovements in schools and in higher education. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Opposition have decided to criticise our policies. Their Front-Bench spokesmen found no opportunity to welcome all the good things that we are doing or to tell us what they would do. I realise that most of them plan to scamper around Europe and find good ideas in the education systems there. This will be a good opportunity for those who are keen on Europe to develop their enthusiasm. Perhaps those who are not so keen will develop new, positive views about Europe. I hope that in their search for policies, the Conservatives will recognise that the important changes in our schools have made a difference. A partnership between teachers, parents, governors and the Government has brought about the improvements that I have seen in my constituency.
  7.59 pm
  Adam Price: I cannot remember who said that history repeats itself, but politicians repeat each other. I am sure that we all agree that we have reached the stage in the debate at which many of the salient points have already been made, so I shall try to accede to your request to keep my comments brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There have been interesting points of agreement across the Chamber, and variable political geometries formed between the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). I find that heartening, because it provides evidence that we can start to build a new consensus that challenges some of the monolithic thinking on education that has emerged from the Government in recent years. In the absence of a Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion, I invite my Liberal Democrat colleagues to support the amendment standing in my name, which makes some positive remarks about the policies of the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition Administration in the National Assembly for Wales.
  We live in interesting times. I am non-sectarian by nature, so to me the beauty of the post-devolution era is that I can attack the Labour party while at the same time supporting it. We do not have a single British Labour party education policy any more; we have at least three and if local government is included—I have in mind the work of Jeremy Beecham in England—we have four. Hearing the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raise the spectre of Marxism made me fear that there is a danger of the Government's education policy collapsing under the weight of its internal contradictions.
  It might have escaped the notice of many right hon. and hon. Members, but individual learning accounts are happily continuing in Wales, the reason being that they were not handed over to private contractors as they were in England. Instead, they were given over to ELWaEducation and Learning Wales—the public sector organisation for education and training, which has delivered the policy in close collaboration with local authorities. Therein lies an important lesson for the Government, who are obsessively preoccupied with privatisation.
  178
  It is useful to read "The Learning Country", the paving document that was published by the Labour Education Minister in Wales on the same day as the UK Government published their White Paper. It throws some of the differences into sharp relief. In Wales, the publication of league tables for secondary schools has been scrapped—we never had them for primary schools. Tests for seven-year-olds have been abolished and free school milk has been re-introduced for the under-sevens.
  That Labour paving document celebrated the comprehensive school system—and rightly so, given that that system was born in Wales. The first comprehensive school was created in 1947 in Anglesey, and I remember that in his first speech of the new Parliament the Prime Minister trumpeted the fact that Anglesey had returned to Labour. May I suggest that Labour returns to Anglesey and looks at the principles of the comprehensive education system that are being upheld in Wales? Let me quote for the benefit of the Minister—who might care to listen to my speech for one or two seconds—a comment made by a Labour Minister in the Assembly. She said "I don't believe the private sector has a role in the delivery of education". The Government's mantra in education is autonomy and diversity, and long may we see those in Wales.
  I remain concerned about England, not only because I am an internationalist who has family in England, but because the terms of the debate in England affect the nature of the debate on the future of education throughout the United Kingdom. I am particularly concerned about the constant pushing of the privatising agenda, which undermines the public sector ethos—although those are not my words. They appeared in the recent eloquent article in The House Magazine by Lord Skidelsky, in which he made the point that there was a direct connection between problems of recruitment and low morale in the education profession and the fact that over many years the public sector ethos has been undermined by moves towards privatisation—and unhelpful remarks such as the Prime Minister's director of communications talking about "bog standard" comprehensive schools, for which an apology is still awaited.
  I welcome the fact that Wales is allowed to pursue its own course in these matters. We have particular problems of our own to address—for example, the alarming gap that is developing between Wales and the rest of the UK in terms of educational attainment. More than three quarters of a million—780,000—young people and adults in Wales have severe literacy and numeracy problems. I am concerned that because of the inadequacies of the devolution settlement—the fact that we do not have primary law-making powers, nor a fair funding formula—we will not be able to deliver the separate education agenda that has been developed in recent years, nor be able to implement measures that are in line with Welsh needs and Welsh values.
  I offer a few examples. The Labour-led Administration in the National Assembly have called for the scrapping of tuition fees and the reintroduction of a targeted maintenance grant. Are the Labour Government in Westminster going to deliver on that Labour demand? We have had the Rees report, the Cubie report and the Callender report, commissioned by central Government, all of which have shown the massive problems—affecting students from low-income backgrounds in particular—

  179
  arising from the abolition of the maintenance grant and the introduction of fees. I do not need to rehearse those arguments tonight.
  It is ridiculous that we have to come to this place to ensure that there is a clause in the forthcoming education legislation that is diametrically opposed to every single value and principle currently espoused by the Labour Administration here in Westminster. The House will have to approve a clause that reflects an entirely different set of values. Would it not be a far preferable constitutional settlement that allowed that primary legislation to be dealt with in Wales by the politicians who are directly accountable in that respect?
  We are led to believe by the Secretary of State that Wales will be allowed to follow its own course, so there is perhaps a more pressing constraint: resources. Incredibly, in Wales—the part of the United Kingdom that currently has the worst educational attainment—education spending per head is lower than it is in England. Spending per head is 2.3 per cent. higher in England than in Wales, and that gap will widen over the next three years. The figures I am about to quote are not my own; they are those produced by the Labour Administrations in Wales and in Westminster. The National Assembly's education budget is to increase by an average of 5.75 per cent. over the next three years, whereas the budget in England, where educational attainment is better, is to increase by 8.24 per cent. By 2003–04, education spending per head in England will be £985, whereas in Wales—one of the most disadvantaged regions in the UK—it will be £900. Try justifying that—you will find it very difficult indeed.
  The reason is the operation of the Barnett formula, which Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, and others on your own Benches—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am about to say.
  Adam Price: Forgive my passion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is there for a good reason.
  Unless we get a fair funding formula, we will never be able to redress the balance. To give the House a example, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has recently had to inform Welsh universities that they will receive a paltry 0.6 per cent. increase in their budgets next year. They were expecting 5.4 per cent. The repercussions for the quality of education in Wales could be serious if staff are attracted over the border. The Government are short-changing Wales because of the operation of the Barnett formula. They are also short-changing the United Kingdom in terms of education.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) that education spending, even towards the end of the current triennial spending review, will still not have reached the same level as a proportion of gross domestic product as it had back in 1981–82, under Mrs. Thatcher.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to emphasise the importance of productivity. The most worrying feature is the failure to invest in education, which goes right to the heart of the United Kingdom's economic decline throughout the past century.

  It was not until 1963 that we had technical universities. That was 70 years after the Germans had created similar institutions. It was not until the middle of the 1960s that we saw an expansion of university education, the
  180
  mainstreaming of comprehensive education and the introduction of the maintenance grant. Instead of building on those gains, the Labour Government are rolling them back. I cannot understand why the generation who benefited most from the gains to which I have referred, and the party that espoused them, are turning their back on such important steps forward.
  The crisis in our education system is structural and endemic, not cyclical. It has been present for years over successive Administrations, both Labour and Conservative. I suggest to the Minister that instead of publishing the Education Bill in the next few weeks, we have an extended period of debate. We need to get things right. So many mistakes have been made in the past. We have had initiative after initiative from successive Governments, and they have failed. We need to have a multinational debate that draws on the innovation that we are seeing in the devolved Administrations. That is a debate that we must get right for the sake of all the countries of the United Kingdom.
  8.12 pm
  James Purnell: I am grateful to the Opposition for initiating the debate. It is certainly an improvement on their previous one on spin. If they are to be true to their intention to talk about public services and to reconnect with the electorate, today's debate is a step in the right direction. However, if they are to succeed in that task, they must put forward some positive policies. There was precious little of that in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and precious little about any aspect of education outside schools in their manifesto. I shall concentrate on further education for adults.
  In a way, the Opposition's lack of policies on education puts the occupants of their Front Bench in a privileged position. It means that they are safe from making a series of U-turns. However, I shall be interested in hearing about their policy on privatising universities through an endowment fund, paid for by Spectrum, when the Opposition spokesman winds up. I cannot promise entirely to understand what that policy means in practice. I am in good company, because Nick Timmins of The Sunday Telegraph, I think, described it as a policy in such a mess that it would make Harry Potter proud. Will the Opposition persist with it in their policy review? If so, I shall be interested to learn how they will fund it.
  I am also interested in ascertaining whether the Opposition will back the policy that their new leader advanced in his election campaign. He floated the idea of education vouchers to allow people to take their children out of state schools and put them in private education. I am not against the use of vouchers. The individual learning accounts policy, which has been discussed at length today, involves vouchers. It is a way of encouraging people to take up education by putting purchasing power in their own hands.
  The real question is the end to which vouchers are put. Vouchers can be used for egalitarian ends to increase fairness and to promote demand, and I think that that is what ILAs have done. The great danger is when vouchers are used to increase division. If we use vouchers in our education system, there is also the great danger that private schools will continue to refuse the Government any say over their admissions policy.

  181
  That is in great contrast to the way in which vouchers have been used in America. For example, the Milwaukee experiment, which may be the source of inspiration for the Leader of the Opposition's policy, insists that private schools that take part in the scheme allocate places through a lottery, which can help ensure that the policy is used for egalitarian ends. The danger of his suggestion is that it will increase inequality in our system and take able children out of the most difficult schools. Has the Opposition's policy review been quietly dropped since the leadership election?
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman speaks about influencing the admissions policies of private schools. If we have an assisted places scheme of the sort that was introduced by a previous Conservative Administration, it is implicit that it will have such an impact. It will have an effect on the sort of children who go to private schools, certainly in terms of their socio-economic profile. If we divorce ourselves from the private sector, there is no contact with or effect on the admissions policies of private schools.
  James Purnell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. He referred exactly to the problem with the old assisted places scheme, which allowed private schools to cherry-pick a few individuals. That meant reducing the possibility of improving the generality of state schools. The scheme benefited only the few individuals and the private schools involved.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: From that reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), it seems that the hon. Gentleman sees no way of improving state schools unless there are able children in them. Surely we have a responsibility for many less able children.
  James Purnell: I am grateful for that intervention as well, although it represents a complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. If we are to improve the spectrum of ability in schools, we must have a spectrum of ability in state schools. The danger of the assisted places scheme was that it undermined that goal.
  Neither side of the House can be proud of its record on adult literacy and numeracy. There are still about 7 million people who have genuine problems with adding up, reading and spelling, and that should shame us all. Labour Members should acknowledge that the Opposition, when in government, introduced some interesting policies in this area.
  I was reading Hansard today, and I came across a debate on these matters in 1998, which was illuminated by a contribution from the hon. Member for Ashford, who was then a recently appointed Conservative education spokesman. He made a number of interesting points. The kernel of his argument was that the Government might have good intentions but he doubted whether they would have the money to back them up. He said:
  "When we see the comprehensive spending review, we will know whether he"—
  that is the then Minister—
  "will put his money where his mouth is."
  182
  The figure that the hon. Gentleman discussed in that speech was £500 million. It is worth noting that since then the Government have put in well in excess of twice that figure. They have provided more than £1 billion. We have not only put our money where our mouth is, we have done far more than was expected of us at that time. I hope that the Opposition spokesman will congratulate us on that at the end of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made a point, in response to my intervention, about the standards fund and questioned whether that funding was genuinely reaching the education sector. I, for one, make no apology about the use of the standards fund. It is right that the Government should have a standards agenda, which was ignored for too long in the FE sector under previous Governments. That money is put to use training teachers, supporting head teachers and management training and, most of all, encouraging excellence and allowing excellent FE colleges to spread their experience around the sector and support those organisations that are failing. That is exactly the kind of targeted intervention that will raise standards and ensure that the funding formula rewards success and compensates for difficulties and failure. That is entirely welcome; I know that it is welcomed in many parts of the FE sector.
  Far from being in crisis, adult education is an area in which the Government have a proud record. There has been significant policy research in that area, including the Moser report, the Kennedy report and the Select Committee report on further education. Shadow Ministers spoke about a quiet crisis; there has been a quiet revolution in FE policy and adult education policy generally. We inherited a badly broken system in which there was competition between TECs, private training providers, FE colleges and working men's clubs. The individuals involved, mostly young people, lacked any sort of impartial advice; they were often pushed from pillar to post and took courses that were not necessarily right for them, often of low quality.
  It may not be covered by the media much, but that situation has been turned on its head. The introduction of the ConneXions service, which has been rolled out around the country, will ensure that individuals get the advice that they need. They will have a personal adviser who will be on their side and who will not try to convince them to go into a particular TEC or FE-recommended course. He or she will try to work out what is best for the individual, which is a fundamental change to the system. The education maintenance allowance, which already covers about a third of the country, will make sure that people who want to stay in education have the means to do so; people will not have to go to work at 16 simply because they cannot afford to stay in FE. I very much hope that the Chancellor will look favourably on that policy in the comprehensive spending review.
  The Learning and Skills Council was established to ensure that there is genuine strategic leadership in that area of education policy and that different areas of the system continue to work together. On top of that, the franchising system that the previous Government introduced has been reformed. It is worth pausing on that scheme briefly because, in the 1998 debate on education, the hon. Member for Ashford referred to it. As Opposition

  183
  Members will know, the franchising scheme was introduced in 1994 by the Conservative Government to allow FE colleges to reach out to parts of the learning market that they were not reaching and work with organisations in buildings outside the traditional FE sector. The scheme was controversial, and some people were worried that colleges were being encouraged to seek profit rather than concentrate on the needs of the learner. Even people, such as Helena Kennedy, who were sceptical about the scheme, decided, after looking at it that, in the main, it provided genuine benefits by increasing access to learning.
  Commenting on that scheme and the controversy about how well the money had been spent, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "The key point is not to be over-prescriptive. It is extremely dangerous to try to produce an all-embracing set of rules…The danger is that, by trying to drive out the bad, some of the good will go as well. I am sure that the Select Committee would recognise that there are dangers, and that some courses may not bear much scrutiny".—(Official Report. 6 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 767–68.]
  I congratulate him on that enlightened view. One reason that our political system has sometimes failed to tackle deep-seated policy problems is that it is difficult to innovate; if one tries new ways of doing things, a harsh light is shone on the initial stages of policy. Any failure in those initial stages is too often greeted by cries of derision and ridicule, which try to make out that the policy has been a total failure and should never have been introduced in the first place.
  When I read the hon. Gentleman's speech, I welcomed his balanced view that we should tolerate failure in Government policy, learn from mistakes and improve policy in subsequent years. I was disappointed, of course, when I heard him this afternoon, as he did not have such a balanced view of ILAs. Contributions to the debate from both Government and Opposition Members, which I have greatly enjoyed, demonstrate that there is widespread support for the idea of ILAs: it is recognised that they have brought people into learning who were not previously engaged in it. The Government should be congratulated on the fact that about 2.5 million people have taken them up. Of course, we all recognise that there have been problems with the details of the scheme, but the Secretary of State illustrated how limited those problems were; they can be solved and addressed through a better system of registration and accreditation. I agree that we can learn about how that has been done in Scotland and Wales, where there appear to have been fewer problems than in this country.
  In conclusion, I thank the Government for making it clear that they will learn the lessons of the scheme. When they introduce another scheme, I urge them to ensure that it builds on the principles of ILAs and retains at its core the principle of giving purchasing power to individuals so that there are new types of provider and purchasers' demands affect the overall system. I also look forward to the conclusion of the Opposition's policy review and their contributions to policy formation. The job of any Opposition is not just to oppose, but to make positive contributions. However, I urge them to recognise the overall success of the Government's policy, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to be proud of what the Government have achieved on education.
  8.27 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I should like to make a brief speech drawing on my personal experiences. I was chairman of a local authority education committee for a number of years before becoming a Member of Parliament.
  I followed closely the argument of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who talked about looking at the issue in the format of a school report in which there were pluses and minuses. I certainly acknowledge the pluses in my area; on the plus side, I give high marks to improvements in recent years in the provision for under-fives, which is critical. I accept that improvements in the early identification of special needs will take a long time to work through the system. I preface my remarks with that because it is vital; it has taken a long time to recognise that that is the real starting point and the basis of people's future achievements.
  We must recognise that there are problems in our education system. Some of them are fairly deeply rooted in the policies of previous Governments. Much has been said today about achieving policy objectives. One difficulty in doing so is caused by time lags, some of which I should like to identify. I shall touch on the first two briefly.
  First, it was an enormous shame that the Labour Government followed the expenditure plans of the previous Government for their first two years. That immediately introduced time lags into securing improvements. The second major time lag is in reforming the Office for Standards in Education—Ofsted. We are moving in a good direction and, having heard its new chief, I hope that Ofsted will become to teachers something positive and encouraging rather than negative and stressful, as in the past. That was one of the worst problems of all. It must be possible to improve our schools without causing quite so many nervous breakdowns.
  We must acknowledge that our teachers and head teachers are suffering undue stress. To pick up again on the time lag, the Government are about to recognise—it should have been recognised years ago—the lack of non-contact time for teachers. Every teacher to whom I speak mentions that problem. It has become even more of a problem as a result of shortages, as teachers lose what little non-contact time they have in covering for their colleagues.
  Head teachers are saying to me, "I've had to teach 80 pupils in the hall today because I didn't have enough cover." How can head teachers take on board all the initiatives, manage their budgets, in some cases make decisions about ground maintenance and goodness knows what, and manage their schools well? Of course, an awful lot do so, but the burden is intolerable and must be examined.
  Several Members spoke about recruitment and retention. I do not feel as optimistic as some Labour Members. We have problems filling posts now. New teachers are coming on tap, but we face problems today and there is no evidence that we are recruiting at a sufficient rate. We should consider some of the incentives that are being introduced. At the beginning of the teaching scale, incentives are offered to people to gain postgraduate qualifications. A threshold has been introduced, too. What about those who have been in teaching for three to seven

  185
  years? They see their new colleagues earning more than they did at the time and they have several years to work before the threshold—if they want to go for it, of course.
  Surely we must consider the matter as a whole. Let us look at the threshold and how it was introduced. How much extra stress and strain did it put on people? How much did it cost for very few teachers not to be given exactly what their head teachers recommended? Would not it have been simpler to have introduced a decent salary scale for teaching a little sooner? I think so.
  Members have mentioned the additional cost allowance. They will be aware that part of my constituency, Poole, has some of the highest house prices in the world. We do not qualify for the additional cost allowance. Trying to buy a house in millionaire's row is a real problem. In addition, building costs on the south coast are incredibly high.
  I spoke about teacher shortages. We need even more teachers because our classes are still far too large. We have made a good start in the early primary years, but we must deal with the later primary years and the shameful record of secondary class sizes. Large classes are another important cause of stress in our secondary sector.
  Even more changes are being introduced, which adds to the stress. In the secondary sector, there are proposed and actual key stage 3 changes. Was it really necessary to introduce more changes or publish another national test in such a way? Many independent schools, to which some Members like to refer, choose not to conduct key stage 3 tests, so why is it so important in our state schools? Will it not lead to conformity, rather than diversity? Are we not creating a straitjacket? I am concerned that we might lose the opportunity for children to study a wider range of subjects before they get down to the important task of studying for GCSE.
  There has been repeated mention of funding. There are two education authorities in my constituency, both among the worst-funded 40 authorities. One is the fourth worst-funded education authority in the country. My time-lag argument applies with a vengeance. We have known for years about the inequitable distribution of funding for education, yet it will be another two years before the problem is addressed. How many children have suffered and will never catch up what has been lost because of teacher and book shortages in areas such as mine, where there is serious underfunding—an average of £274 per pupil less than the national figure?
  We need transparency and openness, and we could move towards that even more quickly than the present rate of progress. The standards fund, the bids—the system is so complex. There are announcements, it is suggested that a local authority has been given funding for this, that and the other, but the funding is not always clearly identifiable—for example, the money for curriculum 2000. In my authority, we made every effort to pay our schools the money for the extra exam fees, but it could not be found in our standard spending assessment formula. There is such a lack of clarity, which I believe upsets the partnership between head teachers and the local education authority. That important partnership would be helped by clarity and openness from Government.
  I sometimes wonder how many hoops and hurdles can be invented. Surely we can make life more straightforward. I believe in taking a straightforward view.
  186
  We should praise our teachers and celebrate the achievements of all our pupils, but we must accept that we can do much more and that our children deserve much more.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Four and half years ago, almost to the hour, I gave my maiden speech in the Chamber. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who made a stirring contribution earlier in the debate, is not in his place. He had the task of following me on that occasion four and a half years ago, when he welcomed me to the House and said how wonderful my speech was. That was nice to hear from an Opposition Member.
  I shall give an update on one of the topics that I mentioned in that speech. I spoke about how the Government would be judged and what the criteria would be. I said that many people out there who were in two minds about the success of a Government would look not at the big picture, but at how things had changed in their locality. I spoke about an infant school at Chapel-en-le-Frith in the High Peak. At that time, it was a split-site infant school, with a main road through the middle of it. The building on one side of the road was rotten, Victorian, overcrowded and inadequate. On the other side of the road, there were 40-year-old terrapin buildings which were leaking, falling down and propped up. That was the symbol of 18 years of Tory education policy in the schools in my constituency.
  In that maiden speech, I made a plea that we should be judged on what we did for schools such as Chapel-en-le-Frith. Six weeks later, metaphorically speaking, a cheque was in the post from the then Department for Education and Employment. In March 2000 the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), came to Chapel-en-le-Frith to open the brand new infant school. The school was designed with infants in mind: it has low window sills so that the children can see out, and play areas in the middle of the complex so that they are safe from the outside world. That makes a difference and it is a wonderful school, which has gone from success to success. It has become an enhanced resource school, which means that it has extra money for taking on additional children with special educational needs, for whom it has become a centre of excellence. It is a success story.
  Chapel-en-le-Frith school is one of four that have been replaced in my constituency since 1997. Tintwistle primary school followed soon afterwards, and Chapel high school, the comprehensive school that serves Chapel-en-le-Frith, is being rebuilt along with public leisure facilities. It is being combined with a replacement for a special needs school. That means four new schools in High Peak in four years. If we continue at the rate of one a year, I shall be delighted.
  Ms Candy Atherton: When was a new school built in my hon. Friend's constituency under the previous Administration?
  Mr. Levitt: I have not lived in the constituency all my life, but in the 10 years that I lived there before 1997, only one school was built. Four in four years is therefore a vast improvement.

  187
  There are 65 schools in the constituency and an amount of capital expenditure that they had never previously experienced has been used for more than half of them on new classrooms, replacement classrooms and new facilities, including those for disabled children. Every school has received money for staff rooms—a necessary reward for teachers who often seemed to live in cupboards.
  I visited two schools last Friday: Newtown, which has two new classrooms and disabled facilities on both its floors, and Grindleford, where a fine, tall Victorian building has been split horizontally to double the number of classrooms. A good job has been done at both schools.
  I have been impressed with not only the extent to which new technology is being applied, but the use that is made of it in all the schools. We never considered that possible four or five years ago. Not only do teachers have computers, but they are in every classroom. Every school in my constituency is connected to the internet through the national grid for learning. Hope Valley college is the constituency's first technology college. It is a rural comprehensive school for pupils aged 11 to 16, and is 10 miles in any direction from the next secondary school. Through its technology college status, it has forged a partnership with every primary school in the valley to bring them into a common computer administration facility, to share and make economies of scale and to benefit from all the advantages of new technology. It has extra computers in its library and its classrooms. Although it is early days, it is worth pointing out the signs that investment in technology is producing.
  Early signs show that such investment is tackling the boy-girl divide in attainment. Only two years of extra investment show a significant increase in boys' attainment. They have not quite caught the girls up, but their attainment has improved. That is also true of the girls, but the gap has been closed to some extent. That is an interesting early result from the school. I look forward to monitoring it further in future.
  In 1997, Derbyshire had perhaps the worst record of key stage 1 class sizes of more than 30. It was appalling. Throughout the country, 477,000 children at key stage 1 were taught in classes of more than 30. That number increased every year for 11 years under the previous Government. We tackled class size head on. In September, not one child at key stage 1 in my constituency was in a class of more than 30 pupils. I believe that that applies to the whole of Derbyshire. That is a tremendous achievement, which brings genuine boons and advantages to the teachers, because it helps teachers to teach and children to learn, and it helps relationships, not least those between the adults and the children in the class.
  Speaking of adults in classrooms, when I was visiting primary schools last week I was impressed by the number of adults around. Although one or two were parents who had come in voluntarily to help with reading schemes and so on, there were more educational care officers and classroom assistants than I had seen before. There was an altogether more thriving mixed adult-child community than I had previously seen in primary schools, and that is being welcomed by teachers, heads, governors and everyone else involved.
  I am sure that those people will have been pleased to see what happened in the House yesterday, with the acceptance—at last, it may be said—of the new code for
  188
  special educational needs. We look forward to that, now that it has been carefully debated and the Government have gone away and listened more than once to the arguments. We now have the basis for improving special educational needs provision still further. I hope that we can tackle what I perceive to be a particular problem, which is the early detection of special needs in pre-school children. If we can pick up those problems and start to address them at that stage, we can minimise the problems not only for the system but for individual children at a later date.
  On the subject of picking up problems early, no one who has visited a primary school and talked to teachers can come away without realising that the vast majority of teachers appreciate what the literacy and numeracy strategies are doing. Those strategies have gone down very well with teachers and children, and are already leading to measurable increases in literacy and numeracy standards. They are addressing the problems of adult literacy to which my hon. Friend—my hon. neighbour—the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) referred, and the problems that have beset a generation of younger people who needed such help through the new deal and so on.
  We also have beacon schools in the High Peak constituency—schools that are recognised for their excellence. We are using the facility of the beacon schools to disseminate information and to help others to learn.
  There has been huge appreciation for the direct funding in the form of the no-strings-attached cash payments made to schools. There is, however, a two-headed danger attached to those sums. First, they create dependence. Secondly, because we raise the expectation of this additional funding, we need not only to avoid creating a dependency culture but to give assurances of longer-term funding for schools. The one-off—or even the one-year—settlement is no longer adequate. We need to examine longer-term settlements in terms of the cash payments made to our schools.
  If I cast my mind back 40-odd years, I can remember my days in nursery school. I am delighted to say that everyone in Derbyshire has—
  Mr. Willis: I did not realise the hon. Gentleman was that young.
  Mr. Levitt: It is 43 years since I was at nursery school. I am not quite sure what to make of the hon. Gentleman's remark, but I shall take it in the spirit in which I am sure it was intended.
  Children gain from nursery schools something that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. We not only have pre-school nursery provision for every four-year-old in Derbyshire, but are well on the way to having it for every three-year-old as well. I compare that with when I first started teaching in the mid-1970s. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) can have another guess at my age from that, if he likes. I first started teaching in Gloucestershire and, at that time, there were no children whatsoever in state nursery schools in that area. All that is behind us now, and it has become par for the course that education authorities, in partnership with others, should and do provide pre-school education.
  Derbyshire is perhaps the local education authority with the lowest central administrative costs, yet it has a long tradition of giving quality advice and support to its

  189
  schools from the centre at Matlock. It is also the only local education authority in the past four and a half years to have gone to the Government at the time of the rate support grant settlement, made its case and got extra funding. The £2.8 million extra that we won for Derbyshire in 1998 has been included in every budget since then. Derbyshire's position as a low-funded authority has been recognised.
  I was a member of Derbyshire county council from 1993 until 1997. In those days, councillors who were members of the education committee and the education authority had only one task to perform. Our job was to manage cuts—the cuts, cuts, cuts that were imposed on us year after year by the then Conservative Government. We have heard no apology for those cuts in the House since 1997.
  Several of the most vociferous opponents of the present SSA structure—I give some credit to them—sit on the Opposition Benches. Where were they when their Government were imposing those cuts, cuts, cuts on the Derbyshires, the Worcestershires and the Nottinghamshires of this land? They have much to answer for.
  We engaged in a very necessary consultation on the whole basis of education funding, in which parents, governors, heads, teachers, local authorities and councillors were all entitled and encouraged to participate. Derbyshire people made strong representations that we should not be at the bottom in terms of funding. I accept that, after four years of the current Government, the difference between top and bottom may not be as great as it was, and the extra funds that have reached schools via non-SSA avenues are significant. Nevertheless, there is still a pecking order, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward)—if she is present—that the justifications we have heard tonight do not wash. I hope that the problems caused by the pecking order, and the fact that Derbyshire and 40 other authorities have consistently been at the bottom of the funding league for many years, will be addressed.
  A time when more money is going into education is the time to make changes, because—one hopes—no one will lose. No one will have to suffer cuts, so others can receive more: the icing, as it were, can be spread to fill the gaps.
  As for failing schools, I think we have accepted now and again that some schools' performance is not up to scratch. I am delighted to say that one of the schools I visited last week, which I mentioned a moment ago, has ceased to be a failing school and is now clearly very successful. I am proud that this Government turn around failing schools in an average of 18 months, having inherited from the last Government a position where more than two years of uncertainty and distress was caused by failing school status.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) referred to teachers' pay, and many Members have referred to teacher supply. The hon. Lady said that the problem of teachers' pay should have been resolved earlier, and she has a point. As I recall, it was teachers themselves who, by means of judicial review or other legal moves, delayed the implementation of the present pay structure—a structure about which there was much controversy at the time, but which, like all the arrangements I have mentioned so far, has clearly settled down well.
  190
  I share the frustration all must feel about the number of people who qualify as teachers and then either do not become teachers, or become teachers and do not stay long in the profession. When I became a teacher in 1976, it was the same: those who remained in teaching for three years had passed the first milestone, and many did not make the three years.
  Last week I was at a dinner with some civil engineers who bemoaned the fact that only half those who gained civil engineering degrees went on to join the profession. I am sure that that is a problem that all industries and professions face, but with the present state of our economy there is competition for graduates. They can pick and choose where to go more than at other times. The other man's grass is often suggested to be greener.
  I make one or two comments about some of the things that are going on in education that complement what goes on in schools. I am not quite getting bored with, and I never will get bored with, being invited to open Learn Direct centres. I have opened several in my constituency. I look forward to opening more—I do not get bored with them at all really. [Interruption.] I made the same joke when I opened the last one, so they have heard it before. They offer tremendous opportunities to people to partake in education, vocational or otherwise, particularly after they have left formal education.
  The other week, I received a briefing from ConneXions, which will be up and running in Derbyshire from April next year. I was impressed with what it is doing. It is modernising and investing in the careers service, combining it with the youth service and with aspects of training, taking account of changes to the curriculum in schools with vocational education, and restoring prestige to vocational education, which disappeared from schools in the 1980s with the national curriculum. As a result, we lost a lot of vocational education, which was a vital choice for young people. All those influences have been brought together by ConneXions and I have great optimism that it will succeed.
  I turn to individual learning accounts, which after all was almost certainly the business that inspired the Opposition to table the motion. I was impressed to hear that when parents in my constituency are invited to go on parenting courses, which happens sometimes regrettably—hon. Members will appreciate that often their education has not given them of the best in the past—no less than 60 per cent. choose to do another course. Many of those have been choosing ILAs as a way of taking that opportunity forward.
  In some of those households, there is a choice. If they have £90, do they spend it on a computer literacy course or on the kid's school uniform? That is not a choice that they should have to face. They should have a right to education. The ILA has given them that right.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a good point about continuity. We know now what the timetable is for the ending of the ILAs as they currently stand. We need to know quickly what the timetable is for replacing them with something that is at least as good.
  To summarise, I am proud of what the Government have achieved in education in the past five years. I have been a teacher for about 17 years and a parent for 18.

  191
  I was a member of a local education authority for four years. I spent 40 years in education, from nursery to the time when I left teaching, with hardly a break. I take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) said about the need to have teachers with wide experience. I know what it was like in the past and what I would like it to be like in future.
  I list five issues that the Government need to take on board. The first is the ILA. The second is the SSA, which must be resolved in favour of counties and local authorities that have suffered from underfunding for many years. The third is league tables; value-added measurement in school league tables is essential, especially when we have small schools dealing with children with special educational needs. Just a few children can distort the league table result for SATs, and that is unfair on both the special needs children and the school itself.
  The fourth issue is teacher work load. I understand that an independent report is to be published later this month. I warmly welcome that, and I hope that the Government will respond positively and quickly.
  The fifth issue is student funding for higher education. From the young voters in my constituency, I understand that even those who were not considering university felt discriminated against by the very fact that there were fees to be paid, even though half the students entering university today do so without needing to pay them. I hope that the Government will consider the situation quickly—although perhaps not as quickly as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) was saying earlier—and seek to resolve it in a way that is acceptable to the majority of young people and young voters.
  I know what the situation was like in the past, and I know that it can be still better, but we do not just want better, we want best, and we will deliver it.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Boris Johnson: Relatively new as I am to the House, I have yet to get to grips with the full magniloquence of some of the speeches that we have heard. I will not try to rival some of them in length. I have been very impressed by the compendiousness of some of the speeches from Government Members in particular.
  I want to speak about a specific matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green): the imminent closure of the Henley Community Online centre. Some hon. Members may have a stereotypical view of the inhabitants of Henley-on-Thames and believe that they all have computers in their bedrooms, but that is far from the case: in south Oxfordshire there are many disadvantaged people from all walks of life, and Henley Community Online set up a very useful service for the 220 people currently enrolled with it and many more applicants on the stocks. I have a sentimental attachment to it personally, because I was there at its inception, with a couple of gigantic rabbits—people dressed up as rabbits, that is.
  Now, thanks to the Government, the centre faces closure in December, because 80 per cent. of its funds came from the individual learning accounts, on which the Government have just pulled the plug, without any more warning than an ad in the newspapers. There has been some mystification about why, if it was such a good scheme, it has been necessary to curtail it so violently. Perhaps I can enlighten the House.
  192
  If one wants to get an individual learning account one must get one's computer working and dial up the internet, fill in a form on a website and within three days one gets a seven-digit account number. One then presents this number to one's individual learning account provider. To find that provider is not very difficult: if one is fraudulently inclined one might simply look in the mirror. Lo and behold, the provider gets £200 of taxpayers' money sluiced into his bank account. I am abbreviating the procedure somewhat.
  It will not tax hon. Members' imaginations greatly to see how that system could be abused. Perhaps Government Members with memories of the trade unions in the old days, when the printworkers used to fill in forms in the name of Mickey Mouse and so on, will know what I am talking about. The pertinent question is why the scheme was set up in that way in the face of repeated warnings both before and after its genesis. The Government probably wanted to meet a quota. Broadly speaking, they probably wanted 1 million people to sign up for ILAs, but as it was, they got 2.5 million, and quite a lot of fraud.
  That fraud happened because the Government set up the scheme without the necessary safeguards. The Secretary of State said that they are investigating only 30 cases, but that cannot justify closing the scheme down overnight. I am sure that the real number is far higher. I especially enjoyed the bit when the Secretary of State said that she did not want to see a good scheme further damaged, so she has decided to destroy it instead—like the American general in Vietnam who destroyed a village in order to save it.
  I agree with those hon. Members who have said that we must have a timetable for the restoration of the system with improved—or at least, some—safeguards. In the meantime, it would be wholly welcomed in my constituency if emergency funds could be provided to keep bodies such as the Henley Community Online centre going. Otherwise, innocent and well-meaning people who have worked hard to start something up will be punished not so much for the actions of the guilty as for the incompetent way in which the Government set up the ILA scheme and the incompetent way in which they decided to close it down.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: I wish to put on the record the fact that I agree with some of the policies that the Government have put into operation since they came to power in 1997. I agree wholeheartedly with the literacy and numeracy strategies, although initially they were too prescriptive. I also agree that some funding should go directly to schools and not via the LEAs. I welcome the adjustments that the Government have made in that area.
  Despite the Government's assertion that education is a key policy, it is no secret both inside the House and outside that education provision at all levels is a mess. We have heard before and we shall no doubt hear later this evening of the considerable sums that are being put into educational provision. However, as has already been pointed out, the sum of money is no higher, as a percentage of gross domestic product, than it was under the last Conservative Government. Even after the three-year spending increase, the figure reaches only

  193
  5.3 per cent. of GDP—significantly less than some of our European partners. As we Conservatives know, it is not only how much one spends that matters, but how one spends it. That is evidenced by educational performance in countries such as the Netherlands, South Korea and Japan.
  I do not question the Secretary of State's commitment or intentions but she has several serious problems to resolve. She has inherited a debacle and under her guidance progress to date has not been promising. However, I accept that she is willing to reconsider policies that are not working and she deserves credit for having an open mind.
  I wish to draw a picture on a metaphorical blackboard to reflect educational provision in England and Wales today. Three or four-year-olds benefiting from early years education have seen 2,000 pre-school places closed since 1997. Five, six and seven-year-olds who have moved into a new area, especially a rural area, may be without an education for some time because no primary schools have any spaces, and there is no ability to expand primary school education. They may be placed in taxis and chauffeured miles from their homes and families.
  As children enter secondary school, they find that class sizes are on the increase and they often have no teacher. If they do, he or she may be a recent arrival from abroad. Disruptive pupils are encouraged to stay in school to meet Government targets, despite their impact on other students' education and teachers' attempts to instil discipline.
  By some miracle, a student reaches AS or A-level, but then discovers that he will not be studying AS or A-levels at all. He certainly will not study the traditional three A-level system. He will be aware that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has said, euphemistically, that the review is due to "teething problems". Irrespective of that, he will be blamed for not working hard enough and his school will be derided for being responsible for the present confusion.
  Friends of the person whom I am describing decide not to go on to higher education because they cannot afford it. Regardless of what Labour Members say, there is no doubt that the student loans scheme has exacerbated what was already a significant problem, with students from poorer backgrounds not going on to higher education.
  This person progresses to higher education despite the Government's current policy on student loans. He is aware that a senior Minister has described the scheme as a "total shambles" and "a disaster". He is delighted to hear that the Government will do a U-turn, but his heart sinks as he hears that the Government may replace the existing scheme with one that will require him to pay more tax over a 25-year period.
  A Scottish friend of the person about whom I am speaking has gone to university in Scotland. He studies under a system for which he has to pay nothing and which he will leave with no debt. My exemplar's parents will be asked to contribute financially to the university library to help buy books. Half way through his degree, senior academic staff will be made redundant because of funding shortages.
  Despite his experience of education, this person is thirsty to drink from the cup of knowledge and wishes to further his education and training as an adult learner. He
  194
  applies for an individual learning account, only to find that someone has fraudulently claimed his money. However, he is reassured to learn that he is not alone—indeed, that another 6,000 complaints have been made. He learns too that the Government have closed down the scheme two days after announcing that it was to expand. He is embarrassed to point out that
  "the Department is paying a heavy price for its failure to consult adequately last year".
  The person whom I am describing is so concerned by the standard of education in England and Wales that he decides to do something about it and become a teacher. He is positive about the move, and there is good news—in future, there is to be a golden hello. He is fortunate to be on the fast-track scheme, although only 111 people have been recruited at a cost of £80,000 each.
  Many of the colleagues of the person whom I am using as an example do not complete the training. Indeed, 40 per cent. will drop out before completing the course. A further 18 per cent. will leave in the first three years of teaching.
  The hero of my story sees statistics that show that in 1997, 18,600 teachers left the profession for reasons other than retirement. In 2000, the figure was 26,200. I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that some of those who leave return to the profession, but the figures reveal an increase of 30 per cent. in the numbers of people choosing to leave.
  The person about whom I speak is rightly concerned that the teaching profession is ageing. Large numbers of teachers are approaching retirement age, and there are insufficient replacements. But when he goes into teaching, he finds that morale is low and the pay modest. There is constant interference from central Government, as inordinate and unprecedented volumes of paperwork and initiatives land on his desk almost daily. There is no freedom to teach, and no discretion or spontaneity. He has no time at weekends for family and, most significant of all, no time for preparation and development.
  Teaching vacancy levels are running at 25 per cent. in the schools in which this person teaches, and there are no applicants for the vacant posts. In desperation, an acting head teacher may go to an agency to recruit from abroad, but parents rightly claim that the problem is affecting their children's education.
  Some Labour Members have said in the debate that they do not believe that Conservative Members are making a positive contribution on this country's future education policies, but I have a few suggestions.
  We should pay teachers salaries that their position and status in society deserve. We should ensure that performance management rewards good teachers and enables teachers to move into higher salary brackets without moving into management roles. In other words, we should keep the good teachers in the classroom.
  Ms Ward: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed his ideas with his Front-Bench Treasury spokesperson, just to make sure that the Conservative party could afford those increases when it gets its policies together?
  Mr. Simmonds: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As she well knows, the Conservative party is undergoing a policy review, and I hope to make my own contribution in my own personal way. However, not only am I making suggestions to those on my Front

  195
  Bench, but I hope that Ministers will listen to them because to date, since May 1997, many of them have not been picked up sufficiently by the Government.
  I should also like to suggest a reduction in paperwork. We must retreat from the centralised, dogmatic approach. In short, we must allow teachers to teach. We must consider improving coastal-strip weighting, which involves paying teachers more to encourage them to come to areas such as Skegness, which I represent, where some schools have a terrible teacher shortage because teachers will not move or travel from the midlands, where they are currently based, to the coastal areas.
  We must reassess the funding. The money must follow the pupil. I represent a constituency that has many seasonal workers, so classes can fluctuate by between 20 to 25 per cent. in a year. That creates enormous problems when the funding is based on a snapshot of the number of pupils in a school at a particular time.
  I make a plea to the ministerial team: they must allow schools to exclude disruptive pupils without penalty. The current policy is causing immense harm.
  In conclusion, schools should be centres of excellence and our education system should be one of which we can be proud, creating diversity, choice and equality of access for all. Those involved are currently weakened, confused, overworked and underpaid, despite the best efforts of the teaching staff.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I should like to thank a few hon. Members—in particular, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), who has started to voice some of the enthusiasm that we have waited a long time to hear from Conservative Members, especially with regard to higher pay for teachers.
  I thank the Opposition for the opportunity provided by today's debate. I also thank them for their conversion to spending and especially for their recognition that unions have a valuable part to play, which has been cited on many occasions. It is a pity that they did not recognise that during the 18 years when they were in power, and unions played no part in this country, but I welcome their late conversion.
  I thank all our teachers for the work that they do for our children, especially in Staffordshire, and in Tamworth in particular, because I know exactly what they have to undergo. There is a very good LEA and a very good band of teachers, and we thank the Government for the money, especially the capital, that they have provided because the teachers do not now have to run around their classrooms putting buckets under leaks in the roofs every time that it rains. We have managed to put in new windows, to repair the roofs and to refurbish our schools.
  Morale would be much higher were it not for a single fact: Staffordshire is the second worst funded shire county in this country. Although some people paint a picture of Staffordshire as a lovely leafy shire county, unfortunately it is not—we have pockets of what can only be described as urban deprivation. If we examine the standard spending assessment—and I urge the Government to do so very closely—we should seriously consider school catchment areas.
  I could take certain schools out of my constituency and put them into any inner-city area, given that 60 or 65 per cent. of pupils in those schools receive free school dinners
  196
  and 45 per cent. of the families are unemployed or on benefits. They have all the problems; they are entitled to single regeneration moneys; and they need extra staff. Although we have worked hard and well as a Government, we have further to go.
  I should also like to thank my society for my education. I always remind myself of the phrase, "If you can read, thank a teacher." I thank my society for the money spent on my education. Given where I have ended up, I sometimes wonder whether it thinks that it got value for money.
  I spent many years in education and higher education, but I overlooked one thing. I came to this place and sat on these green Benches, and I notice that through some form of osmosis—it has also happened to several of my colleagues and to some of the Opposition—I managed to acquire a PhD in hindsight. When we come here, we find it much easier to look back on the problems that we faced. I notice that an Opposition are always much cleverer than they were when they were in government. I do not know the reason for that; it is a miraculous event.
  Added value in our schools is extremely important. Although some of the schools in my constituency are not well placed in the league tables, their catchment areas pretty well determine where they will finish up. No matter how much we try to understand how the system operates, expectations and parents' involvement are important. Poverty is not just a question of money. In the most deprived areas, parents have no expectations for their children and they do not push them. Failure to tackle that problem is the biggest mistake that we have ever made, because those children are now detached from society.
  Three years ago, Oakhill school in my constituency was the 16th worst school in the country, but I am pleased to say that, since then, it has improved its results by 400 per cent. The students are now well motivated and a community education department is now attached to the school. Parents go to the school and, in some cases, they manage to keep just ahead of their children. However, they are able to take their children through education. The parents are involved and want their children to have a better life than they did. That achievement alone would justify four years of Labour government.
  Lifelong learning has been a major theme in the debate. I am an advocate of lifelong learning, and I have played an active part in it in so far as my educational career has been rather chequered to say the least. After I left school, I carried on my post-15 education at evening classes. Because my company could find nothing other than a day-release course in Birmingham, I spent seven years doing one. I spent 12 hours a day—from 9 am to 9 pm—studying mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, electronics and instrumentation and control systems. I followed that with a further four years of courses to become a graduate of the Institute of Management.
  The mechanics institutes were fine examples in that many people received their FE education through evening classes while being supported by their companies. I was supported by my company but, if I had failed, it would not have paid my fees. As an incentive, I had to pass the course.
  I was lucky enough to take a degree at the London School of Economics, and then tried to return to industry. Unfortunately, I chose to do that in 1981. When I wrote to companies for a job, I received letters saying, "Sorry.

  197
  We're shutting down and laying thousands off." I thought that I was causing the recession. I had not realised that someone had left open the door for another Government and that the then Government had a policy for streamlining Britain and its manufacturing base. That created extreme difficulties.
  As a well-educated and well-qualified person, I looked around for opportunities and decided that the best thing would be to go into education. Therefore, I took a postgraduate course and went into further education, where I taught for 14 years. I joined a team of people that was so dedicated, hard working and underpaid that it was unbelievable. The qualifications and dedication of staff in our schools and colleges, and the remuneration that they receive, is not equalled anywhere else in western Europe. Every other society gives teachers much higher recognition and pays them accordingly. We ride on their backs and get their services much too cheap. People will never stay in education until we pay them properly.
  However, those who stay in education are dedicated to the job. We have had a buoyant economy in the past few years and teachers, who are well qualified and have good skills, have been able to get jobs elsewhere. The ones who have walked have probably been right to do so because it was not the right job for them. In the recession, people were employed as teachers, especially in colleges, because they could not get a job anywhere else, and they were not necessarily the people we wanted.
  We should be thankful for our teachers and the staff who work in schools because it is an awful job. We should not try to get them to sort out society's problems. If parents cannot get children to behave outside school, we will never get them to behave in it. Their behaviour starts with the parents and in the home. Schools can only work with what they are given. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have noted my few words.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Gregory Barker: We have heard a great deal about the extraordinary chaos and cock-ups surrounding individual learning accounts, not least the point so eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). To be fair to the Government, we have also heard much about the progress that they have made, not least with the literacy and numeracy hours, which have made a welcome contribution to learning in my constituency's primary schools. However, for anyone who is sincerely interested in the education system, the reality is that something is deeply wrong at the heart of British education.
  Figures on teacher losses are beginning to read like a first world war casualty list—not my words, but those of Friday's leading article in The Times Educational Supplement. It rightly explained that teacher recruitment levels may have finally crawled back up to those enjoyed under the last Conservative Administration, but wastage before recruitment has increased by almost 40 per cent. since Labour came to power in 1997—a staggering figure. Furthermore, one in eight teachers who begin training does not complete it; three in every 10 who
  198
  do complete it do not join the teaching profession; and half of those recruited leave the profession within three years.
  One of the most moving encounters that I had during this year's general election campaign was with a young primary school teacher in Battle who worked in the local school. He was hugely appreciated by his local community and dedicated to his pupils, but simply unable to carry on in his chosen vocation because of the intolerable bureaucratic labours that were placed on him. Something is going dreadfully wrong if young teachers such as him are being driven out of the profession.
  The reality is that the Government's fine rhetoric masks a distinctly patchy record of achievement and an increasingly disturbing trend in the direction of policy. Centralisation, bureaucratic overload, directive after directive and narrow political targets are all conspiring to drive dedicated and capable teachers out of the profession. The fury of activity at the centre is doing nothing to address the problems of overcrowding, poor discipline, low morale and a crisis in retention and recruitment.
  All too often, the Government treat our teachers—who are, after all, Britain's most educated mass work force—as though they do not have the common sense with which they were born, let alone a university degree and, invariably, postgraduate qualifications to boot. Every teacher whom I have met shares the zeal of the Secretary of State, but we need to empower teachers, not constantly to second-guess them in the classroom. It is right to challenge the education sector to do better, but we cannot expect the impossible. A state of perpetual change and interference in the classroom is rapidly producing diminishing returns.
  It is not enough to tinker with existing pay scales and financial incentives to lure teachers into the profession or to entice them to stay. If the Government do not start to trust teachers more and bombard them with directives less, things can only get worse.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker), who is a true professional, finishing his speech precisely on time, which is most welcome.
  We have had an excellent debate, and it is a privilege for me to be in the position of selecting some of the edited highlights. One was when the Secretary of State told us that teachers would not recognise the schools system that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described. We have a Secretary of State who does not listen, and whose remarks were an essay in complacency. She does not believe what teachers say. She stands at the Dispatch Box and says, "I am not complacent," and every time she does so, teachers start to count the spoons.
  The Secretary of State says that no school's budget will be lower than it was four years ago, but when I tabled a question asking her to list schools with a budget lower than that of four years ago, I received the answer that those figures are not collected centrally. The Government do not know whether schools have higher or lower budgets than four years ago; all they can say is that the matter is devolved to local authorities.

  199
  The Secretary of State went on to discuss learning support units. Members on both sides of the House will have been amused to hear her say, first, that under the previous Government there were none, and then reluctantly admit to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that there was one, after he had said that he used to teach in it. Eventually, she admitted also that she herself had taught in one some years ago.
  On individual learning accounts, the Secretary of State gave us a further insight into her Walter Mitty world. There have been 8,200 complaints, but she gave the House no estimate of the scale of fraud involved. She said that the ILAs were the best scheme and the biggest success in adult learning that there had ever been. We have to ask Ministers why, in that case, it has been withdrawn. Why will they not guarantee the reintroduction of ILAs, or say when they will be reintroduced or what they will be called?
  Another highlight was the speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). We look forward to hearing from him on these occasions. He told us that he has been so busy recently that we were lucky even to see him in the Chamber. We are grateful to him for giving the House the benefit of his knowledge and experience. He accused the former Secretary of State of having lit the fuse of a ticking time bomb on teacher numbers, which proved his ability to mix metaphors just as well as the Liberal Democrats mix messages, which they are in the habit of doing.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, will shortly return to his place. He is doubtless rushing here as I speak. (Interruption.] I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. He said that his local head teachers beg him not to distribute the Hansard report of our debates because, apparently, they are so dull. A helpful suggestion is that he could shorten the text by excising his own remarks, which would help head teachers in his constituency. Having accused the Opposition of running an invent-a-crisis unit, the hon. Gentleman went on to say that there are serious problems in higher education, and that if we do not tackle them soon we will be in serious trouble. We do not need to invent the crisis; the crisis exists, and the Chairman of the Select Committee has himself acknowledged it.
  It was a particular pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) making an excellent contribution to the debate, pointing out the shambles in the financing and structure of higher education. He quoted a senior Minister who admitted that the Government's policy is a complete disaster. It was reported that the review of student finance had concluded before it had even been set up. In a thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend gave wise advice to both the Opposition and the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) always makes an important contribution to education debates. He made constructive criticism of the Government's failure to deliver more than fine words, and focused on post-16 education and the Government's failure to meet their target of increasing the number of FE students by 700,000.
  200
  It is important to dwell on the situation in further education, given that the Association of Colleges has made it clear that it, too, perceives serious problems in the Government's handling of the further education sector. The association notes that
  "there is a general sense amongst colleges that policy is drifting/absent in a conflict between No. 10/DfES, Ministers and officials/the LSC and its 47 LLSCs."
  It goes on to complain of "initiative overload"—a refrain all too often heard from those involved in all aspects of the education world.
  The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) highlighted the plight of good training providers in the ILA debacle and complained that the rug had been pulled out from under them. According to the Secretary of State, that was due to the scheme's success; none the less, those providers have been left high and dry by the ILA scheme's suspension. That situation was also highlighted by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who, in a typically entertaining contribution, raised the important case of a training provider in his constituency. He pressed the Minister for the timetable for the restoration of the ILA scheme. I see the Minister listening intently and I know that he looks forward to enlightening the House on that precise point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) focused on the Government's failure to tackle unfair variations in education standard spending assessment. He spoke of the desperation of head teachers in his constituency who have been forced to consider taking legal action against the Government by their concern that no action has been taken in four and a half years, despite the many pledges and promises of action.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) talked about the problems of the additional costs allowance, although I think that she might have meant the area costs adjustment. One relates to house prices in London, the other to house prices in Poole, but I am sure that the House knew what she meant.
  Mrs. Brooke: I assure the hon. Gentleman, most definitely, that I meant the additional costs allowance: the extra cost of living allowance that is given in the south-east—
  Mr. Levitt: The area cost adjustment.
  Mrs. Brooke: No, I do not mean that. The allowance goes towards salaries, which covers public service workers—[H0N. MEMBERS: "The area cost adjustment.") There are two things: there is an additional costs allowance and the area cost adjustment. I know which one I mean.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening, but as my mother would have said, that is as clear as mud.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) gave a compelling account of the realities of education in Britain today. He also provided a refreshing perspective on the future shape of education policy.
  However much the Government want to deny it, there are grave problems in education. The crisis in teacher morale is resulting in more posts being filled by

  201
  unqualified teachers, more qualified teachers being forced to teach subjects for which they have no appropriate subject qualification, and more teachers coming from abroad on short-term contracts. By piling more bureaucracy and interference on teachers, the Government are driving them out of the profession. To an increasing extent, heads of schools around the country are having to appoint the only applicant for an advertised post. To say that that threatens standards in schools is not to denigrate teachers; it is simple common sense.
  There is also considerable and increasing unease in schools with sixth forms throughout the country. They fear that the future of their sixth forms is no longer secure. Why are funds for sixth forms protected for only one year? Why is the protected level to be based on figures that are a year old? Why are funds to fall if numbers fall, but not to rise if numbers rise? Why are schools not permitted to make direct representations to their local learning and skills councils when they are concerned about levels of funding?
  It is little wonder that schools draw such little comfort from Ministers' assurances when so many have been forced to accommodate the costly new post-16 curriculum, which in many instances costs about £50,000 or more a year, without 1p of additional funds reaching schools. Schools are still suffering from the effects of the AS-level fiasco. Exam overload has affected students and it has also affected exam boards, leading to increasing concerns in schools about quality and consistency of marking. That is both between AS modules and between AS modules and A-level expectation.
  Further worries confront schools over the future funding of performance-related pay. The threshold funding is assured only to 2004. Will the Minister tonight reassure schools that the cost—it is frequently £100,000 a year or more for schools—will be funded beyond 2004? What assurance can the hon. Gentleman give that the upper levels of performance-related pay will be funded into the future? If he cannot give such assurances, what are the implications for morale of a performance-related pay scheme where there are no funds to reward continuing performance improvements?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford opened the debate with a serious charge of incompetence and meddling by the Government, leading to widespread, chronic and growing problems in education. We have had some outstanding contributions to the debate, and the witnesses for the prosecution have made a compelling case, proving a catalogue of crimes, including incompetence in the handling of ILAs, presiding over a crisis of teacher morale, making intolerable the lives of teachers by piling bureaucracy on to their shoulders and by falsely claiming—
  Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brady: I cannot resist the hon. Lady.
  Ms Ward: During the debate, the hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that he would try to be slightly positive and explain exactly what the Opposition's policies are. I hope
  202
  that in the four minutes or thereabouts that he has left, he will keep to his promise. I would not wish to see another Tory promise broken.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady has waited patiently for me to speak. As this is my first contribution to the debate, I have given her no assurances. I know that she will look forward with great relish, as will the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), to the fruits of the Opposition's policy review.
  James Purnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brady: We are looking forward to the review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will contribute to it, given that he offered us many interesting ideas—
  James Purnell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) will realise that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the job of Members on both sides of the House is to put questions to Ministers and to scrutinise what they are doing. In his earlier contribution, he showed a greater ability to question the Opposition than the Government.
  The Government have been falsely claiming to have increased funds for schools, when money has been sucked into local education authority budgets, leaving schools to implement expensive curriculum changes without help. The Government have been negligently failing to tackle the gross iniquities of the education standard spending assessment. The Government have been leaving drift and neglect in further education. The policy in higher education, which a senior Minister described as a complete disaster, needs to be addressed.
  We on the Opposition Benches want to see success in our education system. We want to see good discipline in schools successfully raising standards. We want also to see a fair and effective funding mechanism for students and for universities. In addition, we want to see real steps forward in life long learning. Instead, we encounter fiasco in life long learning, crisis in student finance and a collapse in classroom morale. We will continue to highlight these matters until the Government wake up and take them seriously.
  9.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): I welcome the debate, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench. I welcome it as a measure of the agreement, such as it has been on certain issues, across the House today. I welcome it also as a mark of the importance of education to all hon. Members. This is the first full Opposition day debate for a new and able Opposition Front-Bench team.
  I welcome the debate as a sign that the Tory party is set to take education more seriously. That is in marked contrast to the manifesto in June, when there was more on farming than schools and more on foot and mouth than universities. There was not a single mention in the document of further education, through which 4 million

  203
  people each year learn on a range of courses that simply cannot be found in or delivered by any other part of the education system.
  The new Leader of the Opposition promised intelligent opposition; I look forward to that in due course. We have had a full debate, in which there were 19 contributions. I shall try to group them and deal with as many as possible but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me and understand if I do not deal with them all. In particular, I will deal with ILAs, which many hon. Members mentioned and for which I have ministerial responsibility.
  The hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who are spokesmen for their parties, talked up the crisis and talked down the measures that we are taking to tackle the problem. Whatever they argue, there are more teachers in schools this year than there have been in any year since 1984. The number of people going into teacher training is 5 per cent. up on last year's figure, which was 8 per cent. up on that of the year before. Crucially, recruitment to initial teacher training courses in shortage subject areas is going up. That is good progress, but it is not good enough; we are conscious that we still need to do more.
  Those two hon. Gentlemen mentioned pressure and bureaucracy in schools, as did my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds). The Government are acutely aware of the pressures of paperwork in schools, and are therefore acting to simplify the funding system—the standards fund is an example. We are allowing greater flexibility in how such funds can be spent by schools and, of course, we have agreed to review teachers' work loads in recognition of the fact that we must free up their time to allow them to concentrate on what they do best: teaching and preparing lessons. Some of the pressure on schools comes from initiatives, such as the literacy and numeracy strategy and individual target setting, that are essential and have strong backing from parents and staff. Our job is to make sure that teachers get the support that they need to implement them properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) spoke about the differences that the level of resources is now making in schools in her constituency. My hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) also spoke on that. I see the same thing in schools in my constituency such as Thrybergh Fullerton Church of England junior school, which I visited on Friday. The fundamental point is that there has been a real-terms increase of £360 per pupil since the year before the election. I am staggered that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that a significant number of schools in his constituency are getting less money now than in 1997; I challenge him to give me the names of those schools.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke from experience, as he always does, about his concern about further education and prioritising resources for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield spoke about the importance of the sector. The hon. Members for
  204
  Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough both spoke about a drift in policy in further education. I fail to recognise that description.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  John Healey: No, I am sorry. I am short of time.
  Some £527 million more was earmarked for further education this year via the Learning and Skills Council, and a real-terms increase is due next year too. New initiatives have been announced, such as that on the first 16 centres of vocational excellence, with the target by 2004 of half of all general FE colleges becoming such centres. There are now 47 local learning and skills councils, which will periodically review each college in their areas. Strategic plans are being prepared about the needs of their areas, and budgets will be flexible from April to allow them to reallocate, in consultation with colleges, across their mainstream budgetary provision. I recognise that schools have come first since 1997, but further education is following. Investment and initiatives in the sector are substantial.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield spoke eloquently about the importance of universities. As he argued, they bring innovation and wealth as well as learning to the regions and local areas that they serve. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that university and student support was one of his main concerns, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire said that his serious criticism was that the Government have significantly altered the number of youngsters from working-class backgrounds entering higher education. That is one of our reasons for reviewing student funding policy. I am glad that he recognised and welcomed that.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) agreed with our objectives but disagreed with our means, although he seemed to disagree more with the content of the Conservative manifesto published in June on university endowments, which he described as a Father Christmas policy. I shall take his constructive comments as representations to the review.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West, for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) and for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) and the hon. Member for Daventry reminded us of the importance of adult basic skills—an overlooked part of the education and learning system. I say to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) that I shall look at the position of the Henley Community Online centre.
  On individual learning accounts, I say first and very clearly that I welcome the questioning in this Chamber on the matter. It is part of the proper role of Parliament that Government policy decisions and actions are scrutinised in this House, but I want to ensure that we get the figures straight and that hon. Members have a proper perspective of the problem. I want the House to be clear about the complaints that we have received, the proportion that relate to abuse and how few relate to fraud.
  By the end of July, a full 10 months into the running of the national programme, the ILA centre had dealt with 1.5 million ILA account holders and received 3,096 complaints. Two months later, after one year of the scheme, the figure had doubled to 6,053 complaints. By the end of October, the number had risen to 8,448—in a programme of 2.5 million account holders.

  205
  There has been a significant increase in complaints since the summer, but that must be set in the context of the scale of the scheme. Only a quarter of those 8,448 complaints were about misuse, mis-selling or potential fraud. Other complaints related to matters such as the operations of the ILA centre, discount for particular courses, the late arrival of ILA packs and even requests to backdate ILA membership.
  Those non-compliance complaints relate to 404 registered learning providers. The majority of those have had one or two complaints against them. However, there are currently 84 registered learning providers about which we have had a larger number of complaints and about which we have more serious concerns. In respect of all those, we are already carrying out or considering special investigation action. In each case in which we identify evidence of fraud, we involve the police. To date, there have not been 279 learning providers investigated by the police over alleged fraud: to date, the police have made 30 arrests in England, involving just four learning providers.
  Mr. Brady: If the problem is as small as the Minister suggests, why have the Government suspended the scheme?
  John Healey: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard, where he will see that the figures indicate a problem on an increasing scale since the summer. People will always try to abuse or even defraud any large-scale publicly funded system. Let me remind Opposition Members about TECs. The National Audit Office estimates that in the last decade of their operation, about £100 million was overspent by them—money that went to training providers for training that was not provided.
  The critical test of such schemes is whether the Government monitor them closely, act on abuse and deal with the problems in good time. Contrary to the accusations of Opposition Front Benchers, we have acted to give learners the advice and information that they needed, and to alter the system. We could not stamp out the abuse of the system, so we acted to withdraw the programme. We were right to do so to protect individuals and the proper use of public funds.
  Finally on individual learning accounts, the hon. Member for Ashford accused me and colleagues of ignoring ILAs and the associated problems. May I tell the House how many parliamentary questions were tabled by the Opposition from the time of the election until 24 October, when we withdrew the scheme'? One—one parliamentary question, asking about the number of ILAs opened.
  I welcome the comments of my hon. Friends about the impact, innovation and influence of individual learning accounts for thousands of new learners. Many aspects of the ILA model have proved popular and effective in encouraging people to take up learning, and in reaching people who had not done any learning for some time. We want to overcome the problems in the way in which the system was operated and build on the success of the ILA policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that our commitment to enabling access to lifelong learning is cast iron, and that we will introduce a further scheme.
  206
  We are proud of the Government's achievements in our first term of office. Last week, we published a strategic framework for our Department that takes us through to 2006. In that document, we set out clear aims, creating opportunities for everyone to develop their learning, releasing people's potential to make the most of themselves, and achieving excellence in standards of education and levels of skills across the board.
  We have set ambitious targets, which include, for children, access for every three-year-old to a free nursery place; child care places for 1.6 million children; and taking key stage 2 results beyond the 2002 target. For young people, the targets include getting 75 per cent. of 14-year-olds to achieve level 5 English, maths and information and communications technology, and helping 55 per cent. of 19-year-olds achieve a level 3 qualification. We aim to reduce by 750,000 the number of adults with literacy and numeracy problems by 2004.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 316.

  Division No. 49]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allan, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Amess, David

  Conway, Derek

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bacon, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Baker, Norman

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Barker, Gregory

  Doughty, Sue

  Baron, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Barrett, John

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Boswell, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flook, Adrian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brady, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brake, Tom

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Breed, Colin

  Francois, Mark

  Brooke, Annette

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burnett, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burns, Simon

  Goodman, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Gray, James

  Burt, Alistair

  Grayling, Chris

  Butterfill, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cameron, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cash, William

  Hammond, Philip

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hancock, Mike

  Harvey, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David

  207

  Hermon, Lady

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hoban, Mark

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Horam, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lamb, Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Leigh, Edward

  Stunell, Andrew

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Swire, Hugo

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thurso, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tyler, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Watkinson, Angela

  Oaten, Mark

  Webb, Steve

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Whittingdale, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wiggin, Bill

  Ottaway, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Page, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Paterson, Owen

  Willis, Phil

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilshire, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prisk, Mark

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Yeo, Tim

  Randall, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blackman, Liz

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baird, Vera

  Brennan, Kevin

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Benton, Joe

  Burden, Richard

  Berry, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Best, Harold

  Burnham, Andy

  208

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Cairns, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Havard, Dai

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Heyes, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hurst, Alan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  David, Wayne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Joyce, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lammy, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  Lucas, Ian

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Luke, Iain

  Galloway, George

  Lyons, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  209

  MacDonald, Calum

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  MacDougall, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheridan, Jim

  McWalter, Tony

  Simon, Siôn

  McWilliam, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mann, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Marris, Rob

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Southworth, Helen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Martlew, Eric

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moran, Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Julie

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Tami, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Timms, Stephen

  Norris, Dan

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Todd, Mark

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Organ, Diana

  Truswell, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Picking, Anne

  Tynan, Bill

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Plaskitt, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watson, Tom

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Price, Adam

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Purnell, James

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Wood, Mike

  Rapson, Syd

  Woodward, Shaun

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Roy, Frank

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruane, Chris

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Ruddock. Joan

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 190.

  Division No. 50]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  David, Wayne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dawson, Hilton

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bailey, Adrian

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Baird, Vera

  Dobbin, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Drew, David

  Benton, Joe

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Edwards, Huw

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Borrow, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Burnham, Andy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clelland, David

  Havard, Dai

  Clwyd, Ann

  Healey, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hendrick, Mark

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corston, Jean

  Heyes, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cranston, Ross

  Hinchliffe, David

  Crausby, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  211

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Organ, Diana

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Hurst, Alan

  Owen, Albert

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Joyce, Eric

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Purnell, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lammy, David

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lucas, Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  Luke, Iain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lyons, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheridan, Jim

  McCabe, Stephen

  Simon, Siôn

  McCafferty, Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacDonald, Calum

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McKechin, Ann

  Southworth, Helen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  McWalter, Tony

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stevenson, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mann, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marris, Rob

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Tami, Mark

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Merron, Gillian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Miller, Andrew

  Timms, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moffatt, Laura

  Todd, Mark

  Moran, Margaret

  Trickett, Jon

  Morgan, Julie

  Truswell, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mountford, Kali

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Tynan, Bill

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Norris, Dan

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Watson, Tom

  O'Neill, Martin

  Watts, David

  212

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Tony McNulty.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Allan, Richard

  Gidley, Sandra

  Amess, David

  Goodman, Paul

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Grayling, Chris

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baker, Norman

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Barker, Gregory

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Baron, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Barrett, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Bellingham, Henry

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Hermon, Lady

  Brake, Tom

  Hoban, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Holmes, Paul

  Brooke, Annette

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burnett, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Key, Robert

  Cameron, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cash, William

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chope, Christopher

  Lamb, Norman

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Laws, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Conway, Derek

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Luff, Peter

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Doughty, Sue

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Flight, Howard

  Moore, Michael

  Flook, Adrian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Oaten, Mark

  Francois, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Öpik, Lembit

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  213

  Page, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Paterson, Owen

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Prisk, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pugh, DrJohn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Randall, John

  Thurso, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Viggers, Peter

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  Whittingdale, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wiggin, Bill

  Selous, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Willis, Phil

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Swire, Hugo

  Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that by 1997 the education system had suffered from 18 years of neglect, schools funding had been cut, nearly half of 11 years olds were failing to reach expected levels in maths and English, teacher numbers had fallen by 30,000, nearly half a million infants were in large classes and roughly seven million adults suffered from inadequate basic skills; welcomes the substantial progress made since then, including: education spending rising as a share of GDP to 5 per cent., record results at Key Stage 2, 11,000 more teachers in schools and infant and primary class sizes reduced; further notes that recruitment to initial teacher training rose by 5 per cent, last year, the second year's rise after eight years of decline; supports the Government's plans for continued investment in and reform of education, and its central goals of transforming secondary education to ensure higher standards for all, giving more people the chance to learn; further supports the Government's pledge to expand higher education so that 50 per cent, of 18 to 30 year olds can benefit from higher education by 2010; welcomes the announcement of a review of the student support system in the light of this recent pledge; recognises the success of Individual Learning Accounts, while understanding the necessary public interest case for suspending them; and believes that the Government's education policies form a coherent and radical programme that will deliver its ambitious targets and move the education system away from the neglect and waste of individuals' talents between 1979 and 1997.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 3 to 7, relating to international immunities and privileges.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
  That the draft Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 8 to 13, relating to Northern Ireland.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Amendment of Enactment) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.
  PRISONS
  That the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organizations) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3411), dated 12th October 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2884), dated 10th August 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th August, be approved.
  That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 2895), dated 11th August 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th August, be approved.
  That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Suspension of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3230), dated 21st September 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th September, be approved.
  That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) (No. 2) Order 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3231), dated 22nd September 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th September, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3390) dated 10th October 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th October, be approved.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  Question agreed to.

Cleansing Services Group (Sandhurst)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.31 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate, in which I want to call for the closure of a dangerous chemical works in my constituency following an explosion at the site. I want to call also for a public inquiry into the incident at the site, and into the performance of the relevant agencies in monitoring the site's activities.
First, I should like to thank the Minister for the Environment, who has been very helpful and has met me several times to discuss the matter. He cannot be present tonight, unavoidably, but I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who will respond to the debate and who I know is up to speed with the issue.
Cleansing Services Group is a chemical treatment plant. Incredibly, it was built on a flood-plain in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire, in my constituency. The company has been a very bad neighbour. It has shown a disregard for the environment and local residents, and for the area's amenities. For many years, bad odours have escaped from the site, and heavy lorries have troubled neighbours.
Many complaints have been made to the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the county council about the site's activities over the years. The fact that those complaints have been largely ignored has given rise to this debate. I shall describe the incident that took place, and its seriousness, in a few minutes. If the agencies had listened to the complaints and acted accordingly, it is possible that the incident would not have happened.
I visited the site twice. On the first visit, I was denied a tour, and was shown only certain areas on my second visit. I was not shown the dangerous area, but I came away with stinging eyes and a tight chest. I reported that to the agencies concerned.
An employee at the CSG site, Kevin Harris, was sacked for refusing to carry out certain dangerous duties. He took his case to an industrial tribunal, and won. Again, the relevant agencies were aware of this.
Similar complaints were made over many years. Just over a year ago, on 30 October 2000, a major explosion took place at the site. That surprised no one, but it affected a great many people. Two people had to be detained in hospital and there were many on-going health problems. People in neighbouring villages were affected. Large parts of Sandhurst village were evacuated, and people had to stay in hotels for many days.
If that was not bad enough, the entire site flooded—I noted earlier that it was situated on a flood-plain—and a major clean-up operation ensued. Worryingly, Gloucestershire fire and rescue service said that it would have been unable to tackle the fire if flood and fire had coincided.
Furthermore, the acting chief officer of Gloucestershire's fire and rescue service wrote to the chief executive of the Environment Agency on 9 November 2000. He stated that
"should a further incident occur at the site, GFRS will need to take a decision whether, in the circumstances, to expose fire fighters to extraordinary risks. No assurance can therefore be given that GFRS
216
will commit its fire fighters to dealing with an incident at the site, if the current hazardous situation is not cured by the Environment Agency under its powers".
There can be no doubt that the responsibility for the explosion lies with the company. That site is a terrible place to work, or even to visit. The company has shown scant regard for the community, and certain staff at the site have shown great arrogance. One manager told me that he did not even know that the site was on a flood-plain—an incredible statement. The company should be investigated, especially with regard to the operation of that site, and the site should be closed down by the Environment Agency or by the Minister. That is the first point that I want to make in this Adjournment debate.
Mr. David Rendel: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a CSG site in my constituency, just south of Newbury. Given that he has just said that the company is so irresponsible that its site in his constituency should be closed, does he agree that it would be wrong for the site in my constituency to change from being a comparatively low-level waste site to one that deals with toxic waste, with all the dangers to my constituents that he has unfortunately met in his?
Mr. Robertson: I certainly agree, and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall make a main point about that in a moment.
The second point that I want to make is that the agencies—the Environment Agency, the HSE and the county council, all of which are paid by the taxpayer to protect us—are supposed to monitor the site, but they have singularly failed to do so, despite having received very many warnings about it.
The main purpose of this Adjournment debate is to call for a public inquiry into the incident and into the performance of the agencies' monitoring of the site beforehand and, indeed, afterwards. I have met the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment a number of times, and I have even raised the issue with the Prime Minister, but, as yet, no decision has been made on a public inquiry, even though a year has passed. I should like to consider the performance of the agencies to explain why such an inquiry is necessary.
The Environment Agency was warned over many years by many people—residents, councillors and myself—that the site was dangerous, but it took inadequate notice and inadequate action, seemingly making excuses for the company. Since the explosion, the Environment Agency seems interested only in avoiding a court case. It did issue a suspension notice, but it has recently replaced it with a more lenient one.
Again, to quote the acting chief officer of the Gloucestershire fire and rescue service, the Environment Agency was "pedestrian";
"delayed providing info to gold control",
which tried to control the incident;
"were looking to protect their corner";
"erred on the side of their own safety";
"demonstrated a great naivety"; and had

"a primary concern that they will lose a case in the courts".
Those are quite damning words.
The Environment Agency was warned many times of the dangers of the site, but, amazingly, it now seems to be allowed to investigate itself. It is also being allowed to

217
investigate the site. It therefore has a disincentive to discover the full extent of problems, because it was responsible for monitoring the site. That totally disserves the public and taxpayers. The Environment Agency should be subjected to a full, independent public inquiry.
In 1978, the county council granted planning permission for the treatment of waste oils and oily wastes—a change of use, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The council now admits that
"without planning permission, unauthorised change of use for the site, from a plant for the treatment of waste oils and oily wastes to an integrated waste chemical transport plant has occurred".
Instead of waste oils and oily wastes, Cleansing Services Group has stored BSE-contaminated material, highly flammable chemicals, corrosive chemicals, irritants, oxidising chemicals, explosive chemicals, toxic chemicals, chemicals that release toxic gases and carcinogenic chemicals. Yet no one noticed, or did anyone?
The county council became aware of the problem in 1998—two years before the explosion took place—yet no action was taken. When did the Environment Agency know? How was it able to continue to issue operating licences when the company was in such serious breach of its planning permission? Did not the Environment Agency and the county council ever talk to each other? I understand that the county council is now to be investigated by the local government ombudsman, but it too should be subject to the rigours of a public inquiry.
The HSE was aware of the incident involving the sacked employee, but it was described by the Gloucestershire fire and rescue service as being "less than helpful" and, amazingly, the service said that
"they engaged in dubious health and safety practices."
I am afraid that the health authority has also not covered itself in glory in most people's eyes following the incident.
The Environment Agency and the HSE have been commissioned to produce reports, but so what? People will not and cannot be satisfied if agencies are allowed to investigate themselves—it is a joke. A full independent public inquiry is the only way to investigate fully the incident and the performance of the agencies.
It could be that the agencies need more powers or it could be that they did not exercise their powers properly. If there is not a full inquiry the question remains: are these quangos any use at all if they perform like this? Either way, the residents of my constituency have a right to know the truth and have a right to expect the agencies to do the jobs that they are paid to do.
Internal investigations cannot be the sole method of inquiry. Indeed, I understand that the Government are rightly considering how to make the investigations of complaints against the police more independent. I applaud that strategy, but I ask the Minister to apply the same philosophy in this case; otherwise people's faith—or lack of faith—in the democratic process will be further frustrated and their concern about government by quango will be fuelled.
People see nothing as being anyone's fault any more; no one wants to take responsibility for anything. On a wider point, I suggest that that is one of the reasons for voter apathy, which is dangerous.
218
I have raised a big issue that affected my area greatly. I presented a petition to Parliament with 2,100 signatures, calling for the site to be closed. The effectiveness of the agencies is a wider matter.
To summarise, the site should be closed and a full independent public inquiry should be announced. At the time of the incident, all six Gloucestershire MPs representing three political parties called for such an inquiry. Two of them are here tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three."] Three of them are here, so all three political parties are presented. I assume that they have not changed their minds about calling for a public inquiry. I ask the Minister to announce that action tonight.
10.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on obtaining the debate and on the way in which he has made the case on behalf of his constituents. I know that there is considerable concern about the company. As he rightly said, we are joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made pertinent points about the activities of the company in his area, and I shall come to them shortly. We are also joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), whose constituency contains Flixborough, where a major chemical works was involved in a serious fire and disaster some years ago. He will be aware of the problems involved in this case.
I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I confess that I was surprised to learn that the company did not show him around the facility. That was not an unreasonable request for the local Member of Parliament to make, and I would have thought that it would have been met.
The fire was serious, but its exact cause is not known. It is likely to have been caused by a chemical reaction or, possibly, even by arson. I am well aware of the floods that took place in the area, and I visited it. At that time, the issue of the floods and the factory was raised with me, and this case is an example of the need for the careful consideration of developments on flood-plains. Even though permission was granted for this development, I hope that the lessons will not be forgotten when other developments are considered.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the company is under investigation by the Environment Agency and the HSE. Its operating licence has been suspended and the Environment Agency intends to modify CSG's operating licence. I accept what the hon. Member for Newbury said about how some of the issues raised relate to his area, and local planning authorities, the Environment Agency and the HSE need to examine them carefully before the company's activities are extended. I am sure that that will happen.
Mr. Rendel: The Minister may not know that, sadly, planning permission for the site in my constituency was granted just two days before the explosion in Sandhurst. It is now a matter for the Environment Agency.
Mr. Morley: I understand that planning permission was granted on appeal in 1996. Nevertheless, the issues

219
are important and I am sure that the Environment Agency will take them into account because it is responsible for the operating licence.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who commissioned three reports that have been published. The first was an interim report on a joint investigation by the agency and the HSE under COMAH—the control of major accident hazards regulations. The final version of the report, with a report on prosecution, is expected shortly. He will appreciate that the investigation is complex. I am glad that it has received the support and co-operation of local residents who are worried about the problem. My hon. Friends are also concerned, and it is right that those are taken into account.
The second report was the final report of a quality assurance review of the agency's regulatory actions in relation to the site. The agency has advised that it is on schedule to implement the actions arising from that report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. The third commissioned report to be put in place is the final report of a review that was carried out by the HSE as part of its major incident handling procedures. My right hon. Friend has taken those significant actions in response to the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
I fully understand the deep concerns of local residents about the incidents at the site and their desire for a public inquiry. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are considering that in the light of the latest progress report into the joint investigation of the incidents by the Environment Agency and the HSE, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the Minister accept that the Environment Agency has a great disincentive to discover too much about the site because it was responsible for monitoring it? He should not base a decision on what the agency discovers. The analogy that I gave of his Government's concern about the police investigating themselves is perhaps a better guide.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about self-regulating organisations. However, in the Environment Agency's defence, I was greatly involved in the problem of flooding. Although its regulation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I am aware that it identified the drums of BSE-contaminated waste. It made that fact public, took immediate action to make them safe and suspended the licence. Although he is entitled to raise those concerns,
220
the agency's response was rapid and efficient. We should acknowledge what it did to secure the site and ensure that his constituents' interests were safeguarded from a potential threat.
I accept that there are issues that need to be examined carefully. I know that the Environment Agency intends to modify CSG's licence so that there will be no use of the transfer station, which is where the fire occurred, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. The company will not be allowed to use the large and small treatment wells until it has met new licence conditions. Those activities will not be allowed to commence unless the company can show that it can do so without giving rise to pollution of the environment, harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenity of the locality, with particular emphasis on fire and flooding. The hon. Gentleman will know that full recommencement of activities has not been approved by the Environment Agency.
In reply to the intervention by the hon. Member for Newbury, I can say that the points that he made are exactly those that I would expect the agency to consider in relation to any operating licence.
We have been assured that the Environment Agency understands the concern felt by the local community about the resumption of any activity on the site. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole and for Forest of Dean have made clear people's concern about earlier activities. The agency also understands residents' lack of confidence about what has happened to date. It is consulting widely on its proposals to ensure that the views and concerns of local residents are taken into account.
We understand that there are legitimate concerns about what happened on the CSG site. That is under detailed investigation by the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Powers to revoke site licences are limited, and a licence can be revoked only if the holder is convicted of an environmental offence, if the agency no longer considers the person to be fit and proper to run the site or if pollution or harm to human health cannot be avoided by modifying the licence conditions.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has, rightly, asked pertinent questions about whether those conditions can be met. The agency needs to take those issues seriously. I am sure that his concerns will be reflected in the investigation, and taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in deciding whether a public inquiry should take place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Small Business (Regulatory Burden)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. Mark Prisk: I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak about the needs of small businesses and the burden of regulation that they bear. I initiated the debate for three reasons. First, I spent the whole of the past 10 years running my own business, before coming to this place in June, so I hope that I can bring a practical rather than a theoretical or academic approach to the subject of the needs of small firms. If I have learned one thing, it is that small businesses are not so much about the bottom line, the economy and finance; they are essentially about people. That difference is crucial.
My second reason for securing the debate is that, in my constituency, small businesses generate a much larger proportion of the local wealth and jobs than is usual in most constituencies. In most of the market towns and villages in my constituency, the small firms, entrepreneurs and local tradesmen provide the goods and services on which most of my constituents rely. That is one reason why I established the East Hertfordshire Business Forum at the beginning of last year, with the express intention of providing practical help for local businesses. I am pleased to say that one of our initiatives, the prompt payment commitment, is directly tackling the scourge of late payment of bills.
My third reason for raising the issue of small businesses is that we need to speak up for small businesses now, more than ever. We must reduce bureaucratic burdens and lower financial hurdles, because it is at a time such as this, as the economy falters, that those enterprises will help us avoid a long and lasting recession.
Those who refer to small business may be unclear in their mind as to what it is. All politicians and all members of the media happily use the phrase to cover a wide variety of enterprises and work. The first example that I shall give of a small business is that of someone who is self-employed, a sole trader or a freelance. There are now 4 million self-employed people in Britain. Sadly, the Government's determination to push through the IR35 proposal has badly undermined their expectations about working in this country. In the few days since the announcement of the debate, I have received dozens of e-mails, letters and representations about the concerns of that group. One of my constituents, Mr. Paul Granger of Hovecraft Services, based in Bishop's Stortford, cites the iniquity of the tax burden placed on him by IR35. He concludes:
"we do not want employment rights or any special treatment—we want to be left alone to get on and run our companies, many of which are at the cutting edge of technology."
2WH
My second example of small business is the microbusiness. Such businesses are usually partnerships or companies that employ up to 10 staff. They make up the vast majority of the shops and local tradesmen upon which we all rely. For them, the marginal cost of employing people is critical in determining whether they can survive as a business. Another example from my constituency is that of Mrs. Moy, a newsagent in Hertford—we have many excellent newsagents—whom I met. The new regulations regarding rights for part-time staff have effectively doubled her staffing costs; however, she has no prospect of being able to recoup those costs.
Once we have talked about the self-employed and microbusinesses, it is only then that we come to what most people think of as a small business: a limited company, usually employing between 11 and 50 people, which is often a family business in manufacturing or the service sector. All those forms of enterprise—whether self-employed, microbusiness or small, and whether they operate as a limited company, partnership or sole trader—are distinct. The failure of Governments, at all levels over the years, to distinguish accurately between the different types of enterprise is one reason why so many Government policies, well intentioned or otherwise, prove disastrous in practice.
Small businesses in all their forms are vital to the economy and community. They provide almost half of all private sector jobs and many local services, particularly in deprived or rural areas where large companies will not venture. They often create the innovative approach to a market, a good example being Mr. James Dyson and his attempts to revolutionise the vacuum cleaner market when other companies saw it as mature and stale. Small businesses offer also a message of hope. It does not matter who people are, their background or education, their colour, creed or race; if they have the ability, ambition and will to work, they can be their own boss and make their own way in the world. Looking at what the organisations that represent those firms have said, that message is one to which an increasing number of people aspire.
Sadly, today small businesses are struggling. The result is that our national competitiveness is falling away rapidly. In 1997, we were the ninth most competitive nation in the world; today we are the 19th, and I believe that that position is under question. Why is our nation's economy failing to compete? Whenever I talk to my constituents and small businesses, or examine the regular surveys by the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business or the Small Business Bureau, I conclude that the answer is always the burden of regulation. We are facing a rising tide of regulation domestically and from the European Union. Last year alone, a record 3,865 regulations were passed. The sheer volume of those rules, the systems that underpin them and the time and money costs of implementation mean that small businesses are struggling to keep ahead.
It might be said that one year of record regulations is not the end, but the problem is not just one year. It followed on from a £15 billion cost of additional red tape, which the British Chambers of Commerce cited as the cost of Labour's first four years in government. If the volume of regulations were not bad enough, the Government compound the problem by the way in which they are introduced. There is often little warning

3WH
or preparation time. Several businesses in my constituency cited just three weeks as the time that they had in which to deal with all the national minimum wage information. The rules are sometimes contradictory, and now we find that small businesses are no longer expected simply to abide by regulations and rules, but are expected to administer them.
As I was a small business man, I know that we have been unpaid tax collectors for many years—for value added tax, for example. Now we are expected to be the unpaid benefits office, given the raft of new payroll regulations. The stakeholder pension scheme has a recurring administrative cost of £15 million, and the working families tax credit scheme has an annual cost of £105 million. The student loan repayment scheme has recurring costs of £210 million, and the national minimum wage has costs to business of £330 million, not including extra money that goes into people's pay packets. Those are not my figures; they are not even the figures of the British Chambers of Commerce. They are the Government's figures. I shall take one example from that list to explain how small businesses are directly affected. When the Government originally costed the working families tax credit, they allowed £40 million for one-off set-up costs, followed by £105 million per annum for recurring costs to business. Some people said that those were quite small, and reasonable costs compared with those of the European social chapter, although I was not convinced.
However, the Government and some experts failed to recognise that payroll compliance costs always hit the smallest firms hardest. Indeed, the Government's own better regulation taskforce said not only that the scheme directly hit small firms' cash flow—the lifeblood of any business but £25 million of compliance costs fell on the smallest firms, which employ just one to four people.
Perhaps worst of all is the fact that, according to Lord Haskins's report,
"only £10m of the estimated … £25m cost to the smallest businesses … is related to those employers who will actually employ a WFTC applicant. The remaining £15m represents the time spent by the 90 per cent. who will possibly not have to deal with a WFTC applicant but will still have to spend time reading—
and complying with—
"the guidance."
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Last week, I sold my car. While waiting to receive payment for it, I chatted to the person running the small car company to whom I had sold it. He said that he spent less than 10 per cent. of his time buying and selling cars; the rest was spent managing his business. The largest part of that management involves the administration of all the new regulations of which he has to be aware, even though the company has, I believe, fewer than four employees.
Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that classic example of the way in which small businesses that are trying to make a contribution to their local communities find the burden of administration too much. It is a good example, which reinforces the fact that Government policies, intentionally or otherwise, disproportionately affect small businesses, diverting
4WH
them from creating wealth and providing efficient services. Given that such businesses generate 37 per cent. of our gross national product and employ 44 per cent. of private sector workers, the burden of regulations directly impinges on the efficiency of our national economy.
However, there is also a social dimension. I have long been a strong supporter of citizens advice bureaux, and my constituency is fortunate enough to have several excellent bureaux. I was particularly concerned to read the national association's report back in February, which explains, worryingly, how the working families tax credit has backfired for many of the more vulnerable applicants:
"In the worst cases employers have sacked workers entitled to the pay boost or cut their hours because they want to avoid the red tape of paying it through the wage packet. In other cases life at work has been made more difficult and people are less secure in their jobs."
Mr. David Harker, the chief executive, concludes that
"it makes no sense that the scheme that sets out to make work pay is making it more difficult for some people to stay in their jobs, and leaving some families worse instead of better off."
I am aware that the Government have appointed Mr. Patrick Carter to review payroll regulations and make them more effective and less costly. I understand that Ministers have had Mr. Carter's report for a little while, so I urge them to publish the findings, or at least bring them to the House's attention, to allow us to debate them quickly, not least because it is important to make changes as quickly as we can as the economy declines.
There are several solutions to the problem. In the United States, for example, small companies are able to retain a percentage of the sales tax that they collect on the Government's behalf. In some ways, that compensates companies for the administrative costs.
Does the Minister agree with the taskforce that the working families tax credit disproportionately hurts small businesses? Will he accept that it reduces their productivity and therefore national competitiveness? Does the Minister recognise the potential impact on jobs if red tape deters microbusinesses from taking on people such as Mrs. Moy in Hertford and thousands of others like her? Most important, will the small business Minister and his colleagues heed my call to recognise, financially or otherwise, the burden that the scheme places on small businesses?
Sadly, the working families tax credit will not be the last subject for employment-related regulation. Others expected in the next few months include entitlements to enhanced maternity, paternity and adoption leave, the EU White Paper on environmental liability and the EU directive on the exposure of workers to vibrations. Business is rightly sceptical of a Government who promise support and help, for they seek action, not words.
We wish the new Minister well and we hope that he will succeed, because the future of small businesses is in my mind in this debate. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions today.
The Minister is up against the culture of governance; there is little contact with or understanding of small businesses and family firms, let alone the self-employed. For example, the IR35 measure passed by the

5WH
Government represents twice the annual budget of the Small Business Service for which the Minister is responsible. In truth, our regulatory culture is, as Lord Haskins, said, inherently autocratic, inflexible and remote. Mr. Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry said yesterday that even big companies are now feeling the pressure.
On Friday Mr. Rupert Murdoch, with whom I believe the Government are familiar, complained about red tape and said that Britain
"is not a country that encourages success…our executives have to spend at least half their time dealing with lawyers and regulators and they would do a whole lot better if they didn't have to cope with this constant harassment."
If a multi-million pound business is struggling, what hope is there for family businesses and small firms in my constituency and those of other hon. Members?
In the long term, we seek a complete change of culture in government. They should recognise that what enterprise needs is not a better regulation taskforce but less regulation. What we need is not more means testing but a simple, efficient tax system; we want not to collect taxes or run the welfare state on the Government's behalf, but to be free to create jobs and wealth, without which there would be no Government.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerIt is customary for hon. Members seeking to catch the eye of the Chair to rise in their places.
9.48 am
John Mann: I declare an interest: I am part-owner of a family microbusiness, which has self-employed people and which negotiated in respect of IR35 with the Inland Revenue on behalf of our sector of industry. The business employs a lot of part-time staff and casual staff.
I have listened to the debate with the utmost incredulity. I considered intervening to ask that the support for, and success of, small business under the last Tory Government be compared with that under Labour Governments since 1997. I set up my business under a Labour Government and the issue of regulation and red tape is a puzzle to me. I am a member of two chambers of commerce and I speak regularly with business in my constituency and beyond. Businesses tell me of subjects on which they would like to press the Minister—and, indeed, the Chancellor—and I shall discuss those in a moment. Regulation, however, is not an issue that comes up regularly.
I want to deal with the specifics, so let me deal with vibration, which is a wonderful example because regulation has not yet been introduced. Historically, the largest industry in my constituency has been coalmining. The next largest is manufacturing. One of the areas that I have been forced to specialise in is vibration white finger. Many compensation claims arose as people went to court retrospectively to sue their employers for failing to recognise a health and safety hazard.
The regulations that have impacted on my business include precisely those health and safety regulations kindly introduced between 1992 and 1997. I have no criticism of the major ones—such as the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, which are
6WH
fundamental in protecting small businesses against potential compensation claims from employees, casual or permanent. The raft of legislation on electrical installation—part of our business—is another protection for the employer against bad practice by both employer and employee. It was introduced between 1992 and 1997 and continued subsequently by successive Governments. Once again, I applaud that. The bulk of the regulations introduced in this country over the past decade are entirely right and proper.
The working families tax credit is another example. Some employers tell me, somewhat tongue in cheek, that it supports the employer. Why? Because if someone is paid such a low wage that they are entitled to the working families tax credit, the employee, having received additional finance from the state, is more likely to stay with the company. The one criticism that could be made is that it is subsidising the poor-paying employer, precisely the small business person who, at great expense of time, effort and finance, is trying to build a successful business. Representatives of businesses tell me that the working families tax credit is a major bonus to such employers, and they are right.
A third example—
Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It is not whether the working families tax credit is good or bad, but whether the method that the Government selected for paying it—using businesses as unpaid welfare delivery mechanisms— is the right or wrong way to deliver that benefit.
John Mann: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Whether the working families tax credit is a good thing is the main issue. By definition, the tax credit supports working, not non-working families. The linkage with the employer is coherent and sensible.
The national minimum wage is a third example. My business and the vast majority of businesses welcome the national minimum wage. It was welcome in my industry because we were sick to death of cowboy employers paying next to nothing—cash in hand if they could get away with it—undercutting us on the minimums. The national minimum wage has allowed our industry to push rates up. The largest sector of small business that I deal with regularly is hairdressing and associated professional bodies. In that sector, the introduction of the minimum wage is raising standards—we have the best hair designers in the world—but in the past it has been a low-skill, low-pay, low-cost industry comprising more than 70,000 different small businesses. The national minimum wage is raising standards so that our role as world leaders in design capability translates into the product delivered to the customer. For the first time, those paying the national minimum wage and above are on a level playing field.
The real issue is the significant improvements that the Government could continue to make. I shall list four of them. First, the Government have, rightly, increased VAT thresholds at least twice since 1997. If that trend continued, it would be a major asset to the growing small business. I hope that the Minister conveys that message to the Chancellor, as it is a critical issue for consideration.

7WH
The second improvement that the Government could make concerns capital allowances, which, in the current tax regime for small businesses, are not as fundamental as they were because, with the 10p starting rate and the cut in small business tax, a significantly greater amount is already available—as the profits of my company demonstrate over that period. Nevertheless, the link between paying tax, available resources and capital investment exists in the mind of the small business person. The Government should make far greater use of capital allowances of the type used for computer and IT equipment, with 100 per cent. write-off, to encourage small business capital investment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also convey that message to the Chancellor.
The third improvement that the Government could make concerns rate rebates for small businesses. They have slowly begun to have a major impact, particularly in the rural sector, where I live. What does the Minister propose to do to ensure that the existing arrangements are properly communicated to those who run businesses? My experience is that we have a raft of good policies for the rural small business—which is all too often not aware of them. To save time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not cite examples of those policies, although there is a raft of them.
Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm the correct way in which we should address you?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The correct form of address to the Chair at the moment is "Mr. Deputy Speaker". Chairmen who are not Deputy Speakers of the House are addressed by name or as Mr. Chairman, as will be made clear at any changeover.
John Mann: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My final point is the most fundamental for small business. I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) for initiating the debate and raising the issue of the Government's small business culture. One fundamental change is required for small business: a change to the culture of the banking system. The greatest barrier to the establishment and success of small businesses is the culture whereby banks refuse to take rational decisions. Yesterday I filled in a questionnaire that asked me to comment on 10 banks. They are all the same. In my experience, they are all as bad as one another. There is no good example among them. How does the Minister propose to tackle the culture whereby banks rip off businesses for short-term profit, at the expense of the longer-term growth of the British economy and of the banking system?
9.58 am
Mr.John Baron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important subject.
We all know that actions speak louder than words. One reason why politics lacks credibility today is the perception that politicians say one thing and do another. A good example of that is the fact that there is
8WH
no shortage of pro-business speeches and noises from the Government, yet they continue to make life difficult for business, especially small business. I should declare an interest because I am a small business man.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) that, according to British Chambers of Commerce figures, red tape costs have increased by £15 billion during Labour's first term. There is no getting away from that fact. Industry itself is complaining about the burden of red tape, regardless of what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) just said. As the Federation of Small Businesses has made clear, the burden of red tape always falls disproportionately on small firms. Figures from the Institute of Chartered Accountants show that the cost to small businesses of implementing new legislation doubled in the period 1999 to 2000. That is a meaningful cost to small businesses.
Regulation and red tape have hit small businesses hard. Entrepreneurs in my constituency are concerned about that. We should be too, because small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, accounting for something like 99 per cent. of all businesses and nearly half of all employment, as my hon. Friend intimated. If we strangle enterprise in the small business community, we inhibit the prosperity of the country as a whole. Indeed, one of the main reasons why I am a Conservative is that I believe that the relief of poverty should be one of the key objectives of politics. That can be better brought about if we foster personal freedoms within the rule of the law, encourage enterprise and allow businesses—especially small businesses—to breathe and thrive.
Such an approach will create a more prosperous economy and create more wealth from which the Government can take their rightful share to help the truly disadvantaged in society. That will not happen if the Government pile regulations and costs on to businesses as that will hinder enterprise and eventually our ability to help those most in need. Yet the Government continue to make life difficult for entrepreneurs. The rising tide of regulation and red tape originates essentially from two sources. A good chunk is home grown and results from a natural tendency of politicians and bureaucrats to try to solve all problems with more and more regulation. The second source is the European Union. That situation will get gradually worse with the spread of majority voting. I should like to focus on that second danger for a moment or two.
To illustrate the growing danger posed by the EU's obsession with uniformity, I would highlight the prospectus directive because of the immense damage it could cause our small growing companies. That directive will harmonise listing rules across Europe, ensuring that issues of shares, bonds and derivatives should be accompanied by a prospectus. The fear is that the additional red tape could add something like £70,000 to £100,000 to the listing cost of each company, no matter how small. That would particularly hit small businesses, as their cost of raising capital would be increased significantly.
Prior to being elected to this place in June, I was a fund manager in the City, often investing in small businesses that raised capital in the financial markets, and I can vouch for how important it is for small businesses to have access to cheap capital from flexible

9WH
financial markets. Meanwhile, as reported in the Financial Times, there is also a fear that in seeking to raise the disclosure standards of all companies, the directive could hit second-tier markets such as the London stock exchange's AIM and OFEX markets. Those markets have lower disclosure requirements to encourage young companies without extensive trading histories to raise capital.
They have been phenomenally successful in achieving that goal. AIM is the London stock exchange's market for growing companies and is obviously aimed at the smaller end of the market. Since its launch in 1995 it has helped something like 750 companies raise nearly £7 billion of equity capital. It has become a vital part of the UK economy in channelling public equity capital to younger companies. That market would not survive this directive. That is the view of private industry itself.
The problem is that the directive is the product of an EU Commission which has not consulted widely on the proposal and which did not take full account of the reality of how Europe's capital markets work. It is little wonder that private industry is unhappy, yet the response from the authorities to complaints about the directive has been disappointing, to say the least. In August, representatives of the London stock exchange, Barclays bank, OFEX, AIM, Brown Shipley merchant bank and the Quoted Companies Alliance attended a meeting at the Treasury to voice their concerns. They were hoping to meet senior officials but, instead, were met only by a junior official. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, one representative said:
"We were very disappointed. This is a serious issue. Aim has been very successful and, if it is abolished, it will increase the cost of raising capital for small companies considerably."
Apparently, a Treasury spokesman responded and said that it must be accepted that the policy will go ahead.
The EU's response has been extremely disappointing. After it was criticised for producing its "one size fits all" prospectus directive without consultation, a spokesman for Frits Bolkestein, the EU Internal Market Commissioner, said, again courtesy of The Daily Telegraph:
"We just did not have time to go for full consultation as we have a deadline to implement this by 2003."
That last statement beggars belief. We seem to have faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats setting deadlines on policies, irrespective of what harm they will do to small businesses and secondary markets, while the Government look on. It confirms to many that London's interests come a poor second to the EU Commission's quest for Euro-uniformity.
I now return to the difference between words and actions. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor recently expressed admiration for the success of American enterprise as characterised by low taxes, low regulation and individual initiative. In reality, however, we are moving towards a high-tax, high-regulation EU model which is run by bureaucrats. The language is that of American enterprise; the reality is EU regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, the adoption of the EU model is beginning to have a detrimental effect on our economic performance. Productivity growth has slowed. The United Kingdom has fallen in the world competitiveness league table and, meanwhile, economic growth is slowing down and the balance of payments is showing a record deficit. That does not bode well for the future.
10WH
I urge the Government to do all that they can to block the prospectus directive and to re-examine their approach to regulation in respect of small businesses. We should be moving closer to the American model, not the EU model. Actions speak louder than words and we must act now to ensure that we do not stifle Britain's entrepreneurial spirit and, with it, our prosperity over the longer term.
10.7 am
Mr. Mark Field: I agree almost four square with the philosophical outlook of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron). He summed up the position nicely by saying that we should be moving towards the United States model rather than a European-type model in respect of small businesses. As a former small business man, I do not need to make a declaration because, within a few months of the general election in June, I was bought out of the business that I set up eight years ago. The Minister may think that it is curious that a phalanx of small business people who want to extol the virtues of such a wonderful life have now decided to go to the public sector, courtesy in part of the electorate. None the less, that means that we have a strong contribution to make to such a debate. Furthermore, ours will be an on-going contribution in the months and years ahead.
I want to concentrate on the more practical aspects of this important issue. No one wants to talk us into a recession, but clearly matters will be a little more difficult in the next few years than they have been in the past half a decade or so. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) who said that, as the economy begins to struggle and turn down, we need to speak up for—without overly interfering with—small business. He had statistics, such as the fact that there are 4 million or so sole traders and microbusinesses, at his fingertips as well as details of small businesses such as the one that I ended up running. I set it up with a partner, and by the time that I left it, about eight years into running it, we had a dozen staff and a turnover of a little more than £2 million. I identify with some genuine anxieties, especially in the final two or three years, relating to payroll issues and that of the unpaid tax collector, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford referred. Many small business people feel that they are long-term Government employees in that respect.
I calculated that for every pound that I brought into the economy, 64p went in tax—if all taxes were counted, including value added tax, corporation tax, my slug of income tax and the employer's national insurance stamp. A significant amount is involved. For every pound that a small business man earns, he can keep only 36p, with more or less two thirds going elsewhere. That tax regime was in place before 1997, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) would be the first to remind me, and I welcome some of the measures introduced in the past four or five years. We now have a more sensible capital gains tax regime, although it has recently become rather more complex. I hope that many Opposition Members would agree with some of the actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, by extension, of the Minister's Department.

11WH
One of the main concerns at a practical level that many people in small business now share is that we should strike a balance between, on one hand, achieving a work-life balance and considering small business issues in terms of employee rights—to which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw alluded—and on the other, introducing what they would regard as red tape. We must achieve a balance as far as possible, and in my view there has to be a demand for less regulation.
There is a perception that, in my constituency, Cities of London and Westminster—the constituency in which we are today—all the industries are large multinationals. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay discussed some of the largest institutions in the City of London and some of their anxieties. Equally, however, there are many small, often family-owned businesses based in the constituency, and they have many common small business concerns. Obviously, they have some London-based anxieties relating to congestion and the sheer cost of housing, which means that attracting employees can be an issue, and some fundamental infrastructure issues are involved, especially in relation to transport. Nevertheless, some genuine worries are close to the hearts of people who run businesses here. Payroll issues, in particular, have become ever more prevalent in recent years, as a result of the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the fact that, increasingly, smaller businesses do not have the infrastructure for a large marketing department or, perhaps, even a human resources or payroll department, yet have to deal with complex specialist paperwork.
My business was a classic in that mode. We were not sufficiently well off to employ people full-time, and we had to take consulting advice on payroll aspects. Ultimately, however, much of the burden fell on me and my fellow director. I shall be honest about this: there were concerns. We had a small and relatively young business and, given that at one time two of our four female employees were on maternity leave, it had to make us think twice about whether we could employ more youngish women who might well be considering having a family. Obviously, the increasing amount of paternity leave is an on-going concern, especially for smaller businesses, as employees can be out of the picture for some six months. Long-term plans cannot be made about employing a replacement, lest the employee decides to return. We wanted to employ graduates, but it was very much a factor in our mind that, as the payroll aspects of graduate tax provision were being put back in the hands of small business people, doing so really would have totted up costs.
I do not suggest that there should be a moratorium or free rein in this respect for small businesses. I understand that, as the Minister would rightly say, it would give companies at the cut-off point of, say, 20 or 25 employees a strong disincentive to grow if suddenly they faced new regulation from which they had previously been exempt. The point was well made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. He placed the blame for many of the woes of small businesses on the banking system, and more concerns would arise with regard to that if the economy were to enter a recession. Many banks would react to that situation by looking after their own interests and by watching what other banks
12WH
were doing. If they responded in that manner, they would be reacting in a rational economic way, rather than misbehaving, but important concerns might arise with regard to cash flow. Assistance, such as tax exemptions, or allowing for certain taxes and rates to be paid on a longer-term basis, would be well received, especially in respect of smaller, relatively new, start-up businesses.
The debate has been useful, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on raising the issue under discussion higher up the political agenda. However, time is running out, and those in the Chamber will now wish to hear from the Minister.
10.15am
Brian Cotter: I thank the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) for providing us with another opportunity to discuss small businesses, which are an integral part of every community. I still run a small business—that interest has been fully declared. My practical experience gives me a special understanding of many of the issues under discussion—I am sure that other hon. Members who have business connections will agree with me about that—and I hope to be able to share some of my knowledge with the Minister.
Several issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford have been addressed in the debate. I was glad that he mentioned the important matter of the prompt payment of bills. The Government's introduction, a few years ago, of regulations on that matter was welcomed by many hon. Members, but how well they have been implemented has always been a concern. However, I am glad to learn that, locally, the matter has been taken on board.
Mr. Prisk: The hon. Gentleman is right to state that that is an important issue. One of my concerns about the Government's proposals is that it is not enough simply to pass legislation. The problem for small suppliers is that, if they have a large customer, they will not want to upset that relationship. Consequently, they will not use the Government's legislation, as has been shown by the evidence to date. In that regard, the legislation misses the point. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on that issue.
Brian Cotter: That is a fair point. However, if legislation were never introduced, one would never make a start down the right road. The legislation has led to a gradual change in culture. I do not know precisely about the current situation, but I believe that large companies should be required to declare their record on the payment of bills, as should the Government. I spoke when the legislation was introduced, and even then I was disappointed that the Government were trailing behind. Essentially, the Government were telling companies what to do while failing swiftly to implement their own legislation. As hon. Members have said, local government is particularly guilty of that practice.
The issues that have been raised with regard to rural areas are important, and there is still a lot of work to be done on them, particularly following the foot and mouth crisis. Other issues, such as of sub-post offices, also need further attention. Hon. Members are

13WH
increasingly looking to the Government to deliver through the regional development agency system. Ministers are talking about investing more money in the system next year, or the year after, and increased investment in regional development agencies would be welcome because they did not receive enough funding when they were established. In future, like many other hon. Members, I shall be looking to the regional development agencies to introduce more initiatives to help rural areas.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made some good points. He mentioned, for example, the working families tax credit, which we all welcome. However, we also look to the Government to do something about the burden that they have placed on the small companies that must implement the credit. The initiative is good and worthwhile, but we want help for business to be implemented by the Government rather than by business.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw also mentioned business rates, an issue that is important and high on the small business agenda. I wait with increasingly bated breath for the Government to bring forward a scheme to help small businesses with business rates. I do not know whether my breath will continue to be bated today or whether I will get satisfaction. I ask the Minister to respond here and now to the programme that the Liberal Democrats have proposed: a business rate allowance that is easy to implement with no red tape and that leads to an immediate reduction in small businesses' business rates. If the Minister does not know the full details of the proposal, I shall send them to him. I cannot understand why such a worthwhile initiative cannot be adopted.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) made some good points on the prospectus directive. I am in touch with the rapporteur in the European Parliament on the matter, and he has taken on board the points that I made and those of the type mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We hope that the directive will bed down as a reasonable regulation.
We all know the important role that small firms play in our society, economically and socially. It does not take much to figure out that it is in the Government's interest and in all our interests to ensure that small businesses are allowed to fulfil their potential without being weighed down by excessive regulations. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw when he said that that matter was not a high priority for many people. Respected surveys by bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and the Institute of Chartered Accountants state time and again that the matter is problematic.
The Government pledged to think small first. We plead that that pledge should lead to real action, rather than simply being a pious hope. There is still some way to go before small firms cease to be strangled by regulatory red tape, which prevents them from getting on with the business of running their business. A recent survey by the Institute of Chartered Accountants said that, since last year, the average compliance cost for microbusinesses had increased from £3,600 to £4,100. That is a discernible increase. In the small business sector as a whole, the average cost has increased from
14WH
£8,000 to more than £10,000. We must respect those figures and the Government must take them into account.
Given the Government's record, it is unsurprising that small businesses remain unimpressed by their rhetoric. Seventy-five per cent. of respondents to the Institute of Chartered Accountants survey said that the Government had not done enough to encourage enterprise culture.
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is probably as familiar as I am with the fact that huge numbers of small businesses in his constituency run tourist-driven activities, such as bed and breakfasts and small hotels. Given that the money available for tourism has been disproportionately spread to Scotland and Wales, does he lament, as I do, the Government's lack of funding and support for struggling small businesses that are trying to attract tourists to England—especially to the seaside—in the aftermath of the foot and mouth crisis? I hope that he will support me in asking the Government to divert more funds to increase funding for tourism support.
Brian Cotter: I happily support the hon. Gentleman in that request, although Conservative Members have not produced a significantly better programme on the issue than have the Government. However, I shall raise those issues with the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting when he comes to Weston-super-Mare on Thursday.
There is a fine line between achieving good standards for employees and not putting too great a burden on the employer. The annual report of the better regulation taskforce states:
"Any regulation decided on should be designed to deliver its objectives efficiently and cost-effectively without impairing the liability and competitiveness of good and especially small businesses."
That is a definitively important statement, which the Government should observe when dealing with business. That is what all regulation should be about, as Lord Haskins said in his report. However, if we use that test to judge some of the regulations that the Government have introduced, we find that they have failed to meet it time and again.
Do the provisions for stakeholder pensions, for example, fulfil the objectives to which I referred? No, they certainly do not. In a recent written answer, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted that, by the end of August, only 146,950 employers had designated a scheme for their employees out of a total of up to 400,000 employers that were in line to do so by 8 October. The take-up rate has been decidedly low because of concerns about the scheme and its past performance. The Government seem resigned to the fact that there is concern about stakeholder pensions. The Department for Work and Pensions announced another pensions review just two weeks before employers could have been fined for not having a stakeholder pension scheme in place. That is an important point for the Minister to bear in mind.
The new regulations on the issue also fall short of the good regulation test because they place an impossible burden on smaller employers—the microbusinesses—

15WH
who must identify a scheme and administer it through the payroll. Once again, small firms are carrying out the work of Government and being forced to undertake roles that should never have been placed within their remit. I ask the Minister to consider that important point. The point applies also to the working families tax credit, which I mentioned earlier.
No small business owner would dream of asking the Minister to mind the counter of his shop—although it might be a good idea if the Minister were to do so. Instead of grandiose schemes whereby people work for Shell for a couple of years and enjoy all the benefits of such big companies, the Minister, Members of Parliament and especially civil servants should get down to the nitty-gritty and work for two, three or four days in a small business—a garage, for instance—slog away and go home late at night to calculate VAT.
The climate change levy is another important issue. Many firms of all sizes are concerned about it because it is complicated and cumbersome. I also draw special attention to the lack of consultation on the working time regulations. Although those regulations are supposed to be extended and better operated, that has not yet happened.
I seek several reassurances from the Minister on behalf of small businesses. A key to achieving regulation that complies with the model set out by the better regulation taskforce is to understand the needs of small firms. The Minister would do well to read, on the British Chambers of Commerce website, the comments made in reply to its campaign to cut red tape. A gentleman called Henry, for example, runs a business that is based on the internet and e-commerce, and his comments on the website neatly summarise the way in which many people have been affected by the IR35 legislation.
Many small firms have no idea of the regulatory requirements facing them. I ask the Minister to ensure that the communication process between small firms is improved, perhaps by using the Small Business Service. What action are the Government considering to ensure the effectiveness of legislation passed by the House? I ask the Minister to press for an immediate review of legislation that places unnecessary burdens on small firms. I would also like him to guarantee that further legislation will not be introduced to the detriment of small firms, particularly as we look ahead to the tax credits coming on line in 2003. Finally, when will the Minister respond to the detail of the Competition Commission report on banking, which has been on the table for nine months? We have yet to hear a response.
10.31 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing the debate. He is eminently qualified to raise the subject of small business and so too, it appears, are other hon. Members who have contributed this morning. I declare my interest as a director of two companies, both of which, I think, would qualify as small businesses under the official definition.
I want to set the subject in a wider context. Over the past couple of months, political focus has been on wider issues: foreign affairs and our country's ability to defend
16WH
itself. Before that, the political flavour of the month was public services and an agenda for making them better and more effective. Those legitimate activities of Government and the social state critically depend on the ability of our productive enterprises to generate the wealth that underpins them. Business is critical to the success of our society and small businesses play a significant role in our economy.
Already, we have heard about the 3.7 million enterprises that exist in this country. More than 99 per cent. of those employ fewer than 50 employees. Some 44 per cent. of all non-governmental employees are in the small business sector and 37 per cent. of private sector turnover is generated in that sector. The sector not only represents a significant proportion of the total economy but performs an important role in delivering flexibility to the economy That is the reason for the concern about the burden of increased regulation on small businesses.
The term "small businesses" embraces a range of enterprise sizes, as my hon. Friend said. Clearly, some small businesses are growing and seeking to accumulate capital; they may, in time, become medium enterprises. However, a large number of small businesses will never be anything other than just that. Many of them are one-man, self-employed enterprises. They, in particular, deliver a swing capability to our economy that is vital to the fast-moving responsiveness that we need if we are to continue to be flexible.
I am sure that the Chancellor would recognise that as the economy and the fortunes of firms move, they must be able to adjust the costs that they bear. The one-man business is uniquely able to adjust its cost in response to the changing environment: it makes more money one year, less the next. Typically, such a business will not require large streams of investment capability, so it can absorb changes in the environment in a way that larger and more structured businesses cannot. The price that small enterprises pay is a much higher rate of enterprise failure than is seen among larger enterprises, which is balanced by a faster rate of enterprise creation. We need to focus on the flexibility that microbusinesses and small businesses deliver because they provide a unique adjustment factor in the economy. One reason why the Government's IR35 initiative has been so damaging and destructive is the fact that it has hit at the most flexible part of the economy.
The Chancellor, whom I am happy to quote again, always talks about improvements to productivity being the key to our future success. I have been struck by a report by a New York organisation called the Conference Board, which analyses the productivity gap from the United States perspective. I shall quote from the executive summary—I could not afford the full report because it costs $1,000 and parliamentary resources do not stretch that far
"To realise the potential efficiency gains from IT in Europe and Japan, businesses must make the most of expanded investment opportunities, but they must also support reforms that enable the restructuring of firms and transfers of resources. Regulatory rigidities inhibit reallocations of labour and capital to their most productive uses, reducing the benefits to be obtained from investment in new technologies.
Labour markets in the US have been subject to fewer restrictions on the redeployment of workers within and across production units than in many other OECD countries."

17WH
In other words, the report points out that industry's flexibility to adapt its working practices and reallocate labour and capital is a critical factor in obtaining the huge gains in productivity that the development of IT can offer. That is precisely where the regulatory burdens that are being imposed on business may impair our ability to realise those productivity gains.
Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I apologise to you, Mr. Cook, for my late arrival. That was occasioned by my attendance at a sitting of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform, where we are trying to deal with the issue of the regulatory burden, which seems to have been a theme of Opposition Members' speeches today. I should like to ask the Opposition spokesman where he would lighten the regulatory burden. There have been comments on the working families tax credit, hints about the minimum wage and talk about stakeholder pensions. Will the hon. Gentleman give us specific examples of ways in which he would lighten the regulatory burden on small businesses?
Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my remarks, I shall make several specific suggestions, to which I hope that the Minister will respond.
Many burdens that we have discussed this morning obviously affect businesses of all sizes. However, as has been said, some burdens will affect small businesses and larger businesses differently. Smaller businesses have limited manpower resources and, because of the indivisibility of individual units of labour, they cannot afford to have specialists dealing with all the different areas of regulation that the Government impose on them, so the issue becomes particularly acute for them.
I readily acknowledge that there is a problem for Government in dealing with smaller businesses. It is difficult for an organisation of the scale of the Government to engage with the vast array of different interests and agendas that smaller businesses will have. I welcome some of the Government's moves to encourage and foster enterprise in small business, and in particular the changes to the capital gains tax regime. Much of the Government's agenda focuses on delivering to businesses support services such as the Small Business Service, yet they continue to impose increasing levels of burdens through regulations. The Labour approach is based on lots more regulatory burden dealt with by lots more intervention in the form of innovations such as the Small Business Service. I should prefer a lighter-touch approach that does not try to counter the effects of regulatory burdens but tries as far as possible to avoid imposing new burdens and frees up businesses to create wealth rather than to administer a bureaucratically defined regime.
We have already heard a little about the Government's record. Some 3,800 new regulations were introduced in 2000.
Brian Cotter rose—
Mr. Hammond: I shall make some progress, if I may. The Government imposed £26 billion of additional
18WH
business taxes and £15 billion of regulatory burdens during their first term in office, so it is perhaps unsurprising that Britain has been sliding down the international competitiveness league table.
The burdens that have been imposed fall into three broad categories. Some arose from the signing in 1997 of the social chapter. At the time, the Prime Minister promised us that that would not open the floodgates to a raft of European Union social legislation and that Britain would be able to shape the legislation flowing from Brussels. However, 24 sets of new or amended employment regulations were introduced in the previous Parliament, and the Government have clearly failed to stem the tide. We have seen the working time directive, the parental leave directive, new maternity and paternity leave arrangements, the part-time workers directive, the prospective temporary agency workers directive and, most recently, the notorious information and consultation directive, in respect of which the Government cannot even persuade their own MEPs to vote for the position that they are pushing in the Council of Ministers.
I want to deal with the charge, which rather stung me, that was made by one of the Minister's colleagues during Trade and Industry questions last week—that is, that what we call burdens on business are in fact legitimate moves by the Government to protect the rights of employees. Having tried to analyse that argument, it seems to me that anything that protects the rights of employees by adding to the non-wage costs of employment must come from the pot of resources that is available to pay those employees. As a result, by regulating, and thereby increasing the non-wage cost burden on business, the Government are, in effect, dividing up the pot between non-wage benefits—which are enjoyed in the form of greater employment protection, greater rights to maternity leave, and so on—and money wages. They are thereby redistributing the product of labour between different individuals. For example, non-parents will earn less than they might otherwise earn, owing to the imposition of non-wage costs on business to support parents. That is a subject for a serious debate. Simply to say that burdens on business are the flip side of employee rights is not the whole story—it must be thought about a little harder.
European legislation, apart from the social chapter, imposes a raft of further burdens on British businesses. Our European colleagues would no doubt see that as levelling the playing field, but our productivity gains do not allow us to absorb such burdens.
The third leg of the stool comprises home-grown burdens such as the Employment Relations Act 1999, student loans, the working families tax credit, the Child Support Agency, stakeholder pensions and other measures to which hon. Members have referred.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hammond: I will not, because I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond.
I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister. He should put the interests of British business first and recognise that they are also the interests of British employees. He should not give away our relative advantage—the flexibility enjoyed by our small firms

19WH
and microbusiness sector. If we make our economy look more like the European economies, but without achieving a huge rise in labour productivity, we will all suffer. I ask him to implement with less zeal the stream of legislation from Brussels, recognise the special burdens that those regulations impose on small business, use all possible small firms derogations and ask for more from the Council of Ministers. I ask him to control the Labour MEPs, at least, in Brussels to ensure that they support the Government in those efforts.
The Minister should introduce independent cost-impact assessments of all new regulations and go for better regulation, not more. He should introduce sunsetting and, above all, slow down. He should put the brake on the torrent of legislation and regulation that has flowed in the past four years. I ask him to give business an opportunity to digest such measures and give the Government a chance properly to measure their impact on the economy, so that we may move forward at a pace that everyone is capable of sustaining.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am pleased to represent the Government today on this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing the debate and I thank other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.
Reducing the regulatory burden is a key component in achieving our vision of making the United Kingdom the best place in the world to set up and run a business. That is why, for the fifth consecutive year, the number of small and medium-sized enterprises has grown, with the new SMEs outstripping those that are winding up. I know the value of the SME sector, and the present Government have taken, and will continue to take, key actions to minimise unnecessary burdens on business and to ensure that we achieve our vision.
I want to illustrate those practical examples of action later, but first I shall briefly paint the debate on to a broader canvas that takes in the totality of regulation, rather than just the narrow vision of burdens. Regulations and other Government formalities are introduced for many different and worthwhile reasons: for example, to provide consumer protection, to protect employees from unfair employment practices, to ensure safe work practices and to protect the environment. Last year, 180,000 people were injured and 160 killed in the workplace, and more than 30,000 consumers were harmed by faulty products. In light of those figures, it is easy to see why Governments have to regulate. Regulations are also introduced that create real benefits for business, setting pro-competition frameworks, ensuring that small businesses are paid on time and giving consumers confidence in certain markets through consumer protection legislation.
We all know that regulations can impose costs on business. We must take care to ensure that those costs are not disproportionate and do not impede innovation, competitiveness and growth. The present Government are well aware of that, and have taken a number of strong actions to ensure that burdens are minimised.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are trying to rewrite history?
20WH
Was it not the former right hon. Member for Henley, now Lord Heseltine, who imposed record increases in regulatory burdens when the Conservatives were in office?
Nigel Griffiths: I was keen to avoid party politicking, but my hon. Friend makes a very good point. From 1994 to 1996, the then Government introduced more than 10,000 regulations. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, said in a Queen's Speech debate:
"We would be the first to say that we did not do very well"—[Official Report, 19 November 1999: Vol. 339, c. 250.]
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford quoted Mr. Rupert Murdoch, but I can bring him a little closer to home. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the former shadow Chancellor, noted on 5 July that
"after three years of Labour Government relatively we are less taxed and less regulated than under our Continental partners on average".
That is a telling and welcome admission.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: No. I want to make progress and answer some of the many points that have been raised.
We have taken action to improve the preparation of future regulations, to address the problems that former Conservative Ministers recognised—as do we. We also want to make it easier to deal with the stock of existing regulations, such as the 10,000 that I mentioned a moment ago. Such action demonstrates that we are working right across the spectrum of regulation to ensure that regulations are well designed and easy for businesses to comply with.
We have put in place strong guidance on preparing regulatory impact assessments for new regulations, and published guidance on how those should be carried out. We have established the ministerial panel for regulatory accountability, a strong body which has the power to simplify existing regulations and ease regulatory pressure on business. It does that by providing a strategic overview of the Government's regulatory plans and by calling Ministers to account over regulatory proposals.
Last April, we established the Small Business Service, a key aim of which is to ensure that the concerns of small businesses are properly considered in the regulatory process, and that Departments think small first when designing regulations. We have also ensured that regulations currently in preparation are prepared under appropriate processes. Last November, we introduced a new code of practice to ensure better consultation. From the beginning of this year, consultation periods have, in most cases, been at least 12 weeks. We now require Departments to issue guidance on legislation at least 12 weeks before it comes into force. The SBS has recently issued guidance on that, helping other Departments to draft their guidance in a way that businesses can clearly and easily understand, to help them to comply with policy.
The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 will help to reform outdated and over-burdensome regulation. I have asked business organisations to suggest areas where that Act

21WH
can be used. However, we are not working just on the design of regulation. We are also ensuring that clear and timely guidance is available to businesses to enable them to comply easily with regulation. We are working hard on practical examples that will make it easier and less costly for business to comply with Government regulations.
Mr. Richard Page: I have come especially to listen to what the Minister has to say, but we have heard all this before. May I remind him that, two years ago, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), gave a
"guarantee that we will not allow regulation to stifle enterprise"?
The Minister has spoken glowingly about the Cabinet Office Committee. In March, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
"We have taken active steps to ensure that what regulations are introduced are necessary, simple, and easy to understand and implement…I call Ministers to come to the panel and justify their proposals if the panel thinks that they do not meet its criteria." —[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 23.]
However, for the past two years we have seen record introduction of regulation—an example of saying one thing and doing another. How can we be sure that what the Minister is now telling us about will work?
Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) obviously missed the point that I made at the beginning. We are now in the fifth consecutive year when the net number of SMEs has grown. That is partly because we have been putting in place a better, more favourable regulatory framework. We recognise that there are problems—otherwise, we would not be having today's debate. I am pleased that Patrick Carter's review of payroll administration, which several hon. Members have mentioned, will result in real benefits for business in the areas that have been discussed today.
The time saver initiative will save time for business by making it easier and faster for business to comply with Government administration. The enforcement concordat is ensuring that local government enforcement officers are working with good businesses, not against them. I recently delivered a speech at the local business partnerships conference, which was held to encourage and promote the network and provide a discussion forum for issues affecting businesses. The conference was another example of how the Government are taking practical steps to help business by bringing together leading enforcement officers, beacon councils and businesses that are affected and can best inform us.
Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: No;
I will make some progress and cover other points that were raised.
Last week, I held a conference with leading representatives of small businesses to discuss the strategy of the Small Business Service regulatory team. That strategy was strongly endorsed, and the meeting proposed several actions that the Government could
22WH
take to help business. We will hold a similar event in the new year to assess progress. We are not resting on our laurels, but continually searching for ways to make life better for business.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: No.
We have taken concrete action on many other matters, by working with businesses to limit the burdens on them. At the same time, we have responded to the needs of small businesses to provide a better regulatory format. For example, small businesses asked for more regulation on late payment of debt, and that regulation was included in the total, and yet we were castigated for the number of regulations. The ability of small businesses to charge interest on debt has brought about considerable reductions in the average time that it takes larger firms, in particular, to settle with smaller ones.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: No.
It is vital that all Governments make life easier for business and take practical action to achieve that result. We recognise that the health of small businesses is important for our economy and that small businesses contribute £1 trillion in output to our economy and employ about 12 million people, which is a considerable proportion of our work force. While the motivators and drivers of the last century were undoubtedly the big corporations, in this century the drivers for progress, innovation, employment and keeping the UK ahead in international competition will be small businesses.
We have taken practical steps to ensure that regulation, when required, is well designed and minimises the burden on business, while still achieving the policy intent. We have taken practical steps to ensure that good guidance is available and that it is easier for business to comply with regulations. We will continue to minimise the burdens on business and ensure that we achieve our vision of making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister told us that the number of small and medium enterprises had grown over each of the past five years. That is simply a reflection of the economic cycle. Does the Minister expect the number of small and medium enterprises to grow over the next two years?
Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of economic cycles. We have not brought the country out of the boom-and-bust cycle of the past several Governments to let the benefits fritter away.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to make a prediction that I will not make in the light of circumstances after 11 September. No sensible Minister of any Government in the world would make predictions about the future of business based on the events of 11 September and compare them with predictions on 10 September. It is clear that our economy is in a much better position to weather the downturn than almost any other economy in the world. That has come about not by chance, but by the practical measures that have been taken since 1997

23WH
to give us a stable economic framework. That framework helped small businesses thrive in the past four years, and helped the Government get to grips with regulation, which, as the quotations that I made from the words of previous Conservative Ministers show, was in danger of running out of control. Our policy strategy is focused on those attempts to get to grips with those regulations. Only about 4 per cent. of the plethora of regulations impinge on small businesses in terms of costs.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. We come to the next topic for our consideration.

Budd Report
11 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am delighted to win the opportunity of holding the debate this morning—[Interruption.]
Mr. Frank Cook (in the (Chair): Order. I request hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, to enable our business to proceed.
Dr. Ladyman: I have been trying to win the chance to hold this debate since the start of the year, and it has finally come through—on my birthday. Unaccountably, the card from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has not arrived yet, but I am sure that it is held up at the post office. My delight at winning the debate was slightly tempered when I discovered in Edinburgh yesterday that I had to get up at 3.50 am to catch a plane to get here today.
The topic is of vital importance to my constituency. For hon. Members who do not know the constituency of South Thanet, I should explain that we have a wide variety of gambling interests that will be directly affected by the Budd report. We are first and foremost a seaside resort, and the thrust of my comments will be about the impact of the report on the seaside. We are also a permitted area, so there is a casino in Ramsgate, and another in Margate, in the constituency of North Thanet—I see that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) is in his place.
In addition, we have several social clubs and two significant suppliers of gaming machines. We also have two world-leading manufacturers of the type of seaside arcade gaming machines that are sometimes called "pushers" but which the industry prefers to call "penny falls". For those who do not know what they are, I should explain that they are machines into which one puts a 2p piece and a little platform moves backwards and forwards, knocking off another couple of coins; young children are delighted when they win a few coins and adults are delighted that their children are so easily amused for a few minutes on holiday. Those machines are directly threatened by some of the recommendations in the Budd report.
I shall concentrate on seaside issues. I know that other hon. Members will comment on some of the other aspects of the report on which I shall touch only briefly.
Like all the other hon. Members present, I cannot see into the Strangers Gallery; nor may we speculate about who is present there, but it would not surprise me if business men who between them employ several hundred people in my constituency were listening to the debate. Those people also represent other business men from my constituency who employ several hundred more constituents. For us, this is a vital business. It is not something that anyone takes lightly. The industry is one of the mainstays of our local economy.
I do not expect the Minister to make firm commitments today. The consultation period on the Budd report has recently ended. He has said that he is still prepared to accept representations, and I know he will be reflecting on what he has been told. However, it is vital that he realises that some of the recommendations of the report are causing considerable blight to the industries in my constituency.

25WH
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has not yet commented on the recommendations one way or the other. No one knows what is in his or the Government's mind, or whether the recommendations, which are already having a significant effect on our local economy, will be accepted. The sooner he can comment about what he is and is not considering, the better it will be for us.
The report was thorough, touching on many aspects of gambling, and many of its recommendations have been widely accepted; there appears to be a consensus that they are good and sensible ideas. In a different world, where the sky was always blue or there was no gambling, and we were starting with a clean sheet of paper and deciding how to organise gambling, some other aspects of the report would be sensible. In our world, however, they are barmy and simply will not work. They will have a practical impact not only on employment but on problem gambling, social factors and crime. My right hon. Friend must sift those aspects out of the report before he accepts it.
I started to talk about blight. My right hon. Friend will be fully aware that all businesses have business plans based on the regulatory system in which they work today. That is the only way in which a business can plan. When a report is published that completely cuts away the foundation on which those plans were written, the consequences must be serious for those businesses and the economy that they support. That is exactly what has happened.
We can see that with the recommendation covering social clubs. During parliamentary questions yesterday, the Minister said that he had received 1,500 representations from a variety of not-for-profit organisations including political clubs, working people's clubs and other social clubs, so I know that he has been heavily lobbied on the subject. That will not have surprised him, because the Budd report effectively takes away the main plank of such clubs' business plans. We cannot expect to do that suddenly without its having devastating effects.
There has been less lobbying for other some businesses of which we need to be aware. Many are in seaside areas, and I call them marginal businesses. They include small hotels that are not making considerable profits, but perhaps are just breaking even. The presence of a small-prize gaming machine in such a hotel is the difference between the business carrying on and closing down. At a time when we are trying to regenerate seaside economies and hoping that they will recover, we cannot afford to lose any businesses, and the little gaming machines that Budd just sweeps away, almost with a stroke of the pen, are vital to marginal businesses.
Other businesses are less marginal because they have considerable assets. They are established businesses such as seaside arcades in areas of town that suit them, and the local authority—through planning permissions—and others are happy to accept such establishments in those locations.
If one recommendation in the Budd report—I think that it is number 43—is accepted, local authorities will have the power to decide that gaming will not be allowed in certain areas of their towns or districts. If Budd is applied literally, they will have that power retrospectively. In other words, someone whose business is currently thriving and worth a considerable
26WH
amount of money could be left with no business. That creates a blight on the industry, as the Minster will readily appreciate. The recommendation is a sword of Damocles hanging over those businesses.
The blight on pubs and social clubs will affect every constituency. As far as I can see, Budd makes all those proposals without the slightest scrap of evidence that there is a gambling problem caused by that sector.
Brian Cotter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Budd report's recommendations is to reduce the number of machines in pubs to two per public house? The Licensed Victuallers Association has estimated that if the proposal were implemented, the effect in Weston-superMare would be a tremendous loss of staff and facilities in pubs, many of which are struggling already.
Dr. Ladyman: I agree. The Budd recommendation was made on the premise that the presence of a gaming machine has a corrupting effect on children. If machines have such an effect, it does not matter whether there are two of them or 20. Surely it should be for the licensee to decide how many machines there should be to entertain his customers in a licensed premises. Whether it loses or gains him business should be a matter for him, not for regulation, which will have a devastating effect on many businesses.
Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the Budd report's recommendations are based on anecdotal evidence and speculation? There is little statistical, accountable evidence for its findings, the results of which could have serious effects on seaside resorts such as Blackpool, part of which I represent, and my hon. Friend's constituency?
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. I would call the evidence on which the report is based not even anecdotal, but blind prejudice. It expresses a view of small-stake gambling that neither I nor, I think, my constituents share.
We are trying to encourage families to use pubs and other licensed premises because the family has a civilising effect on them; it is nonsense to suggest that the presence of a gaming machine will have a corrupting influence. We do not assume that because children are allowed into pubs and see adults drinking alcohol, which they themselves will be allowed to do only when they reach the age of 18, it will turn them into alcoholics; we take the opposite view—that it will help them to understand social drinking. Why do we not take the same position on gambling?
The blight will not stop there. One of my main concerns is the effect on amusement-with-prize machines—the type found in seaside arcades. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not say that I do not need to worry about such things because the Budd report says that there will be some research and there may be another view of the matter in five years' time. That just means that the sword of Damocles would be hanging over those businesses, and they would be blighted, for five years or even longer.
On the subject of regulation and crime, we forget at our peril that the gaming legislation was introduced by a Labour Government to get the gangster out of

27WH
gaming; it was designed to stop the Kray twins dominating the gaming machine industry in London, and it was extremely successful in doing so. The industry is now well regulated. We have evidence of what will happen if the Budd report's recommendations are introduced, as it suggests a return to what happened in the 1960s. Why does the Minister not expect the same consequences as were seen in the 1960s?
If my right hon. Friend wants more evidence, he should consider what is happening in France. I quote from an article in Coin Slot International about an underworld war currently raging in France over illegal fruit machines, which
"claimed its latest victim when the body of a man was found riddled with more 9 mm bullets than could be counted."
That is what happens if there is no legal regulated way for people to operate in an industry and provide gaming machines. If all the gaming machines that offer significant jackpots were forced into casinos—as has happened in France—organised crime would take over the provision of those machines.
For further evidence, look at this country: machines with small prizes are usually regulated by local authorities, which are allowed section 34 certificates. Section 34 certificates govern where machines can be placed, and the local authorities monitor them. That works extremely well in an area such as Thanet, in which the machines are monitored carefully and thoroughly. Machines are not put in places where children can have access to them. However, other local authorities have a blanket ban. As a consequence, the only access to gaming machines in those authorities' areas is through an illegal source. Gaming machines can be found in taxi waiting rooms and cafes—places where children can get access to them—and organised crime is involved. If my right hon. Friend wants evidence of that, I suggest that he take a walk around the area that we are in now, because it is one of the areas in which gaming machines are largely associated with criminal activity. The ban proposed by Budd would not be effective.
I find other parts of the Budd report baffling—for example, the comments about the national lottery. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the effect on the national lottery—the loss to the good causes during the lifetime of the second licence—could be as high as 1.3 billion if the Budd report were accepted. It is nonsense to set up a lottery that provides useful and substantial amounts of money for good causes, but then to allow a big chunk of the money to be taken away from those good causes and fed into the gambling industry for no good reason.
I accept many of the Budd report's recommendations on casinos, with which it deals in considerable depth. Casino advertising and the abandonment of the 24-hour rule are long overdue, but I would be a bit worried if we were to allow gambling on credit cards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that issue. Of course, there is nothing to stop someone in a casino walking down the road to the bank machine and using a credit card to get money, which they then gamble in the casino—but, if they do that, at least they have a breathing space to cool down and think about what they are doing.
28WH
I like the idea of resort casinos, but they are successful in the United States because they work on the basis of high turnover and low margins. The gambling industry in this country tends not to work on that model, so those who think that huge resort casinos will be built on the Las Vegas or Nevada models are probably engaging in wishful thinking.
I have a personal concern about the ending of permitted areas: I admit to a vested interest, in that Thanet is a permitted area and would be opened up to considerably more competition if permitted areas were to be abandoned. However, I am also concerned about what we put in place to control the growth of casinos if we do not have permitted areas. Everyone agrees that something has to be put in place, so until someone comes up with a decent idea about what that something is, I suggest that we stick with the permitted areas.
The Minister could implement most of the report's recommendations about casinos through regulation. I do not believe that primary legislation is needed, so he could move forward quickly with the positive recommendations.
The recommendation that many of the machines in seaside arcades should be limited to 18-only areas would completely devastate the atmosphere of the seaside resort. I took my little girl to the arcades when I was on holiday with my family in Torquay—I see some west country colleagues in the Chamber today. My seven-year-old went into many of the arcades on the seafront with her little handful of 2p pieces to play pusher machines—all of which, I was delighted to see, were made in my constituency. It did not have a corrupting effect. She has not become a problem gambler as result—and if she became one in adulthood it would have nothing to do with the fact that she went into an arcade and had an exciting and enjoyable half-hour playing on pusher machines. People play pusher machines not to gamble but to buy time, to buy fun in an atmosphere of lights and excitement and to while away an hour while they are on holiday.
Lawrie Quinn: While we are talking about families enjoying the traditional seaside experience, does my hon. Friend agree that many of the businesses that we see along our seafronts, as at Scarborough, have been put together by families? They understand what families want. My hon. Friend referred earlier to blue skies, but sadly, we do not get permanently blue skies, even in places like Scarborough and Whitby. Families can go to arcades and have a good experience at the seaside. That is probably what is at risk as a consequence of the Budd report.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. In Scarborough and Whitby the skies usually are blue, although not quite so often as they are in Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs—but he has made an important point. Arcades provide an all-weather facility for people on their holidays. They are harmless fun and no more than that. It is nonsense to take cranes out of the seaside arcade or to class those small pusher machines, the so-called "penny fall" machines, and the wheel-them-in machines, as gambling that will have a corrupting influence on our youth.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the particular problem that the

29WH
report tries to address is under-18 gambling? What it does not recognise is that holidaymakers come to seaside resorts for only a week, or two weeks, at a time. Does he not agree with the sentiments of one of my constituents, who says that a visit to an arcade is a big part of a family holiday, and an experience that people probably have only while on holiday? How would under-18s become addicted on a one or two-week holiday?
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Budd recognises that fact when he says that fairgrounds should be allowed to have those machines. Travelling fairgrounds can have them because they do not stay in one place for long, so will not corrupt anyone. It is nonsense to suggest that they have a corrupting influence. Economically, such a ban would be pretty much of a disaster.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Clacton-on-Sea is sunny and has very blue skies; it is on one of the best sunshine coasts in the country. I think that we should commend many of the seaside resort arcades for their self-discipline. My arcades in Clacton-on-Sea now have separate areas for adults only, and when children are found in arcades when they should be at school they are sent out and their names are taken. The arcades have strong disciplinary codes, and we should commend them.
Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right. The arcades in my constituency are rigorously policed. Children who play there when they should be at school are sent out. I have seen children trying to get into the over-18 areas; I had thought that operators might turn a blind eye, but that is not the case. I would also be perfectly happy with a recommendation that we use CCTV in such areas to ensure that there are further controls.
The economic impact of the Budd report has been estimated by the Henley centre. The report hints that it would like to review the situation in five years' time and introduce a complete ban on gaming machines in seaside arcades. Without a complete ban, the cost would be £20 million per annum in lost profits and 1,500 jobs. With a ban, the cost would be £117 million in lost profits and 5,000 lost jobs. The loss to the Treasury would be approximately £14 million in licence duties, £51 million in VAT, £29 million from national insurance, and £19 million from rates—a total loss to the Treasury alone of £113 million if the ban were implemented.
I can tell my right hon. Friend that the publication of the Budd report has already cost jobs in my constituency. Some local manufacturers have taken a pessimistic view of the future and allowed staff to go. There is usually a seasonal loss of staff, but that has been exacerbated by the Budd report creating uncertainty in the industry. Nobody will buy pusher machines until they know what my right hon. Friend intends to do.
Before I conclude, I shall refer to some research done by one of my local employers—a company called Crompton's—that sent out survey forms through Coin Slot International magazine to other operators. There were about 500 responses from operators of seaside arcades or family entertainment centres. To the question "Do you think that the proposed changes will affect jobs?", 91 per cent. of companies said yes. To the
30WH
question "Do you believe that the public will be entertained enough by just casinos?", 98 per cent. said no. To "Do you currently experience any problems with under 18's?", 81 per cent. said no. To "Do you get more or less families than 5 years ago?", 40 per cent. said that more families were using their premises. If my right hon. Friend is interested, I could let him have the other statistics from the survey. Overall, the industry clearly believes that the Budd report will lead to substantial job losses. The losses have already started to take effect because of the blighting effect of the report, and they will continue until my right hon. Friend feels able to give the industry some comfort.
Will my right hon. Friend consider making a statement in the coming weeks? He could say that if recommendation 43 were accepted, local authorities would not be allowed to introduce changes retrospectively. We are all aware that the control of local authorities changes from time to time, and a new council can have a different attitude to gaming from that of the previous council. My right hon. Friend could make it clear that once an area has been designated for gaming and a business has been built there, the council will not be able to take a retrospective decision to close it down.
Seaside machines—coin-in, coin-out machines, penny falls and cranes—could be treated as trivial amusement-with-prize machines, which is what they are, and my right hon. Friend could make it clear that they will not be attacked, either now or in five years' time.
A snippet in The Times this morning suggests that my right hon. Friend has already decided to exempt social clubs from the Budd recommendations. I am not sure whether that is true, or a misreading of what was said yesterday, but I hope that he will provide the necessary statement in the near future.
My right hon. Friend could also move ahead on making changes to casinos, which do not require primary legislation. He could also break down the Budd report into its separate components and implement each separately on a different time scale rather than handle it all at once.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that if he introduces the Budd recommendations as written, he will be responsible for giving organised crime a fillip and closing down many social clubs and pubs. He will also find it difficult to get a drink anywhere in these islands, and he will be responsible for closing down most of the seaside. I would not like to be the politician responsible for that.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to make these points, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to respond positively to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. Having seen how many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, I advise the Chamber that it is the usual convention to start the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the termination of the debate. At least eight hon. Members want to speak, so I appeal to those in the Chamber to keep their remarks pertinent and concise, which will be helpful to me.
11.30 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I shall continue to follow the thinly veiled threat of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) to the Minister. Regular readers of the Isle of Thanet Gazette and the Thanet Times—that means most people in the Chamber—know that he and I have a reputation for not always agreeing with each other. Indeed, some people say that we never agree with each other. However, I shall not rain on his birthday parade and I take this opportunity, because it is cheaper than buying a stamp, of both wishing him a happy birthday and congratulating him on securing an important debate for seaside towns. I agreed with literally every word of his speech.
As the hon. Gentleman said, two of the country's foremost machine manufacturers are located in Thanet. One is run by Jim Crompton. I think that it was founded by him or his dad, the doyen of the manufacturing business and the inventor of the penny pusher machine. Such companies employ a significant number of local people and many outworkers and contractors use the United Kingdom as the test bed for those machines, which are world brand leaders. Having been tried out and any problems ironed out in the United Kingdom, machines are sent to the far east and other countries where their sales have been massive. They are worth a great deal of money to the local, national and international economy. That such firms are facing serious difficulties is not a state secret. It is happening because of the instability in the industry that has been caused by the Budd report.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the business is suffering acutely from blight. Banks are examining seriously the finances of the companies. They are querying whether they will survive because they wonder whether their customers in the seaside towns of the United Kingdom will survive. The Minister must take that point on board. I am not scaremongering, but if such a serious problem is to be resolved, it must be dealt with now, not in six months or six years. Otherwise, the companies will not survive.
I return unashamedly to the value of the arcades to seaside towns. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that amusement arcades are bad. Lurid pictures of arcades in Piccadilly and rent boys spring to mind. However, in the main, the arcades in Britain's seaside towns are policed well. They are well regulated and operated responsibly. They provide considerable facilities for the holidaymaker in the United Kingdom. God knows that with the tourist industry suffering as it is because of foot and mouth disease and the events on 11 September, we need every facility we have to encourage people to take holidays in the United Kingdom.
It is well known that Thanet seaside towns enjoy 12 weeks of unbridled sunshine throughout the summer months with scarcely a cloud in the sky. However, occasionally there is drizzle and the arcades provide shelter and amusement for people who have nowhere else to go and little to do if it is bucketing with rain. The removal of amusement arcades will destroy the golden mile, the golden half-mile and the golden hundred yards in seaside resorts. Herne bay in my constituency has Cain's amusement arcade. The whole of Margate
32WH
seafront is interspersed with amusement arcades, pubs and fish and chip shops. The three are interrelated and killing one kills all three.
Amusement machines with prizes do not constitute a grim gambling den designed to fleece young people of their last four pence of pocket money. They are and were designed to be fun. Remove modest gaming machines and what remains? A few kids could either bring their electronic machines with them or play at home. The vital ingredients of the seaside resort will die.
There are two reasons why the Minister must act quickly to scotch the ill-thought-through elements of the Budd report and reintroduce stability to a vital sector of a vital industry—tourism. The Budd report is not all bad. Those of us with casinos in our towns welcome many of its recommendations on casinos. It is nonsense that someone who joins a club that is a member of a chain of casinos and travels from, say, Margate to Blackpool, must join another club and wait 24 hours before he can use his membership card to game in what is effectively the same establishment. That is rather like saying that a member of affiliated clubs may be a member of Margate Constitutional club or the British Legion club but cannot drink in an affiliated club in another seaside town. That is nonsense. I welcome anything that can be done not to relax the control, responsibility and need to police gambling, but to knock some sense into a nonsensical system, and on that basis I welcome much of what Budd has to say on those issues.
Mr. Cook, you asked us to be brief, and I shall be. I want finally to touch on an issue that I am sure that colleagues in the House will want to mention—the effect that the proposed restrictions on gaming machines are likely to have on clubs. I am sure that we are all, rightly, wearing poppies. I doubt that there is a Member in the House who is not. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are not."] Am I not? I have dropped it. How embarrassing! It has fallen out. All of us should be wearing poppies today.
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The hon. Gentleman can borrow mine.
Mr. Gale: I shall borrow the Minister's. It is quite all right. I have bought three, but I shall go and buy a fourth.
All of us have received representations from the Royal British Legion. Most of us will have received representations from Conservative clubs, and one or two will have received representations from Labour and Liberal clubs, too. Social clubs, British Legion clubs and Royal Air Force Association clubs will all suffer immeasurably and possibly, in some cases, to the point of extinction if the measures are implemented. Those are three good reasons why the Minister must act quickly and positively to end the blight and lay the ghost to rest once and for all.
11.38 am
Mr. Alan Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on having secured this important debate. I intend to keep my contribution brief.
I, too, welcome the review that the Government have set up. Many of our gaming laws are outdated. It is important to protect children and young people. There is much to commend in the Budd report, but in some instances its conclusions are wrong.

33WH
As a representative of the seaside towns in my constituency, I fully endorse the comments that hon. Members have made about seaside towns. However, I shall limit my comments to recommendation 70, which refers to the availability of up-to-£250 jackpot gaming machines in private clubs.
My constituency contains many private clubs, most of which are social clubs or continue to call themselves, in a wonderfully politically incorrect way, working men's clubs, although their membership extends much more widely than that description implies. As hon. Members know, such clubs are an important part of the local community and are to some extent part of the heritage of the north-east. They are not-for-profit organisations, mutual organisations or co-operatives and they are exactly the type of organisation that the Government should encourage, rather than undermine. They play an important role in the market, give choice and variety to consumers, and keep down beer prices in the local economy. In my experience, they are usually well-policed and, indeed, self-policed. Most members of or visitors to clubs would not dare to cross either the secretary or members of the committee. Under-18s cannot become members of clubs, admittance of under-18s is remarkably rare and, anyway, there is a law to deal with under-age drinking on such premises. We must set against that the useful role that clubs play. They often allow over-18s access to an environment in which they can be socialised into moderate consumption and behaviour on licensed premises. Sadly, that is often lacking in our pubs.
Our clubs have a difficult time. They face competition from public houses which can often access investment that is denied to many clubs. Their survival often depends on the local economy and that can fluctuate. There is a longer-term problem of a stay-at-home culture. Wine consumption is rising while beer consumption is falling. That says something about the way in which society is moving. Many of our clubs—and, indeed, pubs—face competition from duty-free imports that are beyond their control. Income from jackpot gaming machines is crucial to the survival of many clubs. They already pay their way in terms of their gaming licence and value added tax. Many clubs welcomed the changes in the 2000 Budget and wonder why they are apparently under threat.
Clubs use profits from gaming machines to keep down beer prices and annual membership subscriptions. However, many spread the benefits of those profits more widely. For example, North Shields Catholic club in my constituency does not operate £250 jackpot machines; it operates £75 jackpot machines, which would be affected if the changes were made. The machines return a profit of between £6,000 and £7,000 per year. Part of that subsidises beer prices, but some returns to the local community to help people suffering from Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis, and people who have received hip replacements. A Friday luncheon club for the infirm is also held.
North Shields Catholic club hosts meetings of the North Shields branch of the North East Pensioners Association. The secretary of that branch said that the club
"do not charge us for the use of the facilities and they are extremely kind to us. They would find it difficult to run the club without the revenue from the bandits and we would be without our meeting place."
34WH
There we have the matter in a nutshell. The recommendation is to tackle a problem that might not exist; it probably came from someone who had not frequented such clubs and does not understand how they work.
The secretary continued:
"I cannot understand a Labour Government even contemplating such a move."
Quite frankly, neither can I. The Government have the opportunity to avoid making a mistake and I hope that they take it.
11.43 am
Mr. Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing the debate. As someone who departed at an unearthly hour from even further north than Edinburgh, I understand how he feels this morning.
I am not a gambler. I have never been to a bookmaker in my life, and I must be one of the few people to visit Las Vegas and not even play a slot machine. However, I have received a substantial postbag about the matter and I dug out the report to allow further investigation. I shall concentrate on the effect on clubs, to which the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) referred. I represent a rural constituency, which is made up largely of small towns and villages. All have sports clubs, pensioners clubs and other clubs and many will be devastated if the proposals are introduced.
The annual accounts for 2000 of a bowling club in a village in my constituency showed a surplus of £3,300. Its gaming machines earned £4,700 and, clearly, if it lost that income, it would be plunged into deficit. That would make it difficult—if not impossible—for the club to survive. It has searched for ways to deal with such a drop in income but if it were to increase its membership fees, many of its members—and, in particular, the elderly ones—would have to leave the club because they would be unable to pay their subscriptions. Falling membership and finances would lead to a cycle of decline, which would be particularly difficult to reverse in a rural area where the pool of potential members is relatively small. If the bowling club fell into that cycle of decline, it might lead to its demise. As the hon. Member for Tynemouth has stated, such clubs provide a focus for many communities and that would be lost, along with many of the other activities that are carried out at such clubs.
I also want to point out that golf clubs in particular, but also other sports clubs, such as cricket clubs—cricket is still played in Scotland—run youth development programmes. If they lost the income from gaming machines, many of them would be put in jeopardy. A golf club in Carnoustie provides a good example. Hon. Members will be aware that golf is very important to the economy of Angus and particularly to Carnoustie. The Scottish Executive is seeking to ensure that every nine-year-old child should have access to the sport of golf within the coming few years, but its work could be put in jeopardy if golf clubs do not have enough money.
I wondered why the Budd report made the recommendations. Its terms of reference state that it wants to secure protection for children and vulnerable

35WH
persons, but it also claims that it will take account of the wider social impact of the recommendations and paragraph 1.26 defines what it means by that. It states:
"We take this as referring not only to the risk of increased problem gambling but also to the broader effect on communities."
One such broader effect might be the loss of clubs that have a huge part to play within communities. That would be disastrous for rural areas, many of which are already suffering from the fallout from foot and mouth, as well as from the loss of tourism and the general downturn in agriculture.
The Budd report makes some reasonable recommendations, such as those regarding machines in cafes and taxi offices. Many local authorities have already passed resolutions and taken action, especially in Scotland, to remove such machines from fish and chip shops, cafes and similar premises.
The main basis for the recommendation in respect of clubs appears to be in paragraph 23.38, which states:
"the 1968 Act does not prohibit children from playing on jackpot machines, and there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that they do. We are anxious to ensure that children are not exposed to high stake/high prize machines and our preferred option would be to remove jackpot machines from private clubs."
The reference is to anecdotal evidence, as hon. Members will note and as has already been stated. Nowhere in the report is detailed evidence given. It is a running theme throughout the report that more research is required into gambling and it would be a travesty if clubs were to be decimated on the basis of merely anecdotal evidence.
In many such clubs the chances of youngsters playing the machines are lower than on other premises. The machines are almost invariably located in bar areas where staff are on the look-out for people's ages. The staff in a club are more likely to know their ages and to notice when junior members are attempting to play the machines. I asked about that in a survey of clubs in my constituency and all of them were clear that they had strict rules preventing youngsters from playing the machines. It seems bizarre to crack down on that when anyone over 16 can go into their local supermarket or newsagent and buy as many national lottery scratch cards as they wish. Given the jackpots on those cards, they are much more likely to be addictive than jackpot machines. It also seems slightly strange that we are trying to encourage sport with substantial funds from the national lottery, which is, after all, a form of gambling, while considering a proposal that would severely restrict the funds raised by sports and other clubs.
The proposal has the dubious merit of uniting almost every age group in opposition to it—even those who, like me, previously had no interest in gambling. I accept that gambling can lead to misery and personal ruin for many individuals, but we are not proposing an end to gambling. As has been said, in many ways this argument mirrors the argument about the licensing and sale of alcohol. I appreciate that the consultation process is only just ending and no doubt the Minister has a huge number of submissions to wade through. However, I ask him to take the matter on board, put clubs out of their misery and announce quickly that the recommendation will not be accepted.
11.50 am
Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Mr. Cook, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this morning's important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing it.
There is no doubt that Sir Alan Budd and the other members of the review body were given a difficult task: to modernise the regulation of gambling in the UK. British gambling has long been regarded as among the best in the world, and I hope that when the Government respond to the report, UK gambling will establish itself as the best in the world. I shall confine my remarks to one or two specific recommendations in the report.
This morning, we have heard a travelogue about British shores, primarily the seaside resorts. I should now like to move into the hinterland of south Yorkshire. As every Member knows, the sun shines a lot brighter in Barnsley and Doncaster than in Rotherham and Sheffield.
Mr. Tony Clarke: In private, one or two Members have said that the Budd report should be shoved where the sun does not shine. That could include my constituency, which is probably the furthest from the coast. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is much concern among clubs and associations in Northampton, whether Royal Navy clubs, working men's clubs or political clubs, that it is estimated that 20 per cent. of those clubs might close if the recommendations are approved?
Jeff Ennis: I thank my hon. Friend for making a telling point, with which I concur and on which I would like to enlarge.
I want to speak against the inclusion in the report of recommendation 70. The Minister has already referred to the fact that he received a great deal of representation on the issue. In fact, he referred to 1,500 representations from clubs in his response to an oral question in the House yesterday, and rightly so. Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), I can tell the Minister that my constituency has 41 clubs, many of which depend on jackpot machines for their financial survival. Many of those clubs have written to me and the Minister. Ten years ago, there probably would have been about 80 such clubs, but many of them closed as a direct consequence of the pit closure programme undertaken by a previous Government in the early 1990s. In addition, as a result of changing social habits, people do a lot more of their entertaining at home, rather than in the formal setting of a club atmosphere. The closure rate underlines the great difficulty in surviving, which many clubs face even without the removal of jackpot machines.
Many clubs in former mining communities are not just places to enjoy a drink and have a good night out; they form the heart of many local communities, as has been said. Many clubs support local sports organisations, local dance groups and local music groups. The most famous example in my constituency is the long association between Grimethorpe miners' welfare institute club and the world-famous

37WH
Grimethorpe colliery band. Some even act as outreach centres for local colleges, which is an important initiative to help former miners back to work. We should not underestimate the regeneration initiatives that the Government have implemented in, for example, working men's clubs. Many clubs have a children's section that raises money for annual trips to seaside resorts such as Skegness, Bridlington, Scarborough and Whitby.
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What about Great Yarmouth?
Jeff Ennis: Great Yarmouth is a bit too far away, but we should include Blackpool. We should not underestimate the impact of these initiatives on local mining communities. For many children, the local working men's club trip is their only annual holiday. Likewise, many clubs have an old folks section that raises money for a Christmas party and allocates cash to elderly members to help them enjoy Christmas. Many clubs also support local charities. I attended a recent event held by my own local club—Brierley social club—which raised more than £1,000 for Grimethorpe St. John Ambulance brigade. Many clubs also raise funds for the purchase of special equipment by local hospitals, and for organisations such as Macmillan nurses.
Many clubs are under severe financial pressure. If recommendation 70 is implemented, I guarantee that it will lead directly to the closure of some clubs in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members. I suppose that I should declare an interest: I am a member of the CIU, my father worked as club steward of Brierley British Legion club for more than 25 years and I lived on the premises for at least 10 years before I got married. I know exactly what it is like to be at the centre of a local community.
I know that the Minister will not be able to tell us in his concluding remarks that recommendation 70 is dead and buried, but it would be nice if he could say that we will shortly receive an invitation to its funeral.
I shall deal with the report's other recommendations briefly as I am conscious of time and that other hon. Members want to speak. One main recommendation—to set up a gambling commission as the single regulatory authority to oversee all gambling in the United Kingdom—appears to have been well received by all sections of the gambling industry and I share that view.
Recommendation 103, which would allow betting on the UK national lottery—on which other Members have briefly touched—is a major concern of Camelot. It said in its submission to the review that, if implemented, the recommendation could have a detrimental impact of up to £400 million a year on returns to the Exchequer and to good causes. I do not know whether Camelot is scaremongering, but I am not convinced of the need to allow betting on our lottery. After all, the bookies already have their own numbers game and take bets on the Irish lottery. Camelot says that 20 per cent. of Irish lottery sales have been lost to betting since the provision was introduced in Ireland.
In conclusion, I congratulate Sir Alan Budd and his team on producing an excellent report. It has given us all food for thought, and we eagerly await the Government's response to its recommendations.
11.58 am
Mrs. Joan Humble: I shall try to be brief, but I should first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing this debate. I agree with virtually everything that he said—apart from his slightly dismissive attitude towards the concept of resort casinos. In my Blackpool constituency, casinos are seen as providing an enormous opportunity to regenerate the resort.
Like my hon. Friend's constituency, mine already has casinos, amusement arcades and social clubs—the three main types of establishment that will be affected. The recommendation to abolish the 24-hour rule and allow advertising will impact on our existing casinos, but it will also offer the opportunity to develop casinos as a tourism product. The millions of people who visit Blackpool are looking forward to that. The idea enjoys widespread support in the local community, because it could provide many more jobs and regenerate tourism in the town.
However, one or two people have certain reservations, especially with regard to safeguarding the interests of children, young people and—as has been mentioned—those who are addicted to gambling. When my right hon. Friend the Minister considers the proposal, I hope that he will take account of the opportunities and reassure those with genuine concerns so that a balanced response can be reached.
I agree with the comments of all hon. Members on amusement arcades. However, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who represents the South Yorkshire hinterland, I must say that the seaside sector is a special case. If one message comes out of the Budd report, it is a lack of understanding of the whole concept of seaside amusement arcades and how much families enjoy visiting them. A recent MORI poll showed that 72 per cent. of people are in favour of, or not opposed to, fruit machines in pubs, clubs and amusement arcades. We must take into account that consensus of opinion.
The amusement arcades that I have visited are careful about how they police their business. They do not want young children coming in and misusing their premises or parents complaining about such behaviour—they want a family atmosphere in which mums, dads and grandparents can have a cup of tea. Although the sun shines for 99 per cent. of the time in Blackpool, hon. Members who have attended party conferences there will realise that it rains occasionally and people visit amusement arcades to benefit not only from the amusements, but from some of the other facilities on offer. Let us appreciate the importance of traditional amusement arcades and the contribution that they make to tourism in seaside towns.
I support everything that has been said about working men's clubs, social clubs, the British Legion and Royal Air Force Association clubs. I have even had a letter from a Conservative club. Everybody is united in the view that the proposals could have a devastating effect on such clubs, which are often the centre of their local communities. The Budd report has good elements—it is a shame that we are concentrating on those with which we disagree—such as recommendations on safeguarding the needs of young people, stricter

39WH
enforcement, and monitoring the qualifications of those who work in gaming establishments. However, we must be aware of the dramatic and disastrous effects that it could have on seaside towns and social clubs.
12.3 pm
Nick Harvey: I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing it. I also welcome the Government's decision to review arcade gambling rules. The Budd report makes some welcome proposals, but it has serious flaws, which I hope that the Minister will deal with in framing his response to it.
The hon. Members for South Thanet and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) gave useful expositions of the potential impact of the suggested changes on our seaside resorts. I represent Ilfracombe, Woolacombe, Croyde, Combe Martin and Lynmouth, and the points that were made about the interrelationship between arcades and other parts of the tourism industry were correct. We should be wary of embarking on actions that would have knock-on consequences across the tourism industry, which is already seriously ailing, if not reeling.
Gambling is a significant industry, which should be handled with care. It contributes £42 billion a year to UK plc, of which it retains a relatively small £7.3 billion. Although we probably do not like to think of ourselves as a nation of gamblers, 72 per cent. of us have gambled in the course of the past year, with an average expenditure of £3.50 a week.
The overall thrust of the review is welcome—it has a largely deregulatory theme, although it is peppered with some reactionary proposals. I also welcome the fact that it recognises the problem of gambling, calling for more research to be done in that area. It suggests the establishment of a new gambling commission with new and wider powers. That is a welcome proposal, and the commission should take on some of the challenges of addressing the problems of addictive gambling. In a sense, the new body is the Gaming Board in all but name, but it has a wider remit and broader investigative powers. They are welcome, but must be used with caution.
The report also suggests that local authorities should have the power to institute a blanket ban on all or certain types of gambling premises within their area. That would have to be carefully examined. I welcome the idea of local authorities having the discretion to make final decisions, but I think it essential that they should look at all applications and licences on a case-by-case basis, rather than imposing a blanket ban. It would also make sense for the same authority to be dealing locally with gambling, liquor and entertainment licences.
Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the impact that the proposals would have on social clubs. Many of those, from all over the country, have been writing in to us because they often rely on the income that they make from jackpot machines to be economically viable. There is currently no provision for Gaming Board inspectors to have the right to enter private clubs. That may be one reason for the proposals in the Budd report. The police, similarly, have no right of entry unless they have grounds for suspecting that an offence is being committed in the club.
40WH
It would make more sense to allow investigations into clubs than to ban the use of the machines altogether. I have communicated in written representations to the Minister my view that private clubs should be allowed to continue to operate jackpot machines on their premises. The stakes on such machines, already relatively high, act as a deterrent to children. The proposed doubling of the stake to a pound would provide a further disincentive. Proposals to allow registered clubs to use all-cash machines as an alternative, as pubs and other licensed premises do, should be examined cautiously.
It is clearly anomalous that the Gaming Board has no right to enter clubs to look into such things. In representations from the pub trade, it has been pointed out that the playing field is not level because pubs are not allowed to have jackpot machines. Minors are rarely, if ever, allowed to enter a pub unaccompanied by an adult, as they are in some clubs. Penalties for those running pubs are considerable if that is found to be happening. If we were simply setting out to have a level playing field, it would make more sense to allow those machines in pubs than to get them out of clubs.
Hon. Members have referred to casinos. Some of the proposals for those are welcome, such as ending the rule on permitted areas, which is long overdue, and repealing the rule on 24-hour membership. However, the idea that employers should be required to obtain a certificate from the Criminal Records Bureau each time a person is promoted or changes employer seems bureaucratic, time-consuming and potentially expensive.
The suggestion that casinos should have a minimum floor size is interesting but, in my view, flawed. The measure would be more useful if it were applied to the total space in the casino rather than just to the table space. I can see that the measure aims to prevent the proliferation of casinos, but it is essentially illiberal. Where demand exists for gaming tables, why should it not be filled, providing that any new facility meets statutory requirements? There was some confusion in that passage of the report. The Government should examine it carefully before arriving at conclusions.
In the short time that I have, I would also like to comment on the proposals on lotteries and the impact that they would have on the national lottery. There are many concerns about the deregulation concerning the rules governing lotteries, especially given the success that the national lottery has had in raising money for good causes. In opening the debate, the hon. Gentleman referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers estimate that £1.3 billion could be lost annually to good causes. Of all the proposals in the report, that is one of the ones that will have the most profound impact, and the Government must examine it with the greatest caution. Out of every pound spent, the lottery contributes up to 44p to the Government's revenues. I should have thought that they, or at least Treasury Ministers, would think cautiously about that. The national lottery has been an outstanding success, and allowing a proliferation of lotteries, some of which would not be as well run and would have uncertain outcomes and impacts, is potentially dangerous.
I welcome the fact that the Government set out upon the review. The report contains several useful suggestions, but some of them would have a profound and damaging impact on many different areas, not least social clubs and seaside resorts. The Minister will be

41WH
unable to show his hand completely, but many people are waiting on tenterhooks for some welcome signs that the Government will pick up the report a la carte, and not take it up lock, stock and barrel.
12.10 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing this debate—and I wish him many happy returns on his birthday. I also look forward to hearing the Minister conclude what has been a positive debate.
In my view, and in that of the official Opposition, the Budd report is a step in the right direction. We welcome its deregulatory thrust. Moving licences from magistrates courts to local councils would be fine if the Government were simultaneously prepared to issue planning policy guidance to prevent the NIMBY syndrome. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of permitted areas, to which PPG would be pertinent. Many of us with rural constituencies such as those in north Yorkshire find that magistrates courts are few and far between. As for retrospection, we should like to see the removal of retrospective powers.
With jackpot licences, there should be a safeguard for under-18s, but we are concerned that the impact on youths has been insufficiently considered in the Budd report. What specific research have the Government undertaken following the limited consultation process? This is the first major review since 1978, and it is important to put on record the fact that the 1978 review took two years to reach its conclusions; the Budd report has taken only one year.
About 33 million adults in this country—72 per cent. of the population—have participated in gambling in the past year. More than half the population have gambled in the past week—not as high a proportion as in the United States, where 63 per cent. have gambled, or in Sweden, where nine out of 10 adults gamble. The suicide rate is significantly higher in Sweden than in Britain, but I do not know whether we should draw the conclusion that that is a result of the higher incidence of gambling in Sweden.
The Budd report recommends deregulation for adults, which we support, but it also recommends tightening regulations for children, which is why we should like to know about the Government's research.
Ms Claire Ward: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss McIntosh: No, I have only eight minutes.
Several hon. Members have expressed their concern about recommendation 70, which is something that I support. In the article in The Times, the Government were reported to have alluded to a possible exemption for social clubs. Perhaps the Minister will put on record today whether that is a leak of Government policy.
I have several questions for the Minister. If he cannot reply to them today, perhaps he will be able to respond in writing. The idea of a single regulator in the form of a gambling commission is welcome, but will he respond to hon. Members who have raised questions about fruit machines in pubs? My experience is that they are an
42WH
accepted institution in pubs and places of leisure, and I question the Government's assessment of the impact of their removal on pub incomes. That could have a dramatic impact in seaside towns and rural constituencies.
On the question of seaside amusements, can the Minister say what impact has been estimated in areas particularly hard hit by the collapse of tourism? No one has yet mentioned the recommendation, which, I suggest, will be difficult to police. How will the Government ask police to prevent people under 18 from gambling on the internet? The recommendation is that operators should prevent such gambling, but how can age be proved online? As for the licensing of premises and the role of local authorities, I repeat that we believe that it is right for local councils to be the planning authority, subject to the removal of blanket retrospection and to the Government's agreeing to issue planning policy guidance.
I do not believe that retrospection is in keeping with the broadly regulatory thrust of the Budd report. Budd's proposals for casinos would permit the development of resort casinos. As a result, will Harrogate or Edinburgh become the Las Vegas of the north? The report states that whether a particular location should be granted a monopoly right to provide a gambling centre is a matter of public policy and outside Budd's terms of reference. Can the Minister indicate the Government's thoughts on such a public policy matter? Can he also tell us what impact the more liberal and less regulated market envisaged by the report will have on Camelot as the national lottery operator?
I am immensely grateful to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for placing on record the impressive contribution, particularly to good causes, made by the national lottery, which was set up by the last Conservative Government. Has the Minister assessed whether that contribution could be jeopardised by the Budd conclusions? Will the Government consider publishing a White Paper on their proposals for legislative change before introducing a Bill? I ask that because the Budd report has been concluded in just over one year. More than 200 memoranda of evidence were received and there were 20 sessions of all evidence, but there has been no pre-consultation period prior to the Budd report, so it is incumbent on the Government to offer a White Paper. That would be welcome indeed.
On seaside gambling and section 34(1) machines, we urge the Minister to put Budd to one side and leave the law as it stands, pending further research into child gambling, and the implications for change in seaside tourism that we have heard about this morning. Will the Minister see fit to amend the law to prohibit those under 18 from playing section 34(5)(e) and section 31 machines, wherever situated? The official Opposition support the proposals for deregulation of casinos generally, but in the context of casinos' no-minimum-stake, no-maximum-prize machines, will the Minister undertake to review the impact on attitudes to casino expansion, and other gambling premises? I agree to the licensing by local councils, subject to the withdrawal of blanket retrospection and the issuing of planning policy guidance. We await the Minister's response with bated breath.
12.18 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing the debate, which is part of the on-going process of consultation; hon. Members' contributions this morning have been very helpful to me, and to my officials. The comments have been objective—slightly more objective than weather forecasts in the United Kingdom. I wish my hon. Friend many happy returns and I will see him in the bar later.
The fact that so many hon. Members are present and that they have argued so forcefully shows the concerns felt in their constituencies. It is not in our interest for industries, whether they are in manufacturing or tourism, to be damaged by Government action.
The 1978 royal commission was mentioned, but the last real review of gambling was in the 1960s, and things have changed dramatically since then. Although the debate has rightly focused on specific issues, we are discussing an industry that is worth tens of billions of pounds and makes a major contribution to the nation's well-being and enjoyment. We want to ensure that we get things right.
Several changes since 1960 have forced the review. The internet and interactive television are increasingly important gambling media throughout the world. There is a much bigger picture to consider, and I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for taking the initiative in setting up the important gambling review when he was a Minister.
My Department is responsible for the gambling industry; it is a major and well-respected employer and we must ensure that its integrity is maintained when we consider legislation. As the Budd report reflects, with the introduction of the national lottery, gambling has become a mainstream recreation and leisure activity, rather than being seen as rather seedy. We must be careful how we approach the issue, and take account of all the risks involved. The debate has focused on the Budd report, the risks of deregulation, problem gambling and young people's access to gambling machines.
No one has argued that there should not have been a review; indeed, the prospect of a review was broadly welcomed. Sir Alan and his colleagues took evidence from a wide range of people. We published the report in July and asked for comments, and we shall take the points made in the debate into consideration.
The consultation ended on 31 October. We received more than 2,000 comments, which we are going through carefully, and I am mindful of what has been said today. We considered the experience of countries where the laws were changed—Australia, for example—and where fundamental mistakes were made, as it is difficult to claw back if there are errors. We must be cautious and prudent as we proceed.
Blight is a strong word, but as I said when I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, uncertainty is an expensive commodity in business. I still believe that, and I will try to apply the principle of getting decisions made as quickly as possible. We intend to review all the responses, and I hope that we will be able to make some announcements early in the new year about how to take the process forward. I am mindful of what has been said
44WH
today, and we must get the Government's position clear. There will be further discussions about that, including more Adjournment debates and questions in the House, which is right. When we come to a decision, we will then have to find out how we can manage the change and see it through.
I cannot answer many of the questions—indeed, I would not answer them, even if I could. I have asked people to examine the Budd report, which is a serious piece of work that took a lot of time to take evidence and come to conclusions. We respect those conclusions and want them to be debated properly. Equally, we want to ensure that we go through the process thoroughly, in the knowledge that there are industries that want us to do that as expeditiously as possible. I assure hon. Members that we will do that. There are many and varied ways in which we can manage through change. It does not all have to come as one big bang, and after we have made our decisions, we will think about a management strategy for delivery.
Ms Ward: Will the Minister examine the age at which gambling can take place? At the moment the age limit is 16 for the national lottery, but the proposals would maintain 18 as the limit for every other form of gambling. Will he consider that carefully, discuss with other Departments the need to review the age at which people attain their right to gamble, and decide whether to reduce that universally to 16?
Mr. Caborn: Several people raised that question in their submissions for consultation, and it will be part of the review.
We have had many representations. Of the 2,000 representations, about 1,500 were about gaming machines, especially the recommendation that members clubs, including sporting, social, community and political clubs, should no longer be allowed to install jackpot slot machines. I have a vested interest, as I am a member of the CIU. Four of its secretaries met me one Sunday evening in my club, the Sheffield Trades and Labour club—but I can assure hon. Members that they were not there to buy me drinks. I took their points and told them that they could make representations via the Ministry, and that if they wanted to put their thoughts in writing rather than verbally, it would be helpful. They did not resort to the vernacular.
Mr. Dennis Turner: The 1,500 clubs that have written to the Minister are emphatic in assuring him, and our Government, that they are capable of policing gaming machines in their own clubs. I speak as the acting chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on non-profit-making clubs. There are 200 members from this House and the House of Lords, and the Minister will know that they are all urging him to drop recommendation 70.
Mr. Caborn: I am aware of those representations, and we take them on board. We do not want to do anything that would affect the social infrastructure of the surrounding areas. I told the House yesterday that about £250 million goes into clubs' finances, according to the information that has been passed to us.
Slot machines in pubs and other licensed premises are at present allowed a maximum prize of £15. The gambling review body recommended that members'

45WH
clubs and pubs should both be limited to machines with a maximum prize of £25. Underlying that recommendation was the review body's serious concern that the present law does not sufficiently protect children and vulnerable people in relation to gambling machines. I accept what has been said this morning, and we will examine the matter seriously. If the clubs took steps to ensure that concerns were met, that would be extremely helpful for the Government in reaching a decision.
As a result of evidence from this country and overseas, the review body vas worried that gaming machines potentially involved a hard form of gambling with addictive characteristics. It noted that most countries do not allow children to play slot machines. As far as I know, we are the only country in the western world that allows young people to play slot machines, even at the seaside. That is a characteristic of the UK and something that we have to take—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I regret that I must bring this important debate to an end, but I have no alternative. We now move to the next debate.

Employment (South Devon)
12.30 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issues of employment and unemployment in— [Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Will those who are leaving Westminster Hall please do so silently to enable the hon. Gentleman to be heard by the Chair?
Richard Younger-Ross: Thank you, Mr. Winterton.
I welcome the opportunity to debate employment and unemployment in south Devon. The title of the debate mentions employment because I wanted to touch on low pay and the social deprivation that that causes, as well as on the rise in unemployment in south Devon.
First, I have to dispel a couple of myths. I am sure that most hon. Members have spent time on holiday in Devon and that they remember thatched cottages, white cobbed walls, little streets and sandy beaches. We all have those happy childhood memories, but the reality is far harder, as many people know. Devon is not just a picture-postcard area; there is also social deprivation and poverty.
If we consider how tourism has changed in the last 30 years, we can appreciate some of the dramatic social changes that have occurred. People no longer flock on to trains down to Torquay and Teignmouth and into the South Hams; they go to Luton airport and fly abroad. The tourism industry in Devon has declined. Tourist establishments have been converted into residential care homes, which are now being turned into flats. As they become residential, employment opportunities are lost. There has been a structural decline in what we might call the mainstays or props of the traditional south-west industry.
The other great prop for the south-west, including south Devon, was agriculture. As we all know, it, too, has declined in the last 30 or 40 years. It has been mechanised, which means that fewer people work on the land. Of course, agriculture has had two particularly bitter blows in recent years; the BSE crisis in the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent tragedy of foot and mouth.
Tourism, agriculture and other traditional mainstays of the area are low-income industries. The average income in south Devon is still £100 a week less than the UK average. According to the latest figures that I could find, about 15 per cent. of Berkshire's population pays higher-rate income tax, whereas the figure for Devon is less than 3 per cent., placing it fourth from bottom of the list. That gives us an idea that vast amounts of money are not floating around. Without those high incomes, it is harder for small industries, newsagents and corner stores to flourish.
We would all agree that national unemployment levels are low compared with those of the 1980s and early 1990s. We are grateful for that change, but low unemployment does not mean that an area is wealthy. Low unemployment may mean that many people work for very little money, and it may conceal social deprivation. Low unemployment should not be used as

47WH
an excuse for saying, "Well, everything is all right because everyone has a job." People may have a job and still be struggling. They may not claim benefits because they have been self-employed; Devon has a high percentage of people who have been self-employed. When one is self-employed—I speak from experience because I used to work for myself—one does not sign on when work dries up, because one cannot. One struggles, gets by and borrows money until one gets a little more work. In the meantime, the debts and the problems get bigger. Repairs to the house are not done; one does without.
That reality is often little understood. Public policy is concentrated on areas of high unemployment and city deprivation. The Government have done work on inner-city deprivation but they need to look at social deprivation in rural and other areas, in addition to those that are more obvious or, to use the current expression, more "in your face". Such deprivation is increasing in south Devon. Torbay, a neighbouring area, has had a 10.9 per cent. increase in unemployment over the past year. Totnes, another neighbouring constituency, has had a 7.4 increase in unemployment over the past year.
Teignbridge has had a slight decline in unemployment of 1.4 per cent. However, there are increasing redundancies in the Torbay area, the Teignbridge area and south Devon genersally. In my constituency, Centrax, a company that makes parts and settings for jet engines and gas turbines, has just announced 250 job losses. The clay extract company Watts, Blake and Bearne announced earlier this year 60 losses in headquarters staff by reorganising, and recently announced another 50 losses. In addition, Devon Desserts, a successful company that is in the process of liquidation and is being bought out, has lost 16 managers; 400 jobs are hanging in the balance.
It has long been recognised that low-income areas need the introduction of high-skilled jobs. My region has had successes. We had the success of Centrax, for example, which was established in Newton Abbott by Robert Barr, who worked with Frank Whittle on jet engines. It has gone from strength to strength. There is also Nortel, a company in a neighbouring constituency that employs many of my constituents. It has been very successful in the telecommunications industry and in manufacturing mobile phone sets and other linked equipment. However, it has just announced 4,000 job losses. If 4,000 job losses occurred all at once in any major city, everyone would say, "This is dramatic. It is a great loss." However, I do not hear statements decrying these job losses; the Prime Minister is not saying, "Oh, that is a great disaster." Nor do I see the interest in doing something about it. I am sure that, in other contexts and places, that would have occurred.
Centrax has suffered a double blow. Its 250 job losses are occurring as a direct result of the events of 11 September. The jet engine components that it makes go to Rolls-Royce, which makes jet engines for the American executive jet market; people are no longer ordering such jets. The airlines have cut back. That is understandable and cannot be helped but the company has also been affected by direct Government policy.
48WH
Centrax also makes gas turbines. It is affected badly by the climate change levy that has been applied on combined heat and power units and also by the new electricity trading arrangement. The NETA agreement means that companies with combined heat and power are charged and penalised if they put electricity into the grid at the wrong time, rather than being able to sell their spare electricity at any time. The result of that has been a 60 per cent. downturn in the CHP sector and, whereas Centrax might have expected to build five or six turbine sets during the next six months, they will build only one. The Government could take direct action.
I have a general request, and several specific points. My request is that the Government examine how grants are given; what assistance is given and how does it work? The job transition service and the rapid response fund were mentioned in item 4.36 of the November 2000 pre-Budget report, stating:
"The service will provide help for people made redundant to move into new jobs".
The Government might help people to move into new jobs but if such people want skilled work, they will have to look in other areas. We in south Devon cannot afford to lose our skills base. If those people stay in south Devon, they may have to move from high to low pay. As I indicated, that has a knock-on effect on other industries and on smaller shops, which are still struggling in my part of the country.
Aid could be given to the aerospace industry by Government contract, although that would not necessarily have an immediate effect on Centrax. However, if the Government were to bring forward military programmes, that might help. If the Government reconsidered their investment in research and development, that might help. I ask the Minister to consider those specific points and pass them on to her colleagues in those Departments responsible for such matters.
The Government's policies directly affect CHP. The climate change levy could be cut for CHP units. We could ensure that the NETA is revised so that small providers are not penalised, and so that it is environmentally friendly and links in with the Government's stated intentions on sustainability. That would promote joined-up government.
Finally, with respect to agriculture and tourism, there is no reason why the Government should not support Devon county council's recovery programme and ensure that it is fully funded. I ask the Minister to do that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): It is good to have the Minister with us. We wish her well.
12.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): Thank you for those good wishes, Mr. Winterton. I believe that this is the first Adjournment debate for the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I wish to congratulate him on securing it, and on raising issues that I know are of concern to his constituents and which I share.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the difficulties that he and his constituents are facing, partly because of changes in the local economic base and partly because of

49WH
job losses. I will concentrate on some of his points more than others. My parents have lived in his constituency for the past 20-odd years, so I know the area somewhat and can speak with some knowledge of its attractions and the difficulties that it faces. I have first-hand experience as a regular visitor who enjoys the tourism opportunities that the area offers.
Torbay is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it is worth noting that Torbay is described as the UK's premier tourist resort. He mentioned that there are still many successes and many good things happening in that area. I was pleased to hear that Torbay had a successful summer season and that it continued to do well into the autumn. There are good aspects of what has been happening in that part of the country.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I do not believe that the Government appreciate for one minute the impact of the loss of 4,300 jobs in Torbay since February. The increase in tourism was a direct result of good weather this year, but it in no way begins to negate the impact of those job losses. If those loses had happened in one go in other parts of the country, they would have made the national news. The Minister cannot dismiss the impact by saying that we had a good tourist season.
Miss Melanie Johnson: I was trying to open with some remarks about tourism and I was going to move on to the job losses. If the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) holds his fire for a few minutes, he will see that I will address those issues. I have a little bit of time, so it is worth addressing some of the points that have been raised.
Tourism is still a force to be reckoned with and is still a major part of the economic base of the area. There have been some good tourism stories, even this year, as well as difficulties. I take the point that the hon. Member for Teignbridge made about the relationship with low pay and how people can have a rosy view of what the countryside represents and the difficulties that it faces. We recognise that. Much of the Government's activity increasingly focuses specifically on policies that address the issues facing rural areas all around the country, including the south-west. One of our major changes that will have had a major impact in areas where there is a tradition of low pay is the introduction of the national minimum wage, which I am sure has benefited many in both Torbay and Teignbridge.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge spoke about the difficulties that he and his constituents face because of the loss announced in late October of up to 250 jobs in the aircraft engines sector, which is about a quarter of the work force at Centrax in Newton Abbot. He also explained the impact more widely on Devon, including the job losses in various constituencies; these losses also affect his constituency to a degree. We regret those job losses and local agencies are working closely with the companies to provide the help needed by the employees affected.
The job losses in the telecommunications sector are not a problem specific to south Devon or even the UK, but reflect a sharp downturn in the global telecommunications markets after a period of rapid and sustained growth, from which south Devon benefited
50WH
considerably. There has been a huge increase in jobs in this sector, although I appreciate that numbers have dropped down to pre-1998 levels. Paignton remains by far Nortel's largest global manufacturing operation for its lasers, amplifiers and related components used in optical systems for telecommunications. It is also an important centre of research and development. I entirely understand the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the need to keep the skills base in the area and to build on it.
The Employment Service and Benefits Agency locally are in close touch with Centrax in Newton Abbott about the number and timing of the job losses proposed, so that they are in the best possible position to provide the advice and support that the employees affected will need, particularly to find another job. I am sure that hon. Members share my understanding that future employment is the first thing on people's mind if they face job losses. There will be an application for large-scale redundancy status.
Richard Younger-Ross: It is not simply a matter of finding alternative employment, but of finding a comparable salary. It is no good for someone who is earning £300 a week one week to earn £100 the next. People have mortgages, cars and hire purchase agreements which are lost if they have to downgrade. People tend to move away and that is what I fear will happen.
Miss Johnson: Yes, that was exactly what I meant a moment ago when I spoke about the importance of sustaining centres of research and development as a means of sustaining higher-skilled and better-paid jobs in the sector.
At Centrax, there will be an application for large-scale redundancy status, which will provide immediate access to jobsearch and training programmes, usually available only to the long-term unemployed. Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry remain in close dialogue with companies in the aerospace sector and with the Society of British Aerospace Companies to monitor and evaluate developments. The current reduction in air travel following the tragic events of 11 September is having an inevitable knock-on effect for companies, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, at all levels in the aerospace industry.
Initial discussions with the industry suggest a reduction of production in line with the airlines' capacity reduction of about 20 per cent., but the position is evolving and no reliance can be placed on those provisional numbers. In the longer term, the sector is optimistic about returning to growth. The UK aerospace industry is an excellent example of what the Government hope to achieve in our drive towards a knowledge-intensive, high-productivity economy. Large orders have recently been placed for Airbus. There is still good news nationally in the aerospace industry.
I should like to deal with the redundancies at Nortel Networks, Paignton and JDS Uniphase, Torquay. All the local agencies—including the Employment Service, the regional development association and the Government Office for the region—have been working closely with the companies and the local authority

51WH
throughout the year to ensure that the necessary specific help is delivered. I emphasise that we are succeeding in working effectively across all those agencies to formulate a programme involving large-scale redundancy status, which provides immediate access to the various Government jobsearch and training programmes.
Mr. Sanders: Is the Minister aware that the contract given to Devon training for skills to offer training to people who have not yet been unemployed for six months has, for some reason, been cancelled? Many of my constituents have contacted my office in the past two weeks to inform me that their training programmes are no longer available. Will the Minister investigate that problem and correct it?
Miss Johnson: I shall certainly ask my departmental officials to examine the problem and to discuss it further with him. We shall see what we can do about it.
The Employment Service and the Benefits Agency have continued to try to meet the needs of affected employees. The Government rapid response funding of £250,000 is providing training and support to help back into employment those employees made redundant by Nortel and JDS Uniphase in Torquay. Such help can be accessed for up to 12 months after redundancy. So far, 475 individuals have been supported, with 365 securing employment as a result. I accept that the employment might not be comparable, but it is good news that 365—slightly more than three-quarters—have secured jobs.
South Devon has many advantages to offer, including a beautiful environment and a skilled work force; qualities that have attracted high-tech companies to the area. The current employment difficulties do not alter that attractiveness in the medium and longer term. It is important that the area is marketed effectively to attract the right sort of investment when market recovery comes. That is a job for Invest UK and the regional development agency, working in partnership with the local authorities. The regional development agency is working closely with Nortel as part of its inward investor aftercare programme and Invest UK is in touch with inward investors whenever possible to market existing facilities and skills within the UK.
Invest UK, the Department of Trade and Industry's communications and information industries directorate, the Government Office for the region, the Employment Service and the regional development agency are to meet the hon. Member for Torbay on 13 November to discuss the support that is available to Torbay and the help that is being given through a local task force to help to market Nortel's vacated building to potential inward investors. We hope that we might be able to get a comparable operation to come into the area. Everyone is working with that objective in mind, and I appreciate the support of local Members in trying to achieve it. The chief executive of Invest UK is to visit Devon on 19 and 20 November to discuss inward investment with businesses, the RDA, the Government Office for the region, and Torbay, Plymouth and Devon councils. Much is being done to try to pick up the threads and ensure that jobs of a comparable nature are created. South Devon should not look simply to inward
52WH
investment as a means of increasing employment opportunities and diversifying its economy. A close look should be taken, with all the local partners, at the opportunities for encouraging and supporting business growth locally, including the expansion of businesses, building on potential cluster strengths and opportunities and developing the capacity for entrepreneurship.
South Devon has a range of programmes to help the local economy and to improve skills and employability, including the new European objective 2 programme in the south-west, which is worth £108 million in European grant over seven years. That does not cover the Teignbridge constituency. However, objective 3, the new deal and the new DTI enterprise grant are all opportunities to be grasped.
I am pleased that two major projects by Torbay council and Paignton zoo to regenerate Torquay's harbour area are close to receiving formal offers of support from the objective 2 European regional development fund. Business units are included as part of that scheme. I understand that the total European grant could be worth more than £3.6 million and that those projects have been the focus of Torbay's attention so far. I hope that it will now be possible to consider more widely the potential for objective 2 to support economic development opportunities in the area. There are travel-to-work areas around Newton Abbot and in the Teignbridge area, including Exeter; many people are relatively mobile and can move around locally. Regardless of the specific area for which objective money is available, it can create jobs in neighbouring areas.
So far, little advantage has been taken locally in south Devon of the opportunities that the European social fund provides through the objective 2 and objective 3 programmes to upskill and retrain the labour force. It should be possible to make linkages—for example, between capital projects to provide new employment opportunities such as business units using the European regional development fund and training and retraining support through the European social fund—to ensure that local people have the right skills to access job opportunities.
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Lady mentioned capital projects. Does she include the Kingskerswell bypass?
Miss Johnson: I know that that has been campaigned about for a long time, and I am sure that local Members will continue to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a matter for my Department.
This year, 640 young people in south Devon have left the new deal, 64 per cent. of whom have gone into jobs. Of those, 80 per cent. remain in sustained jobs. That is better than the national average of 75 per cent. The DTI has made nine offers of enterprise grant to small and medium-sized enterprises in south Devon, totalling nearly £0.4 million towards project costs of £2.6 million. That accounts for almost 30 per cent. of the enterprise grant offered in the eligible areas of the south-west as a whole. However, only two applications—both successful—have been made by businesses in Torbay and only one in Teignbridge. No bids were made by

53WH
Torbay in the first year. That is a missed opportunity. There is scope for more bids to be made using the support that is already available to business; I am sure that hon. Members will now be egging people on to do so.
The local regional development agency has been supporting, with more than £5 million, projects worth more than £9 million of investment in south Devon, some of which are completed. Torbay is one of the RDA's five priority areas for regeneration in the southwest. The RDA is, for example, supporting the phase two development of Long Road business park, in Paignton, and the Torquay Living Coasts project to revitalise the waterfront. It is also investing £125,000 from the skills development fund to increase skills for supporting tourism business competitiveness in Torbay.
The Government are trying to help in every way that they can, and to mitigate the effects of 11 September on the economy of south Devon. I am sure that we will continue to do all we can to assist local businesses and local employment. However, I conclude by saying that the news is not all bad and that there are many items of good news for south Devon.

Electronic Tagging
1 pm
Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is important to my constituents.
As a society, we are judged on our system of justice. It is important that we balance punishment of offenders with their rehabilitation. Punishment is important to show that our society does not approve of what has happened. It should also act as a deterrent to others, so that they see what happens if they break the law. Punishment should also enable the victim of the crime to feel that what was done to them has been paid for. However, rehabilitation is equally important in ensuring that people who have committed a crime can get on with their life once they have paid for their crime.
I apologise, Mr. Winterton, if it seems that I am going back to the first principles of the judicial system, but doing so will prove important to the debate. My constituency includes the centre of Reading—in fact, it reaches some way west of the centre—and covers almost the entire night-time economy. When I moved to Reading in 1984, it had the night-time economy of the smallish market town it then was. However, in the intervening years it has changed massively. It has grown into a larger, dynamic, thrusting city aspirant. It has changed from the home of the three Bs—beer, bulbs and biscuits—to the centre of the Thames valley high-tech service area. It is home to many international companies, such as Microsoft, and is a regional shopping centre. Of the three Bs, only the brewing of beer remains.
As Reading has grown, so has its night-time economy. When I moved to Reading, people who lived there used to go out at weekends to pubs and restaurants in villages nearby. There were just a few town centre pubs and restaurants, and they had a rather unsavoury reputation. However, in the past few years a large number of attractive pubs and restaurants have opened. Reading now draws in thousands of people every weekend. They travel some distance—sometimes from areas such as west London—for a night out in Reading.
As a result, more people are walking the streets of Reading at night, which has helped to make it a safer place. As a woman, I now have no fear of walking around central Reading at night on my own. However, one downside of growth has been an increase in crime, particularly drink-related crime, which usually involves violence. In the past few months there have been fatalities in the Minster street area of central Reading that were entirely the result of drink-related crime.
I believe that some of these problems are connected to the drinking culture that our licensing system encourages. I will continue to work for the modernisation of our licensing system, so that we can reduce the problems that it creates. I will also work to help reduce the need for a massive police presence on the streets at 11.30 at night, and again at 2.30 in the morning, to deal with the thousands of people who are simultaneously ejected from venues.
I have talked about Reading's night-time economy because it provides the background to the substance of today's debate: electronic tagging. A constituent of mine

55WH
who was out at night in Reading with his friends got involved in some trouble with others and was arrested. He was found guilty of actual bodily harm and on 20 July he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with a further three months suspended. He was imprisoned in Reading young offenders institution—more famously known as Reading gaol in Reading town—about which a beautiful poem was written by one of Reading's more famous, if less willing, residents, the genius Oscar Wilde.
I shall not name the constituent involved, at the request of his family. He had been serving his three months' imprisonment on a home detention curfew, which extended until 19 October this year. The curfew ran daily between 7.15 pm and 7.15 am. Home detention curfews were introduced on 28 January by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Prisoners sentenced to custody of three months or more are eligible to be released on home detention curfew. Prisoners must be over 18 on their release date; they are required to be at a specific address for at least nine hours a day, where they are monitored by an electronic tag. All eligible prisoners must pass a risk assessment and have a suitable address before they will be granted a home detention curfew, and the final decision is made by the prison governor.
Someone released on home detention curfew is subject to the same supervision as someone released early. Anyone released on home detention curfew can be recalled if they break the terms of their curfew. That can happen if they go out, if they present a danger to the public or if there is a change in their circumstances. They can also be recalled if it proves impossible to monitor them or they are charged with a new offence.
Curfew orders are a welcome addition to the judicial system. They balance the punishment and rehabilitation aspects of the system to which I referred earlier, with the balance probably favouring rehabilitation. A curfew order allows someone to try to rebuild their life while punishing them for what they have done. For example, it is possible for a curfew to be established in such a way that someone can work during the day but cannot go out at night, making it an appropriate punishment in my constituent's case. Every night when he could not go out with his friends, he was reminded about his previous behaviour.
It is important that people who transgress have the chance to get their life back on track, and work is an important part of that. The curfew order's success depends on the monitoring of the person against whom it is made. This involves the offender wearing an electronic tag, which, in combination with equipment located at the curfew address, monitors when the offender is at the address. If the offender leaves the address during curfew hours, or attempts to move or damage the equipment or tag, the private companies that monitor the schemes are alerted.
I was visited at my surgery at Whitley advice shop on Monday 15 October by my constituent's parents. When his parents visited me, four days of his detention order remained. At the surgery, they presented me with a letter that set out the following situation. At 4.30 pm on Friday 12 October, the sentencing unit at the Home Office revoked my constituent's licence on the grounds that it had been breached. The alleged breach took place
56WH
during the 12-hour period between 11 October and 12 October. At 7.30 pm on 12 October, my constituent was arrested by Thames Valley police and returned to Reading young offenders institution. The case appears straightforward because the order can be revoked at any time if it is breached. However, my constituent's parents were adamant that the order had not been breached and that their son had been at home on the night of the alleged breach. They were also worried because their son had been offered a job, which he was due to begin on15 October. His father rang up the firm to say that his son would not be in that day and was worried that his son would lose the job.
When. I returned to my office, I passed the matter on to my caseworker, who telephoned Reliance Monitoring, the firm responsible for monitoring the scheme, and was referred to a named member of the electronic monitoring team at the Home Office. My caseworker telephoned the electronic monitoring team but no one was available, so a message was left on the voice mail. On the next day, we had still not received a reply so we rang again. This time, my assistant spoke to the named member of the team, who seemed very cagey and promised that she would ring back because she was looking into the matter. When my office was called back, we were told that there was a question mark over the electronic tag, as Reliance Monitoring had found it to be dormant. Upon asking questions to gather further information, specifically about whether the tag was working, my office asked for the situation to be put in writing. The following conversation took place. The electronic monitoring team said, "Why do you want it in writing?" My caseworker replied, "Because my MP would like to discuss it and make representations to Ministers." The electronic monitoring team then asked, "Is she Conservative or Labour?" My caseworker said, "She's Labour." My caseworker then received an e-mail setting out the situation in writing. My caseworker did not know whether the e-mail would have been different had I been a Conservative. I am at loss as to why that question was asked.
The e-mail said that the Home Office electronic monitoring team was informed by Reliance Monitoring on the afternoon of 16 October that the tag was in dormant mode—it had shut down and had stopped transmitting for an unknown reason. The e-mail said that that could have occurred for a number of reasons and that Reliance was to have faxed that information to the sentence enforcement unit on the afternoon of 16 October in time for an appeal by my constituent. It was suggested that my office contact the sentence enforcement unit. The e-mail also said that my constituent had failed to answer the telephone between 7 and 8 pm and had not responded to a knock on the door between 1.20 and 1.30 am on 12 October. It stated that it is the offender's responsibility to let the monitoring company have access to investigate a suspected violation at any time of the night. This is noted in the release licence, or in words to that effect. It is also the offender's responsibility to answer the telephone.
There is some lack of clarity as to what Reliance Monitoring did. In discussion with my office, Reliance staff originally said that they called at my constituent's house at 10.30 pm, finding the lights off and no one home. The statement was later altered to say that they

57WH
called at the house at 2.30 am. I have not been able to establish whether they called to gain access to the house or, upon seeing that the lights were off and no one, apparently, was home, did not try to gain access. Reliance claims to have made the required telephone calls to my constituent, who failed to answer and return the calls. My constituent acknowledged that he missed the calls but that he had thought nothing of it.
On arriving to arrest my constituent, Thames Valley police checked with Reliance Monitoring to see if it could pick up a signal from the tag. No signal was coming from the tag, but the officers had no choice but to arrest my constituent; as the licence had already been revoked, they had no discretion over the matter. My office then phoned the sentencing enforcement unit. The home detention curfew manager explained that my constituent would need to go through an appeal. I faxed a letter of support to the home detention curfew manager and contacted the Home Office which was happy to help. but the time scale meant that the appeal hearing could not physically be speeded up.
My constituent's appeal was heard and he was released on Thursday 18 October. The home detention curfew plays an important role in the criminal justice system, but we must have confidence that it works. I would like assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that we can be confident that technical malfunctions will not cause United Kingdom citizens to spend days, possibly longer, in prison when they should not be there. Is there any information about how many tags have so failed, causing the problems suffered by my constituent? The importance of allowing monitoring should be made clear to offenders, including the importance of answering the telephone. I do not believe that that is made clear to everyone released in this way.
The system is important and I support it, as do other hon. Members, but we must be confident that it works properly.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for raising the case of her constituent who was released under licence on home detention curfew. I am also grateful for the help she gave her constituent and the liaison that she undertook with officials to help sort out what was going wrong with that case. On the issues that she has raised, I will take up any matters that I can to ensure that the system is working as well as possible.
Inquiries suggest that this was an isolated case. I will explain why in a moment. As my hon. Friend said, her constituent's licence was revoked when it appeared that he was absent for an entire curfew period of 12 hours. As a result, he was recalled to prison. He appealed against that decision, the monitoring equipment was tested and found to be faulty, and he was released. I share my hon. Friend's concern at what happened, and want to tell her about some of the steps that we have taken to prevent a recurrence.
I will first explain how the home detention curfew scheme and electronic monitoring works in general, and then set out the facts in this case and the action that we have taken in response. The scheme was provided for by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and began to operate
58WH
in January 1999. As my hon. Friend recognised, the scheme's aim is to ease the transition of prisoners from custody to the community by enabling short-term prisoners to serve up to the last two months of the custodial part of their sentence in the community, subject to an electronically monitored curfew. Most prisoners serving sentences of between three months and four years are eligible for release under the scheme. As my hon. Friend said, the prison governor decides on behalf of the Secretary of State whether a prisoner can be released on HDC. The decision is made on the basis of a stringent, robust risk assessment that takes into account the risk of harm to the public, the risk of re-offending during the curfew period and the likelihood of compliance with the curfew.
The law requires a minimum curfew of nine hours a day for released prisoners. In practice, as was the case for my hon. Friend's constituent, the curfew is normally 12 hours, typically running from around 7 pm to 7 am. I think that it was 7.15 pm to 7.15 am in this case. The electronic monitoring of those under curfew is carried out by private sector companies, such as Reliance, under contract to the Home Office. They provide a complete service, supplying and maintaining tagging equipment, monitoring compliance with the curfew and following up any breaches. Those are reported to the Prison Service's sentence enforcement unit, which exercises on behalf of the Secretary of State the power to revoke a licence and recall a curfewee to prison.
On the day of release from prison, the contractors visit the released prisoner at the curfew address. They fit a tag, usually around the offender's ankle, and install a monitoring unit at that address. The tag sends a signal to the monitoring unit at frequent intervals. The signal is sent down the telephone line to a central computer at the monitoring centre, also operated by the contractor. The tag is calibrated to the monitoring unit, so that if the person goes out of range—in practice, goes outside the house where the unit is located—the signal is not received. The monitoring staff are then alerted to begin enforcement procedures. As standard practice, those involve a telephone call and a visit if necessary. If the available evidence suggests that the curfewee has breached the conditions of the licence, it can be revoked and the curfewee recalled to prison.
I turn from the general position to my hon. Friend's constituent, who was released on home detention curfew on 4 September to an address in Reading. His curfew was due to expire on 19 October. In accordance with procedure, staff from the monitoring company visited him on 4 September to fit the tag and install the monitoring equipment. That was completed successfully, and the equipment at that stage—and apparently for most of the licence period—was working properly.
On 11 October, at the start of the curfew period at 7.15 pm, the computer at the monitoring centre recorded an absence of signal from the tag. The contractor's staff tried to telephone my hon. Friend's constituent at 7.24 pm and 7.47 pm, but there was no answer. A visit was scheduled to the curfew address. Records indicate that that took place between 1.20 am and 1.30 am on 12 October. The staff were unable to enter the premises. I take my hon. Friend's point—it is a matter that I will follow up—that it is unclear exactly what occurred during that visit: whether the door was

59WH
knocked and there was no answer, or whether further efforts were made. I think that the door was knocked but I am not clear whether anything else was done.
The central computer continued to record an absent signal until the end of the curfew period at 7.15 am on 12 October. The contractor reported that to the sentence enforcement unit. Inquiries were made of the prison from which the person was released, the probation service, the contractor and the police. The inquiries showed that the absence was not authorised and the licence was revoked that day in accordance with the law. My hon. Friend's constituent was arrested that evening and transferred to prison the following day. He subsequently appealed against the revocation.
On 15 October, the contractor's staff retrieved and tested the tag that my hon. Friend's constituent had been wearing from the prison to which he was returned. They discovered that the tag was in dormant mode. That is the mode in which the tag operates when it is not in use to monitor people, and when it has been removed from one person before being fitted to another. That prevents the accumulation of unnecessary data and means that the tag does not send a signal to the monitoring unit. The tag resets itself from time to time as a precautionary response to any possible interference with its power supply, although it is programmed to continue normal operation. As far as we are aware, this is the first occasion that a tag has reset itself to dormant mode, rather than being programmed to do so by the contractor's staff when it is not in use. We do not yet know why that happened in this case, and the contractor has asked the manufacturers to examine the tag.
The contractor notified the sentence enforcement unit of the tag's fault. That cast doubt on the safety of the revocation of the individual's licence and, consequently, his appeal was upheld and he was released from prison on 18 October.
The malfunction of even a single tag of the many that are fitted is a matter of concern. We discussed that with the contractor and relevant operating procedures have changed as a response. In future, on all occasions when a tag resets itself, the contractor's staff will visit the curfewee to replace the tag and return it to the manufacturer. That will ensure that a tag cannot reset itself to dormant mode and continue to be worn by a curfewee.
I realise that that will be of little consolation to the individual in this case and to his family. However, as I said at the outset, the incident seems to be isolated and action has been taken to prevent a recurrence.
Over the past 12 months, the sentence enforcement unit received 71 appeals against revocation of licences. That is 10 per cent. of the 700 revocations that were
60WH
made during the same period. We conducted a manual sift of all appeals, which revealed that only eight of the 71 prisoners who appealed claimed that the breach arose because of equipment failure. Only eight people claimed that the breach was technical. All eight cases were investigated fully. In only one case—unfortunately that of my hon. Friend's constituent—was the breach found to have arisen from a fault in the equipment. The most common finding in the other seven cases was that the tag had been deliberately damaged or cut off by the person himself. I accept that such information is not necessarily helpful to the person under discussion, but I am confident, because of our subsequent inquiries, that this is the only case in which the tag was responsible for what seemed to be a breach that resulted in the consequences described.
On a more general note, my hon. Friend is aware, notwithstanding the unfortunate circumstances of the case, of what an important role home detention curfew plays in enabling offenders to make the transition from custody to the community more effectively. More than 40,000 people have been released on home detention curfew, with only a small minority—less than 5 per cent. —having their licences revoked for one reason or another. Indeed, within that 5 per cent., the number of people whose licences have been revoked because of a serious issue, such as committing an offence, is smaller still and is less than 2 per cent.
The system has a success rate of more than 90 per cent. It helps prisoners to make the transition, which is important if we are to resettle offenders effectively back into their families and communities and help them to resume life without further offending.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. I shall investigate whether we can clarify procedures and make them as robust as possible. We want contractors to telephone or make contact in response to an apparent breach. I hope that she accepts that we have followed up her point systematically.
Jane Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the obligation on offenders to answer telephone calls and to allow access is made clear? It has become apparent in my investigations that such a procedure has not been made clear to those on release.
Beverley Hughes: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall check that the offender's responsibilities are clearly understood and that there is a proper procedure whereby we can ensure that we have a record of individuals having the process fully explained to them so that there is no misunderstanding. I thank my hon. Friend for helping us to improve a successful system even further.

Princess Royal Hospital (Mid-Sussex)
1.28 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Thank you, Mr. Winterton, for giving me the opportunity—for the second time, at your feet—to raise in Parliament the developments taking place in the health service in mid-Sussex. I am grateful to the Minister for giving up her time to respond to the debate today. My constituents have understandable anxieties about the plans. I had the chance to debate the matter with the Minister's predecessor on 29 November last year. At that time, I drew the then Minister's attention to the wholly unsatisfactory proposals of the Central Sussex Partnership Programme document, "Modern Hospital Services for Central Sussex—A challenge for us all".
My constituents and I believe that those proposals were reckless, foolish and wholly lacking in common sense. I pay tribute to the way in which the responsible authorities, the Minister and her Department paid careful attention to a tidal wave of public opinion. The proposals that were put forward subsequently in the second document, entitled "Strengthening Hospital Services in Central Sussex", contain much good sense and much that we accept needs to be developed for the future.
At the time, I made it plain to the Minister that some services would need to be shuffled between the Princess Royal hospital in Haywards Heath and the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton; that I would support such changes, provided that the professionals deemed them sensible; and that, inevitably, neither institution would be likely to have exactly what it wanted.
I reinforced that in my letter of 18 October to the present Minister, in which I further emphasised the requirement to consider the proposals in conjunction with the wider review that was taking place in east Surrey and north-west Sussex. Indeed, as the Minister knows, in light of the consultation now taking place, there is a serious debate about the location of, for example, breast care services, a matter that is, naturally, arousing a good deal of anxiety. There are and will be other areas of uncertainty as the plans are revealed.
The Princess Royal is a modern acute hospital with 328 beds in Haywards Heath. Under the proposals, the accident and emergency department—which was, ludicrously, threatened with closure—will be strengthened, which we all welcome. The decision has produced welcome reassurance locally. The department dealt with more than 30,000 patients last year, a number that has steadily risen since the late 1990s. Elderly people are expertly cared for on specialist wards, and the hospital also provides comprehensive surgical and orthopaedic surgery, including for all emergencies.
During the past year, 8,729 patients were admitted to the Princess Royal as emergency cases, and 3,673 were admitted for treatment as planned patients and stayed one or two nights. Last year, the busy out-patient department dealt with 75,258 patients. The hospital directly employs 49 consultant medical staff, 427 nursing staff. 218 technical support staff, 65 midwives, 71 junior medical staff and 343 support staff. The Princess Royal employs a total of 1,173 worthy and excellent people. As the Minister will appreciate, it is a busy and popular local hospital.
62WH
The Government's main proposal is, effectively, that the Princess Royal hospital and the Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton, supported by other local services, merge. The effect would be one major university hospital trust, centred largely on the Royal Sussex county hospital and including the Princess Royal. The plans would place all acute hospital services under one management and would bring together doctors, nurses and other clinical staff to work in a more joined-up and coherent way. All of us would welcome that, and although some understandable reservations about the proposals have been expressed, in making a judgment in the interests of my constituents, I generally support the plan. However, I draw the Minister's attention to genuine and increasing anxieties about the present and future funding of the merged trust, given the especially pressing current financial difficulties.
The Royal Sussex county hospital in Brighton failed in all its published performance targets, and it is said that there is some doubt about the state of its finances; and, indeed, some of its management. In the run-up to the proposed merger, the Princess Royal, through no fault of its own, projects a year-end deficit of £3.3 million. It has been consistently inadequately funded not only by the present Government, but by the previous one. As a result of the challenging level of demand and the ad hoc arrangements in several areas, it spends at least £538,000 a year on beds for which it has received no funding. That is clearly unsustainable for the future. As I said when the Minister kindly received a delegation that I led from my area, delayed transfers create a significant problem, and the continuing cost of treatment and nursing adds a further burden of at least £500,000 to the budget.
The Government have recently given some extra money to cope with the problem, for which we are grateful. However, the problem remains serious throughout the south-east and elsewhere, and the future looks unclear and worrying.
To the more than £1 million that I have mentioned, one can add a further £1 million of unfunded cost pressures that the trust has identified, which are not resourced by an already hard-pressed West Sussex health authority.
In addition, the Princess Royal hospital has to pay further sums to nursing agencies. The cost of agency nurses to the NHS—as you will know, Mr. Winterton, from your experience on the Select Committee—can be truly outrageous. During the August bank holiday last year, it was necessary for one ward to obtain a D-grade nurse for a 12-hour shift. The agency charged £1,019 for a single shift. Last year, the trust spent £310,000 on agency staff. At the end of this current financial year, it is predicted to spend £620,000 on such staff. Clearly, that is wholly unacceptable, unaffordable and symptomatic of the great difficulty in nurse recruitment and retention throughout the south-east. That is of special concern to my constituency.
Because of a consistent failure by the health authority to invest in the nursing infrastructure, the Princess Royal hospital has very low levels of funded establishments on many wards compared with other hospitals in the south-east. Indeed, while the Princess Royal employs 0.84 of a nurse per bed, the Royal Sussex county hospital employs 1.1 nurses per bed. Putting it bluntly, the Royal Sussex employs 20 per cent. more

63WH
nurses than the Princess Royal. The Princess Royal estimates that increasing staffing levels at the hospital by 10 per cent., and providing adequate care and reducing agency nursing costs, would cost at least £1.5 million. Given the West Sussex health authority's increasingly difficult financial situation, it appears unlikely that that will be funded. I know that the Minister realises that steps will have to be taken to cover those obligations, which cannot long continue to be fulfilled without significant damage to patient care.
Some of the existing cost pressures have been funded, but not sufficiently to meet, for example, the iniquitous European Union working time requirements and the onerous current service demands. Furthermore, the regulation covering junior doctors' working hours has resulted in an additional eight posts across medicine, general surgery and trauma. To achieve compliance, the posts will cost a further £420,000 in a full year. Then there is the cost of additional work undertaken to meet the in-patient waiting time target—a further £750,000— and, as the Minister will see, there is a read-across to the cost of delayed transfers. There are also particular difficulties in the Princess Royal's excellent special baby care unit, where the nursing establishment is only just barely adequate to maintain a rota. Indeed, our heroic midwives are staffed at a level that is well below that of comparable units in Sussex.
The position is clear. While I cannot comment on the finances of the Royal Sussex, the Princess Royal is consistently and persistently seriously underfunded, probably to the tune of £4.5 million or £5 million annually. That is at the heart of the debate and must now be resolved. It is neither prudent nor sensible for the merger to take place without the financial affairs of both parties to the proposed merger being put straight. As the Minister may know, the newly merged Surrey and Sussex trusts started with a £4 million deficit, from which they have never recovered. It is grossly unfair to the managers of the hospital trusts, and the patients, that the deficits are not removed, as it puts everyone at a disadvantage from day one. I want the Minister to understand—I am sure that she does—that it would be improper and a serious failure of public policy for the merger to be launched without being fully funded, and thus unable to undertake the demanding tasks that it faces.
I would go one step further. Given the Government's rhetoric, much of which is admirable, on the health service, and their failure to deliver on the reform of much of the public service, it would be a grotesque deceit on Mid-Sussex and my constituents—and other constituents—for such matters not to be dealt with properly and honourably.
1.38pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on securing the debate about the funding of the Princess Royal hospital. I am aware of the concerns about health services in Mid-Sussex, and I am slightly better informed about them as a result of a visit that I received from the hon. Gentleman, local councillors and representatives of the local community health council. That meeting was
64WH
informative, and gave me an insight into the situation on the ground in the community. That is important; it is easy for Ministers to look at papers and submissions, and to fail to have a sense of the practical issues.
The hon. Gentleman's choice of subject has pleased me—although he might not think that that is the case—as it gives me an opportunity to outline some of the additional funding that has been received by the Mid-Sussex NHS trust and the West Sussex health authority, and to explain some of the reforms that the Government are seeking to make to ensure that that extra investment has the maximum impact. The hon. Gentleman has generously acknowledged that his region has received additional support, and I understand his wish to secure an even better position for his local health services.
The funding allocation received by the West Sussex health authority has dramatically improved over the past few years; since 1997, there has been an increase of £231 million. That is a huge amount of extra investment in health for that community. The Government have also been able to provide health trusts such as the West Sussex health authority with three-year spending plans, providing forecasts and a degree of stability. That enables them to plan the growth that they intend to implement, instead of their being stuck on the annual revenue merry-go-round that previously made it difficult for organisations within the health service—and in the public sector in general—to try to plan the way forward.
However, the Government are acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised about the general funding formula in the health service. A wide-ranging review is underway, examining the formula used to make cash allocations to health authorities and to primary care trusts. As a result of the shift in the balance of power, primary care trusts will, in future, spend about 75 per cent. of the entire health service budget. Ensuring that we get the funding allocations right at the level of the primary care trust will be crucial to securing the delivery of acute services and specialised services at tertiary level. If we do not get things right on the ground floor, they might go wrong later on.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex acknowledged not only the increases in funding, but the need to try to ensure that the extra finance is accompanied by reform so that the way in which the whole system in our hospitals works can be improved. He has highlighted particular issues with regard to underfunding, but some of the comments that he has made also have more general application.
It is acknowledged that the health service throughout the country has a problem with the recruitment and retention of its staff, its most important resource. That problem is particularly acute in London and the southeast. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which is the buoyant economy in that region. Spiralling house prices make it difficult for public-sector workers of any kind, but nurses and therapists in particular, to get access to the housing market and, therefore, to take up jobs locally.
Mr. Howard Flight: A daughter of a constituent of mine qualified as a nurse from Edinburgh university, and then arrived in Brighton and applied for a job there. Her application

65WH
took three months to deal with and it was six months before a job was offered to her, by which time she had found employment in the private sector. I took that matter up with the West Sussex health authority, as the process of recruiting nurses in Brighton did not seem to me to be as efficient as it might have been. At a grassroots level, that is worth investigating.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I shall look into the matter. Our procedures need to be as efficient as they can be if we are to maximise people's skills and talents.
I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that despite the difficulties of recruitment and retention, there are 17,000 more nurses working in the health service than there were in 1997; we are making considerable progress, but there is a great deal more to do.
I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that as part of the working lives initiative— a raft of measures to try to recruit and retain more staff—West Sussex health authority received £400,000 to enable it to pay the cost-of-living supplements for nurses in the area. That has made quite an impact in keeping people in the service. The initiative is at the forefront of the new schemes to provide affordable housing for key public sector workers. Mid-Sussex has 10 places on starter homes schemes, which means that staff earning less than £35,000 a year can get on the first rung of the housing market, something that everyone will welcome. I am pleased that Mid-Sussex is at the forefront of those new and innovative schemes.
We introduced an organisation called NHS Professionals 12 months ago to try to deal with the widespread use of agency nurses. It is the national health service's in-house agency, providing work for people who want to work on a part-time, temporary or casual basis, and at different times of the week, perhaps to fit in with childcare responsibilities. NHS Professionals provides extensive services, especially in the south-east, so that trusts do not have to meet exorbitant costs, as in the horrifying example quoted by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. NHS Professionals is an innovative way of plugging the gaps at times of peak demand when the service needs greater capacity.
The hon. Gentleman is convinced that the trust is under-funded, but at the beginning of the year it forecast a break-even financial position. It is not under-funded in an ongoing, systemic way; the problems can be addressed by the recovery plans now being put in place, although there may have been some weaknesses in financial controls in the in-year management of the budget. There may perhaps have been some weak monitoring of the in-year cost pressures on the system. We must be rigorous and robust in ensuring that the performance improvement arid recovery plans agreed with the region are monitored and followed through; if there are issues that are completely beyond the control of the trust, we must ensure that we address them.
We cannot allow cost pressures to arise in any system without trying to bear down on them and to explore whether different ways of providing and organising the service can give equally high quality NHS services to local people.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex was generous in saying that he supports some of the inevitable service reconfigurations that will result from the merger. They
66WH
will enable the trust to achieve better standards in each of those sites than it does now. They will also enable some doctors to specialise more in their particular expertise, and they will raise NHS standards for local people.
The financial picture is more complex than it appears. In the past year, there has been a lot of investment to increase capacity at the Princess Royal hospital. There is an extra consultant psychiatrist, gastroenterologist, orthopaedic surgeon, anaesthetist, radiologist, accident and emergency consultant and additional diagnostic facilities and staff. There is a commitment to ensure that the Princess Royal can offer top-quality services to the local community. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is confirmation that full accident and emergency services will be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week on that site, which has reassured the local community.
Extra resources have been allocated this year to Mid-Sussex from a couple of nationwide schemes. Last week, the Secretary of State announced the strategy on reforming emergency care, which is designed to deal with some of the pressures at the front end of our accident and emergency departments, which are operating under tremendous pressure. The members of staff are doing a marvellous job, but we believe that if organisational changes were made to care delivery, they would be able to see more patients and give them the right care at the right time in the right place.
Reorganising accident and emergency into streaming systems will mean that patients' ailments are cared for by appropriate and relevant staff, so that more simple matters are dealt with by nurse practitioners and more complex matters by consultants, so we can get through the waiting list much more quickly. That strategy is backed up by a considerable amount of money; £118 million will be invested nationally, and the West Sussex health authority will receive an additional £780,000 from that to help it implement the changes.
Pressures creep through the whole hospital system once people move on from accident and emergency departments. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex raised the question of delayed discharges, which have caused huge problems throughout the national health service in the past year. He will be aware that, three weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an extra £300 million over the next three years to deal with the problem. It is a problem not simply for the hospital service that beds are occupied by people who no longer need to be there, but for the people in those beds. Once their acute medical care has finished, it is not in their best interest to remain in an acute hospital. More appropriate care should be found, whether that is in the nursing home or residential care sector, or through support with domiciliary care packages that maintain patients' independence at home. The programme is important, both in terms of freeing up capacity in hospitals and ensuring that people get the right care in the right place.
I am delighted to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman that, because of West Sussex's particular problems, it has received a disproportionate amount of the £300 million to be allocated. That recognises the particular challenges that it faces. Some £300,000 has already been invested to transfer patients into nursing homes and residential care, with a further £100,000 being made available immediately; more allocations will

67WH
be made as the year goes on. Those two schemes have already had the combined effect of releasing 22 beds in the hospital, which represents a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of blocked beds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a welcome development.
The challenge for us is to sustain that position and ensure that the number of delayed discharges does not rise again, which is why the money is also connected to a rigorous cash-for-change programme. There must be a change in the way the system works; otherwise we will simply return to the same position year after year. Unless we reach a position in which local social services work hand in hand with the health service to put in place domiciliary and residential care packages, the changes we are making now will not be sustained. That will be in no one's interests; whether that is the acute patients who need their elective surgery or those who need more appropriate care. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the increased investment must he followed by changes to the system to ensure that we maximise our investment.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the Minister and I acknowledge that considerable extra sums are being invested. However, that was not the point that I was trying to make. It is true that a number of new posts have been established, but that merely reflects the demand with which the Princess Royal hospital has to cope. I agree that the trust's affairs must be properly run and the value must be got from every pound. Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong to launch the merged trust even with extra investment in people, facilities and everything else? The Princess Royal hospital has been underfunded over the years, although it may now have received more money. However, does she agree that it would be wrong to launch the merged trust without addressing the yoke of considerable deficits that hang around the necks of both parties to the transaction? If that is not dealt with, there will inevitably be a bad start.
Ms Blears: Much as I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman, I cannot agree that wiping the slate clean must be a precondition of the changes that must occur in the health community. The service reconfigurations, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged will bring improvements, will mean that the trust works more effectively and efficiently, and in the best interests of patients. There will be savings because of the reconfiguration, but that is not the prime motive, which is to raise standards and to ensure that the right services are in the right place in the local community. We should not have a precondition of removing the deficit completely. It is important that we
68WH
can achieve the recovery plan that was agreed with the region; that shows a clear way forward in ensuring that the trust breaks even and balances its books while not compromising the services available to patients. Over the next few months, we must ensure that the plan is monitored. If unforeseen pressures that are not in the recovery plan cannot be dealt with, that is a matter for reconsideration. The trust can get off to a good start by implementing some of the changes.
The hon. Gentleman performed a great service by raising these matters so that they are in all peoples' minds. It is challenging—an overused word in this place—and realistic to manage our way through and to ensure that extra investment does not create further problems down the line, but instead improves the service imaginatively and creatively and reduces in-year pressures. That can be done and it will result in better services for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That must be the overriding concern of all hon. Members'. Any process changes that are put into effect should not just shuffle pieces on a draughtboard but improve the outcome and services for local people.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman raised a wide range of matters, including staffing and new investment. He also mentioned compliance with junior doctors' hours; that is a further pressure on the health service, but it is right. The Mid-Sussex NHS trust has worked towards compliance and recruited eight additional doctors in general medicine and general surgery. A further four grade F nurses have been recruited and trained. They perform some duties that medical staff performed previously. That is a new way of working to get maximum benefit. Those nurses are perfectly capable of carrying out such duties and enjoy the full support of doctors and consultants when performing them. We want more value from our investment. The Mid-Sussex NHS trust is taking on board the new agenda that people can work in different ways, have a wider skill mix and undertake duties that we would not have previously dreamt of being undertaken by nurses. However, nurses do that well, with full regard for their patients' safety and security.
I am optimistic that the trust can go ahead with its proposals. It is important to examine the proposals in the context of the wider review, which the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex forcefully impressed on me. I shall ensure that the matter is not dealt with simply in isolation. The whole community must feel that its health services are the best that can be provided for local people. It must have confidence and trust and feel that people listen to its point of view when making fundamental decisions. I give a commitment to ensure that we do that, that we take on board all of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised and that we try to ensure that finances reflect the true situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been put in place for the people of Gibraltar to participate in elections to the European Parliament.[11773]

  Peter Hain
  We are actively working to ensure Gibraltar's enfranchisement in time for the 2004 elections to the European Parliament. We plan to consult the Government of Gibraltar soon about the precise detail of the necessary arrangements.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the motion passed by the Gibraltar House of Assembly requesting Her Majesty's Government to seek a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice on the right of self-determination and the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713; and if he will make a statement.[11774]

  Peter Hain
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a Gibraltar House of Assembly motion of November 1999. We have not been asked to respond to this motion.

  However, HMG's position on this issue has been consistent since the mid-1960s. We believe that Gibraltar's right of self-determination is not constrained by the treaty of Utrecht except in so far as Article X gives Spain the right of refusal, should Britain ever renounce sovereignty. Thus independence would only be an option with Spanish consent.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when further talks will be held with the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar.[11813]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign Secretary and Spanish Foreign Minister Pique met on 26 July to re-launch the Brussels process. A further ministerial meeting will be held in Barcelona on 20 November. Both we and the Spanish Government hope that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar will participate in this meeting. Normal contacts between the UK and Spanish and the UK and Gibraltar Governments in preparation for these talks will continue. The Government stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks in July under the Brussels process with Spanish officials regarding Gibraltar; what the agenda is for the discussions under the Brussels process; and what guidelines are being issued to officials leading up to the negotiations.[11814]
  122W
  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 473W, regarding the Government's decision to resume talks with Spain under the Brussels process. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels communique issued in November 1984, the talks are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environmental matters. The communique establishes that issues of sovereignty will be discussed under the Brussels process.

  Through these talks we aim to build a better future for Gibraltar. Both we and the Spanish Government intend that Gibraltar should be fully engaged in this process, and hope that the Chief Minister will participate at the next ministerial meeting planned for 20 November in Barcelona. Normal contacts between the UK and Spanish and the UK and Gibraltar Governments in preparation for these talks will continue. The Government will stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of statements from the Spanish Government relating to responsibility for the payment of increases in pensions to Spaniards who worked in Gibraltar prior to 1969; and if he will make a statement.[11775]

  Peter Hain:
  Spanish nationals who worked in Gibraltar before 1969 and who are now retired and living in Spain, are eligible to receive pension payments from the Gibraltar social insurance fund. Pension payments under the SIF are awarded to all beneficiaries in line with contributions made.

  After the decision was taken in 1988 to wind up the SIF, by 31 December 1993, the UK and Gibraltar Governments agreed in 1996 to set up a new 'closed' scheme to provide for on-going pension benefits to all beneficiaries of the old SIF scheme. Payments to all beneficiaries under the 'closed' scheme were fixed at the level payable at 31 December 1993. The Spanish authorities were kept informed of decisions regarding the dissolution of the Gibraltar social insurance fund.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has asked the European Commission to initiate legal proceedings against the Government of Spain on the grounds of its failure to allow the use of Gibraltar's internationally recognised dialling code by telephone companies in Spain.[11877]

  Peter Hain
  We are in close contact with the Government of Gibraltar on this matter. We raise the question of Gibraltar's telecommunications situation with the Spanish Government, at both ministerial and official level, at every appropriate opportunity. Most recently, I raised the matter with my Spanish counterpart, Sr de Miguel, on 29 October.

  Two private competition complaints have been brought before the Commission by Gibtel and Gibraltar Nynex Communications. We have supported these complaints in our dealings with the Commission and we will continue to ensure that the Commission is fully aware of our concerns.
  123W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the European Commission and other relevant European Union institutions to ensure that citizens of Gibraltar are accorded the right to participate in elections to the European Parliament. [12016]

  Peter Hain
  We are in close contact with the heads of both the Council and the Commission Legal Services on this issue.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the policy papers which he has produced relating to the objectives of the(a) action in Afghanistan and (b) international coalition against terrorism. [12146]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State placed the paper "Defeating International Terrorism: Campaign Objectives" in the House of Commons Library on 16 October 2001. This paper sets out the objectives of the international coalition against terrorism and our action in Afghanistan.

  Drugs Trade
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries are working with the UK Government to combat the trade in illegal drugs. [12082]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We work bilaterally and through the EU and the UN to combat the illegal drugs trade. The UK supports counter-drugs work and capacity-building in all of the key countries concerned in the supply of heroin and cocaine to the UK and Europe. These include Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, the central Asian republics, Central Europe, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Jamaica and the countries of the eastern Caribbean. We also work closely with the United States and our European partners.

  Afghanistan's leading role in world opium production was the focus of a meeting of representatives of countries close to Afghanistan and of the main donor countries to the UNDCP, in Vienna on 11 October 2001.

  Burma
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma regarding the continued imprisonment of Min Ko Naing (also known as Paw Oo Tun).[12031]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We take every opportunity to press for the release of all political prisoners in Burma through our embassy in Rangoon, visiting officials, the EU and also by supporting UN resolutions.

  We welcome the release so far this year of over 180 political prisoners, but many more remain in detention. We will continue to press for the early release of all political prisoners, including Miss Ko Naing.

  Belize
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 484W,
  124W
  on Belize, if High Commission staff arranged calls to the two public investment companies in order to arrange meetings between the companies and KPMG; and what the result of these calls was.[11616]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 484W. The report is for disclosure only to the Governments of the UK and Belize.

  Commonwealth Conference
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to attend a Commonwealth Conference; and what issues he expects to be on the agenda.[12429]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expects to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, originally scheduled for 6–9 October 2001 and now due to be held in Australia early next year. The dates and agenda for the meeting have not yet been set. But we expect Heads of Government to discuss the Commonwealth's response to terrorism as well as the high level group review of the Commonwealth.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, dated 8 October 2001, to the Secretary of State for Defence, which was passed to him.[12920]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I received the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight's letter of 8 October to the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 October and replied on 6 November.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual learning accounts have been taken up by residents of the Isle of Wight in each year since their inception, and what their total value was;[12562]

  (2) how many individual courses funded by individual learning accounts have been provided on the Isle of Wight in each year since the inception of the scheme, what their total value was, and how many were completed; [12563]

  (3) how many individual courses, funded by individual learning accounts, have been (a) commenced and (b) completed in each year since the scheme's inception;[12565]

  (4) how many individual learning accounts have been taken up nationally in each year since their inception.[12564]

  John Healey
  On the basis of recorded postcode information available, 5,506 people from the Isle of Wight became an individual learning account member through the national framework, launched on 4 September 2000. The figure given is up to 31 October 2001. As a result, 3,038 episodes of learning have been funded so far on
  125W
  behalf of these members, resulting in £825,393 total learning costs. Individual learning accounts funded £533,477 of these costs.

  The corresponding figures for England up to 31 October 2001, are 2,529,609 people opened an individual learning account, and 1,380,370 episodes of learning have been supported.

  Information is not maintained relating to course completion.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information is collected on the(a) size, (b) capitalisation, (c) corporate status, (d) qualifications of staff and (e) range of courses offered by providers under the individual learning account scheme.[12561]

  John Healey
  Learning providers registered with the individual learning account centre are not required to provide information about the size, capitalisation, corporate status or qualifications of staff. They do provide information about the range of courses offered to individuals. They are also required to provide health and safety and public liability certification.

  New registrations to become a learning provider with the ILA centre ended on 28 September.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken to guarantee the quality of(a) the learning providers and (b) the courses on offer, through the individual learning account scheme. [9686]

  John Healey
  ILAs were designed to encourage more people into learning by helping tackle the financial barriers to learning. It was a key principle of the design that people were able to take responsibility for learning they felt to be most appropriate and most beneficial to themselves. ILAs are not and were not intended to be a guarantee of quality for learning or learning providers.

  Of course the Government do not want ILAs to be used for poor value learning or by providers that cause concern. In July of this year, the Department started to receive increasing numbers of complaints from individuals and local trading standards officers. In response the Department took positive actions to tighten up the ILA system to address these problems. We re-registered all learning providers, withdrew blank application forms, suspended all new provider registrations, introduced a revised learning provider agreement that made it harder for providers to act against the ethos of the programme, and made changes to the applications process, for the same purpose. While we have taken this action the first safeguard remains an informed public looking for learning of value to them.

  However, it became clear that these changes were not sufficient by themselves to prevent the mis-selling of ILAs. At that point we decided we had no option other than to withdraw the programme, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 24 October that ILAs are to be suspended from 7 December. The programme has exceeded the Government's expectations in encouraging very large numbers of people to take a new interest in learning, and has quickly expanded beyond its capacity. The programme has attracted over 2.5 million account holders.
  126W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information is collected on the(a) age, (b) gender, (c) employment record, (d) academic/ vocational attainment, (e) social class and (f) location of users of individual learning accounts.[12560]

  John Healey
  Characteristic information on age, gender, employment, academic attainment and location of the 1,246,449 individual learning account members who had activated their accounts in England, since the launch of the national framework on 4 September 2000, is given in the following tables. Although social class information is not routinely collected, the Department commissioned an evaluation earlier in the year and arranged for a question to be included in this. The report determined that the most frequently represented social class among ILA account holders was C 1 which includes non-managerial and non-professional administrative and sales staff as well as nurses and technicians.

  Table 1: Analysis of active individual account members—England

  By gender

  Number

  Male

  531,799

  Female

  710,707

  Not supplied

  3,943

  Total

  1,246,499

  Table 2: Analysis of active individual account members—England

  By age group

  Number

  19–30

  382,181

  31–40

  365,328

  41–50

  253,120

  51–60

  157,243

  60+

  88,577

  Total

  1,246,449

  Table 3: Analysis of active individual account members—England

  By employment status

  Active ILA Members

  Self-employed

  98,560

  Employed

  765,167

  Employed and self-employed

  3,662

  Not employed

  91,130

  Retired

  49,749

  Unemployed

  144,565

  Student

  30,452

  Other

  34,814

  Data not supplied

  28,350

  Total

  1,246,449

  Table 4. Active ILA members by academic attainment at point of entry to ILAs

  Highest qualification

  Number

  Degree/NVQ4 or equivalent

  181,491

  A-level/NVQ3 or equivalent

  162,381

  GCSE/NVQ2 or equivalent

  271,455

  NVQ1

  58,699

  Other

  4,498

  Data not supplied

  567,925

  Total

  1,246,449

  127W

  Table 5. Location of individual learning account users

  Region

  Number

  East

  102,813

  East Midlands

  103,332

  London

  215,445

  North East

  45,027

  North West

  128,580

  South East

  175,946

  South West

  118,741

  West Midlands

  222,487

  Yorkshire, Humberside

  94,389

  Region unassigned

  39,689

  Total

  1,246,449

  Faith Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what approaches have been made to her Department by groups wishing to(a) establish new faith schools and (b) bring independent faith schools into the maintained sector in the last 12 months.[12780]

  Mr. Timms
  Since 1 November 2000, 26 approaches have been made by groups inquiring about the possibility of establishing new faith schools in the maintained sector, including nine about bringing independent schools into the maintained sector. Previous experience suggests that relatively few inquiries become firm proposals to a school organisation committee to establish a new school.

DEFENCE

  Personal Radios
  Mr. Hancock

  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the performance and size specifications are of(a) the Thales Defence Systems Bowman personal radio and (b) the CDC Systems personal radio system, with particular relevance to the size of the (i) radio, (ii) microphone and (iii) ear-piece; if a smaller ear-piece design was explored by Thales Defence Systems; what assessment he has made of whether the Thales Defence Systems Bowman personal radio wiring restricts a soldier's range of motion; and if he will make a statement.[11785]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no "personal radio system" supplied as part of the Bowman programme. For the purpose of this answer, I have assumed the intended subject to be the Bowman Personal Role Radio (PRR).

  PRR was separated from the total Bowman requirement in October 1999 to ensure delivery of these radios to the front line earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The PRR Invitation to Tender was issued in March last year and eight responses were received. CDC Systems did not take part in the competition.

  Thales (then trading as Thompson CSF) did submit a bid. However, as it did not win the competition and is no longer involved with Ministry of Defence on the PRR programme, it would be inappropriate for MOD to release commercial information that was obtained as part of the competitive process. I am therefore withholding the performance and size specifications requested in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  128W
  I can confirm that the Thales PRR audio ancillaries were assessed during the competition and were not found to restrict the soldier's range of motion.

  Marconi ultimately won the PRR contract on the basis that its system offered the best value for money in terms of performance, through life support, programme and cost. Work has progressed extremely well and we expect to better the declared ISD of March 2002.

  Armed Forces (Special Payments)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the payments made to British armed forces service men and women who are engaged in theatres of operation; what assessments he has made of payments made to members of armed forces from other countries engaged similarly; and if he will make a statement. [12458]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: All payments made to service personnel are regularly reviewed, the majority of them by the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. These include basic pay; the X-factor, which takes account of the unique demands and circumstances of service life over a whole career; and allowances to compensate for particular disadvantages such as prolonged separation from home life. In addition a recent review of welfare support to service personnel on operations led to the introduction earlier this year of a new comprehensive operational welfare package. Where personnel receive this package, an overseas cost of living allowance is not usually payable.

  A comparison of operational conditions of service in a wide range of NATO and non-NATO countries was undertaken by the UK last year. This showed that payments to UK service personnel over the course of a military career bear favourable comparison with those of any of our allies. While some countries pay their personnel more when deployed on operations, this is more than offset by lower levels of remuneration at other times.

  Chinook ZD576
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the maintenance team responsible for servicing RAF Chinook ZD576 at Aldergrove on 1 and 2 June 1994 had completed a full Chinook MK2 trade course and held the appropriate Trade Qualification Annotation prior to 2 June 1994; [13033]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of (a) the Supplementary Flight Servicing Certificate MOD Form 705(SSC) of RAF Chinook ZD576 for 1 and 2 June 1994 and (b) pages 25 and 26 of the Flight Servicing Certificate for RAF Chinook ZD576;13030]

  (3) if he will list the regulations covering tool checks and the documentation to be completed on the RAF Chinook MK2 aircraft prior to flight for the period covering May and June 1994; [13032]

  (4) if he will place in the Library copies of (a) sheet numbers 17, 18 and 19 of the Maintenance Work Order Log MOD Form 707A (ADP) for RAF Chinook ZD576 and (b) the MOD Form 711 associated with SNOW 0226 as listed on Sheet No. 20, Maintenance Work Order Log, MOD Form 707A(ADP) for RAF Chinook ZD576. [13031]
  129W
  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my right hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arms control measures he proposes to take to tackle the potential threat from ballistic missiles; and if he will make a statement;[11324]

  (2) what defensive measures are available to tackle the potential threat from ballistic missiles; and if he will make a statement.[11325]

  Mr. Hoon
  We currently assess that as of today there is no significant ballistic missile threat to the UK. We do, however, continue to monitor developments closely. We also remain concerned by the potential ballistic missile threat to our armed forces when deployed to certain parts of the world. We believe it is important to tackle the potential threat from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery with a comprehensive strategy that encompasses diplomacy, non-proliferation, export control, counter-proliferation, conflict prevention, deterrence and defensive measures. We will continue to work closely with our allies, partners and friends in all of these areas.

  Beyond our wide-ranging arms control efforts to tackle the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we have been working closely to establish a set of international norms dealing specifically with ballistic missiles. As a first step, a draft International Code of Conduct (ICOC) on ballistic missiles, based on an original text prepared by the UK, has been developed by members of the Missile Technology Control Regime. This draft will now be negotiated through an open multilateral process with a view to eventual signature during 2002. We hope that it will form the basis of a new international consensus against the destabilising spread of ballistic missiles, and we strongly support efforts to gain wide adherence to it.

  We have a range of capabilities for passive defence of deployed forces against weapons of mass destruction delivered by ballistic missiles. Detection, identification, warning and reporting of possible attacks, physical protection, hazard management and medical countermeasures are all key elements of our force posture. We continue to believe it is premature to decide on acquiring a specific active ballistic missile defence capability, either for defence of the UK or deployed forces. This is based on our assessment of the threat, the rapidity with which defensive technologies are changing, and the need to evaluate further the potential role of missile defences as one element of a broad-ranging defence response to missile proliferation. We will continue to support NATO work in this area, as well as our own national work and bilateral dialogue with the US. Our future options remain open.

  Military Personnel (Overseas)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK military personnel are serving overseas, broken down by(a) unit and (b) country in which they are serving. [12080]
  130W
  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of UK regular forces serving overseas as at 1 September 2001 broken down by service. To break down the figures to unit level could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  Overseas total

  4,551

  33,116

  5,435

  43,102

  Continental Europe

  441

  17,423

  2,006

  19,870

  Cyprus

  8

  2,053

  1,089

  3,150

  Gibraltar

  217

  70

  114

  401

  Other Europe

  490

  2,986

  106

  3,582

  Near and Middle East

  396

  2,586

  819

  3,801

  Far East

  18

  239

  23

  280

  Others

  2,981

  7,759

  1,278

  12,018

  Source:

  DASA (Tri-Service)

  Italy (A400M)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what Italy's financial contribution was to the A400M consortium; [12224]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the Italian Defence Minister about the A400M.[12223]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence last met the Italian Minister of Defence on 12 October when he was informed that Italy had reached the decision not to continue, at present, with the A400M programme. However, I understand that this is being reviewed and I expect the situation to become clearer in the near future.

  Italy had been expected to procure 16 of these aircraft out of a total initial order of 212 aircraft and their financial contribution would have been commensurate with this. It would not be appropriate to release financial details while commercial negotiations are still under way.

  Water Supplies
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with DEFRA and the water companies about the protection of water supplies from chemical and biological attack. [12338]

  Mr. Ingram
  All aspects of the UK's resilience to terrorist attack are being reviewed following the events of 11 September. The Ministry of Defence and DEFRA are both involved in that work, and there are well-established arrangements for military assistance to the civil authorities when required. Government responsibilities in relation to the water companies are a matter for DEFRA.

  Overseas Accommodation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements are being made to overseas accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families.[13008]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with the Department's aim to improve the condition of living accommodation in overseas locations, there is an extensive programme of works projects currently under way. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar (Accommodation)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements are being made to accommodation for armed forces personnel and their families in Gibraltar.[13009]

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

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria he uses to determine whether Territorial Army units are fit for role.[13024]

  Dr. Moonie
  The term "fit for role" is applied to individual members of the Territorial Army (TA) and not to units. TA units are required to achieve a level of collective performance that depends on the role and specified readiness of the unit. Readiness is defined as the time within which a unit can be made ready to deploy for operations from its normal peacetime location. The performance of TA units is measured in the same way as regular Army units, through the measurement of fighting power, which assesses units against a number of criteria, such as manning and equipment levels and the amount of training conducted.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standards Territorial Army service personnel must meet in order to obtain the annual bounty.[13025]

  Dr. Moonie
  In order to obtain the annual bounty, the standard requirement is for Territorial Army (TA) personnel to pass a set number of Individual Training Directives (Army); attend unit annual camp (15 days); and attend a specified number of out of camp training days. This requirement is 12 days for independent TA and four days for specialist TA.

  Armed Forces Memorial
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations with ex-servicemen's organisations have taken place about the site and form of the memorial to members of the armed forces killed in conflicts since 1945; and if he will make a statement.[12637]

  Dr. Moonie
  A project office was appointed in January this year to consult the Services and ex-Service organisations on the criteria for inclusion on and siting of the proposed memorial to Service personnel killed since the end of the Second World War. Consultation is continuing with the Confederation of British Service and ex-Service Organisations (COBSECO) before a final decision is made.

  Afghanistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on confining military action against terrorism to targets in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.[11648]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  Coalition military action is focused on Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda network and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
  132W
  The military action is necessary, but it cannot be seen in isolation. It is part of a wider global campaign against terror, which includes diplomatic, intelligence, financial, humanitarian and political elements.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Poverty
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in the Government's target to reduce the number of people worldwide living in extreme poverty by 2015.[12420]

  Clare Short
  The goal of reducing by half the population of people living on less than $1 a day was recently endorsed by 147 heads of state at the UN Millennium summit, and the UN have stated a commitment to monitoring progress towards this, and the other Millennium development goals, on a regular basis.

  The most recent published figures from the World bank show that in 1990 29.0 per cent. of the population of developing countries lived on less than $1 a day. By 1999 this had fallen to 22.7 per cent. World bank projections indicate that by 2015 the proportion living on less than $1 a day will fall further to 12.3 per cent. meaning that the 2015 target will be achieved overall but will be missed in some countries and some regions.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what action she plans to take in order for the volume of food aid reaching Afghanistan to increase substantially;[12682]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the increase needed in the volume of food aid reaching Afghanistan in order to guarantee adequate stockpiles for the winter.[12681]

  Clare Short
  In October, the World Food Programme reported that it managed to despatch over 27,000 metric tonnes of food into the country. This was less than their target but tonnage has improved and over 10,600 metric tonnes were despatched last week. WFP and other humanitarian agencies are working to maximise opportunities to get more food into the country as winter approaches. We are working with the international community to open up new land convoy routes into Afghanistan. As I announced in the House on 1 November 2001,Official Report columns 769-70W we have agreed to contribute £600,000 to Russian EMERCOM for a new convoy operation to deliver 9,000 metric tonnes of food from Tajikistan to northern Afghanistan.

  WFP is buying 17,000 metric tonnes of wheat from the Iranian Government, which will be transported by rail to Turkmenistan, and from there to north and west Afghanistan. WFP is also looking at the airdropping of food to vulnerable people living in remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan which are likely to be cut off by winter snows.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on international plans to deliver food aid to refugees in Afghanistan this winter.[12153]
  133W
  Clare Short
  As I said in my statement to the House of Commons on 24 October 2001,Official Report, columns 283-85, humanitarian agencies, especially the World Food Programme, are working under extremely difficult circumstances and continuing to get food and other relief items into Afghanistan. In October, WFP reports that it managed to despatch over 27,000 metric tonnes of food into the country. WFP and other humanitarian agencies will continue to maximise opportunities to get more food into the country as winter approaches. DFID has been assessing ways of maximising other routes of food delivery into Afghanistan, and as I announced in the House on 1 November, we have agreed to contribute £600,000 to Russian Emergency Ministry (EMERCOM) for a new convoy operation to deliver 9,000 metric tonnes of food from Tajikistan to northern Afghanistan over the next two months.

  WFP is buying 17,000 metric tonnes of wheat from the Iranian Government, which will be transported by rail to Turkmenistan, and from there to north and west Afghanistan. WFP is also looking at the airdropping of food to vulnerable people living in remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan which are likely to be cut off by winter snows.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Working Time Directive
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the working time directive proposals to increase night-time working restrictions will have on distribution and deliveries of basic goods to rural areas.[9659]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From our regular meetings with industry, we are fully aware of the problems that will result from an eight-hour limit for night workers. That is why the Government support the ten-hour figure included in the Council's common position.

  Parking Revenue (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list income and expenditure under the parking places revenue accounts of each local authority in London for the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99. (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01.[10720]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested for the periods(a) to (d) has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures for period (e) are a matter for the Mayor of London.

  Stingray
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which areas of Scotland will be covered by the Stingray system. [11233]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new mobile system will operate throughout Scotland.

  Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when construction will begin of the Manchester Airport eastern link road (western section).[11078]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East Manchester Multi Modal Study covers the Manchester Airport eastern link road (western section). The Secretary of State is awaiting the recommendations of the North West Regional Assembly on the Study and will announce his findings shortly.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on conditions under which the new Railtrack company will be able to draw down the Government loan facility.[11266]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001.Official Report, column 195W and to the right hon. Member himself on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 671W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of(a) the gross assets to be transferred to the new Railtrack company and (b) the debt to be set against those assets.[11092]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 671W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will make a statement on the amount of Government money available for(a) Railtrack in administration and (b) the successor Railtrack company for the next three years.[11265]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1230W.

  The successor company to Railtrack would be entitled to receive network grants to the profile and amounts set out in the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the 2 April agreement between Railtrack and Government.

  The Government propose that a company limited by guarantee be established to succeed Railtrack. We would expect to put in place an arrangement by which the company could access a standby, subordinated loan facility. For details on this loan facility, I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 195W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department held with the Treasury
  135W
  regarding the financial situation at Railtrack and his plans for the company prior to the announcement of the administration order.[12151]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There were regular discussions between my Department and the Treasury prior to the announcement.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which officials were involved in planning the press announcement by his Department of the Railtrack administration. [12150]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The announcement was prepared by my Department following normal procedures.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what criteria he will use to assess proposals put to him by the administrators to resolve the future of Railtrack plc;[11801]

  (2) by what process he will assess the solution proposed by the administrators to resolve the future of Railtrack plc.[11881]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 31 October 2001, Official Report, columns 669–71W.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the decision to place Railtrack into administration for(a) all services between (i) London Euston and Wolverhampton, (ii) Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury and (iii) Shrewsbury and Chester and (b) the proposed sale of the Oswestry branch line from Gobowen to Llanymywech to the Cambrian Railways Trust.[12608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government will ensure that the administrator has the funds to finance Railtrack's activities, including the full operation of the network.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place the procurement documents relating to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road in the Library; and if he will make a statement in respect of health and safety of the project.[11237]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A copy of an edited version of the concession agreement prepared in accordance with the judgment of the High Court was placed in the Library in June 2000. I am also arranging for a copy of the OJEC notice that advertised the procurement of the BNRR construction contract to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Midland Expressway Ltd. and CAMBBA have health and safety obligations under the Health arid Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Construction Design and Management Regulations 1994 for the safe design, construction and management of the BNRR. They will continue to meet these obligations.

  Road Safety (Motorcyclists)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to encourage and promote road safety for motorcyclists; and if he will make a statement.[11658]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In March 2000 the Government published their strategy for improving road safety in the next decade, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", which is available in the House Library.

  On motorcycling, our strategy is:

  to improve training and testing for all learner riders;

  to publish advice for people returning to motorcycling after a break and people riding as part of their work;

  to ensure the quality of instruction;

  to help drivers become more aware of how vulnerable motorcyclists are;

  to promote improvements in engineering and technical standards which could protect motorcyclists better; and

  to work with representatives of interested organisations, in an advisory group, to look at issues of concern.

  Port of London Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government arid the Regions what application he has received from the Port of London Authority under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964 concerning changes to their Act and proposals for a statutory instrument; what correspondence he has received from objectors or potential objectors to the proposed statutory instrument; what steps he has taken to ensure that those most likely to be affected have been consulted; and if he will make a statement on his intentions.[12168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Port of London Authority's application for a Harbour Revision Order was advertised in the London Gazette and various local newspapers. The Secretary of State received objections or representations from the following:

  St. Pancras Cruising Club

  Thames Boating Trades Association

  Residential Boat Owners Association

  TGWU South East and East Anglia

  Thames Passenger Services Federation

  London Tideway Harbour Company Ltd.

  The Company of Watermen and Lightermen of the River Thames

  Toughs Boatyard Ltd.

  Royal Yachting Association

  Royal National Lifeboat Institution

  Inland Waterways Association

  The Barge Association

  River Association for Freight and Transport

  British Marine Industries Federation

  Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs

  National Association of Boat Owners

  Commercial Boat Owners Association.

  All of the objections and representations were copied to the PLA who are currently involved in discussions with a view to resolving the various concerns. The Secretary of State is awaiting the outcome of these discussions before deciding whether or not to call a public inquiry.

  Bull Bars
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent work has been undertaken to assess the effects of bull bars on pedestrians in vehicle accidents.[11986]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Research Laboratory has undertaken some test work for us comparing the likely effect on pedestrians of a range of typical bull bars and base vehicles. Its report, "Assessment and Test Procedures for Bull Bars", was published on 26 July last year, and copies were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  GoVia
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what amendments to GoVia's proposals for the new South Central franchise have been put forward since Railtrack went into administration with particular reference to(a) start date and (b) levels of investment.[12526]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority and GoVia have not agreed any changes to the Heads of Terms for a new South Central franchise, which was signed on 23 October 2000. However, items relating to Mark 1 rolling stock replacement contained in the Heads of Terms have been brought forward into the current Franchise Agreement. Progress in negotiations on the exact terms of the new franchise is commercially confidential.

  Bus Passengers
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will undertake a review of the regulations on the permitted number of standing passengers on local buses.[12318]

  Ms Keeble
  The recent agreement in the EU for common standards for the construction of buses will lead to a change in the regulations. However, in practice, the provisions of the EU Directive are broadly similar to our current requirements.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to amend the Public Service Vehicle (Carrying Capacity) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 in order to end the practice of three seated children under the age of 14 years counting as two passengers.[12556]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Permitting three children sitting in the space provided for two seats is a concession, not a requirement, and applies only where the vehicle is not fitted with seat belts.

  Currently, there is no plan to amend the Carrying Capacity Regulations to abolish this concession. The responsibility for choosing an appropriate vehicle must rest with those who are making the arrangements for the transport of children.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the legislative basis is of the three for two rule in the carrying of pupils under 14 years on scheduled bus services; and what plans he has to abolish this rule.[12555]
  138W
  Ms Keeble
  The regulations that permit the three for two rule are the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. I have no plans to abolish this rule as it a concession and not a requirement.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of passenger overcrowding on buses transporting pupils to school.[12444]

  Ms Keeble
  No assessment of overcrowding of buses has been made by the Health and Safety Executive. The responsibility for ensuring that a bus does not carry more passengers than it is certified for lies with the driver and, if applicable, conductor. Enforcement of regulations relating to carrying capacity and safety of buses rests with the Police and the Vehicle Inspectorate. I am not aware of any prosecutions for overcrowding on services involving school transport.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on congestion of the variable speed limit system in operation on the M25 motorway; and if he will make a statement.[12326]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Independent monitoring and assessment of the scheme by the Transport Research Laboratory during the first year of operation confirmed its success. The monitoring indicated that traffic flow had improved, with drivers reporting more "comfortable", less aggressive driving conditions, with fewer very short, dangerous spaces between vehicles and fewer long (inefficient) spaces and more even use of the carriageway. There were also indications of improved safety, and shorter and more reliable journey times.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the total budget for each regional chamber in England by region for(a) the last financial year and (b) this financial year; and what the projected figure is for next year.[12523]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The regional chambers have been established voluntarily by bodies representing the interests of each region. Their budgets are a matter for the chambers and their members. The Government have however allocated £500,000 this year to each regional chamber, with an additional £1 million for chambers to use collectively, to help them establish a stronger strategic and scrutiny role within the regions.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of funding for regional chambers in England came from central Government for(a) last year and (b) this financial year; and what the projected apportionment is for the next financial year.[12524]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government provided no funding to the regional chambers in 2000–01. For 2001–02 we have allocated £500,000 to each regional chamber, with an additional £1 million for chambers to use collectively, to help them establish a stronger strategic and scrutiny role within the regions. As the total budgets of the
  139W
  chambers are a matter for the chambers themselves, information on the proportion represented by Government funding is not available centrally.

  Unitary Development Plan
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in respect of the unitary development plan process(a) what review he has undertaken of the process since 1989, (b) what potential improvements he has identified and (c) how these will be incorporated in guidance to local authorities.[12527]

  Ms Keeble
  I shall be issuing a Green Paper shortly setting out proposals for comprehensive reform of the planning system.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which local authorities have applied to be considered for trial schemes for(a) congestion taxes and (b) work parking taxes.[12576]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Two schemes have been published for public consultation, one in central London and one in the City of Durham.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional central Government funding each local authority will receive for taking part in trial schemes for(a) congestion taxes and (b) work parking taxes.[12577]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]The local transport capital settlement for 2001–02 announced in December 2000 did make specific funding available to local authorities in England for capital costs directly related to the implementation of a road user charging or workplace parking levy scheme as follows:

  Authority

  £000

  Nottingham City Council (workplace parking levy)

  1,500

  Derbyshire County Council (road user charging)

  400

  Durham County Council (road user charging)

  240

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what responsibility(a) Railtrack and (b) Virgin Rail have for the provision of disabled access at Lockerbie railway station. [12923]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Lockerbie station is owned by Railtrack and leased to ScotRrail who are the "Stations Facilities Owner" with responsibility for managing the station on a day to day basis. ScotRail would be responsible for overseeing the provision of enhanced facilities at the station.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions when he expects the completion of Phase II of the upgrade of the 140W
  west coast main line; and when he expects trains will be able to operate at more than 140 mph on the line south of Crewe.[12922]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is clear from our discussion with the Strategic Rail Authority, the Railway Administrator and Virgin that parts of the project are subject to uncertainties over cost increases and timetables. We are in discussion with the parties on the issues involved and the options. At this stage we cannot predict the outcome of those discussions, but we are working hard to reach agreement on a project which is value for money and can be delivered to a clear timetable, subject to the need to obtain any planning consents.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letters of 10 July and 21 August from the hon. Member for Doncaster, North regarding Manchester Airport and Finningley Airport.[13137]

  Ms Keeble
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letters on 1 August 2001 and 6 November 2001 respectively.

  Education Funding (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will meet(a) hon. Members for Worcestershire, (b) representatives of the Worcestershire Education Authority and (c) head teachers and governors from the county, to discuss education funding in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement.[12675]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I and my ministerial colleagues are certainly prepared to meet hon. Members to discuss the distribution of formula grant to local authorities, which the Government are currently reviewing.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will revise the regulations governing the council tax benefits limitation scheme.[12609]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We review the regulations governing the council tax benefit subsidy limitation in advance of each year's local government finance settlement.

  Parking Restrictions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he gives local authorities on the use of parking restrictions relating to(a) HGVs and (b) lighter commercial vans in residential areas.[12685]

  Ms Keeble
  Traffic management and parking restrictions are best addressed by local traffic authorities, who are able to take account of particular local circumstances. We have not issued guidance to authorities on the exercise of their road traffic regulation powers in respect of parking of heavy goods vehicles and lighter commercial vans in residential areas.

  Two publications that do include advice on parking provision for lorries are "Transport in the Urban Environment" published in 1997 by the Institution of

  141W
  Highways and Transportation with support from the Department of Transport and "Lorries in the Community" a report based on a study sponsored by the Civic Trust, the County Surveyors Society and the Department of Transport and published in 1990.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if his Department's discussions with coach operators over concessionary pensioners' fares are intended to cover inter-authority journeys.[13036]

  Ms Keeble
  We have agreed in principle to a proposal from the Commission for Integrated Transport under which coach operators would offer half-price fares to older and disabled passengers on long distance scheduled coaches in England. In return for these fare concessions, operators would—for the first time—receive Fuel Duty Rebate. We shall be consulting the industry and others shortly on the details. Under the proposal concessionary fares on the services eligible, which of course cross local authority boundaries, would not be part of the local authority concessionary fares schemes.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will extend eligibility for concessionary pensioners fares to inter-authority journeys.[13034]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 10 July 2001,Official Report, column 439W and 30 October 2001, Official Report, column 578W.

  Passenger Information
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list those means of public transport for which he does not collect passenger information.[13037]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department collects and publishes data from operators on the total number of passengers carried by all means of public transport, including buses, coaches, rail, light rail and ferries.

  In addition, my Department collects data on the personal characteristics of passengers (including age) using the National Travel Survey. The number of people in the sample who record trips by less common means, including ferry, is too small to produce reliable estimates, and these trips are recorded in published NTS figures aggregated in the 'other public transport' category.

  Public Transport Subsidies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) fuel tax rebates and (b) other subsidies are available to operators of buses, trains, taxis, passenger hovercraft, passenger ferries, coaches and other means of public transport on UK internal routes.[13039]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Operators of local bus services in England receive fuel duty rebate from my Department. For the fuel predominantly used in bus operation, ultra low sulphur diesel, this is equivalent to 80 per cent. of the duty paid. Following consultation in the spring, we will be introducing regulations later this financial year to 142W
  extend this rebate to a wide range of community transport services. We have also announced approval in principle of a recommendation from the Commission for Integrated Transport under which operators of long-distance scheduled coach services would receive the rebate in return for offering half-price fares to older and disabled passengers. Operators of Licensed Hackney Carriages, who hold a Bus Operators Licence, can also receive Fuel Duty Rebate when operating Taxi-Bus services along registered routes.

  Local authorities outside London have powers under the Transport Act 1985 to subsidise bus services where transport needs are not being met by an existing commercial service. My Department also provides grants to local authorities to support bus services by means of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant, Rural Bus Challenge and Urban Bus Challenge grant schemes.

  The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides grants, administered by the Countryside Agency, for a range of community-based transport initiatives in rural areas.

  Bus, coach and taxi operators can apply for grants towards the cost of converting to cleaner fuels or fitting emission reduction technologies through my Department's PowerShift and CleanUp programmes.

  Train operating companies (TOCs) receive support for passenger rail services (SPRS) from the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to enable them to provide services which produce social, environmental and economic benefits that cannot be paid for through fares and charges. Similarly Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) pay grants to those TOCs which provide rail services in their areas. Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) receive freight grants from the SRA to encourage the movement of freight by rail in order to maximise environmental benefits by removing lorries from roads.

  Since 1 April 2001, Railtrack has received network grants from the SRA. Various organisations also receive funding from the SRA under the Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme.

  My Department supports the work of Transport for London through the Greater London Authority Transport Grant which is paid under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Transport for London's responsibilities include support for buses, light rail and the Woolwich ferry.

  Grant is provided to London Regional Transport using powers under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to support London Underground.

  Under the Local Transport Plan system, my Department only provides capital support for light rail projects.

  Apart from its indirect support for the Woolwich ferry, my Department does not provide subsidies for operators of passenger hovercraft and passenger ferries. These are matters for local authorities.

  Model Code of Conduct
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will lay before Parliament the model code of conduct for members of relevant authorities under the Local Government Act 2000: and if he will make a statement.[13166]
  143W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today laid before the House four model codes of conduct for members of relevant authorities. The four are:The Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2000—which covers principal local authorities, the Greater London Authority, the City of London, the Scilly Isles Council. Fire and joint authorities;
  The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2000;
  The National Parks and the Broads Authority (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2000: and
  The Police Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) (England and Wales) Order 2000.

  The Government have embarked on a radical programme to modernise local government and deliver better services. Strong and effective community leadership is at the heart of this vision. It is essential that communities trust those in local government and, equally, that members have clear guidelines under which they must operate.

  The code, published today, meets those two objectives. It will help safeguard and raise standards of conduct in local government—ensuring that the highest professional standards are met by those who run our councils and represent our communities.

  Authorities now have six months in which to adopt their own codes of conduct, which must contain the mandatory provisions set out in the relevant model codes.

  I believe the code is a considerable improvement on its predecessor. It is easier to understand, and easier for members to apply to their day to day duties. We need to keep the provisions under review, to ensure their workability and also to make sure that the public has the reassurance it needs that those they elect really are serving only the public interest. I shall from time to time ask the Standards Board for England to review the efficacy of the code, or specific provisions within it, and provide advice to Ministers on whether it can be improved.

  I will ensure that copies of all four codes are placed in the House Libraries.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost of subsidies to the Woolwich ferry was in the last year in which they were paid; and what resources were made available by his Department to support such subsidies.[13038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Woolwich ferry is now the responsibility of Transport for London's Street Management Services. My Department paid just over £1 million for the ferry in the first quarter of 2000–01 before Transport for London took over. We took account of Transport for London's need to fund the ferry during the rest of 2000–01 in setting the level of GLA Transport Grant for that year.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he does not collect information on the number of passenger journeys by ferry.[13035]
  144W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on number of passenger journeys by ferry is collected by my Department and the information is published annually in "Maritime Statistics".

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on how many occasions in(a)(b) 2000 and (c) 1999 services on the east coast main line have been disrupted owing to collapse or other failure of the overhead power cables; and what average length of delay has been caused to passenger services as a result.[6652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 October 2001, c. 191–92W]: The following corrected table from Rai1track shows the number of overhead line failures attributable to Rai1track and the train operators respectively in 1999, 2000 and 2001:

  Minutes delay to ECML passenger services due to overhead line problems—period 11 (January) 1999 to end of period 6 (mid September) 2001

  Year

  Total minutes delay

  Number of incidents

  Average delay

  Percentage of all delays ECML

  Railtrack attributable (overhead line)

  1999

  19,328

  157

  123

  5.4

  2000

  24,037

  134

  179

  3.0

  2001

  17,797

  100

  178

  2.9

  TOC attributable (pantograph)

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  1387

  15

  177

  10.2

  2001

  8,149

  13

  627

  2.2

  1Data relating to these were not collected until summer 2000

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Flood Protection
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provision she plans to make to(a) the Environment Agency and (b) East Riding of Yorkshire Council to protect properties at risk from flooding.[11963]

  Mr. Morley
  I have recently announced the allocations to flood and coastal defence operating authorities for 2002–03.

  The capital allocation, on which we have offered to pay grant, for the Environment Agency in Yorkshire is £19.6 million (compared with £12.5 million in 2001–02). The rate of grant is one of the highest in the country at 65 per cent.

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council have indicated that they intend to submit applications for funding for a number of schemes to reduce the risk of coastal erosion, but not to reduce the risk of flooding.

  Ocean Management
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will bring forward proposals to introduce an eco-system approach to the management of the oceans around the UK.[11503]
  145W
  Mr. Meacher
  We are working through the European Commission and the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic for the sustainable management and conservation of the seas around the UK. The Government's Marine Stewardship Report will set out our overarching strategy. We are looking at adopting an eco-system approach in this context.

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by her Department; if she will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans she has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if she will make a statement.[10845]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The National Asset Register gives full details of departmental asset holdings across all categories of assets, including heritage assets, along with details of major acquisitions and disposals since the publication of the last register in 1997. While DEFRA does not hold any stocks of antiques, paintings or fine wines, the National Asset register does contain a summary of DEFRA's asset holdings.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the contribution of hunt staff to the control of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement.[8987]

  Mr. Morley
  All our slaughter teams have provided a valuable contribution in the effort to control the disease. The first licensed hunt slaughtermen were engaged by the Department at the end of March on exactly the same basis as all licensed slaughtermen.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions she intends to impose on the sourcing of animals for restocking farms after foot and mouth has been eliminated.[5344]

  Mr. Morley
  From 5 November 2001, it will be possible for farmers in high risk counties, outside Infected Areas and restricted Infected Areas to bring stock into such counties from foot and mouth disease free and at risk counties for the purposes of restocking farms which have been culled. The arrangements for restocking will be kept under review as the disease situation changes.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many confirmed foot and mouth cases occurred in 2001 in each of the borough council areas of Cheshire.[11083]

  Mr. Morley
  It is only possible to provide data from the DEFRA Disease Control System (DCS) database for Cheshire as a whole. As at 31 October, there have been 17 Infected Premises (IPs), 32 Dangerous Contacts (DCs) and three Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) cases in Cheshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms included in the foot and mouth cull but not recognised as 146W
  infected premises have had laboratory tests conducted for the presence of foot and mouth; and what proportion of these recorded positive results.[286]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2001]: As at 22 October a total of 7,294 Dangerous Contacts (DC) and 255 Slaughter on Suspicion (SOS) cases, which had not been recognised as Infected Premises, had laboratory tests conducted. Of these, five yielded positive results and subsequently became IPs and were recorded as such.

  Notes:
  In addition to IPs and SOS cases, contiguous premises and DC premises have had samples taken from sheep at slaughter to further inform the Department as to origin and spread of disease. Some of these were subsequently recorded as IPs as they yielded positive laboratory results. A negative result does not necessarily mean that disease was not present. In the main, testing was for antibody, ie looking for evidence of origin (older disease).

  Source:
  DEFRA Disease Control System database as at 22 October—these figures may be subject to change as quality assurance of the data are carried out.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to apply for all available agrimonetary compensation in the 2001–02 financial year; and if she will make a statement.[8631]

  Mr. Morley
  As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 738W, we have decided not to pay the agrimonetary compensation currently available for the arable sector. Any future payments of agrimonetary compensation must be balanced against the needs of other sectors and taxpayers.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much EU agrimonetary compensation is available to be applied for on behalf of UK arable farmers.[9845]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 738W.

  Farm Funding
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will allow English farmers to access England Rural Development Programme funding on the same basis as Welsh farmers.[12610]

  Alun Michael
  Separate Rural Development Plans/ Programmes have been prepared for England and Wales which reflect the particular characteristics of each country but this has been done within the common framework of measures and requirements laid down in the European Commission's Rural Development Regulation. Farmers in some parts of Wales also receive support for rural development through Structural Funds.

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Status
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make
  147W
  it her policy to accord Environmentally Sensitive Area status to all national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.[11909]

  Alun Michael
  Under the Agriculture Act 1986, Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) may be designated where the maintenance or adoption of particular farming methods is likely to contribute to the conservation or enhancement of natural beauty, biodiversity, features, buildings or historic interest. In England, a total of 22 ESAs were designated between 1987 and 1994, many of which overlap with National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Since 1996, this Department has also operated the Countryside Stewardship Scheme which provides payments for similar objectives outside designated ESAs. There are no plans to designate any further ESAs pending the review of all agri-environment schemes which is due to begin shortly.

  Business Links
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the funding for Business Link schemes for three-day consultancy for farmers; and if she will make a statement.[12361]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: We have recently reviewed the budget allocations for the Farm Business Advice Service. As a preliminary step, 10 per cent. of the enhanced (five-day) service budget has been switched to the core (three-day) service in order to help farmers who have been subject to Form D restrictions. Funding will not be increased this year. Consideration is being given to making further budget realignments in order that predicted demand can be met.

  Stewardship Schemes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage a broader availability of stewardship schemes under the modulation and environmental subsidies scheme; and if she will make a statement.[12358]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: We are planning for a major expansion of the Countryside Stewardship budget as is now well known. Under the England Rural Development Programme, expenditure on agri-environment schemes is scheduled to increase from £119 million this year to £197 million in 2006–07. This expansion is partly funded by receipts from modulation. Subject to EU approval, we also plan to introduce a number of new arable options to Countryside Stewardship next year, which will provide greater opportunities for arable farmers to join the scheme. Over the longer term, we have started a major review of agri-environment schemes which will consider a range of issues, including the scope for further broadening of the schemes. This is consistent with the Department's policy of seeking further CAP reform to redirect expenditure from agricultural subsidies towards measures to support environmentally friendly farming and the wider rural economy.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will 148W
  increase veterinary resources in the south-west to help against the spreading of TB; and if she will make a statement.[12355]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Resources normally available to the State Veterinary Service in the south-west for TB testing are still, in part. diverted to foot and mouth disease control. The issue of whether extra resource will be needed in certain areas is currently being assessed within the Department.

  Rendering Capacity
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase rendering capacity; and if she will make a statement.[12351]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: We have no immediate plans for increasing rendering capacity, but increases in rendering capacity will be thoroughly considered in our development of contingency measures for future disease outbreaks.

  Flooding (Upton-upon-Severn)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will fund the provision of a pontoon bridge at Upton-upon-Severn which can be put in place in the event of flooding.[11660]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I am not aware of a proposal for a flood defence scheme at Upton-upon-Severn and none have been submitted to this Department. To secure DEFRA funding capital works must be technically sound, economically worthwhile and environmentally acceptable, and achieve an appropriate priority score (based on an assessment of Departmental priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio).

  British Horticulture (Greenhouse Fuels)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will compensate British horticulture businesses for subsidies granted by Spain for greenhouse fuels; and what measures she is taking to pre vent unfair competition caused by subsidy of greenhouse fuels in competition with the UK horticultural industry.[10675]

  Mr. Morley
  I am not aware of subsidies granted by Spain specifically for fuels used in horticultural production. In the UK, heating oil used in glasshouses is exempt from duty.

  The rate of Climate Change Levy applied to energy used in horticulture in the UK has been abated by 50 per cent. for five years and we have allocated up to £5 million over three years to provide energy efficiency advice to growers to help them adjust to the full rate of levy. These measures (which require Commission approval under the state aids rules) recognise the importance of energy costs to competitive production in this sector.

  Fodder and Grazing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she received from the Arthur Rank Foundation and
  149W
  industry bodies about the price and availability of (a) fodder and (b) grazing for livestock (i) in the UK and (ii) on the Isle of Wight.[9910]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: The Arthur Rank Foundation, ADAS and industry bodies have been examining the prices and availability of fodder and grazing throughout the country. We have received information on a broad regional basis but have no specific information on the Isle of Wight. The Department has been supporting a number of charities giving support to individuals and families suffering hardship as a result of foot and mouth disease, including the Arthur Rank Foundation. A total of £13 million has been provided to such charities up to September and we have now made available a further £2 million to the end of the year.

  Groundwater
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement in respect of the requirement on manufacturing industries to prevent the release of hazardous substances into water and the policy of Ofwat in respect of contaminants penetrating underlying aquifers to significant depths.[11383]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under various powers contained in the Water Resources Act 1991, the Water Industry Act 1991, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and regulations made under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 2000, discharges from manufacturing industries to sewer and controlled waters require written authorisation from, respectively, the sewerage undertaker and the Environment Agency. Conditions in these authorisations are set in order to protect receiving waters from polluting substances. The Agency also has powers to prevent polluting activities. Ofwat has no direct responsibilities for discharge consents or associated standards.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to protect groundwater resources from known sources of contamination.[11379]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have, through the Groundwater Regulations 1998 and the Anti-Pollution Works Notices Regulations 1999, increased the powers available to the Environment Agency to protect groundwater resources. In addition the Government have issued, under Regulation 21 of the Groundwater Regulations, a groundwater protection code of practice on the use and disposal of sheep dip. A draft code for petrol stations and underground storage tanks has been to public consultation and work is under way on codes for potential sources of contamination.

  Litter Offences
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many on-the-spot fines were levied for litter offences in England in(a) 1997 and (b) the last year for which figures are available.[12418]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, litter wardens can issue a £25 fixed penalty to anyone who drops litter and refuses to dispose of it properly. These penalty notices are not on-the-spot fines but can be paid
  150W
  within 14 days of an offence occurring. If the money is not paid within 14 days the litterer can be prosecuted and if convicted face a maximum fine of £2,500.

  In the period 1997–98, 727 litter fixed penalties were issued by local authorities in England, of which 660 were paid. The last year from which figures are available is the period 1999–2000 where 2,970 fixed penalty notices were issued of which 1,563 were paid.

  Sheep Meat
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will calculate(a) the number of sweet lambs awaiting entry into the national supply chain and (b) the amount of sweet lamb being processed in the supply chain as a result of the imposition of export control restrictions on British livestock and meat.[11417]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA figures for the week ending 13 October 2001 indicate that the volume of sheep being slaughtered in the UK for human consumption was about 73 per cent. of the level that would have been expected had foot and mouth not occurred. However, allowing for the impact of the export ban, the production of sheep meat for the UK market is approximately 99 per cent. of normal.

  Apples
  Mr. Wyatt:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the average crop harvested of Bramley apples in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) England since 1981.[11977]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Home production of Bramley apples marketed for the calendar years 1985 to 2001 was as follows:

  thousand tones

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  UK total

  1985

  121.6

  0.1

  24.4

  146.1

  1986

  123.0

  0.2

  24.6

  147.8

  1987

  114.5

  0.1

  24.3

  139.0

  1988

  100.9

  0.1

  29.4

  130.4

  1989

  189.0

  0.1

  35.6

  224.7

  1990

  118.6

  0.1

  34.3

  152.9

  1991

  150.5

  0.1

  41.9

  192.5

  1992

  155.5

  0.1

  41.4

  197.0

  1993

  101.4

  0.1

  51.2

  152.6

  1994

  87.8

  0.1

  35.6

  123.5

  1995

  89.7

  0.1

  41.3

  131.2

  1996

  75.2

  0.1

  39.7

  115.0

  1997

  57.5

  0.1

  31.0

  88.5

  1998

  54.7

  0.1

  27.6

  82.4

  1999

  83.5

  0.1

  25.8

  109.4

  2000

  59.5

  0.1

  45.5

  105.1

  20011

  55.5

  0.1

  50.2

  105.7

  1Provisional

  Draft Guidance (Parishes)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish draft guidance on quality parishes.[13249]
  151W
  Alun Michael
  I shall be publishing a consultation paper on Quality Parish and Town Councils tomorrow, Wednesday 7 November. This takes forward the commitment in the Rural White Paper to help town and parish councils develop a new role, give communities the opportunity to help shape their future and to make local government in the countryside more responsive to local people and local needs. Copies will be placed in the Library and the Vote Office in the morning. The consultation paper will be available on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' website www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/consultfrm.htm and from my Department on request. I shall also be writing to Members of Parliament individually with the document.

  Ebola Virus
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to stop ebola from entering the United Kingdom.[9433]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Cases of ebola haemorrhagic fever are not infectious before the onset of symptoms and there are systems in place, based on the World Health Organisation's international health regulations, to ensure that individuals who appear to be ill on entry to this country are identified and are put in contact with health care services.

  We have issued guidance to the national health service on the management and control of viral haemorrhagic fevers to help in the identification and safe care of cases, including the monitoring of contacts. There are two high security infectious disease units in England that provide specialised isolation facilities on a United Kingdom-wide basis for people suffering from or suspected of suffering from highly infectious diseases such as viral haemorrhagic fever. Specialist laboratories, which provide early diagnosis of suspected cases, support these units.

  Bioterrorism
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks will be made on grain imports to prevent terrorists from polluting them with disease-bearing spores.[9866]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are extensive controls on imports of food including grain at ports of entry. In addition, the Food Standards Agency plays a full part in Government emergency planning to protect the food chain, including against terrorism.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value, net of withdrawals and reductions, of the(a) penalties and (b) interest charged by HM Customs and Excise in respect of Insurance Premium Tax in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date.[12199]
  152W
  Ruth Kelly
  Customs and Excise charged penalties and interest in respect of Insurance Premium Tax as shown in the table.

  £000

  Net value charged

  Interest

  Penalties

  1999– 2000

  633

  61

  2000–01

  382

  75

  2001 to 31 August

  265

  1—

  1 Reliable information is not yet available for this period, and it would take a disproportionate amount of time to quantify. Customs are developing a new system to report these data

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the targets for detection of revenue set for each anti-smuggling team in HM Customs and Excise in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02.[12212]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs does not set revenue detection targets for individual teams.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff are employed, and at what grades, by the National Investigation Service within HM Customs and Excise.[12214]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of staff currently employed by HM Customs and Excise law enforcement investigation (formerly known as the national investigation service) is shown in the table:

  Job band

  Number of staff

  02

  53

  03

  99

  04

  31

  05

  100

  06

  1,015

  07

  571

  08

  26

  09

  109

  10

  4

  11

  20

  12

  4

  SCS

  4

  Grand total

  2,036

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees of HM Customs and Excise are the subject of criminal investigations by the police; and how many of these relate to frauds on duty.[12638]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of officers who are currently the subject of criminal investigations by the police is 16. None of these cases relates to frauds on excise or customs duties.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the sum of revenue detected by each anti-smuggling team within HM Customs and Excise in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02 to date.[12213]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about the revenue evasion detected by individual anti-smuggling teams is not available.
  153W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways the powers and responsibilities of HM Customs and Excise have been affected by the Terrorism Act 2000.[12217]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Terrorism Act 2000, all Customs officers at ports and airports in Great Britain, but not Northern Ireland, are designated as examining officers. This provides officers with a range of investigative powers to enable the officer to determine whether a person is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

  In addition, the Act designates all Customs officers in the UK as authorised officers. This provides officers with powers to seize cash at import or export, or moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is believed to be linked to terrorism. The detention of seized cash beyond 48 hours must be authorised by the courts.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many notifications of businesses no longer trading were received by HM Customs and Excise following the annual reminder mailshots in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001.[12202]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of businesses no longer trading and notified as a result of annual reminders is not readily available. Information about the percentage increase in changes notified due to the annual reminder may be found in the publication "HM Customs and Excise annual report 1998–99, appendix B—Management by Outputs Agreement".

  Such data are not readily available for the remaining years in question and would involve disproportionate cost to produce. Details of the total number of deregistrations over the period in question may be found in HM Customs and Excise annual reports for the respective financial years.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the application of the multiplier to each area of comparable expenditure under the Barnett formula, which spending areas contributed to a reduction in Scotland's allocation in the last financial year.[12190]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Increases in Scotland's allocation for 2000–01 were announced following the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. Details of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review were announced in the spending plans published in July 1998 (Cm 4011) and the Barnett formula comparability factors used in the Comprehensive Spending Review were published in the Statement of Funding Policy in March 1999.

  Euro
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on euro preparations.[13250]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Fifth Report on Euro Preparations was published on 4 November. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.
  154W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the current level of Treasury research into whether the United Kingdom has passed the five economic tests for membership of the euro zone; who will undertake the final tests; and how long the analysis will take;[13022]

  (2) if it is the assessment of his Department that the United Kingdom qualifies for membership of the euro zone.[13023]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government have said that they will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the accountability to EU member states of the European Central Bank.[12554]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, on 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 771W.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what options he is considering for the(a) reform and (b) abolition of the Landfill Tax Credit scheme; [12042]

  (2) if he will amend the Landfill Tax Regulations to permit environmental bodies to make direct contributions to recycling schemes;[12045]

  (3) when he will publish a consultation document on the future of the Landfill Tax Credit scheme.[12043]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on 30 October 2001,Official Report, columns 624–25W.

  Airline Industry
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will bring forward taxation measures to provide emergency support to the airline industry following the terrorist attacks of 11 September;[11969]

  (2) if he will bring forward taxation measures to assist the tourism industry; and if he will make a statement.[11970]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all taxes under review and decisions will be made as part of the normal Budget process.

  Working Hours
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 204W, on excessive hours, if he will state the methodology by which his answer was reached.[11607]

  Ruth Kelly
  Aggregated data are produced three times a year from information provided by staff on their average working hours. This showed the trend I referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 204W.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guarantees the Treasury is offering to Railtrack plc in administration to enable it to borrow from the market.[11087]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Member to the Loan Agreement, copies of which were placed in the House Library on 17 October 2001.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what advice he has received since 7 October concerning additional risk premia that PPP partners might seek;[10770]

  (2) what representations he has received since 7 October from (a) actual and (b) potential PPP partners concerning modifications of standard contractual arrangements; [10771]

  (3) what representations he has received since 7 October about the operation of public private partnerships; and if he will publish them;[10769]

  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from interested organisations regarding public/private partnerships.[11543]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Ministers and officials regularly receive representations on public-private partnerships (PPP). It is for those making such representations to publish them if they so wish. It would not be appropriate to make public the terms of contractual negotiations in advance of contract signature. The general guidance on "Standardisation of PFI Contracts", published in 1999 and which is available in the Library of the House of Commons, is currently being reviewed by the Office of Government Commerce. It is hoped to issue a revised draft of this guidance for consultation shortly.

  VAT
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of criminal VAT fraud were reported in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date; how many prosecutions were completed in each year; and how many of those prosecutions were completed successfully.[12208]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of reported VAT fraud criminal cases is:

  1999–2000: 105

  2000–01: 92.

  During 1999–2000, 49 prosecutions were completed, of which in 48 one or more defendants were convicted. During 2000–01, 24 prosecutions were completed, of which in 20 one or more defendants were convicted.

  Accurate figures for 2001–02 will be calculated after the year in question.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value was of criminal VAT evasion prevented by HM Customs and Excise in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date.[12207]
  156W
  Mr. Boateng
  The value of criminal evasion prevented by Customs while investigating rose from £618 million in 1999–2000 to £993 million in 2000–01. Figures showing the total value of revenue evasion prevented by Customs in 2001–02 will be published in due course.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many traders were dealt with by the VAT large payers unit in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01; how many traders are now being dealt with by the unit; and if he will make a statement.[12205]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of traders dealt with by the VAT large payers unit was 10,000 in 1997–98, 13,000 in 1998–99, 13,500 in 1999–2000, 14,500 in 2000–01 and is currently around 14,900.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total value of VAT repayment returns in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01;[12203]

  (2) what the target of HM Customs and Excise is for effecting VAT repayment returns; and what proportion of VAT returns, representing what sum of money, were effected within the relevant target time in (a) 1997–98, 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01.[12204]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs processes around 2 million VAT repayment returns each year, the values of which are set out on a regular basis in the HM Customs and Excise "Value Added Tax Factsheet", available from the House of Commons Library.

  A target to authorise 92 per cent. of all repayments within 10 working days of the receipt of a claim in the VAT central unit was set for the year 1997–98, and this was increased to 96 per cent. for 1998–99 and subsequent years. The actual achievement in each of the subject years was over 97 per cent.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of(a) court fines and costs and (b) confiscation and compensation orders following the completion of prosecutions in VAT criminal cases in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 to date.[12215]

  Mr. Boateng
  The amount of money realised for each of the periods referred to was, in respect of confiscation orders for VAT cases only, as follows:

  £

  (a) 1999–2000

  415,585,93

  (b) 20007–01

  795,020.25

  (c) 2001–021

  102.411.78

  1April to September

  Customs does not keep details as to the value of court fines or costs orders made nor does it have any record of compensation orders made. Similarly, it does not keep any record of confiscation orders made—only the amount realised through enforcement.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of VAT civil evasion prevented by HM Customs and Excise was in(a) 1997–98. (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01.[12209]
  157W
  Mr. Boateng
  The value of VAT civil evasion prevented by HM Customs and Excise in the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are contained in Customs annual reports for these years. Figures for 1999-2000 and 2000–01 are:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  70

  2000–01

  71

  From the current financial year, HM Customs and Excise has ceased to calculate a figure for VAT criminal evasion prevented.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what proportion of applications for VAT registration during(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, and (d) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available were (i) refused or (ii) referred for further investigation;[12197]

  (2) how many and what percentage of applications for VAT registration were found to be (a) invalid or (b) potentially fraudulent in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available.[12200]

  Mr. Boateng
  For 1998–99, information on the proportion of applications falling into these categories is published in appendix B of the HM Customs and Excise annual report 1998–99. For 1999–2000 and 2000–01, this information was not centrally collated and would now involve disproportionate cost to produce. National registration statistics for 2001–02 will be published in due course.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT fraud cases were investigated under the civil penalty procedure in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 to date. [12210]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prior to 2001–02, HM Customs and Excise has recorded information on the numbers of VAT fraud cases where a civil penalty was imposed but not the number investigated. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 were published in Customs annual reports for these years. Figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are as follows:

  Number

  1999–2000

  860

  2000–01

  729

  Accurate figures for 2001–02 will be calculated after the year in question.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses were sent the annual reminder mailshot with VAT returns in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001.[12201]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  Million

  1999

  1.6

  2000

  1.7

  2001

  0

  158W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value, net of withdrawals and reductions, of the(a) default surcharge, (b) penalties and (c) interest charged by HM Customs and Excise in respect of VAT in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 to date.[12198]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Net value of penalty charged

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  20011

  Default surcharge

  117.3

  126.9

  47.9

  Default interest

  77.4

  71.6

  25.8

  Other penalties

  22.9

  29.8

  10.8

  1 To 31 August 2001

WALES

  NHS (Wales) Bill
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish the draft NHS (Wales) Bill. [12679]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Queen's Speech at the beginning of this parliamentary Session confirmed that the Government intended to draft legislation to reform the provision of health services in Wales. The Government's intention is still to publish a Welsh Bill in draft during this parliamentary Session. My right hon. Friend and I have had close discussions with the National Assembly for Wales Minister for Health and Social Services and with our colleagues in Government on the contents of the draft NHS (Wales) Bill. My officials and Assembly officials are also making good progress on the detail of the Bill.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ozone Depleting Substances
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost to British businesses is of the Ozone Depleting Substances Regulation 2000/2037.[11857]

  Mr. Wilson
  EC Regulation 2037/2000 on substances which deplete the ozone layer is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment. A Regulatory Impact Assessment was prepared by his Department in relation to this Regulation, and was placed in both Libraries of the House on 3 December 1998.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effects of the ozone depleting substances Regulation 2000/2037 on the design and manufacture of fridges and freezers.[11856]

  Mr. Wilson
  EC Regulation 2037/2000 on substances which deplete the ozone layer is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment. The manufacture of fridges and freezers will need to comply with the restrictions placed by the Regulation on the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Use of HCFCs as refrigerants in domestic fridges and freezers has been banned since 1 January 1996. Regulation 2037/2000 additionally bans use of HCFCs for the production of polyurethane foams for appliances from 1 January 2003.

  Small Business Service/Business Link
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking(a) to ensure effective co-operation and (b) to avoid duplication between the work of the Small Business Service and Business Links.[11847]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Business Service and the Business Link Operators are part of the same network. They are not two different competing organisations. Business Link is the customer facing brand of the Small Business Service. The Business Link Service encompasses a national contact centre and website and the network of 45 local Business Link Operators.

  The Small Business Service manages the network of local Business Link operators through its regional teams. They are responsible for encouraging effective local and regional collaboration and building a learning network.

  End-of-life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost to British businesses is of the end-of-life vehicles directive.[11861]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI Consultation Paper on options for implementing the Directive, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses, includes a partial regulatory impact assessment. A fuller assessment of the cost to businesses will be made when the precise method of implementation has been decided, following consideration of responses received in the consultation exercise.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK registered businesses employ fewer than(a) 100, (b) 50, (c) 20, (d) 10 and (e) five people.[12156]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The percentage of UK registered businesses by employee size band is as follows:

  Less than 100: 99.0

  Less than 50: 98.2

  Less than 20: 95.8

  Less than 10: 90.3

  Less than five: 79.7

  Source:

  Inter-departmental Business Register (IDBR), Start 2001

  Economic Development
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the potential of the environmental industries to generate economic development.[9821]

  Mr. Wilson
  The most recent available figures relating to the environmental industries indicate that the global environmental market was worth about $335 billion in 2000 rising to $640 billion by 2010. A new study to up date these figures has been commissioned by the Department and is due for completion at the end of November 2001. This will also provide information on the UK's share of the global market.
  160W
  The Department is also in the process of establishing an Innovation and Growth Team (IGT) for the UK environmental industry. The primary role of the IGT will be to identify new trends and emerging factors which could impact on competitiveness within the industry, and to identify new market opportunities.

  Nuclear Sites (Security)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to install anti-aircraft batteries at Sellafield and other nuclear plants; and what discussions she has had with her French counterpart following the French Government's decision to place anti-aircraft missiles around French reprocessing facilities.[10674]

  Mr. Wilson
  The. UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security and safety precautions at nuclear sites are kept under regular review and the Government are reviewing all precautions in the light of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites. Officials have discussed security issues with their French counter-parts.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 7W, on nuclear security, if the Office for Civil Nuclear Security was asked to make a special assessment of the security provisions for the Sellafield MOX Plant and the transport of MOX fuel to overseas customers following the terrorist events of 11 September.[10673]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1152W.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the personnel who comprise her Department's Office for Civil Nuclear Security, along with the qualifications they have for their roles.[8763]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security comprise 34 staff headed by Michael Buckland-Smith, Director of Civil Nuclear Security. Staff have a range of relevant experience including work in the security and intelligence agencies, the armed services and the police. Training and competences required for OCNS—as for all parts of DTI—are kept under continuing review in the light of changing needs.

  European Coal and Steel Treaty
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy on the proposals of the European Commission to allow state aid to the coal industry to continue beyond the expiry of the European Coal and Steel Treaty in 2002. [11564]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government currently have no plans to subsidise the UK coal industry beyond the expiry of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty in July
  161W
  2002. However, we are prepared to accept that continued State aid be permitted by the new European regime after this date, provided that it is in the context of appropriate limiting conditions and provided it does nothing to undermine greater liberalisation of energy markets. In particular we would like to see a cap on aid payments, degressivity in aid payments, and rules to prevent subsidies reducing domestic prices of delivered coal below international prices.

  Given the geopolitical diversity of coal sources, we are not convinced by the security of supply justification for subsidies as detailed in the current Commission proposals. We would instead like to keep open the possibility of member states paying operating or investment aid to make further progress towards economic viability.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy towards the renewal of the European Coal and Steel Treaty.[11557]

  Mr. Wilson
  The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) Treaty comes to an end in July 2002, and there are no plans for it to be renewed. However the European Commission has published a proposal for a new European coal state aids regime. Our policy regarding this proposal is discussed in my answer today to my hon. Friend (PQ No. 11564), at columns 160–61W.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the impact of new regulations on British manufacturing in the last 12 months.[11005]

  Mr. Wilson
  Ministers meet and correspond regularly with manufacturing companies and business organisations representing them on a range of issues, including the impact of new regulations.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the factors responsible for the changes, in competitiveness of British manufacturing in the last three years.[10993]

  Mr. Wilson
  Competitiveness depends on a wide range of factors which we keep under close review. My Department published, in February 2001, its latest assessment of the UK's competitiveness against the world's leading economies in the second edition of the UK Competitiveness Indicators. In addition, we have a rolling programme of sector competitiveness analyses which seek to examine all the factors that may influence the competitiveness of companies in a particular industrial or business sector.

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements.[10992]
  162W
  Mr. Wilson
  Ofgem published on 31 August a review of NETA's performance over the first three months. Their key findings were that:Wholesale electricity prices are 20–25 per cent. below prices that would have been produced under the Pool.
  Market liquidity has been established with a threefold increase in the volume of trades, and a doubling of the number of contracts struck compared to this time last year under the Pool.
  The National Grid Company is working well to keep the electricity system in balance. Its daily costs of balancing the system have halved, which will also benefit customers.

  The impact of NETA on smaller generators continues to be a concern. Ofgem also published a report on the impact of NETA on smaller generators in the first two months of its operation. This report highlighted the areas where further action was needed to assist smaller generators. I have issued a consultation document aimed at addressing these concerns, and copies have been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the impact of the new Electricity Trading Arrangements on the generation of electricity by wind power.[10118]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The impact of NETA on smaller generators, including renewables such as wind power, was and continues to be of great concern. Ofgem published on 31 August 2001 a report on the impact of NETA on smaller generators, based on the first two months of NETA operation, as well as a report on NETA operation generally.

  Ofgem's key findings on the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators, including wind generation, included:

  (a) That the prices achieved by smaller generators are 17 per cent. lower than under the Pool. This is a somewhat smaller reduction than for generation prices overall. Ofgem reports, however, that wind plant have seen the largest drop in the price paid for their exports, 27 per cent.

  (b) Smaller generators' output has fallen substantially. Ofgem suggests the lower export prices for electricity are one factor, but also speculates that higher costs (especially gas prices) may also have contributed. Exports for wind generation, however, are only down by 13 per cent.

  (c) In its report Ofgem has singled out the position of wind generators within the renewables community as especially unpredictable. Other than wind power. the output of smaller generators does not appear to be significantly less predictable than for other generators.

  The Government issued proposals specifically aimed at addressing the concerns of the smaller generators community, including wind generation. Copies have been placed in both Libraries of the House.

  The Government remain committed to their target for 10 per cent. of electricity sales from licensed suppliers to come from renewables which are eligible for the Renewables Obligation by 2010, subject to the costs being acceptable to the consumer.

  Coal
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has security of supply concerns about coal production; and if she will make a statement.[10373]
  163W
  Mr. Wilson
  Domestic supplies constitute about 50 per cent. of our current coal use, competing in a diverse and active international market. I believe this market provides a secure and diverse choice of coal supplies in which I would expect UK production to continue to play a significant role.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what risk assessment she has made about the potential for disruption to coal supply to the UK.[10378]

  Mr. Wilson
  No formal risk assessment has been made about the potential for disruption to coal supply to the UK. However, the current Coal Aid Code, the European Commission's Security of Supply Green Paper and the Commission proposal for state aid to the coal industry all acknowledge that the geopolitical diversity of coal sources is such that the risks of disruption to supply are minimal.

  In terms of a physical threat to coal assets or the freight transport infrastructure, the Government and relevant companies are working with the security services to ensure that the risk of terrorist attack is properly assessed and that appropriate measures are in place to reduce the risk of disruption.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote the capping of EU state aid to the UK coal industry at 2001 levels.[10375]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 25 July 2001, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a Council regulation on state aid to the coal industry. There is no specific cap in this proposal. However, to see levels of aid increase on current levels would contradict aims for greater liberalisation in EU markets, and run counter to the commitment given by member states at the Lisbon Council to reduce the level of state aids, shifting the emphasis from supporting individual companies or sectors. The Government would therefore at least like to see payments by each member state capped at the levels of aid it granted in 2001. We are pursuing this objective in Council negotiations.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote amendments to reduce EU state aid to the UK coal industry on a year-by-year basis.[10374]

  Mr. Wilson
  The European Commission proposal for a Council regulation on state aid to the coal industry beyond 2002 requires aid to be reduced in a "continuous and significant manner". It is very important that this is achieved so that we progress to a liberalised market without aid, and honour the commitment given at the Lisbon Council to reduce the level of state aids. Therefore we would like to see amendments clarifying that the total level of aid which may be granted by any member state must be reduced in a significant manner on a year-by-year basis. We are pursuing this objective in Council negotiations.

  Nuclear Power (Finland)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with the Government of Finland about nuclear power generation.[7378]
  164W
  Mr. Wilson
  I have had no recent discussions but, as with other international energy issues, am aware of developments in the nuclear sector in Finland.

  Screening Centre (Wrexham)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) medical examinations by doctors and (b) screening tests by nurses were carried out at Healthcall's screening centre at Grosvenor road in Wrexham in each month between June and September inclusive.[8711]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The number of screening spirometry tests completed at Wrexham test centre each month, from June to September inclusive was:

  Number

  2001

  June

  3

  July

  20

  August

  0

  September

  22

  Total tested at Wrexham at end September

  480

  The number of medical assessments completed at Wrexham test centre each month was:

  Number

  2001

  June

  3

  July

  6

  August

  6

  September

  11

  Total tested at Wrexham at end September

  197

  Miners' Compensation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation claims made by miners suffering from vibration white finger and mining-related lung diseases are still waiting to be processed; and how many of the claimants in this group have received an interim payment, in Bassetlaw constituency.[9881]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the Bassetlaw constituency, with regards to Vibration White Finger, VWF, there have been 4,153 claims registered to date, 1,355 interims have been made and 877 full and final payments have been made. The total amount paid in damages is £14.2 million.

  In relation to respiratory disease, 3,602 claims have been initiated in the Bassetlaw constituency. There have been 609 interim payments and 264 full and final payments have been made. The total amount paid in damages is £3.7 million.

  Constituency statistics will be available on the www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth website in the next three to four weeks.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many compensation payments to sick miners and their dependants for(a) vibration white finger and (b) respiratory diseases have been made by means of

  165W
  (i) fast track settlements and (ii) full settlements, broken down by parliamentary constituency.[9851]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is not yet available in the format requested. The Department is working closely with its claims handlers to produce a breakdown of headline statistics by parliamentary constituency for both respiratory diseases and vibration white finger. It is anticipated that the information will be available on the Department's coal health website www.dti.gov.uk/ coalhealth—in the next three to four weeks.

  In the meantime breakdowns by postcode and region are currently available on the website.

  Regional breakdown as at 30 September 2001

  Wales

  Scotland

  Nottinghamshire

  Yorkshire

  North-east

  North-west

  Midlands

  South

  Vibration White Finger

  Number of claims

  16,812

  8,297

  22,377

  41,292

  19,983

  4,232

  12,783

  1.987

  interim payments

  Number of payments

  3,869

  2,562

  6,642

  12,357

  7,263

  1,204

  3,014

  488

  Value of payments (£ million)

  20.3

  12.8

  36.6

  70.8

  44.8

  5.6

  15.2

  2.8

  Settlements

  Total number of general damages settlements

  5,097

  2,619

  4,773

  7,925

  5,222

  1,118

  2,054

  379

  Value of settlements (£ million)

  24.0

  11.5

  31.0

  43.6

  34.2

  4.1

  9.3

  1.6

  Respiratory disease

  Number of claims

  34,497

  12,837

  20,706

  43,477

  23,615

  8,829

  15,552

  3,942

  Interim payments—post spirometry and post MAP

  Number of payments

  8,733

  3,280

  3,679

  8,621

  4,906

  1,837

  4,071

  843

  Value of payments (£ million)

  35.8

  13.3

  13.2

  32.8

  20.8

  7.0

  14.2

  3.3

  Expedited payments post spirometry

  Total number of expedited offers made

  2,235

  1,576

  2,033

  4,965

  2,238

  946

  1,799

  422

  Value of payments (£ million)

  6.1

  5.7

  7.4

  17.9

  6.8

  3.5

  7.0

  12.9

  Regional breakdowns are available on the Department's website on www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims her Department has received in respect of respiratory disease; in respect of how many claims spirometry has been completed; in how many claims a medical assessment process has been started; and in how many claims a medical assessment process has been completed, in the last four years.[12063]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Handling Agreement was formally signed on 24 September 1999 and claims submitted before would not have begun to be processed until after this date.

  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 167,559 claims, to date, of which 104,783 are from live claimants. In total, 97,880 appointments have been made and of these, 92,272 claimants have undergone the initial spirometry test.

  Both claims from miners and their estates cart proceed through the full Medical Assessment Process, MAP. There have been 123,641 claims questionnaires and mandate packs, which authorise access to claimants' medical records, issued by IRISC to claimants' solicitors, of which 85,591 have been returned. The number of claimants who have undergone the medical assessment is 43,390.
  166W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) claims were received in respect of respiratory disease, (b) interim and expedited awards were made in respect of respiratory disease broken down by (i) number and (ii) value, (c) claims were received in respect of vibration white finger and (d) interim and general damage awards were made in respect of vibration white finger by (a) number and (b) value, broken down by region.[12065]

  Mr. Wilson
  The breakdown of progress, on a regional basis, for both compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger is as follows:

  Pylons
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will review the Government's policy on the future construction of pylons in this country on the basis of international research published since April.[9651]

  Mr. Wilson
  We are always interested to note and consider relevant research. There are no plans for a general review of policy at this juncture.

  Underground Gas Storage
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government policy is on the construction of underground gas storage facilities. [11077]

  Mr. Wilson
  Gas storage facilities (including underground) will have an increasingly important role, as Great Britain becomes increasingly dependent on imported gas and as the "swing" capability of North Sea gas fields declines, in helping gas suppliers to meet peak demand requirements. In this way they contribute to security of supply. They can also help to keep prices down by enabling suppliers to purchase additional gas, to put into storage, when wholesale prices are low.

  The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, acting under its duties to protect the interests of consumers, supports the development of new gas storage projects. Proposals for new storage projects are subject to regulatory

  167W
  consents, notably planning permission and under health and safety legislation. Energy security, including gas storage, is a key element of the energy policy review currently being undertaken by the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office. The review is due to conclude at the end of the year.

  Tyre Manufacturing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to safeguard the future of the tyre manufacturing industry in the UK; and if he will make a statement.[9063]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government strongly support all types of manufacturing. We do this by:

  Providing a stable macro-economic framework, investing in education and skills, investing in Britain's knowledge base, ensuring a decent infrastructure, helping business boost productivity, securing effective competition and supporting business by creating a culture in which enterprise can flourish.

  In common with other industrial countries the tyre industry in the UK is under great competitive pressure. We will continue to maintain close contact with tyre manufacturers in the UK and make sure that they are fully aware of our manufacturing policy.

  Work and Parents Taskforce
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish the findings of the Work and Parents Taskforce.[12248]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 5 November 20011: The Work and Parents Taskforce is due to report to me this month. Once I have received the report I hope to be able to publish it soon after.

  OPEC
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on OPEC's oil reserves.[9945]

  Mr. Wilson
  OPEC-11 (i.e. including Iraq) proven oil reserves1 are estimated to be around 800 billion barrels, approximately 80 per cent. of proven world reserves (Source: US DoE, Energy Information Administration website). Current OPEC-11 spare oil production capacity is approximately 4.7 million barrels per day, compared to production of 27.2 million barrels per day and world oil demand of around 76 million barrels per day (Source: International Energy Agency, October Oil Market Report). Information on the level of oil stocks held by OPEC countries is not available.
  1Proven reserves of oil are generally taken to be those quantities that geological and engineering information indicates with reasonable certainty can be recovered in the future from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of plutonium have been(a) sold and (b) loaned to the European Commission, on behalf of the European Communities, by the United
  168W
  Kingdom (i) prior to and (ii) since the United Kingdom joined the European Community; and if she will provide details of dates and reasons for such transactions. [8870]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information available to us indicates that small samples of material have been transferred to the European Commission for purposes such as safeguards measurements and research. The details requested cannot be provided because the information is held largely on paper records dating back over 40 years and could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department.

  Wind Farms
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if legislation is required to allow offshore wind farms to be built in British waters more than 12 miles from the coastline; and if she will make a statement.[9765]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has recently reviewed the consent requirements for offshore windfarms within English and Welsh territorial waters and is currently reviewing the legislation for developments outside territorial waters but within the United Kingdom continental shelf area. Until this review has been completed, we are not in a position to say whether further legislation will be required.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will hold a public inquiry into the Cefn Croer wind farm proposals.[9604]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has yet to receive the views of the National Assembly for Wales. Until their views are known she will not take her decision, including whether or not to hold a public inquiry on the application.

  Gas Prices
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what means she will measure the effectiveness of her strategy to address high gas prices; and over what timescale.[10430]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The Government's three point strategy to address high gas prices is:

  1. to work to for greater market liberalisation in Europe

  2. to work for improvements in the British gas market

  3. to take action against any anti-competitive activity.

  We shall monitor the market regularly to see how effective this strategy has been in enabling British consumers to access gas at competitive prices without damaging price spikes.

  There has already been good progress with the strategy. The publication in March by the EU Commission of a revised draft Gas Directive was a positive step towards greater European liberalisation. On 10 September we held a joint workshop with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) to consider how greater information flows between the offshore and the onshore could improve the market and I intend to maintain the momentum on this issue.
  169W
  Interconnector (UK) Ltd. now publishes details of flows with a one day lag instead of the previous six week delay. We have also been working with IUK and interconnector shippers on improvements to interconnector governance and marketing arrangements. I understand that the European Commission's competition inquiry into the operation of the interconnector, which was instituted at the request of the Government, is now in its final stages.

  However, I should warn against expectations of immediate success as this strategy is liable to be a lengthy process.

  Oil Companies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will review the advice given by his Department to British companies involved in oil extraction in Southern Sudan; and if she will make a statement.[11154]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: We have no ongoing campaign to promote investment in the Sudanese oil industry. We provide full and frank advice to companies that approach us about oil extraction in southern Sudan. We keep this advice under constant review.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the British companies which are involved in oil and gas pipelines between the Caspian and Europe.[11480]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The information is as follows:

  Operational Pipelines
  BAKU (Azerbaijan)—SUPSA (Georgia/Black Sea): BP plc has a 34.14 per cent. holding in the consortium, and is the operator of the pipeline. No other British oil companies are involved.
  Tengiz (Kazakhstan)—Novorossiysk (Russia): BP, Shell and BG Group all have small equity holdings of between 2 and 6.25 per cent.

  Planned Pipelines
  Baku (Azerbaijan)—Tbilisi (Georgia)—Ceyhan (Turkey): BP plc currently has a 25.72 per cent. holding in, and is the operator for, two consortia planning parallel oil and gas pipelines. The final ownership structures have not yet been decided. No other British oil companies are currently involved.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the British oil industry companies which operate in(a) Tajikistan, (b) Turkmenistan, (c) Uzbekistan, (d) Kyrgstan and (e) Kazakhstan. [11481]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]The information is as follows:Tajikistan and Kyrgistan—None.
  Turkmenistan—Shell and Burren Energy have offices.
  Uzbekistan—Shell have an office. Trinity Energy have a holding in a consortium operating an exploration asset.
  Kazakhstan—BG Group, Shell, BP and Enterprise Oil all have holdings in consortia operating exploration and production assets.

  Employment Directive
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government are committed to implementing Article 13 of the EC Employment Directive by 2 December 2003; and what plans the Government have to ensure that faith schools comply.[11065]
  170W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: We intend to implement the Directive's provisions on religion or belief and on sexual orientation by 2 December 2003; and those on disability and age by 2 December 2006. The implementing legislation will cover all employers, including faith schools.

  We believe the current arrangements for the employment of teachers at state maintained religious schools, as set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (sections 58–60), are compatible with the requirements of the Directive, given the special provisions within the Directive for organisations whose ethos is based on religion or belief.

  We will publish a consultation document about our plans for new legislation within the next three months. We intend to issue guidance to help employers understand the new provisions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Chess
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to recognise chess as a sport.[12330]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are no current plans to recognise chess as a sport.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the money from Sport England for the Wembley stadium project will be repaid.[13017]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 21W.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 816W, on the national stadium, if she will give details of the spending by Sport England on the development of the national athletics centre project, indicating how much of this expenditure is recoverable.[12628]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Sport England has spent £1.57 million on the development of the national athletics centre project. All of the funding was committed for feasibility and outline design work, which has been completed. The issue of recoverability does not, therefore, arise.

  Palliative Care (Children)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the new opportunities fund was devoted to palliative care for children in each of the last three years.[12713]

  Mr. Caborn
  Money to support palliative care for children was allocated in the new opportunities fund (Specification of Initiatives) Order 2001. From early 2002, the fund will provide £48 million to palliative care projects for children as part of its £84 million palliative care programme.
  171W
  In the period 1998–99, £1,835,136 of lottery money went to provide palliative care and support to children and young people with terminal illnesses, in five grants made by the community fund. In 1999–2000, the community fund made three grants totalling £902,145 and in the period 2000–01 four grants totalling £655,727.

SCOTLAND

  Small Business Sector
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Scottish Executive's Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to discuss the prospects for the Scottish small business sector. [10313]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a number of issues relating to business and industry including those of relevance to small businesses.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scotland Office has made a submission to the PIU energy review. [10314]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scotland Office has made a submission to the performance and innovation unit's energy review. In addition I represent Scotland on the review's advisory group. The Scotland Office submission, along with all other submissions received by the PIU team, is available on the PIU website www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/innovation.

  Personal Care (Elderly People)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding transferring attendance allowance resources to the Scottish Executive in order to ensure that free personal care for elderly people is implemented from April 2002.[10315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have frequent discussions with my right hon. Friend on a wide range of issues.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met officials from the boundary commission for Scotland.[10316]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not met either the Commissioners or the Secretary of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. My officials are, however, in regular contact with its secretary since the Scotland Office is the Commission's sponsoring department.

  Railtrack
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as to the consequences for rail travel in Scotland of the decision to put Railtrack into administration.[10317]
  172W
  Mr. Foulkes
  My right. hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions on a range of transport matters affecting Scotland.

  Scottish Parliament
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to adjust the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. [10318]

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will consult(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) others on the size of the Scottish Parliament.[10319]

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has for amendments to the proportional representation element of the system of election to the Scottish Parliament.[10329]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson), at column 91.

  Tourism
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the First Minister about her visits abroad to promote tourism in Scotland.[10320]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular contact with the First Minister about a range of issues.

  Both the First Minister and I are aware of the importance of the tourism industry to the Scottish economy, particularly at this time. I shall be continuing to use every opportunity to promote to overseas audiences the attractions of today's Scotland in all its vibrant diversity and to support the efforts of the tourism agencies in that regard.

  Employment Trends
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on employment trends in Scotland since September.[10321]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Latest statistics show that there are 2.384 million people in work in Scotland, a fall of 0.6 per cent. over the previous month. The number of people out of work and claiming benefit rose by 800 in September, but remains at its lowest level since October 1975.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed the future of the Barnett formula with Treasury Ministers.[10323]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues. The Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has held with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the operation of the Barnett formula.[10332]
  173W
  Mrs. Liddell:
  I have regular discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on a wide range of issues. The Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula.

  Army Installations
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the future of Army installations in Scotland.[10324]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of issues. I and my right hon. Friend are conscious of the important contribution that Army installations in Scotland make to the defence of the United Kingdom and to the Scottish economy.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to issue tender documents for the ferry service between Campbeltown and Ballycastle.[10325]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department is in the process of finalising evaluation of the initial expressions of interest received to operate the ferry service. It is also important that other issues including the value for public money in relation to potential benefits are fully investigated before any decision is taken.

  A decision whether and, if so, how to proceed with tendering for this ferry service will be taken shortly in conjunction with the Scottish and Northern Irish Executives.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she has taken to ascertain public opinion on the possible siting of new nuclear reactors in Scotland.[10326]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The performance and innovation unit review will consider how energy policy can contribute to meeting longer-term objectives for the environment and for security of supply. This will include consideration of the future role of nuclear power generation.

  Consent is required for new power station developments under the Electricity Act. In Scotland, the power to grant consents is a devolved matter and the procedures are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish Executive to discuss rural employment.[10327]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend and 1 have regular meetings with the Scottish Executive to discuss a wide range of issues including employment. Employment in Scotland remains high with 2,384 million people in work. There are, however, still some areas of Scotland which suffer from persistently high levels of unemployment. We are addressing this inequality through measures like the 174W
  new deal which has helped over 60,000 people from all areas of Scotland back to work; and the action teams for jobs initiative which is tackling high levels of localised unemployment in the Highlands and Islands, East Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire, Dundee, North Lanarkshire and Glasgow.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she has taken since 11 September relating to security against terrorist attacks.[10328]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Like all Departments, we are currently reviewing our resilience to potential terrorist attacks.

  Business Support
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent action she has taken to support business operations in Scotland.[10330]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Local action to support economic development and business operations is devolved. This Government have put in place macroeconomic policies that are delivering low inflation and sound public finances. As a consequence businesses in Scotland and the rest of the UK are better placed than ever before to cope with changes in the economic environment.

  Airport Security
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to improve security at Scottish airports.[10331]

  Mr. Foulkes
  All UK airports, including those in Scotland, are in receipt of statutory directions from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. These set out the security responsibilities of airport managers.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his office took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week.[11513]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W.

  The Home Office has achieved a reduction of 15 per cent. on the non-Prison estate between 1990–1991 to 1999–2000 in energy consumption (kwh/m2), taking into account weather changes and estate changes. The Home Office (non-Prison estate) has benchmarked all key office buildings, with a view to reducing their individual consumption. The Prison Service has invested £300,000 in energy efficiency schemes. It circulates a regular 'Energy News' bulletin to all prison establishments to encourage energy saving schemes, and the Construction Unit frequently gives presentations to outside organisations to publicise the Prison Service's initiatives in the field of energy reduction.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason his review of section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 is not yet complete; and when he will announce the conclusions.[11804]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prevents the disclosure by Home Office Ministers and officials of information about the use of animals in scientific procedures that has been provided in confidence. Following the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, all statutory bars to the disclosure of information are being reviewed, including section 24 of the 1986 Act.

  The Government have a clear commitment to freedom of information and are equally committed to the maintenance of necessary protections for individual scientists and their research institutions. I am considering very carefully how these commitments can best be met. A decision on whether to appeal or amend section 24 will not be made until later this year.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the review of the working of ethical review processes in establishments designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.[13248]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate has completed a thorough review, after extensive consultation with stakeholders, including certificate holders and licensees under the 1986 Act, animal welfare organisations and others.

  The findings, which the Government accept, are that the ethical review process has generally worked well and as intended since its introduction in April 1999, in the interests of the welfare of animals used in licensed scientific procedures. There are variations between establishments, more related to the efficiency than the effectiveness of the process, but overall the picture to emerge is positive and encouraging, given that the ethical review process is relatively new and still evolving.

  There is increased awareness both of compliance issues and, more importantly, of the need for full application of the 3Rs at all stages of a project—replacement of animal use wherever possible, reduction of the number of animals used when there is no alternative, and refinement of procedures to minimise animal suffering.

  The main Inspectorate recommendations are that the ethical review process in establishments should continue to develop on the basis on which it was introduced, with account being taken of observations offered in the review report on best practice. We accept these recommendations.

  We shall ensure the widest possible circulation of the review report, within both the scientific and animal welfare communities, with the aim of encouraging all research establishments to examine and improve their own ethical review processes. To help achieve those aims we will, making use of additional resources recently provided to the Inspectorate, initiate a number of awareness-raising activities and events. These will ensure that those involved with local ethical review processes, and those with responsibility for the welfare of animals produced
  176W
  for and used in laboratories, benefit fully from the advice on best practice that the report contains. We will as part of this activity be urging greater use of lay members in ethical review processes.

  A copy of the review report will be placed in the Library.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made for possession of cannabis; and how many prosecutions followed, in each police force in England, in each of the last five years for which figures are available.[11958]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Arrest data are not collected centrally by individual offence.

  Information from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of persons proceeded against for the possession of cannabis by police force area in England during the period 1996–2000 is given in the table.

  Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for the possession of cannabis by police force area in England 1996–2000

  Police force area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  180

  149

  219

  283

  340

  Bedfordshire

  155

  274

  300

  255

  223

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  163

  172

  156

  88

  Cheshire

  384

  395

  534

  578

  401

  Cleveland

  60

  85

  134

  222

  221

  Cumbria

  195

  234

  267

  217

  166

  Derbyshire

  146

  173

  219

  268

  222

  Devon and Cornwall

  330

  540

  633

  555

  505

  Dorset

  123

  113

  238

  308

  306

  Durham

  158

  113

  114

  102

  223

  Essex

  405

  501

  571

  575

  617

  Gloucestershire

  145

  160

  209

  222

  199

  Greater Manchester

  589

  614

  783

  856

  918

  Hampshire

  407

  558

  813

  960

  785

  Hertfordshire

  229

  273

  244

  262

  257

  Humberside

  150

  159

  230

  241

  248

  Kent

  362

  565

  929

  923

  774

  Lancashire

  456

  709

  929

  869

  760

  Leicestershire

  187

  262

  327

  265

  239

  Lincolnshire

  216

  325

  340

  196

  183

  London, City of

  88

  75

  103

  76

  26

  Merseyside

  866

  1,064

  1,399

  1,322

  1,022

  Metropolitan Police

  3,233

  4,112

  5,452

  5.355

  4,933

  Norfolk

  274

  329

  168

  265

  245

  Northamptonshire

  31

  3

  5

  25

  113

  Northumbria

  210

  338

  717

  947

  1,007

  North Yorkshire

  195

  256

  383

  363

  165

  Nottinghamshire

  238

  275

  258

  292

  277

  South Yorkshire

  326

  453

  521

  622

  635

  Staffordshire1

  214

  281

  314

  239

  2—

  Suffolk

  177

  238

  248

  244

  173

  Surrey

  152

  230

  263

  329

  390

  Sussex

  338

  371

  363

  341

  309

  Thames Valley

  576

  600

  765

  712

  615

  Warwickshire

  63

  77

  84

  76

  77

  West Mercia

  212

  286

  329

  295

  222

  West Midlands

  556

  871

  1,325

  1,213

  1,312

  West Yorkshire

  908

  1,149

  1,335

  1,142

  947

  Wiltshire

  91

  142

  178

  211

  182

  England

  13,705

  17,515

  22,415

  22,382

  20,143

  1Estimates made for Staffordshire Police Force, who were only able to submit data for a sample of weeks for year 2000, have been included in the total

  2Not available

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been relocated from the Isle of Thanet under the Government's dispersal programme.[11665]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) currently does not hold statistics on the location of asylum seekers before they are dispersed by NASS. Statistics are only available on the areas that asylum seekers are dispersed to.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the case for increasing the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms; [11761]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete statement of evidence forms;[11760]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of statement of evidence forms on the numbers of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance.[11757]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete their statement of evidence forms. There is concern that 10 working days is insufficient time for an asylum seeker to find help completing the detailed Statement of Evidence Form (SEF) in English, and to gather and translate evidence in support of the application.

  Asylum seekers are expected to comply with the asylum process and I consider the length of time given to asylum seekers to complete the SEFs to be reasonable. The original 14 day time limit for the return of the SEF was changed to 10 working days, so applicants are not disadvantaged by public holidays.

  We do not propose therefore to increase the current 10 day time limit. Most asylum applicants do return their SEF on time. Discretion is exercised where applicants need extra time to obtain translations or submit extra material, such as a medical report, in support of their claim.

  A higher proportion of applications was refused on grounds of non-compliance in 1999 and 2000 than had previously been the case. The increase was due partly to the stricter enforcement of the 10 day deadline for return

  Applications for asylum to the UK and refusals on grounds of non-compliance, for cases decided under normal criteria1, not including dependents, 1998–20012

  Month/year

  Asylum applications

  Percentage change on previous month/year

  Total refusals

  Non-compliance refusals3

  Percentage change on previous month/year

  Non-compliance percentage of total refusals

  1998

  46,015

  42

  22,315

  2,995

  -17

  13

  1999

  71,160

  55

  11,025

  1,085

  -64

  10

  20004

  80,315

  13

  75,680

  24,295

  2,139

  32

  20014,5

  39,280

  6—

  61,965

  15,780

  6—

  25

  178W
  of the SEF and partly to administrative problems which led to a backlog of correspondence within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and some flawed refusals as a consequence. We have made a number of changes over the past 12 months to improve our administrative processes and reduce flawed refusals. These include the introduction of a dedicated PO Box for the return of completed SEFs, and adjustments to internal procedures to ensure that the receipt of SEFs is registered on a database.

  We have also taken steps to improve asylum applicants' understanding of the asylum process and of the importance of meeting the time limit. We have done this by simplifying the explanatory leaflet which is sent out with the SEF, and by making it available in the 33 languages spoken by most asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. The SEF form has also been simplified. NGOs were consulted about these improvements.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) asylum applications and (b) asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance there have been in each month of the last three years, indicating the (i) monthly and (ii) yearly change expressed as a percentage;[11759]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of (a) the number of asylum applications rejected on the grounds of non-compliance, (b) the number of cases waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal and (c) the relationship between the two.[11756]

  Angela Eagle
  The requested information on refusals to grant asylum on grounds of non-compliance over the last three years is provided in the table.

  Non-compliance refusals rose by over 21 times in 2000, due to seven times as many refusals and a three times higher proportion of refusals on non-compliance grounds. Provisional figures show the proportion of refusals made on non-compliance grounds has fallen from 32 per cent. in 2000 to 25 per cent. in the first seven months of 2001.

  Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) statistics show the number of asylum 'cases in progress' increased by 168 per cent. over the past 15 months. From 7,735 cases awaiting a final promulgation at the end of June 2000, outstanding cases have risen to 20,751 at the end of September 2001. This is due to the increase in asylum appeals received from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate over the same period, during which the IAA also expanded.

  Analysis of cases for which data are available shows that, in percentage terms, refusals on non-compliance grounds result in fewer appeals to the IAA than other refusals.
  179W

  Applications for asylum to the UK and refusals on grounds of non-compliance, for cases decided under normal criteria1, not including dependents, 1998–20012

  Month/year

  Asylum applications

  Percentage change on previous month/year

  Total refusals

  Non-compliance refusals3

  Percentage change on previous month/year

  Non-compliance percentage of total refusals

  1998

  January

  2,860

  -8

  2,130

  360

  47

  17

  February

  2,650

  -7

  2,240

  250

  -31

  11

  March

  3,200

  21

  2,270

  280

  12

  12

  April

  3,135

  -2

  1,850

  250

  -11

  14

  May

  3.110

  -1

  1,690

  260

  4

  15

  June

  3,575

  15

  1,790

  255

  -2

  14

  July

  4.215

  18

  1,840

  340

  33

  18

  August

  4,420

  5

  1,595

  225

  -34

  14

  September

  4,455

  1

  1,885

  230

  2

  12

  October

  5.010

  12

  2,290

  245

  7

  11

  November

  4,620

  -8

  2,100

  275

  12

  13

  December

  4,770

  3

  645

  25

  -91

  4

  1999

  January

  4,700

  -1

  540

  5

  -80

  1

  February

  4,185

  -11

  810

  40

  700

  5

  March

  5,060

  21

  945

  50

  25

  5

  April

  4,905

  -3

  1,060

  25

  -50

  2

  May

  5,370

  9

  830

  45

  80

  5

  June

  6,130

  14

  780

  20

  -56

  3

  July

  6.440

  5

  840

  30

  50

  4

  August

  7,120

  11

  835

  200

  567

  24

  September

  7,355

  3

  830

  45

  -78

  5

  October

  6,295

  -14

  1,370

  150

  233

  11

  November

  6,420

  2

  1,325

  245

  63

  18

  December

  7,180

  12

  855

  220

  -10

  26

  2000

  January

  6,110

  -15

  2,390

  245

  11

  10

  February

  6,110

  0

  5,025

  920

  276

  18

  March

  6,680

  9

  7,570

  2,115

  130

  28

  April

  6,855

  3

  4,205

  6—

  6—

  6—

  May

  6,725

  -2

  5,455

  1,520

  6—

  28

  June

  6,545

  -3

  6,565

  2,035

  34

  31

  July

  6,870

  5

  6,280

  1,895

  -7

  30

  August

  6,770

  -1

  7,155

  2,895

  53

  40

  September

  6,790

  0

  6,160

  2,610

  -10

  42

  October

  7,230

  6

  7,105

  2,965

  14

  42

  November

  7,500

  4

  10,060

  4,325

  46

  43

  December

  6,125

  -18

  7,710

  2,770

  -36

  36

  2001

  January

  6,380

  4

  10,935

  3,495

  26

  32

  February

  5,520

  -13

  11,235

  3,460

  -1

  31

  March

  5,815

  5

  14,180

  3,110

  -10

  22

  April

  5,000

  -14

  7,030

  1,415

  -55

  20

  May

  5,290

  6

  7,180

  1,625

  15

  23

  June

  5,300

  0

  5,970

  1,400

  -14

  23

  July

  5,975

  13

  5,435

  1,285

  -8

  24

  1 Exclude cases decided under the backlog clearance exercise, aimed at reducing the pre-1996 asylum application backlog.

  2 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  3 Failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  4 2000 and 2001 data are provisional

  5 2001-January to July

  6Not available

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government began requiring asylum seekers to be fingerprinted.[11742]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 November 20011: The power to fingerprint asylum seekers and their dependants was introduced in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  180W
  Act 1993. However, the introduction of a computerised fingerprint storage system in December 2000 has allowed for the quick and effective electronic checking of prints of all asylum seekers against the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's records. Remote checking of fingerprints has been made possible which was not the case under the paper system. The introduction of smart cards will build on this technology to tackle fraud.
  181W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from first application to initial decision in asylum cases in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.[9444]

  Angela Eagle
  For decisions made in the 12 months to July 2001, the average time between application and initial decision was 15 months. This average includes older cases decided as part of the reduction of the number of cases outstanding (see table).

  Average time1 between application and decision, for cases decided in the 12 months to July 2001:

  Average time in months2

  Number of cases2,3

  All applications

  15

  127,060

  of which:

  Application pre 19964

  80

  3,315

  Application 1996

  55

  2,740

  Application 1997

  43

  4,410

  Application 1998

  30

  13,450

  Application 1999

  18

  28,740

  Application 2000

  6

  50,310

  Application 2001

  2

  24,095

  1 Calculated using all available data from the date the application is lodged to the date of the initial decision

  2 These data are still subject to revision following quality checking

  3 Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest five. The number of cases quoted differs from published figures due to uncertainty concerning date of application in a small minority of cases

  4Cases decided as part of the backlog clearance exercise, as part of measures outlined in the July 1998 White paper entitled "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum"

  The corresponding figure for cases decided in April 1997 was 20 months.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were waiting to be processed by the Appeals Tribunal in each month of the last three years, indicating the(a) monthly and (b) yearly change expressed as a percentage.[11758]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of cases where work was in progress within the Immigration Appellate Authority, and the change expressed as a percentage, for each month of the last three years are as follows:

  Number of cases

  Percentage change

  2001

  January

  14,729

  -4

  February

  15,326

  4

  March

  16,451

  7

  April

  17,741

  8

  May

  18,932

  7

  June

  19,417

  3

  July

  18,815

  -3

  August

  19,960

  6

  September

  20,751

  4

  2000

  January

  6,083

  -7

  February

  5,614

  -8

  March

  5,495

  -2

  April

  5,256

  -4

  182W

  Number of cases

  Percentage>change

  May

  5,898

  12

  June

  7,735

  31

  July

  10,500

  36

  August

  12,494

  19

  September

  13,859

  11

  October

  14,962

  8

  November

  15,437

  3

  December

  15,347

  -1

  1999

  January

  13,891

  -13

  February

  12,289

  -12

  March

  9,744

  -21

  April

  8,423

  -14

  May

  7,590

  -10

  June

  7,294

  -4

  July

  7,170

  -2

  August

  6,187

  -14

  September

  5,597

  -10

  October

  4,911

  -12

  November

  3,362

  -32

  December

  6,572

  95

  1998

  January

  24,098

  -2

  February

  23,831

  -1

  March

  23,760

  n/a

  April

  23,814

  n/a

  May

  23,639

  -1

  June

  23,757

  n/a

  July

  22,531

  -5

  August

  22,165

  -2

  September

  20,994

  -5

  October

  19,098

  -9

  November

  17,371

  -9

  December

  16,028

  -8

  The yearly changes in case load expressed as a percentage were:

  Percentage

  2000

  134 increase

  1999

  59 decrease

  1998

  35 decrease

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to prevent the re-entry into the United Kingdom of those leaving the country to fight against British and American forces in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.[12461]

  Angela Eagle
  Under existing immigration and nationality law we may refuse entry to the United Kingdom where a person subject to immigration control does not meet the requirements set out in the Immigration Rules governing leave to enter but not the re-entry of a British citizen, who by definition has right of abode in the United Kingdom. Criminal sanctions may be applied to a British citizen returning to the United Kingdom who is suspected of having committed a criminal offence. It would be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether prosecution was justified in an individual case after a full police investigation.

  Passport Agency
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the new information technology systems at the Passport Agency are fully rolled out; what has been the estimated total cost of the new systems; what was the original planned cost; and if he will make a statement.[13028]

  Angela Eagle
  Yes; with the successful implementation in the Glasgow Passport Office on 5 November, the United Kingdom Passport Service's new passport issuing arrangements have been fully rolled out. As indicated in the service's 2000–01 annual accounts the estimated cost of the contracts awarded to Siemens Business Services, and Security Printing and Systems Ltd. for the new system remains at £230 million. With completion of the roll out the service will now be conducting a post implementation review which, among other things, will fully evaluate actual and planned costs. The review should be completed in early 2002.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Passport Agency has conducted a feasibility study into a national identity card system; what it cost; and if he will make a statement.[12874]

  Angela Eagle
  The United Kingdom Passport Service is carrying out studies to explore a range of policy, cost and implementation options for a Passport Card Scheme. Results will be employed to support policy decisions in due course.

  Passport Application Fees
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change(a) the fees charged for processing passport applications and (b) the charging structure for passport applications; and if he will make a statement.[13027]

  Angela Eagle
  There is a requirement to review passport fees annually as the costs of the United Kingdom Passport Service must be recovered through fees. The review has now been completed and I will be making an announcement shortly.

  Drugs Education Programmes
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effects of(a) Operation Charlie and (b) other anti-legal and illegal drugs education programmes in reducing drugs use.[12059]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Project Charlie (Chemical Abuse Resolution Lies in Education), as it became known, was implemented in primary schools in Hackney between 1991 and 1993. This drugs education programme was delivered to 44 children and its effects compared with standard education for 233 children. The Project Charlie pupils received a lesson of at least 30 minutes each week for 39 weeks.

  The Project was assessed in terms of self-esteem, decision making, peer pressure resistance, drug knowledge and self-reported drug-taking and was found to have a positive impact on all areas, except self esteem. Four years
  184W
  after the programme both tobacco and illegal drug use were significantly less common among the Project Charlie pupils.

  Under the Government's 10-year strategy 'Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain' we support a holistic approach to the delivery of drug education in schools through Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and the National Healthy Schools Standard. However, decisions on the detailed organisation and content of health and drug education are best taken at a local level, in order to take account of the specific needs and circumstances of the pupils in that area.

  In terms of measuring the effectiveness of different forms of drug education the Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Department of Health and the Home Office, will be starting a long term study which will inform future policy. The study will run for three to five years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to answer the letter to him dated 14 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester. Gorton, with regard to Mrs. M McDonagh.[12229]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 30 October.

  Ministerial Meetings (EU)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of the European Union meetings attended by Ministers in his Department from 1 January onwards, indicating what issues were discussed at each meeting.[11753]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There have been two formal Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Councils and one informal JHA Council under the Swedish Presidency, and four formal JHA Councils and one joint JHA/Ecofin Council under the Belgian Presidency since 1 January.

  With regard to the Councils under the Swedish Presidency, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 46W.

  Under the Belgian Presidency, Ministers from my Department have attended the following Justice and Home Affairs Council meetings: a special JHA Council on 13 July which my hon. Friend the Member for Conventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) attended; a special Council on 20 September in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States, which I attended; a Council meeting on 27–28 September which I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) attended; and a joint JHA/Ecofin Council followed by a JHA Council on 16 October which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs attended. Copies of the agendas of these Council meetings will be placed in the Library. The Government reported the outcome of these meetings to the European Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the usual arrangements.

  In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey attended the Belgian Presidency's Ministerial Conference on Migration, held in the European Parliament on 16–17 October.

  National Experience Corps
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for members of the National Experience Corps to contribute to the delivery of sport in schools.[12227]

  Angela Eagle
  The Experience Corps initiative aims to encourage more people aged 50 and over to become or to remain active in their local communities. It is hoped that those who volunteer through the Experience Corps will be able to participate in a wide range of volunteering opportunities.

  The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) with the assistance of funding from the Active Community Unit is undertaking a programme for the training of volunteers in sport. The aim is to train 50,000 volunteers, of which around 8,000 will be older people, during the two year programme, which starts in April 2002. The aim is to target schoolchildren from 14 years of age with older volunteers providing mentoring and support to them. The DCMS is discussing with the Experience Corps how its work might link in with its own programme.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to review information technology systems, with specific reference to the Asylum and Immigration Directorate.[8559]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office Head Office has a Planned Office Information System Environment (POISE). This is being made available to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and the work will be completed by the end of the 2001–02 financial year.

  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) system has been enhanced and the redevelopment of the Warnings Index continues. An enhanced standard build for all desktop PCs, the availability of the Asylum Casework Information Database (ACID) and similar databases for recording both general and nationality casework are enhancements to the Team-Based Caseworking (TBC) Information Technology system used by caseworkers. Within the Immigration Service (IS), the initial phase of a management system for Detention Centres has been completed.

  We will further review our IT systems to accommodate the changes to Immigration policy as in the Home Secretary's statement of 29 October.

  Yarls Wood Immigration Detention Centre
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 615W, on Yarls Wood immigration detention centre (1) how many detainees are expected at the centre in (a) the first month, (b) the second month and (c) subsequently for the next four months; and if he will make a statement;[12625]

  (2) how many contractors' personnel there are, broken down by occupation:[12627]
  186W
  (3) how many of his Department's personnel are employed at the centre, broken down by occupation; and what were their respective dates of first employment at the centre.[12626]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The following identifies the numbers of contractors personnel broken down by occupation:

  Number

  Construction Related Trades:

  Project Managers

  24

  Modular Specialists

  3

  Mechanical, electrical and public health engineers

  73

  General Construction Trades (Joiners, painters and decorators, flooring specialists, furniture installers)

  141

  External Works—landscaping, road repairs

  22

  General labourers

  19

  Caterers

  3

  Operational Activities

  Senior/Middle Managers

  17

  Supervisors

  20

  Detention Custody Officers

  263

  Administrative Staff

  6

  Facilities Staff

  16

  Chaplaincy

  2

  Education/Activities Department

  17

  Project Managers

  3

  Medical Services

  24

  Catering and cleaning services

  77

  The centre has an agreed incremental build up rate for detainees in the first four months, leading to operational capacity, as follows:
  Month 1: 185
  Month 2: 206
  Month 3: 239
  Month 4: 270.

  Following this the centre will be capable of holding up to 900 detainees at any one time.

  The following Home Office Staff are employed at the centre:
  Immigration Service Operational Staff: 16
  Administrative Support Grades: 7.

  The dates of first employment for departmental personnel cannot be given as information regarding individual employees is confidential.

  Bribery
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for the(a) offer and (b) taking of bribes have been brought under (i) the Prevention of Corruption Acts and (ii) common law in each year since 1997.[12650]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Statistics held centrally do not distinguish between the offer of or taking of bribes and neither do they enable offences under common law to be reliably identified.

  The following table shows the number of persons proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 in England and Wales.
  187W

  Number

  1997

  19

  1998

  31

  1999

  16

  2000

  17

  Charities (Voluntary Registration)
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the review of the criteria for the voluntary registration of charities.[13196]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 3 July 2001,Official Report, column 93W, that he had asked the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) of the Cabinet Office to undertake a broad-ranging review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the wider voluntary and community sector. Subsequently, the PIU confirmed that the position of charities excepted from registration with the Charity Commission, was one of the areas that was to be looked at as part of its review. The work by the Home Office and the Charity Commission on the way forward, has therefore been discontinued pending the outcome of the PIU review. The PIU is expected to complete its review early in 2002.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional measures have been taken to guard Britain's(a) oil rigs and (b) nuclear power stations from terrorist attack, following the events in the USA on 11 September.[11544]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Stringent security measures apply at oil industry installations and civil nuclear sites and these are kept under regular review. We are reviewing these precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States.

  It is not our policy to disclose details of security measures taken in connection with these facilities.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce(a) a shorter attendance allowance claim form and (b) an attendance allowance freephone claim line; and what plans he has to increase take-up of attendance allowance.[12437]

  Maria Eagle
  Last April we reduced the attendance allowance claim pack by nine pages with no loss of essential information. We are continuing to look at what further changes can be made to make the form shorter and easier to complete while ensuring we obtain all the necessary information about a person's care needs.
  188W
  We have no plans to introduce a separate freephone line for attendance allowance claims, as experience shows that it is not normally possible to make a full and sufficient telephone claim for benefits requiring detailed evidence of the needs arising from disability.

  We have no plans for a specific take-up campaign of either benefit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase take-up of minimum income guarantee among attendance allowance and disability living allowance(a) claimants and (b) entitled non-recipients.[12436]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are investigating how best to identify pensioners aged 60 or over who are awarded attendance allowance or disability living allowance and inviting them to claim the minimum income guarantee.

  We are working in partnership with organisations for older people to improve access to benefits and take up of the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This includes projects on a national good practice guide and a survey of local take-up initiatives.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) percentage of minimum income guarantee (i) claimants, (ii) eligible non-recipients and (iii) claimants and eligible non-recipients who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee as a consequence of their eligibility for the severe disability premium;[12613]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) percentage of minimum income guarantee (i) claimants, (ii) eligible non-recipients and (iii) claimants and eligible non-recipients who are entitled to the severe disability premium.[12607]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at May 2001, there were 1.7 million pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is nearly 16 per cent. of the pensioner population. Of these MIG recipients, 405,000 (24 per cent. of the total) receive the severe disability premium.

  The latest available figures on the number of people entitled to the MIG who are not claiming it are set out in the publication "Take-Up of Income Related Benefits—Statistics for 1999/2000", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Neither figures for the number of eligible non recipients who are entitled to the severe disability premium, nor figures for the number of eligible non recipients who are entitled to the MIG as a consequence of their eligibility for the severe disability premium, are available.

  Foreign Nationals (Benefits)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what state benefits foreign nationals are entitled to when given exceptional leave to remain in the UK.[9965]
  189W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Foreign nationals who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom (UK) are generally eligible to claim the same range of social security benefits, subject to the same rules of entitlement, as any UK citizen.

  The only exceptions to this are people who are admitted to the UK on the condition that they do not have recourse to public funds, and those who are admitted on the condition that a relative who is an existing UK resident gives a written undertaking to support them.

  Invalidity Care Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates he has made of the number of carers in work during term time who do not qualify for invalidity care allowance for looking after an invalid student during college vacations because of the operation of the rules governing the calculation of earnings.[9991]

  Maria Eagle
  This information is not available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many suspected cases of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit fraud there were in the financial year 2000–01; how many of these led to a prosecution; and how many of these prosecutions were successful.[10412]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information is in the table:

  Local authority fraud investigations 2000–01

  Number

  Cases referred to the fraud/investigation section:

  For further action

  460,000

  For further action that were investigated by the fraud section

  370,000

  Cases referred for prosecution

  2,300

  Successful prosecutions

  1,100

  Notes:
  1. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple
  2. The figures have been rounded to two significant figures
  3. Data are not available for all 409 local authorities. These totals include estimates for local authorities that have not responded which are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents

  Source:
  Housing Benefit Management Information System Quarterly Administration Returns April 1999 to March 2000

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been successfully prosecuted for benefit fraud in the last year for which figures are available, broken down into those prosecuted(a) for the first time, (b) for the second time and (c) for the third or subsequent time.[10413]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: In 2000–01, 24,112 people were prosecuted or sanctioned by Benefits Agency fraud investigators and local authorities reported that they prosecuted or sanctioned 1,650 people1. These are more than double the numbers in 1997–98.
  190W
  9,030 successful prosecutions were undertaken by the Benefits Agency and 1,100 successful prosecutions were reported by local authorities1. Our research suggests that approximately 5 per cent. of prosecutions involve a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud. We are putting in place mechanisms to identify second and further convictions.

  1Notes:
  1. Figures for local authorities are taken from management information returns.
  2. It is possible that there could be some double counting with Benefits Agency data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.
  3. Data are not available for all 409 local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent in the development and maintenance of the "Targeting Fraud" website to date.[11256]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The total cost so far has been £35,631.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to investigate the allegations of benefit fraud committed by a person whose name has been communicated to him; and if he will make a statement.[9640]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not appropriate to disclose details of investigations into individual cases of alleged benefit fraud.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average processing time is for repeat benefit claims for(a) jobseeker's allowance and (b) income support.[11258]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on repeat benefit claims is not collected separately. The average time taken to clear a new or repeat benefit claim to jobseeker's allowance is 9.3 days; and for income support it is 7.6 days.

  Source:
  Validated data from the Income Support Computer System, April to July 2001

  Benefits (Northampton)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which of the specific directions issued to Northampton borough council on 21 August 2000 concerning the delivery and accuracy of housing benefit and council tax benefit payments was implemented by the deadline of 22 August; which directions were not met by this deadline; and what further action is to be taken against the council.[7903]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Northampton borough council attained, by the specified date, the standard set out in the directions relating to the examination of cases referred for fraud investigation. The council failed to attain the standards relating to the speed of processing claims and reported changes of circumstances, and to the correct classification of overpayments, by 22 August 2001.
  191W
  The Department subsequently provided assistance from the housing benefit help team to work in partnership with the council to develop service improvement initiatives. Following assistance from the help team, the council has recently provided the Department with a report on the current situation, together with an action plan for improving its benefit administration. We are now considering what further action is necessary following study of the report and plan, and completion of the help team's work with the council.

  Disability Benefits
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average waiting time for clearing new claims was over the last 12 months in each disability benefit centre.[11904]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is collated on a year-to-date basis. The figures for disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) new claims for each disability benefits centre (DBC) are in the table:

  Disability Benefit Centre (DBC)

  DLA and AA new claim actual average clearance times in days January to September 2001

  Edinburgh

  34

  Newcastle

  33

  Leeds

  27

  Manchester

  28

  Bootle

  36

  Midlands

  38

  Bristol

  33

  Wales

  30

  Wembley

  36

  Sutton

  34

  Glasgow

  34

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended and (b) the level of compliance with its provisions.[11319]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: Most provisions of the DDA have been implemented. The final provisions of part III will be implemented in October 2004. The provisions on education come into force in September 2002, with some reasonable adjustment duties on responsible bodies in the post-16 sector coming into force in 2003 and 2005.

  Only courts and tribunals can decide whether a particular action complied with the DDA or not and then only if a complaint is made. Emerging findings from research indicate that awareness levels are increasing and fewer than one per cent. of people covered by the parts II and III have complained to tribunals and courts. Compliance with the accessibility regulations for transport vehicles has generally been good.

  Independent Living Fund
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the findings of his review of the independent living fund.[9870]
  192W
  Maria Eagle
  We intend to announce the results of the quinquennial review of the independent living fund in due course.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 684W, on incapacity benefit, how many incapacity reviews were undertaken in each of the last five years; and if he will estimate the annual additional number of reviews that will be undertaken once his plans for reviews every three years are fully implemented;[7996]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the average length of time to complete a review of incapacity benefit will be no higher over the three years beginning in 2002–03 than in the previous three years.[7997]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are introducing jobcentre plus interviews in jobcentre plus pathfinder offices to enable incapacity benefit recipients to discuss with their personal adviser the help, benefits and opportunities available to them.

  Jobcentre plus interviews will be conducted by a trained personal adviser who will discuss with people their skills, qualifications and ability to work, barriers which may preclude them from working, and their plans, aspirations and interests in training and taking up work in the future. This is entirely separate from the reviews undertaken as part of the incapacity benefit medical testing regime. The Department always aims to carry out such reviews as quickly as possible.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the total advertising costs for promoting the stakeholder pension scheme.[7580]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are not specifically advertising stakeholder pensions. Stakeholder information is included as part of the wider pensions education campaign. This campaign seeks to promote information about the full range of pension options available, including stakeholder pensions, and cost £6.5 million in 2000–01. This included development of the new campaign, press, cinema and TV advertising, research and evaluation, the costs of running the pensions information line, website development, printing leaflets and other campaign materials.

  The Department has also written to employers with five or more employees with information explaining what stakeholder pensions are; whether those employers are affected by the new rules on providing access to a stakeholder pension scheme for their employees; and if so, what they need to do.

  Fibromyalgia Syndrome
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to improve the knowledge of doctors representing the Benefits Agency regarding the condition known as Fibromyalgia Syndrome; and if he will ensure that information relating to the illness is sent to all appropriate agencies.[9741]
  193W
  Maria Eagle
  All medical service doctors who carry out assessments on behalf of the Benefits Agency have received comprehensive training on fibromyalgia within the past year. Fibromyalgia is covered in the disability handbook for disability living allowance and attendance allowance, which is available to decision-makers. Information on the condition will also be included in new training material for decision-makers which is currently being developed.

  Benefit Recovery (Accident Victims)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much benefit was recovered from accident victims by way of recoupment from damages awards in each of the last four years.[9609]

  Maria Eagle
  The current compensation recovery scheme is working in accordance with the principles and objectives set when the reformed scheme was introduced in October 1997.

  The amount recovered is in respect of benefits already paid to the claimant in consequence of their accident, injury or illness and is recovered direct from the compensator, and never from the claimant.

  The amount recovered purely in respect of accident is given in the tables.

  £

  Financial Year

  Amount

  1997–98

  157,436,635

  1998–99

  188,724,849

  1999–2000

  186,678,400

  2000–01

  171,539,293

  Income Support
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have claimed income support in each quarter since August 1996, broken down by lone parents with(a) at least one child under five and (b) all children over five years.[9645]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Lone parent income support claimants by age of children

  Thousand

  At least one child aged under 5

  All children aged 5 or over

  1996

  August

  531

  530

  November

  517

  506

  1997

  February

  514

  506

  May

  508

  505

  August

  505

  507

  November

  492

  490

  1998

  February

  488

  484

  May

  480

  482

  August

  475

  480

  November

  466

  472

  194W

  Lone parent income support claimants by age of children

  Thousand

  At least one child aged under 5

  All children aged 5 or over

  1999

  February

  465

  475

  May

  463

  473

  August

  464

  476

  November

  460

  470

  2000

  February

  454

  465

  May

  450

  460

  August

  446

  463

  November

  440

  454

  2001

  February

  440

  456

  May

  437

  452

  Notes:
  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Totals may not sum due to rounding
  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error
  3. Lone parents are defined as single people who have dependants but do not receive a pensioner or a disability premium

  Source:
  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 1996 to May 2001

  State Pension
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners had a reduction in their state retirement benefit as a result of a stay in hospital; by what amount the state retirement benefit is reduced in these circumstances; and how much was saved by his Department as a result of reduced benefit payments in the last full year for which figures are available.[8678]

  Mr. McCartney
  At 31 March 2001, there were about 33,000 retirement pensioners with reductions in their retirement pension due to a stay in hospital1

  The hospital downrating rules led to an estimated £57 million reduction on expenditure on the basic state pension in 2000–01.

  From 9 April 2001, a £14.50 reduction for a person with a dependant applies after a six-week stay in hospital. This reduction was £13.50 at 31 March 2001.

  From 9 April 2001, a £28.30 reduction for a person with no dependant applies after a six-weeks stay in hospital. This reduction was £27.00 at 31 March 2001.

  After 52 weeks retirement pension recipients get the £14.50 "pocket money" rate.

  1Source:
  5 per cent. from the Pension Strategy Computer System at March 2001. Rounding to nearest hundred

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with Age Concern about the equalisation of state pensions; and if he will make a statement.[9381]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have discussions with a variety of pension organisations from time to time. These discussions generally cover wide-ranging issues which are of concern to them.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate for each local authority how many residents in(a) nursing homes and under 65-years-old, (b) nursing homes and over 65-years-old, (c) residential care and under 65-years-old and (d) residential care and over 65-years-old, will be covered by preserved rights in April 2003.[10507]

  Mr. McCartney
  There will be no residents covered by preserved rights in April 2003. From 8 April 2002 people who had preserved rights to the higher rates of income support and all new customers going into residential care or nursing homes will receive normal income support or minimum income guarantee allowances and premiums.

  No one will lose out as a result of these changes as local authorities will be able to make up any shortfalls in fees. At the moment about half of all preserved rights customers do not have enough public support to cover their fees. Many have to pay some of their personal expenses allowance, currently £16.05 a week, towards their fees. The new arrangements will mean customers will no longer have to do this.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit,
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to amend the industrial injuries disablement benefit qualifications to include those unable to work through conditions caused through work processes but which are not the result of an accident or prescribed disease; and if he will make a statement. [13041]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council considered the question of injury by process in 1981. At that time it felt unable to recommend any changes to the industrial injuries scheme to allow claims in these circumstances, because the medical knowledge which could connect a process with a non-prescribed disease is not generally available. The council looked again at the issue in 1995 but was still unable to recommend any changes to the scheme.

  The council continues to monitor the position but we have no current plans to change the existing legislation.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for industrial injuries disablement benefit have been refused each year since 1995 as a result of the applicant's condition being caused through work processes and not as a result of an accident or prescribed disease; and if he will make a statement.[13042]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  "Removing the Barriers"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department ensured that the report "Removing the Barriers" published by the Local Government Association, was taken into account during the 1997–98 comprehensive spending review; and which of its recommendations have been implemented.[8051]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 October 2001]: Since the report "Removing the Barriers" was published in 1997 we have made, and continue to make, radical
  196W
  changes to the mechanisms through which welfare is delivered. Many of the improvements introduced by our reforms address concerns set out in the report.

  We are taking a single approach to work and benefits designed to make work pay, make work possible and to support those who are unable to work. The jobcentre plus pathfinder offices are now delivering a single, integrated service to benefit recipients of working age with a clear focus on work.

  From April 2002, the Pension Service will provide a dedicated service for pensioners, working in partnership with local agencies and acting as a gateway to other services pensioners receive.

PRIME MINISTER

  International Anti-terrorist Coalition
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the political, diplomatic, financial and commercial commitments that have been given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Governments of other states in the course of assembling and strengthening the international coalition to combat terrorism.[10898]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: The international coalition to combat terrorism has come together out of a shared recognition that only a global response can succeed. Governments across the world have willingly taken on commitments, for example of military help, or the obligation to tackle terrorism imposed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1373, because all have recognised the essential nature of the task.

  Of course, the act of building the coalition has strengthened our relationship with several countries. But the British Government have not offered financial or commercial commitments to states explicitly to reward adherence to the international coalition. That coalition has been built because its members recognise the need for a determined and united response by the international community.

  House of Lords
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what further plans he has to reform the basis of membership of the House of Lords.[11809]

  The Prime Minister
  We shall publish our proposals for completing the reform of the House of Lords on Wednesday 7 November 2001.

  Conflict (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the necessity of a visible demonstration that the conflict is over in Northern Ireland.[12674]

  The Prime Minister:
  Securing an end to politically motivated violence and the stable operation of democratically based institutions of Government commanding cross-community support will provide the most visible demonstration that Northern Ireland has put the past behind it.

  197W
  Decommissioning, verified by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, is a key part of achieving that goal.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister which Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom have expressed support for the coalition's military action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.[12931]

  The Prime Minister:
  All the main British Muslim organisation have condemned the attacks in the USA on 11 September. They and other Muslim leaders around the world have declared that such acts of infamy are wholly contrary to the Islamic or any other world religion.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Modernisation
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has for wider consultation of the public on modernisation of the House.[10358]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress in the modernisation of the House.[10360]

  Anne Picking
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to improve the parliamentary scrutiny of Bills.[10363]

  Joan Ryan
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals for greater involvement of Select Committees in pre-legislative scrutiny.[10365]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  During its current investigations into Select Committees, the Modernisation Committee has decided, for the first time, to take evidence in public. It has already heard from the Hansard Society, Professor the Lord Norton of Louth and from Lord Sheldon, the Chair of the Liaison Committee in the previous Parliament.

  The Modernisation Committee has asked me to provide a strategy paper setting out the broader objectives for Commons reform, which I will present to the Committee at the end of the month.

  I hope that the Modernisation Committee's proposals for reform will result in a Parliament that is relevant to voters, reflects their concerns and re-engages the public with the political process.

  Legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the scrutiny of legislation.[10359]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is essential that Bills leave this House properly scrutinised by MPs. I hope that we can build on the Modernisation Committee's report from the last Parliament on the legislative process. We have made efforts to ensure that more Bills are published in draft form and subject to Committee scrutiny before they are presented to Parliament.
  198W
  I hope that the Modernisation Committee will return to these issues to assess how we might improve pre and post-legislative scrutiny. However, we must also address the issue of scrutiny by MPs during a Bill's passage and how we might improve legislation by finding ways to overcome the bottlenecks in the parliamentary process.

  Grand Committees
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to improve the legislative function of Grand Committees.[10361]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Standing Orders already provide for Bills to be referred to Grand Committees, and for Standing Committees on Welsh or Scottish Bills to contain Members from those countries, although I agree there is a great deal of variation in Grand Committee powers, and they might usefully be looked at in the light of devolution.

  The Procedure Committee has said that it will keep the consequences of devolution under review, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to raise this with them.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has for using IT to improve access to the business of the House to the public.[10362]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  A wide range of information about the business of the House can be viewed on the Parliament website. The proceedings of both Houses and sittings in Westminster Hall will be webcast on a pilot basis from January 2002.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on further ways in which information technology might aid the work of hon. Members in the course of their Standing Committee work.[10367]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  As I indicated in July, the Modernisation Committee may well wish to look at the use of IT in the House in general, although I understand that it has not yet included this in its programme. Routine responsibility for order in Standing Committees rests with the Chairmen's Panel.

  Computer Contract
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of the new computer contract for hon. Members.[10364]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The advisory panel on the Members' Vote continues to monitor the system. I am pleased to be able to report substantial progress since my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 323W.

  I am told that by close of play on 2 November 2001, a further 110 orders had been fulfilled, and a further six had been partly met, making a total of 272 orders fully completed and 61 part completed. During the same period, a further 32 Members had ordered equipment,

  199W
  bringing the total of Members who have placed orders to 500. I understand that all Members who ordered during the recess have been offered delivery dates before the end of November.

  Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the House of Lords Appointments Commission is to hold its next roadshows to encourage people to apply for peerages.[10366]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission is currently considering when to hold its next set of regional events.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will establish a judicial appointments commission.[10343]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has established a Commission to oversee the judicial appointments process and the First Commissioner, Sir Colin Campbell, was appointed on 15 March 2001. Further to that appointment, around 10 Deputy Commissioners will be appointed to assist Sir Colin.

  Lay Magistrates
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the work to develop a national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates.[10344]

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to encourage recruitment to the lay magistracy; and if he will make a statement.[10345]

  Mr. Wills
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to be able to announce proposals for the creation of a national strategy for recruitment early next year. This will seek to identify a range of activities which will bring more fully to the attention of the public and employers, the role of the lay magistrate and the need for recruits from all walks of life.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many chairmen of lay magistrates are in post; and how many of them are(a) from the ethnic minority communities, (b) under 45 years and (c) women.[12076]

  Mr. Wills
  The chairman of each magistrates bench is elected by the magistrates of the bench at the bench annual general meeting in October. Apart from providing, through subordinate legislation, the framework within which the elections may take place, their appointment is not a matter for my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, and his Department does not keep the figures sought.

  Auld Report
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes he expects in the role of magistrates in response to the Auld proposals.[10346]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are grateful to Sir Robin Auld for his very substantial and important review of the criminal courts at every level. In his report he gave the lay magistracy a huge vote of confidence. Sir Robin Auld makes some radical recommendations, which will need the most careful consideration. The Government have taken no decisions on his report and we are keen to encourage wide debate on these issues before we reach decisions.

  Courthouse (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the establishment of a new courthouse in Colchester.[10347]

  Mr. Wills
  Work on completing the outline business case for the provision of new and refurbished magistrates courts across Essex is in progress. It is anticipated that work will be completed early in the new year and that a new courthouse in Colchester will be ready for use during 2005.

  Tribunals (Access)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research she has planned in respect of the effect of the award of costs on access to tribunals.[10348]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has no research planned at present in respect of the effect of the award of costs on access to tribunals. The Government note that Sir Andrew Leggatt has made recommendations in this area. We will be taking these recommendations forward as part of our examination of tribunals in light of the Leggatt report.

  Westminster Coroner
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received concerning the performance of the Westminster coroner.[10349]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor has received a letter from solicitors representing the Marchioness action group asking what steps had been taken to review the Westminster coroner's performance of his judicial duties, given criticisms of him in Lord Justice Clarke's report. There have also been requests for meetings to discuss, among other matters, criticisms of the Westminster coroner raised in the report. While accepting Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion that the Westminster coroner acted at all times in good faith, the Lord Chancellor considered that the Westminster coroner's actions on this occasion fell below the standard to be expected of a judicial officer and he issued a formal admonishment.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the future role of the community legal service fund in employment tribunals.[10350]

  Mr. Wills
  None.

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Dari Taylor
  7 o ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what part the new community legal service partnerships play in reducing social exclusion.[10351]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Community legal service partnerships are responsible for co-ordinating the funding and delivery of legal and advice services in their area. Through an analysis of local legal needs, CLS partnerships can ensure that resources are more effectively targeted to help the socially excluded and other vulnerable groups and individuals.

  CLS partnerships are also able to tackle social exclusion by forging links with other Government programmes. CLS partnerships are therefore starting to link with social exclusion initiatives such as local strategic partnerships where they have a key contribution to make to the delivery of the neighbourhood renewal strategy.

  In order to raise awareness of how legal and advice services, through the CLS, can help combat social exclusion, the Lord Chancellor's Department has been working with the Law Centres Federation on a joint paper, to be entitled "Legal and Advice Services—A Pathway out of Social Exclusion". The paper will be launched in November and is to be made widely available.

  Magistrates Courts (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his response to Ceredigion county council's proposals for magistrates courts in the county.[10352]

  Mr. Wills
  I responded by letter to Ceredigion county council on 26 September 2001. My response detailed the Department's position with regard to the issues raised and reiterated the responsibilities of magistrates courts committees for the effective and efficient management of courts in their area.

  Jurors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if jurors have the option of being escorted in and out of court(a) by separate entrances and (b) at different times from the rest of the public.[12428]

  Mr. Wills
  Twelve Crown court centres have separate entrances used only by jurors, but most other courts can arrange for them to use a separate entrance if it is felt necessary. Arrangements can also be made for jurors to be escorted in and out of the building, and at different times from the rest of the public, if the need arises.
  202W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is done to prevent threatening behaviour from the families of convicted defendants toward jurors(a) in and (b) outside court.[12427]

  Mr. Wills
  Separate accommodation is made available for jurors until they are ready to leave the court building. If there is any threat of retribution, or if the jurors are concerned about their safety, arrangements can be made to transfer them safely away from the vicinity of the court.

  District Judges
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many district judges (magistrates' courts) are in post, broken down by the ethnic minority communities; and how many of them are(a) under 45 years and (b) women.[12075]

  Mr. Wills
  The figures have not changed from those shown in my noble and learned Friend's Judicial Appointments Annual Report (Cm 5248) published on 30 October 2001. This shows that as at 1 April 2001 there were 98 district judges (magistrates courts) in post including the senior district judge and her deputy. Of this total number, 82 are males (86 per cent.) and 16 are females (14 per cent.). Two of these district judges are Asian, one man and one woman, and two women are under 45.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many executive NDPBs there have been in existence each year from 1978; and what the total expenditure by these bodies was in each year in(a) real and (b) actual terms.[11808]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the number and expenditure of executive NDPBs for each year from 1979 (when the classification was introduced) to 2000 is published in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 2000". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Information on the number and expenditure of executive NDPBs during the 2000–01 financial year will be published in the new year.

  Regional Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the budget of the regional co-ordination unit(a) last year and (b) this year; and what the projected figure is for next year.[12522]

  Mrs. Roche
  The regional co-ordination unit's (RCU) budget for administrative running costs is £9.716 million in 2001–02. Funding for 2002–03 has yet to be finalised, but is expected to be in the region of £9.116 million.

  The RCU was formed during 2000–01 and overall expenditure on the RCU and its predecessor unit, the Government office co-ordination unit (GOCU) for that year totalled £5.55 million.
  203W
  A large element of the budget of the RCU and its predecessor unit is for funding that is managed centrally on behalf of the Government office network as a whole, such as for IT and communications systems. For the current financial year, £6.689 million is in respect of centrally managed budgets.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department took in recognition of energy efficiency week.[11508]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W.

  My Department's initiatives to improve energy efficiency will be listed in the Green Ministers report to be published on 27 November 2001. This will include efforts by the Cabinet Office and its agency, the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), to improve energy awareness among staff. Since October 2001, 100 per cent. of electricity used at 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office buildings at 70 Whitehall and Admiralty Arch are now being generated by renewable energy (CCL exempt) sources.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will refer to the parliamentary ombudsman the cases of those civil servants who took out additional voluntary contribution policies with the Equitable Life Assurance Society in 1999 and 2000 under the civil service AVC scheme; and if he will make a statement.[12824]

  Mr. Leslie
  No. The Cabinet Office, as managers of the civil service AVC scheme and acting on behalf of the civil service as employer, has wished to see that the appointed scheme providers remain suitable for AVC investment. To that end, the Cabinet Office appointed Bacon and Woodrow some years ago to provide expert and professional advice in this role. Bacon and Woodrow have conducted regular reviews of the civil service AVC providers and their continuing suitability for the civil service AVC scheme, as well as providing advice on specific developments. The Cabinet Office has acted throughout on the independent advice of Bacon and Woodrow. It believes it has met its responsibilities as manager fully and properly.

  The civil service AVC scheme, provides members with a choice of provider and wide choice of investment route. AVC investment carries the same risks as any other investment and benefits are not guaranteed.

  In acting on independent advice from Bacon and Woodrow, the Cabinet Office has been acting in the same way as other pension schemes affected by the problems of Equitable Life. It has not been in a privileged position and has not had access to information which is not available to the pensions industry more widely. There is a clear difference between the role of the Cabinet Office as managers of the civil service AVC scheme and the regulatory role carried out elsewhere in Government. The Cabinet Office believes it has exercised its duty of care responsibilities fully and properly.
  204W
  The Government, in their wider role, announced on 31 August an independent inquiry into Equitable Life, to be headed by Lord Penrose. This will look at the circumstances leading to the current situation at Equitable Life and identify any lessons to be learned for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance. The inquiry will report to Treasury Ministers.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants took out new additional voluntary contributions policies with the Equitable Life Assurance Society in 1999 and 2000 under the civil service AVC scheme; and what advice he is giving them about possible redress for maladministration.[R] [12825]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not held centrally. However, I will write to the hon. Member about the numbers of civil servants who began to pay AVCs with Equitable Life in 1999 and 2000 under the civil service AVCs scheme shortly. The Cabinet Office has been pro-active in keeping civil service employers and staff informed of developments as they occur, and, through its adviser Bacon and Woodrow, has made available generic guidance. I have seen no evidence of failure, on the part of the civil service as employer, in this matter. The Government, in their wider role, have of course announced the inquiry led by Lord Penrose.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years.[11840]

  Mr. Leslie
  The publications issued or sponsored by the Cabinet Office between May 1997 and October 2001 are listed in the table. Because of the restructuring of the Department in May 1997, any information relating to before this date can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. This answer does not include publications which were issued in electronic form only.

  Cabinet Office publications May 1997–October 2001

  Number

  May to December 1997

  97

  January to December 1998

  127

  January to December 1999

  139

  January to December 2000

  177

  January to October 2001

  151

  Departmental Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what stocks of(a) antiques, (b) paintings and (c) fine wines are held by his Department; if he will list such assets sold over the last three years together with the sale proceeds from such transactions; what plans he has to sell further such assets over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [10835]

  Mr. Leslie
  The National Asset Register (CM 5221, July 2001) provides full details of the departmental asset holdings across all categories of assets, including heritage assets, along with details of major acquisitions and disposals since the publication of the last register in 1997. The information published in the National Asset Register for the Cabinet Office includes No. 10 Downing street.

HEALTH

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by his Department for each nation and region of the United Kingdom, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by his Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the United Kingdom.[6867]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows an estimate for the total running costs for financial year 2000–01 for buildings used, owned or rented by the Department and its agencies for England. It also estimates the average cost per square metre for properties used by the Department as a whole for England. It does not include any costs associated with the national health service.

  Region

  Total running costs>(£ million)

  Average cost per square metre

  Northern

  0.646

  268.92

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5.311

  275.10

  North West

  2.709

  132.19

  East Midlands

  0.614

  123.42

  West Midlands

  0.909

  304.99

  Eastern

  0.735

  162.30

  South West

  1.328

  222.80

  South East

  1.188

  243.78

  London

  26.051

  350.16

  Total

  39.491

  282.25

  Running costs include capital charges, rents, service charges, rates, unitary charge (as appropriate), cleaning, decoration, building maintenance, utilities (including refuse collection), security, reception and porters. The Department does not occupy any properties in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Meningitis
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps he has taken to reduce the incidence of meningitis B; and what further steps he plans to take in the next 12 months.[9087]

  Ms Blears
  As the recent success with meningitis C vaccine has demonstrated, the best way to reduce the incidence of meningococcal Group B disease is through an effective meningitis B vaccine. Unfortunately, we are some years away from having such a vaccine. Work to find a vaccine against Group B is much more difficult than for Group C, although early indicators for a Group B vaccine are encouraging. The Department is investigating Group B vaccines in collaboration with RIVM, the Dutch national vaccine manufacturer, and funds Group B vaccine dedicated work at the Centre for Applied Microbiology Research.

  In the meantime, it remains essential for parents and health professionals to be aware of the signs and symptoms of meningococcal disease and alert to act
  206W
  quickly should they recognise any of these symptoms. Information on recognising meningococcal disease is included in all the childhood immunisation materials produced by Health Promotion England which are given to parents. Health professionals have been reminded to be alert to the expected winter rise in meningococcal cases in a letter from the Chief Medical Officer, Chief Nursing Officer and Chief Pharmacist issued on 15 October.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to deal with changes in the incidence of meningitis in the last four years.[9855]

  Ms Blears
  Meningitis and septicaemia can be caused by a number of viruses and bacteria. Illness caused by bacteria is the most serious and meningococcal disease is the commonest cause of bacterial meningitis and septicaemia in the United Kingdom

  The incidence of meningococcal disease had been increasing in the second half of the 1990s. However, the introduction of a new vaccine against Group C meningococcal infection in November 1999 has reduced the incidence of meningococcal Group C disease by up to 90 per cent. in those age groups immunised.

  The vast majority of meningococcal disease is now caused by Group B infection. The success of the meningitis C vaccine has demonstrated that the best way to reduce the incidence of Group B disease is through an effective meningitis B vaccine. Unfortunately, we are some years away from having such a vaccine. Work to find a vaccine against Group B is much more difficult than for Group C, although early indicators for a Group B vaccine are encouraging. The Department is investigating Group B vaccines in collaboration with RIVM, the Dutch national vaccine manufacturer, and funds Group B vaccine dedicated work at the Centre for Applied Microbiology Research.

  Groundwater Protection
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the EC directives relating to groundwater protection and indicate in each case how compliance is(a) monitored and (b) enforced.[11382]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Groundwater Directive (80/60/EEC) is the principal EC measure for the protection of groundwater. As competent authority in England and Wales the Environment Agency has powers under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environment Act 1995, the Groundwater Regulations 1998 and the Anti-Pollution Works Notices Regulations 1999 to enforce this directive's authorisations. The Environment Agency has also developed a strategic monitoring network to determine groundwater status.

  Infant Mortality Rate (Worcester)
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the infant mortality rate in Worcester was in each year since 1992.[10405]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  207W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Foster, dated 6 November 2001:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the infant mortality rate in Worcester in each year since 1992(10405).
  The information requested is provided in the attached table.
  The rates for Worcester county district (which are calculated from fewer than 20 deaths) may be unreliable due to the small number of events and should be treated cautiously. Any variation they show over time, or difference from National or county or health authority rates are likely to be due to chance.

  Infant mortality numbers and rates for Worcester CD, 1992–2000

  Calendar Year

  Number

  1Rate

  1992

  11

  8.7

  1993

  9

  7.1

  1994

  8

  6.6

  1995

  13

  10.2

  1996

  10

  8.0

  1997

  8

  6.1

  1998

  8

  6.3

  1999

  10

  7.7

  20002

  9

  7.4

  1 Per 1,000 live births

  2 Provisional

  Source:
  1992–94 and 2000 unpublished
  1995–99 figures are published in the National Statistics publication 'Key Population and Vital Statistics', series VS Nos 22–26

  Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made since April of international research on the health effect of living close to overhead transmission lines; and what review he plans of the health effects of pylons on human beings. [9650]

  Ms Blears
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including the extremely low frequency fields (ELF) associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

  In June, on behalf of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a working group of scientific experts from 10 countries published its review on the health effects of static and extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. The IAR.0 working group concluded that ELF magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans based on a statistical association between higher level magnetic field exposure and the risk of childhood leukaemia.

  This conclusion of the IARC working group is consistent with that of the NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR), which issued a report in March 2001. AGNIR stressed, however, that there was insufficient evidence to justify a firm conclusion that magnetic fields cause leukaemia in children. In responding to the advisory group report the board of NRPB considered there was a need to understand better the factors that might result in higher residential exposures to magnetic fields, noting also the recent evidence from the United Kingdom childhood cancer study that suggested the higher levels of magnetic fields are not attributable solely to proximity to power lines. The Government and NRPB are currently planning a study
  208W
  into the factors that result in certain households having higher levels of exposure to power frequency magnetic fields.

  The AGNIR is also further considering the possible effects on health of corona ions generated by power lines. A first meeting to consider this issue has taken place and researchers on this topic have been invited to make presentations at future meetings. Information about the work of the advisory group is to be posted on the NRPB website www.nrpb.org.uk. A final report will be published by NRPB.

  In July, the California Health Department released a draft report for public comment and this will also be considered by AGNIR.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a Government inquiry into the health effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields.[11366]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including the extremely low frequency (ELF) fields associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The Board of NRPB has set up an independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) chaired by the eminent epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll. Members are some of the United Kingdom's leading experimental scientists and epidemiologists. The AGNIR has prepared a number of reports on the possible health effects of exposure to power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Its most recent report was published in March 2001 and provided a comprehensive summary of sources of exposure to ELF electromagnetic fields and methods of measurement as well as reviews of experimental and epidemiological (human health) studies.

  AGNIR continues to monitor research on this topic.

  In June, the International Agency for Research in Cancer (IARC) based in Lyon, France, brought together an international team of experts to review the evidence for the possible carcinogenic effects of exposure to static and ELF electric and magnetic fields. It concluded that magnetic fields are "possibly carcinogenic" to humans based on a statistical association between higher level magnetic field exposure and the risk of childhood leukaemia. This conclusion is consistent with the views expressed by AGNIR.

  These two reviews by teams of eminent scientists are consistent in their findings and provide the most up to date published reviews of this subject.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health risks of a(a) cancer and (b) non-cancer nature and other health consequences of electro-magnetic fields situated near to overhead power lines.[11416]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The Board of NRPB has set up an independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) "to review work on the biological effects of non-ionising radiation relevant to human health and to advise on research priorities".
  209W
  Most of the research carried out on possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiation has concentrated on cancer risk. In March this year, the AGNIR published a report on the potential risks of cancer from exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields that includes those from power lines. The report provides a comprehensive review of experimental and epidemiological studies relevant to an assessment of the possible risk of cancer as well as information on sources of exposure and their measurement.

  An assessment has been carried out by AGNIR of the potential neurodegenerative effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields. A report has been prepared and publication is imminent.

  The AGNIR is also further considering the possible effects on health of corona ions generated by power lines. A first meeting to consider this issue has taken place and researchers on this topic have been invited to make presentations at future meetings. A final report will be published by NRPB.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of the possible links between childhood leukaemia and magnetic field exposures above 0.4 mircotesla.[11187]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department obtains advice on the possible health implications of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including those associated with power lines, from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

  In March this year NRPB' s Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) published a review of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and the risk of cancer, which included an assessment of the possible link between childhood leukaemia and average magnetic field exposures of 0.4 microtesla or more.

  AGNIR concluded that recent large and well-conducted epidemiological studies, both in this country and overseas, have provided better evidence than was available in the past on the relationship between power frequency magnetic field exposure and the risk of cancer. Taken in conjunction, they suggest that relatively heavy average exposures of magnetic fields at 0.4 microtesla or more are associated with a doubling of the risk of leukaemia in children under 15 years of age. However, the evidence is not conclusive because of the small number of children exposed, and other features related to the design of the studies.

  NRPB have noted that, if the association between magnetic fields and the risk of cancer was causal, of the 500 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring in the United Kingdom each year an additional 2 cases might result from exposure to magnetic fields at exposures above 0.4 microtesla.

  AGNIR have pointed out that, in the UK, very few children (perhaps 4 in 1000) are exposed to 0.4 microtesla or more. The UK study (United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study), with much the largest number of direct measurements of exposure, found no evidence of risk at lower levels.

  Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will reconsider his decision to accept the 210W
  early resignation of Mr. Harold Musgrove from the chairmanship of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust; and if he will make a statement;[10155]

  (2) what discussions his Department had with Mr. Harold Musgrove about the announcement of his resignation from the chairmanship of the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust prior to that announcement; what the nature of any such discussion was; and if he will make a statement.[10156]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: The acceptance of Mr. Musgrove's resignation is a matter for the national health service Appointments Commission, which now has responsibility for appointments to NHS boards. Mr. Musgrove contacted the NHS Regional Director for the West Midlands to inform him of his decision to resign. His formal letter of resignation was submitted to the chair of the NHS Appointments Commission on 1 October. He subsequently had discussions with the Appointments Commissioner for the West Midlands about the timing of his departure, which was mutually agreed as 31 December 2001, allowing sufficient time for recruitment of his successor.

  Haemophiliac Patients
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision by NHS trusts of recombinant clotting factors to haemophiliac patients.[10733]

  Mr. Hutton
  We asked health authorities and national health service trusts to provide recombinant clotting factors for new patients and children under 16 from April 1998 and are considering the case for providing these products, subject to availability, for all haemophilia patients.

  Treatment Overseas
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the outstanding legal questions relating to the treatment of NHS patients abroad, (b) when he anticipates those legal questions will be resolved and (c) how patients will be selected for treatment abroad.[10704]

  Mr. Hutton
  The main legal issue on the principle of treating patients abroad has been decided. Health authorities and national health service trusts must be free to commission services in Europe. What remains to be resolved are the practical and legal issues flowing from that decision, in particular, the legal consequences for commissioners and patients should things go wrong.

  Our aim is to address these various legal, clinical and quality issues over the coming few weeks so that the first patients are able to travel for treatment before the end of the year.

  Selection of patients is a matter for local commissioners and the patients themselves. No patient will be forced to travel against his or her will. Commissioners and clinicians will need to satisfy themselves that patients are fit for travel and are at low risk of post-operative complications.

  Orthopaedic Waiting Lists
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) orthopaedic waiting lists in Leeds and (b) what action will be taken to reduce these in the short term.[10705]

  Jacqui Smith
  At the end of August 2001 there were 1,714 patients waiting for orthopaedic inpatient or day case treatment at Leeds teaching hospitals national health service trust.

  There has been substantial investment of £3.7 million in orthopaedic services in Leeds this year. This is funding an additional ward and theatre for orthopaedic services and will help to fund an additional five orthopaedic consultant posts:

  two spinal surgeons

  one foot and ankle surgeon

  one lower limb surgeon

  one hand surgeon.

  Bed Blocking
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of acute beds are blocked in each acute national health service hospital trust.[11096]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Delayed discharges-first quarter activity

  Percentage

  Blocked beds health authority

  Delayed discharge rate1

  Bradford

  1.7

  Durham

  7.5

  East Riding

  1.6

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  6.4

  Leeds

  3.9

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3.9

  North Cumbria

  13.8

  Northumberland

  2.4

  Sunderland

  3.7

  Tees

  5.5

  Wakefield

  4.5

  North Yorkshire

  5.6

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2.4

  Barnsley

  1.5

  North Derbyshire

  1.9

  South Derbyshire

  0.9

  Doncaster

  3.0

  Leicestershire

  2.4

  Lincolnshire

  2.2

  North Nottinghamshire

  3.4

  Nottingham

  2.9

  Rotherham

  2.9

  Sheffield

  3.8

  South Humber

  6.3

  Birmingham

  14.7

  Coventry

  5.4

  Dudley

  8.5

  Herefordshire

  5.8

  Sandwell

  4.4

  Shropshire

  3.2

  Solihull

  7.0

  North Staffordshire

  7.7

  South Staffordshire

  12.4

  Walsall

  5.9

  Warwickshire

  5.4

  212W

  Delayed discharges—first quarter activity

  Percentage

  Blocked beds health authority

  Delayed discharge rate1

  Wolverhampton

  4.1

  Worcestershire

  5.8

  South Lancashire

  4.2

  Liverpool

  5.3

  Manchester

  2.3

  Morecambe Bay

  8.3

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  6.8

  Salford and Trafford

  3.2

  Sefton

  5.3

  Stockport

  1.8

  West Pennine

  3.0

  Bury and Rochdale

  2.9

  North Cheshire

  4.6

  South Cheshire

  4.6

  East Lancashire

  0.2

  North West Lancashire

  10.6

  Wigan and Bolton

  —

  Wirral

  2.0

  Bedfordshire

  3.9

  North Essex

  —

  South Essex

  —

  Suffolk

  13.6

  Cambridgeshire

  5.4

  Norfolk

  5.5

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Hillingdon

  16.1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  —

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  10.0

  Croydon

  5.0

  Kingston and Richmond

  5.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  2.1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  3.7

  Barking and Havering

  9.2

  Brent and Harrow

  18.2

  Camden and Islington

  6.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  7.7

  East London and City

  2.6

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  7.4

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  —

  Berkshire

  13.3

  Buckinghamshire

  17.4

  East Kent

  4.8

  West Kent

  4.3

  East Surrey

  6.5

  West Surrey

  12.8

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  —

  West Sussex

  7.8

  Northamptonshire

  12.3

  Oxfordshire

  5.4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  18.6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  14.3

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East

  4.8

  Hampshire

  —

  Somerset

  6.5

  South and West Devon

  5.6

  Wiltshire

  9.7

  Avon

  9.5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  6.1

  Dorset

  5.5

  North and East Devon

  9.3

  Gloucestershire

  9.0

  1All ages

  NICE (Compulsory Guidance)
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on providing funding to health authorities to meet the cost of implementing compulsory guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.[11094]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect national health service bodies to fund treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence from their general allocations which increased on average by 6.25 per cent. in real terms for 2001–02.

  We are preparing to implement our manifesto commitment that
  "local health authorities and trusts will be directed to fund drugs and treatments recommended by NICE",
  and expect to announce further details shortly.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there were in the Northamptonshire constituencies in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001.[11273]

  Ms Blears
  The number of general dental service dentists in Northamptonshire health authority is shown in the table at 30 June for the years(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c)

  General dental service: Number of dentists in Northamptonshire health authority at 30 June

  Northamptonshire HA

  All dentists

  June 1992

  138

  June 1997

  153

  June 2001

  167

  Data are not available centrally by constituency.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists were taking on new patients on 1 September.[11117]

  Ms Blears
  There are some 16,000 general dental service dentists in England. Some of these dentists have no patient registrations including specialist dentists such as those with practices limited to orthodontics. 14,000 dentists took on at least one new registration during August 2001.

  In addition, there were 400 personal dental service dentists, 100 salaried dentists and 1,300 dentists in the community dental service who may have been taking on some new national health service patients.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the provision of dentistry and the number of dentists in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) Boston and Skegness.[11550]

  Ms Blears
  In September 1999, we gave a commitment that, within two years, everyone would be able to access National Health Service dentistry if, and when, they wanted it via NHS Direct. All health authorities in England now have in place dentistry action plans to ensure that everyone in their local area can access NHS 214W
  dentistry if they want it, within a reasonable time and distance. These plans identify shortfalls in service provision and ways of tackling user demand.

  Action is being taken to improve the situation in Lincolnshire and Boston and Skegness. Lincolnshire is one of the third wave personal dental service pilots. The pilot will see the development of a dental access centre at six sites across the county, including Boston and Skegness, through a combination of new buildings and conversion of existing Community Dental Services. £877,000 capital and £340,000 revenue were allocated to the pilot in 2000–01 with a further £270,000 capital and £91,000 revenue in the current financial year.

  In addition, Lincolnshire has received dental care development funding amounting to £95,000 in 2000–01 and £185,000 in 2001–02 for expansion and modernisation of practices in areas of poor access which are already offering significant NHS commitment and are prepared to increase numbers of NHS patients. A further allocation of £407,000 has been made from the dental modernisation fund to modernise premises and upgrade equipment and from the dental practice. £17,000 has been allocated from the dental practice grant to set up quality assurance systems in each dental practice.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dentists are employed(a) by the national health service and (b) by the personal dental service.[11913]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The latest information on the number of salaried dentists employed in the national health service in England is shown in the table for each of the dental services. The figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole-time equivalent.

  Personal dental services are one of the ways in which the NHS provides dentistry and may be used both for NHS trust based projects with salaried dentists and for arrangements which are similar to the general dental service, with self employed dentists.

  Number of salaried dentists employed in 2000–01

  England

  Number

  a) By the NHS (excluding personal dental services)

  Hospital dental service1

  2.190

  Community dental service1

  1.340

  Salaried GDS dentists2

  101

  b) By the personal dental services2,3

  Dentists in pilots managed by trusts

  392

  Total4 NHS salaried dentists

  4,023

  1 Number of dentists at September 2000.

  2 Number of dentists at June 2001.

  3 Excludes 200 dentists in pilots not managed by trusts where most dentists are self employees of the contract holders.

  4 Some dentists work in several services and are counted in each service.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the gross fee is paid for(a) an MOD amalgam and (b) a root canal filling on the lower first molar to an independent contractor dentist in the NHS;[11914]
  215W
  (2) what is the unit cost of provision by the salaried dental service of (a) an MOD amalgam and (b) a root canal filling on the lower first molar, taking into account all management, rental and other overheads.[11915]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The item of service fee currently paid to a dentist providing treatment in the general dental services (GDS) is £17.60 per tooth for an amalgam filling in permanent or retained deciduous teeth for three or more surfaces where the mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal surfaces are involved. If pin or screw retention is involved there is an additional fee of £5.40. The fee for the root filling of each root canal of a permanent tooth per first molar tooth is £68.65.

  The total fees claimed by general dental practitioners are intended to cover all costs including management, rental and other overheads. Under the personal dental service's arrangements, treatments are not remunerated on an item of service basis but are included as part of the overall contractual arrangements. We have no reason to expect that in the salaried services similar item of service treatments would differ significantly in cost from the GDS, taking into account the range of patients treated.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people, and what proportion of the population, had no access to an NHS dentist in May of each year since 1997.[11916]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: About 24 million people, almost half of the population, are registered with a general dental services (GDS) dentist in England at any one time. This has been broadly constant over the last three years (figures before this time are not comparable because of changes to the registration period). Registration figures represent people who have been seen by a GDS dentist within the past 15 months. Excluded from these figures are people who have chosen not to attend their dentist in the latest 15 months as well as people who have been treated within the GDS but are not registered and those who have used other NHS dental services, such as the community dental services.

  Information on the number of people who sought national health service dentistry unsuccessfully in each year since 1997 is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date he expects to be able to provide universal access to an NHS dentist.[11917]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: In September 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged that within two years, everyone would be able to access national health service dentistry by phoning NHS Direct.

  All callers to NHS Direct should now be able to gain access to NHS dentistry either to receive emergency dental treatment, urgent treatment to relieve pain or have an oral examination followed by a course of treatment for identified dental problems.

  For each of these kinds of treatment, health authorities have set local standards for times and distances, for both rural and urban locations, for dentistry to be available for their populations.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will request local authorities to provide statistics on the abuse of disabled children as a subset of the annual figures collected regarding the total number of children registered for abuse.[11413]

  Jacqui Smith
  We already collect statistical information about the abuse of disabled children. Information on the numbers of disabled children in need known to local authority social services departments, and the reason for their being in need (including abuse/ neglect), was collected by the Department as part of the first children in need survey in February 2000. The report is published on the Department's Home Page of the Internet at www.doh.gov.uk/cinresults.htm. A copy of the report is also available in the Library. The survey is being repeated in late 2001, and the results are likely to be available in mid 2002.

  Child Protection Register (Disabled Children)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities(a) have fulfilled their obligations to provide a register of disabled children and (b) are able to provide information on the numbers of disabled children on the child protection register. [11410]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not keep a list of authorities which have a disabled children's register. However, this years' national overview report on the 2001–02 "quality protects" management action plans, reports that most councils currently have up-to-date registers of disabled children.

  All local authorities should be able to provide information on the numbers of children on the child protection register although we do not hold it centrally. However, local authority returns from the children in need census, currently taking place, will mean this information will become available.

  Drinking Water
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority he gives to multi-barrier approaches to protect drinking water quality; and if he will make a statement in respect of hazard assessment critical control points.[11381]

  Ms Blears
  There is a regulatory requirement for all public water supplies in England and Wales to be treated before entering supply. If the raw water comes from a surface water derived source, the treatment has to be appropriate to the classification of the raw water as specified by the European Community Directive on the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water (75/440/EEC). This could involve a multi-barrier approach.

  There are separate regulations relating to Cryptosporidium oocysts in drinking water, which require water companies to carry out risk assessments at all treatment works site. Companies may either install treatment capable of continuously removing particles greater than one micron in diameter or install continuous sampling for Cryptosporidium oocysts at sites considered to be at significant risk.
  217W
  These regulations are enforced by the Drinking Water Inspectorate on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Zyban
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines have been given to health authorities for the prescribing of the anti-smoking drug Zyban; and which health authorities allow GPs to prescribe this drug;[11100]

  (2) if he will calculate the number of people who have been prescribed the anti-smoking drug Zyban since its release on prescription basis; and how many deaths have been attributed to the use of Zyban; [11101]

  (3) what changes have been made to the recommended dosage of Zyban by the manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline during the last 12 months; and for what reasons these alterations were made;[11102]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and safety of Zyban in the treatment of people addicted to smoking; and if he will make a statement.[11103]

  Ms Blears
  Since Zyban (bupropion) was marketed in the United Kingdom in June 2000, at least 440,900 prescriptions of Zyban have been dispensed, based on the prescription cost analysis (PCA) data for England.

  To date, there have been 53 reports to the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM)/Medicines Control Agency (MCA) of suspected adverse reactions in relation to Zyban with a fatal outcome. The contribution of Zyban to these fatal cases is unproven and in the majority of cases the individual's underlying condition may provide an alternative explanation. In 14 of these reports the individual was not taking Zyban at the time of death. Smoking itself is the single greatest cause of premature deaths in the UK and is responsible for 120,000 deaths per year, which is equivalent to more than 13 people an hour.

  Zyban has been authorised in 14 European member states via the mutual recognition procedure. At the time of licensing our independent expert scientific advisory body, the CSM, advised that Zyban met appropriate standards of quality, safety and efficacy to justify its licence for use as an aid to smoking cessation in combination with motivational support in nicotine-dependent patients.

  Since marketing, the safety of Zyban has been closely monitored by the MCA/CSM, particularly the accumulating evidence from spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions received in association with its use. The CSM has advised that the balance between the effectiveness of Zyban in helping people to stop smoking, and the health benefits that this brings, with the risk of adverse effects remains favourable.

  Guidance on prescribing and use of Zyban is provided in the authorised Summary of Product Characteristics for health professionals and Patient Information Leaflet. These documents provide information on use of Zyban, contraindications, warnings and possible adverse effects. Key prescribing information is also included in the British National Formulary which is sent by the Department to doctors and pharmacists.
  218W
  Zyban was made available on national health service prescription in June 2000 in all health authorities. Since then a number of communications have been issued to health professionals. In March 2001 the MCA and CSM reminded general practitioners and health professionals in smoking cessation clinics about the safety profile of bupropion and provided information on safe prescribing, in particular predisposing factors for seizures. This information was distributed to doctors and pharmacists in the MCA/CSM drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance".

  In May 2001, the CSM issued new guidance (strengthened warnings particularly about potential interactions with other medicines) and advised a slower increase in the dose of Zyban in order to minimise the risk of side effects especially seizures (the lower 150mg dose should be prescribed for the first six days, increasing to 150mg twice daily on day seven rather than day four). This new guidance was issued in order to allow more time for the drug levels to stabilise, to help minimise the risk of adverse reactions, particularly seizures.

  The Department provided information to all doctors concerning the safety of Zyban, via an article in the Chief Medical Officer's Update 30 (May 2001), entitled "Safety of Zyban as an aid to smoking cessation". A copy of the CMO's Update 30 can be found in the Statistics Section, in the Library. Updated information on the safety profile of Zyban can also be found on the MCA website.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of general practitioners in the national health service in England and Wales in each of the last four years.[11868]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioners in the national health service in England in each of the last four years is shown in the table. Information relating to Wales is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  General medical practitioners in England as at 1 October 1997 to 1999 and 30 September 2000

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1

  29,389

  29,697

  29,987

  30,252

  of which:

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)2

  27,099

  27,392

  27,591

  27.704

  1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) includes UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (para. 52 SFA) and PMS other. GP retainers were not collected until 1999. In 1999 there were 972 GP retainers; in 2000 there were 1,117.

  2 Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) includes GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Source:
  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the definition of excessive as applied to GP list sizes; what measures he plans to take to ensure that areas which experience sudden population growth have sufficient numbers of medical practitioners; and what measures he will encourage the National Clinical Assessment Authority to take against doctors with excessive list sizes.[12767]
  219W
  Mr. Hutton
  From 2002 health authorities will be responsible for determining how many general practitioners are needed in their areas. List size and population change are among the factors they will consider. The National Clinical Assessment Authority's role is to assess the clinical performance of a GP if a health authority raises concern.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of general practitioner vacancies in each(a) health authority and (b) primary care trust in the last two years.[12775]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioner vacancies reported by health authorities in the Department's annual general practitioner recruitment retention and vacancy surveys for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown in the table. Information on vacancies in primary care trusts is not held centrally.

  Health Authority1

  2000

  2001

  Avon

  33

  67

  Barking and Havering

  2

  1

  Barnet Enfield & Haringey HA

  17

  40

  Barnsley

  8

  10

  Bedfordshire

  19

  20

  Berkshire

  19

  29

  Bexley, Bromley & Greenwich HA

  5

  29

  Birmingham

  7

  65

  Bradford

  17

  37

  Brent & Harrow

  8

  29

  Buckinghamshire

  2—

  38

  Bury & Rochdale Health Authority

  7

  12

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  12

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  6

  Camden & Islington

  1

  15

  Co. Durham & Darlington

  2—

  26

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

  0

  22

  Coventry

  4

  17

  Croydon

  8

  25

  Doncaster

  12

  26

  Dorset

  25

  38

  Dudley

  12

  9

  East London & City

  31

  38

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  4

  2

  East Kent

  13

  29

  East Lancashire

  6

  28

  East Riding and Hull

  7

  23

  East Surrey

  12

  10

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  2—

  2—

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  10

  8

  Gloucestershire

  17

  28

  Herefordshire

  6

  10

  Hertfordshire

  3

  60

  Hillingdon

  5

  19

  IoW, Portsmouth & SE Hampshire

  16

  18

  Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster

  11

  17

  Kingston & Richmond

  8

  17

  Lambeth Southwark & Lewisham

  33

  72

  Leeds

  19

  55

  Leicester

  15

  48

  Lincolnshire

  19

  46

  Liverpool

  19

  16

  Manchester

  10

  24

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth

  2—

  2—

  Morecambe Bay

  4

  7

  Newcastle & North Tyneside

  23

  26

  Norfolk

  21

  53

  North and East Devon

  14

  19

  North Cheshire

  10

  16

  North and Mid Hampshire

  9

  18

  220W

  Health Authority1

  2000

  2001

  North Cumbria

  8

  19

  North Derbyshire

  11

  16

  North Essex

  7

  17

  North Nottinghamshire

  24

  27

  North Staffordshire

  12

  30

  North West Lancashire

  3

  26

  North Yorkshire

  2—

  33

  Northamptonshire

  18

  31

  Northumberland

  8

  18

  Nottingham

  13

  29

  Oxfordshire

  24

  62

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  16

  21

  Rotherham

  7

  7

  Salford & Trafford

  11

  26

  Sandwell

  6

  16

  Sefton

  6

  17

  Sheffield

  13

  33

  Shropshire

  4

  16

  Solihull

  10

  11

  Somerset

  4

  28

  South & West Devon

  20

  7

  South Cheshire

  19

  27

  South Essex

  31

  34

  South Humber

  15

  22

  South Lancashire

  9

  13

  South Staffordshire

  15

  23

  Southampton and SW Hampshire

  17

  18

  Southern Derbyshire

  2—

  27

  St. Helens & Knowsley

  10

  22

  Stockport

  10

  11

  Suffolk

  10

  17

  Sunderland

  13

  22

  Tees

  34

  43

  Wakefield

  20

  29

  Walsall

  6

  10

  Warwickshire

  14

  25

  West Kent

  31

  60

  West Surrey

  23

  35

  West Sussex

  31

  45

  Wigan & Bolton

  17

  19

  Wiltshire

  17

  22

  Wirral

  9

  13

  Wolverhampton

  4

  5

  Worcestershire

  1

  4

  1 This table reflects the health authorities as at April 2001.

  2Not provided

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of general practitioners due to retire in each of the next five years.[12774]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information about retirement intentions of general practitioners. All unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) have to retire as a principal by the age of 70. Around 480 UPEs will reach 70 by 2006.

  Waiting Lists (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on the waiting list in Buckinghamshire for hospital treatment in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement.[11865]

  Ms Blears
  The numbers of patients waiting for hospital treatment between March 1997 and March 2001 are shown in the table.
  221W

  Inpatient waiting list data for Buckinghamshire health authority

  Quarter

  Size of inpatient waiting list

  March 1997

  14,039

  June 1997

  14,253

  September 1997

  15,276

  December 1997

  16,154

  March 1998

  16,149

  June 1998

  15,706

  September 1998

  14,878

  December 1998

  14,679

  March 1999

  13,069

  June 1999

  13,795

  September 1999

  14,000

  December 1999

  13,854

  March 2000

  12,604

  June 2000

  12,937

  September 2000

  13,252

  December 2000

  13,535

  March 2001

  13,332

  June 2001

  13,604

  Source:
  QF01 quarterly waiting times return, Department of Health.

  NHS Plus
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals for NHS Plus with particular reference to(a) income generation, (b) avoiding unfair competition with private sector consultants and (c) improving awareness of occupational health issues among health professionals and private employers.[11310]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: NHS Plus will be launched on 19 November as a national network of National Health Service Occupational Health Departments who will be selling occupational health services to the private or other parts of the public sector, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Occupational health services are not part of the statutory NHS provision: NHS Plus will be provided as an income generating service. Under the rules of income generation, such services have to recover their full costs as well as making a surplus which is reinvested in the health service. Our aim is that NHS Plus will help to raise awareness of the importance of occupational health to businesses as well as helping to improve the quality of occupational health available to NHS staff themselves.

  Social Services (London)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received that local authority social services provision(a) as a whole and (b) other than those which have been specifically targeted for priority increased provision by his Department, have been disproportionately affected in London; and if he will make a statement.[11845]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department receives many representations from various sources and in various forms about the level of funding for social services in London and elsewhere.

  Between 1996–97 and 2001–02 total provision made available by the Government for social services in London has increased by 28 per cent., including a 24 per cent. increase in the personal social services standard spending assessment. These substantial increases in provision demonstrate our commitment to London's social services.

  Health Authorities (Efficiency)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent estimates he has made of variations in the efficiency of health services across different health authorities; and if he will make a statement.[11067]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The national health service performance indicators were published in July 2000, and can be found on the Department's website: www.doh.gov.uk/nhsperformanceindicators. This includes a comparison of the performance of health authorities across a number of different aspects of performance, including efficiency.

  The information we have published shows there is variation in performance, including for day case rates, length of stay, and prescribing. Publishing comparative information of this sort is key to both improving performance and strengthening public accountability.

  Staff Retention
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the retention of staff working in the professions allied to medicine.[12157]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Meeting the Challenge" sets out our plans for developing and supporting allied health professions and the central role they have to play in delivering the NHS plan's key priorities. A copy has been placed in the Library. The NHS plan also introduced the improving working lives standard to ensure that national health service employers create well-managed, flexible working environments that support all NHS staff.

  Nurses
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of nursing vacancies were filled by nurses trained(a) in the UK, (b) in the remainder of the EU and (c) elsewhere in each of the past five years for which figures are available.[12037]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, dated 11 August, forwarded to him by the Department of Education and Skills on 21 August, and the reminder letters of 20 September, concerning training programmes for the managers of care homes.[11960]

  Jacqui Smith
  I replied to the hon. Member on 1 November.

  Heroin Addicts
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heroin addicts are receiving their heroin from the NHS; and what percentage that represents of the estimated total of heroin addicts.[12060]

  Ms Blears
  There are currently no centrally held figures on the number of deaths as a result of heroin abuse.
  223W
  There were 2,943 deaths records in 1999 where drugs were recorded as a primary cause of death. However, the database from which these figures derive cover accidents and suicides involving drugs, as well as poisonings due to drug abuse and drug dependence, but not other adverse effects of drugs. The range of substances these statistics cover are wide, including legal and illegal, prescribed substances and over the counter medications such as paracetamol.

  For each death the database includes every mention of a substance recorded on the death certificate or mentioned by the coroner.

  The Department is developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce drug-related deaths which is to be launched shortly.

  Health Campaigns
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Government campaigns in the past 15 years in reducing the consumption of(a) alcohol and (b) tobacco. [12286]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: The aim of the Department's health promotion campaigns on alcohol during the period in question has been to encourage sensible drinking and to promote knowledge of the risks of alcohol misuse. Current advice is that men should drink no more than 3–4 units of alcohol per day and women should drink no more than 2–3 units of alcohol per day. There has been a consistent increase in recent years of the proportion of drinkers who were aware of the sensible drinking advice: a rise from 54 per cent. in 1997 to 64 per cent. in 2000.

  Our tobacco education campaign, launched in December 1999, is aimed at persuading smokers to give up and non-smokers, particularly children, not to start.

  Between October 1992 and May 1994 a prospective controlled trial was conducted in four television regions in central and northern England. Evaluation showed that the campaign was effective in reducing smoking and preventing relapse but as part of a prolonged campaign. We concluded that anti-smoking TV advertising should be undertaken routinely as an essential component of any tobacco reduction strategy.

  A number of different measures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the "Don't Give Up Giving Up" TV advertising campaign, which has been running since December 1999. Quarterly surveys of smoking attitudes and awareness of the campaign are being carried out and results indicate that the campaign is well recalled and is communicating effectively with the target audience.

  There is a clear link between advertising and the number of calls to the helpline. In non-advertising periods there is a background level of around 1,000 calls per week to the helpline, this increases to approximately 4,000 a week when there is advertising activity.

  The website "givingupsmoking.co.uk" has had over 4.4 million "hits" since its launch in December 1999.

  Earlier this year the World Health Organisation, in partnership with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, published a report entitled "Smoking Media Cessation Campaigns from Around the World". The study
  224W
  evaluated the results of mass media campaigns from nine nations (including England) and six states from the United States of America. The report concluded that comprehensive media campaigns are working and that successful campaigns
  "maintained a strong media presence for extended periods of time."

  Lymphoedema
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of treatment for lymphoedema is available(a) nationally, (b) within the West Midlands and (c) in Walsall.[11998]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Data on the number of lymphoedema clinics across the United Kingdom are not collected either centrally or regionally.

  We are aware of the following services available to patients in Walsall: Little Bloxwich day hospice has a full time specialist lymphoedema nurse who runs lymphoedema clinics; St Giles hospice has two lymphoedema nurses providing services.

  Nuclear Accidents (Iodine)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stocks of iodine doses are held against the possibility of nuclear accidents.[12616]

  Jacqui Smith
  The exact figure is not held centrally by the Department as stocks are held in locations close to operating nuclear installations, however, I have been advised that nearly three million tablets were produced in 1998 and are held by the various parts of the nuclear industry throughout the United Kingdom including Ministry of Defence sites.

  Partnership Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been paid to local authorities in 2001–02 under the partnership grant; and how much is allocated for 2002–03.[12363]

  Jacqui. Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The partnership grant was last paid in 2000–01. It has been subsumed in the promoting independence grant, which amounts to £296 million in 2001–02 and is provisionally £862 million in 2002–03.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accountants there are in the planned establishment for the inspection function of the National Care Standards Commission; and how many have been recruited.[12342]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: There are no plans to recruit accountants within the inspection function of the National Care Standards Commission. The headquarters of the Commission has two posts requiring qualified accountants, one of whom has already been recruited. The Commission may seek external accountancy advice as necessary.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many claims for clinical negligence against the
  225W
  NHS which went to trial were successful; and of these how many were (a) legal aid cases and (b) pursued on a no win, no fee basis, for the latest year for which figures are available;[11950]

  (2) how many claims for clinical negligence against the NHS went to trial; and of these how many were (a) legal aid cases and (b) pursued on a no win, no fee basis for the latest year for which figures are available;[11949]

  (3) how many claims for clinical negligence were (a) made against the NHS and (b) settled out of court; of these how many were (i) legal aid cases and (ii) pursued on a no win, no fee basis; how many went to trial; and of these how many were legal aid cases in the latest: year for which figures are available.[11948]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Comprehensive data on the total number of clinical negligence claims are not collected centrally.

  However, the national health service litigation authority handles clinical negligence claims made against the NHS under two risk pooling schemes, but only those at above certain values. Of the claims held by the NHS litigation authority on its database, there were 4,570 reported to the relevant NHS body in the year 2000–01.

  The NHS litigation authority's database does not show whether cases are settled out of court or go to trial. However, the NHSLA estimates that approximately 95 per cent. of cases which they settle are done out of court. It is also not possible to distinguish from NHSLA data whether a case is funded by legal aid or under a conditional fee arrangement (no win, no fee). However, the NHSLA estimate that approximately 95 per cent. of all cases are legally aided, while the number being pursued under a conditional fee arrangement is limited to around a dozen.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was to the NHS of clinical negligence cases in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and in each year what was the proportion paid in legal fees.[11953]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Figures on the amounts included in the National Audit Summarised Accounts for clinical negligence expenditure for the latest available years are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  235

  1997–98

  144

  1998–99

  221

  1999–2000

  373

  Source:
  National health service summarised accounts for health authorities, NHS trusts and NHS litigation authority

  Figures prior to 1996–97 are not available because clinical negligence was not separately identified in the accounts before that date.

  Changes to accounting policies mean that these amounts are not directly comparable.
  226W
  The summarized accounts do not show, and it is there not possible to break down, separately what proportion of these figures are for legal fees.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the annual cost to the NHS of a no-fault compensation scheme for clinical negligence.[11954]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: There are no reliable estimates of likely costs of no-fault compensation.

  No-fault compensation is among the issues now being considered by the Chief Medical Officer's advisory committee looking at the options for reforming the system for dealing with clinical negligence claims. The Department has recently commissioned Professor Paul Fenn, Professor of insurance policy at the University of Nottingham, to conduct a study evaluating the potential cost of alternative systems for compensating patients.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for clinical negligence were made against the NHS in each of the last five years, for which figures are available.[11951]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]Comprehensive data on the total number of clinical negligence claims are not collected centrally.

  However, the national health service litigation authority handles clinical negligence claims made against the NHS under two risk pooling schemes, but only those at above certain values. The NHS litigation authority does not hold data on whether a case is funded by legal aid or under a conditional fee arrangement (no-win no-fee). Of the claims held by the NHS litigation authority on its database, the information requested is set shown in the table:

  Clinical negligence claims against the NHS

  Year

  All claims

  1996–97

  4,017

  1997–98

  6,711

  1998–99

  6,415

  1999–2000

  5,973

  2000–01

  4,570

  Doctor Suicides
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the suicide rate was among NHS doctors in the latest 12 month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[12600]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Avon Health Authority
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of the administrative budget of Avon health authority that will be transferred to(a) primary care trusts, (b) the Strategic Health Authority and (c) the regional Government office from April 2002. [12368]
  227W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: Avon health authority is undertaking preliminary work on the transfer of budgets from the authority to those organisations that are assuming its functions. It is not, however, possible to provide robust estimates on final allocations until the functions and structures of each organisation are agreed in the new year.

  Beta Interferon
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which patients will be able to participate in the extended clinical trials of the beta interferon drug.[12344]

  Ms Blears
  We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the national health service. One option is a risk-sharing scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness, and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide the information requested.

  Overseas Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what disciplinary regimes overseas doctor applicants to the NHS will be subject to while employed in the UK.[12709]

  24 hour staffed beds

  31 March 1999 position

  31 March 2000 position

  Additional 24 hour staffed beds from 1998–99 to 1999–2000

  31 March 2000 position (adjusted for changes in definition, boundaries and errors)

  31 March 2001 position

  Additional 24 hour staffed beds from 1999–2000 to 2000–01

  England

  4,0744,396

  322

  4,010

  4,304

  294

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Y01

  938

  1,074

  136

  872

  829

  -43

  Trent

  Y02

  242

  257

  15

  257

  283

  26

  West Midlands

  YO7

  278

  205

  25

  276

  270

  -6

  North West

  YO8

  414

  419

  5

  407

  451

  44

  Eastern

  YO9

  313

  439

  126

  439

  557

  118

  London

  Y10

  774

  881

  107

  703

  832

  129

  South East

  Yll

  595

  622

  27

  605

  600

  -5

  South West

  Y12

  520

  499

  -21

  451

  481

  30

  Source:
  Common Information Core 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assertive outreach mental health teams are in operation.[12769]

  Jacqui Smith
  Returns received indicate that there were 173 assertive outreach teams in operation as at 30 June 2001. This is the latest date for which information is currently available.

  Children's Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were being looked after in children's homes in each year since 1997.[12706]
  228W
  Mr. Hutton
  In order to practise in the United Kingdom, all doctors must be registered with the General Medical Council.

  Overseas hospital doctors employed in the national health service are subject to exactly the same disciplinary regimes as all other doctors. Also, overseas doctors working as general practitioners in the NHS are subject to the same disciplinary systems as other GPs.

  Prescription Charges
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reassess the list of conditions exempt from prescription charges.[12721]

  Ms Blears
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Mental Health Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many 24-hour mental health staff beds are in operation.[12768]

  Jacqui Smith
  Returns received indicate that there were approximately 4,300 24 hour staffed mental health beds at 31 March 2001. This is the latest date for which validated information is currently available.

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of children looked after by local councils in England at 31 March 1997–20011

  Children's homes

  Years ending 31 March

  All children looked after

  Number

  Percentage

  1997

  51,100

  6,200

  12

  1998

  53,300

  6,100

  11

  1999

  55.500

  6,100

  11

  2000

  58,100

  6,300

  11

  2001

  58,900

  6,200

  10

  1 Figures in this table exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements

  Source:

  CLA 100

  SSDA 903

  NHS National Plan
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sponsors of the NHS national plan consultation leaflet and the public consultation to inform the NHS national plan.[12722]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department funded the NHS national plan consultation leaflet and the public consultation to inform the NHS national plan. There were no sponsors involved.

  Logos
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of developing the new logo for the Commission for Health Improvement.[12723]

  Mr. Hutton
  The cost of developing the logo for the Commission for Health Improvement was £2,115.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the gross expenditure of the Prescription Pricing Authority was in relation to the monitoring of prescriptions in the last 12 months.[10781]

  Ms Blears
  The annual gross expenditure of the Prescription Pricing Authority for the financial year 2000–01 was £62,340,000. Included in this was the sum of £1,238,000 for monitoring patient compliance with the current prescription charging arrangements.

  Chiropodists
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on behalf of independent private sector chiropodists and podiatrists in respect of the draft Health Professions Council Order; and if he will place them in the Library.[12782]

  Mr. Hutton
  We hope shortly to lay before the House a report on the outcome of consultations. We have no plans to publish individual responses, but their authors are free to do so.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to amend the draft Health Professions Council Order to provide for independent private sector chiropodists and podiatrists to be represented on the Health Professions Council;[12783]

  (2) if he will appoint a representative of independent private sector chiropodists and podiatrists to the Health Professions Council.[12781]

  Mr. Hutton
  No. There is scope on the Health Professions Council for one registrant member of each profession regulated by the council. The council will be able to recruit additional members to its committees including its professional advisory panels, and will be encouraged to cover all sectors of the professions.
  230W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of the level of expertise of chiropodists and podiatrists trained by the SMAE Institute.[12784]

  Mr. Hutton
  The assessment of qualifications for the purposes of state registration is a matter for the Chiropodists Board of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine.

  I can confirm however that officials have been facilitating meetings with the registered and unregistered sector, which includes the SMAE Institute, to open dialogue between the two sectors. An agreement was reached at the last meeting in October for the unregistered sector to submit their course documentation for assessment. So far no documentation has been received.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's target is, under the National Cancer Plan, for the number of CT scanners per thousand of the population.[11887]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 2000 there were approximately five machines per million head of population in England. By the time the investment programme in computer tomography scanners is completed in 2004 that figure will have risen to seven per million.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the criteria employed in determining which(a) hospitals and (b) cancer centres will receive help from the Cancer Capital Modernisation Fund CT Scanner Replacement Programme 2000 to 2003.[11886]

  Jacqui Smith
  The clear criterion announced in January 2000 was based on the age of the scanners in the national health service at that time. By 2004 all computer tomograpy scanners in the NHS will be no more than 10 years old.

  No distinction was made in applying the above criterion between scanners for cancer centres and those for other hospitals.

  Adoption
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were placed for adoption in each year since 1998 broken down by local authority as a percentage of the number(a) in care and (b) of the total population of 18 years and under.[12925]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table. The answer to part(b) of the question has been expressed as rates per 10,000 resident population aged 17 and under.

  The numbers of adopted children increased from 2,200 in 1998–99 to 2,700 in 1999–2000 and 3,100 in 2000–01. This equated to 4.0 per cent. in the looked after population in 1998–99. 4.7 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 5.2 per cent. of the looked after population in 2000–01.
  231W

  Number of looked after children placed for adoption at 31 March 1998 to 2001

  England

  Number, percentage and rates per 10,000 population

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  England

  2,410

  5

  2

  2,880

  5

  3

  3,135

  5

  3

  3,420

  6

  3

  North East Shire Counties

  Durham

  15

  3

  1

  15

  3

  1

  10

  2

  1

  35

  7

  3

  Northumberland

  20

  6

  3

  20

  6

  3

  10

  3

  1

  10

  3

  1

  Unitary Authorities

  Darlington

  1—

  1

  1—

  5

  4

  3

  10

  9

  4

  15

  13

  7

  Hartlepool

  10

  11

  4

  5

  6

  3

  10

  9

  4

  10

  7

  4

  Middlesbrough

  20

  11

  5

  10

  5

  2

  5

  3

  2

  20

  8

  5

  Redcar and Cleveland

  10

  4

  2

  10

  6

  3

  15

  9

  4

  15

  9

  5

  Stockton On Tees

  15

  10

  4

  10

  6

  2

  10

  4

  2

  10

  4

  2

  Metropolitan Districts

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  2

  15

  6

  4

  15

  5

  3

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  40

  10

  7

  45

  10

  7

  25

  5

  4

  40

  9

  7

  North Tyneside

  20

  7

  4

  25

  9

  6

  25

  9

  6

  35

  10

  8

  South Tyneside

  5

  2

  2

  10

  3

  3

  25

  8

  6

  15

  5

  4

  Sunderland

  35

  9

  5

  40

  10

  6

  40

  9

  6

  45

  9

  7

  North West Shire Counties

  Cheshire

  10

  2

  1

  20

  4

  1

  30

  7

  2

  35

  8

  2

  Cumbria

  40

  7

  4

  30

  7

  3

  40

  8

  4

  30

  6

  3

  Lancashire

  20

  2

  1

  40

  3

  1

  50

  3

  2

  60

  5

  2

  Unitary Authorities

  Blackburn and Darwen

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  2

  10

  4

  3

  15

  5

  3

  Blackpool

  1—

  1

  1

  10

  4

  3

  5

  2

  2

  30

  10

  10

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  2

  10

  5

  3

  10

  5

  3

  Warrington

  5

  4

  1

  10

  6

  2

  15

  10

  4

  15

  10

  3

  Metropolitan Districts

  Bolton

  30

  10

  5

  15

  4

  2

  25

  8

  4

  25

  8

  4

  Bury

  5

  4

  2

  10

  5

  3

  5

  4

  2

  5

  3

  1

  Manchester

  30

  3

  3

  55

  5

  5

  65

  5

  6

  85

  7

  8

  Oldham

  5

  2

  1

  20

  7

  3

  15

  5

  3

  20

  7

  4

  Rochdale

  20

  11

  4

  25

  10

  5

  20

  7

  3

  15

  6

  3

  Salford

  20

  5

  4

  30

  6

  5

  30

  5

  5

  35

  6

  7

  Stockport

  20

  8

  3

  20

  6

  3

  15

  5

  2

  20

  5

  3

  Tameside

  15

  7

  3

  10

  5

  2

  15

  5

  2

  25

  10

  5

  Trafford

  10

  6

  2

  15

  8

  3

  5

  3

  1

  10

  6

  2

  Wigan

  20

  6

  3

  15

  4

  2

  20

  5

  3

  30

  7

  4

  Merseyside Metropolitan Districts

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  15

  6

  4

  15

  6

  4

  10

  5

  3

  Liverpool

  20

  2

  2

  25

  2

  2

  40

  3

  4

  65

  6

  6

  Sefton

  10

  4

  1

  10

  4

  2

  10

  3

  1

  15

  5

  3

  St. Helens

  20

  8

  5

  25

  9

  6

  25

  10

  6

  30

  11

  8

  Wirral

  10

  4

  2

  15

  4

  2

  10

  3

  2

  15

  4

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside Shire Counties

  North Yorkshire

  30

  9

  2

  20

  6

  2

  5

  1

  1—

  15

  4

  1

  Unitary Authorities

  East Riding Yorkshire

  1—

  1

  1—

  10

  5

  1

  10

  5

  2

  20

  10

  3

  Kingston Upon Hull

  50

  6

  8

  35

  5

  5

  20

  3

  3

  30

  5

  5

  North East Lincolnshire

  15

  5

  3

  10

  4

  3

  10

  4

  3

  15

  5

  3

  North Lincolnshire

  20

  10

  6

  5

  3

  2

  10

  4

  2

  5

  3

  2

  York

  15

  13

  4

  10

  7

  2

  20

  14

  5

  10

  7

  3

  Metropolitan Districts

  Barnsley

  15

  5

  3

  15

  4

  3

  20

  6

  4

  15

  4

  3

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  8

  4

  30

  5

  3

  Calderdale

  5

  2

  1

  5

  2

  1

  10

  5

  2

  10

  4

  2

  Doncaster

  15

  4

  2

  30

  8

  4

  25

  6

  4

  35

  8

  5

  Kirklees

  10

  4

  1

  15

  5

  2

  25

  8

  3

  35

  11

  3

  Leeds

  65

  5

  4

  60

  5

  4

  55

  4

  4

  60

  5

  4

  Rotherham

  25

  7

  4

  25

  7

  4

  25

  7

  5

  25

  6

  4

  Sheffield

  35

  7

  3

  40

  7

  4

  50

  7

  5

  40

  6

  4

  Wakefield

  10

  3

  2

  15

  3

  2

  10

  3

  2

  20

  5

  3

  East Midlands Shire Counties

  Derbyshire

  25

  5

  2

  20

  4

  1

  15

  2

  1

  25

  4

  1

  Leicestershire

  10

  4

  1

  10

  4

  1

  10

  3

  1

  10

  3

  1

  Lincolnshire

  10

  2

  1

  50

  10

  4

  65

  13

  5

  85

  16

  6

  Northamptonshire

  35

  6

  2

  35

  6

  3

  45

  8

  3

  35

  6

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  50

  11

  3

  80

  16

  5

  70

  13

  4

  60

  11

  4

  Unitary Authorities

  Derby

  1—

  1

  1

  10

  3

  2

  15

  3

  2

  30

  7

  5

  Leicester

  35

  8

  4

  35

  8

  4

  40

  95

  2

  5

  5

  4

  Nottingham

  70

  11

  10

  60

  10

  9

  65

  11

  10

  90

  14

  13

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  8

  1

  232W 233W

  Number of looked after children placed for adoption at 31 March 1998 to 2001

  England

  Number, percentage and rates per 10,000 population

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  West Midlands Shire Counties

  Shropshire

  10

  7

  1

  20

  11

  3

  10

  5

  2

  5

  4

  1

  Staffordshire

  20

  3

  1

  25

  4

  1

  25

  4

  1

  35

  7

  2

  Warwickshire

  5

  2

  1

  10

  3

  1

  15

  4

  1

  10

  3

  1

  Worcestershire

  25

  5

  2

  25

  4

  2

  35

  5

  3

  40

  7

  4

  Unitary Authorities

  Herefordshire

  10

  5

  3

  10

  5

  3

  15

  7

  3

  1—

  2

  1

  Stoke-On-Trent

  1—

  1

  1

  20

  6

  4

  20

  6

  4

  15

  4

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  15

  8

  5

  5

  4

  2

  10

  5

  2

  1—

  1

  1

  Metropolitan Districts

  Birmingham

  75

  5

  3

  70

  4

  3

  95

  6

  4

  80

  5

  3

  Coventry

  1—

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  25

  5

  3

  15

  3

  2

  Dudley

  10

  4

  2

  10

  3

  2

  10

  2

  1

  20

  6

  3

  Sandwell

  20

  4

  3

  15

  3

  2

  10

  2

  1

  20

  4

  3

  Solihull

  1—

  2

  1

  10

  6

  2

  5

  3

  1

  10

  5

  2

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  25

  7

  4

  25

  7

  4

  25

  6

  4

  Wolverhampton

  1—

  1

  1

  10

  3

  2

  20

  5

  3

  30

  7

  5

  South West Shire Counties

  Cornwall

  25

  4

  2

  30

  6

  3

  40

  7

  4

  20

  3

  2

  Devon

  35

  6

  2

  40

  6

  3

  35

  5

  2

  30

  4

  2

  Dorset

  10

  3

  1

  5

  3

  1

  15

  5

  2

  5

  2

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1—

  1

  1—

  15

  3

  1

  15

  3

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  15

  4

  1

  20

  5

  2

  20

  5

  2

  5

  2

  1

  Wiltshire

  5

  2

  1

  10

  4

  1

  1—

  1

  0

  5

  2

  1

  Unitary Authorities

  Bath and NE Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  2

  1—

  1

  1

  1—

  3

  1

  Bournemouth

  15

  7

  5

  10

  5

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  1

  1

  Bristol

  15

  3

  2

  25

  4

  3

  30

  6

  4

  25

  5

  3

  North Somerset

  10

  7

  3

  5

  5

  2

  15

  11

  4

  10

  6

  2

  Plymouth

  10

  3

  2

  10

  3

  2

  20

  5

  3

  20

  4

  3

  Poole

  10

  9

  3

  1—

  3

  1

  1—

  2

  1

  5

  4

  2

  South Gloucestershire

  10

  5

  1

  1—

  1

  1—

  5

  4

  1

  5

  4

  1

  Swindon

  5

  4

  2

  1—

  2

  1

  10

  5

  2

  5

  4

  1

  Torbay

  1—

  1

  1

  5

  3

  3

  5

  2

  2

  10

  4

  4

  Eastern Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  25

  8

  3

  20

  6

  2

  25

  7

  3

  20

  6

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  3

  1

  25

  6

  2

  20

  5

  2

  15

  4

  1

  Essex

  60

  6

  2

  70

  7

  2

  80

  6

  3

  75

  6

  3

  Hertfordshire

  35

  5

  2

  35

  4

  1

  40

  5

  2

  50

  6

  2

  Norfolk

  15

  3

  25

  4

  2

  25

  4

  2

  45

  6

  3

  Suffolk

  15

  3

  1

  25

  5

  2

  30

  5

  2

  30

  5

  2

  Unitary Authorities

  Luton

  10

  5

  2

  10

  4

  2

  15

  5

  3

  10

  3

  2

  Peterborough

  15

  5

  4

  15

  5

  4

  15

  4

  4

  30

  9

  8

  Southend

  15

  5

  3

  15

  6

  4

  10

  4

  2

  10

  5

  3

  Thurrock

  5

  6

  2

  10

  7

  4

  10

  5

  3

  10

  6

  3

  Inner London

  Camden

  30

  9

  8

  25

  8

  7

  30

  9

  8

  35

  11

  9

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  00

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  40

  10

  7

  30

  7

  5

  30

  7

  6

  20

  4

  4

  Hackney

  10

  2

  2

  10

  3

  2

  20

  4

  3

  15

  3

  3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25

  8

  8

  20

  6

  7

  20

  5

  6

  25

  6

  8

  Islington

  1—

  1

  1

  25

  5

  6

  15

  3

  4

  15

  3

  4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10

  5

  4

  10

  4

  3

  15

  7

  4

  5

  3

  2

  Lambeth

  30

  5

  5

  35

  5

  5

  40

  5

  6

  30

  4

  5

  Lewisham

  25

  6

  5

  30

  6

  5

  15

  3

  3

  25

  4

  4

  Southwark

  1—

  1—

  1—

  15

  3

  3

  35

  6

  6

  50

  8

  9

  Tower Hamlets

  15

  6

  3

  10

  4

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  20

  7

  4

  Wandsworth

  25

  7

  5

  15

  5

  3

  20

  6

  4

  20

  5

  4

  Westminster

  30

  10

  8

  25

  9

  7

  25

  9

  7

  20

  7

  5

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1—

  1

  1—

  10

  5

  2

  10

  3

  2

  10

  3

  2

  Barnet

  1—

  2

  1—

  5

  3

  1

  10

  4

  1

  10

  4

  1

  Bexley

  10

  5

  2

  10

  6

  2

  10

  6

  2

  15

  8

  3

  Brent

  15

  5

  3

  15

  5

  2

  15

  5

  3

  15

  5

  3

  Bromley

  20

  8

  3

  10

  4

  2

  1—

  1

  1—

  15

  5

  2

  Croydon

  30

  9

  4

  15

  5

  2

  20

  5

  3

  15

  4

  2

  Ealing

  10

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  25

  5

  3

  35

  9

  5

  Enfield

  1—

  1

  1—

  20

  7

  3

  25

  10

  4

  25

  9

  4

  Haringey

  10

  3

  2

  10

  3

  2

  15

  4

  3

  20

  4

  4

  Harrow

  5

  5

  1

  15

  8

  3

  10

  5

  2

  10

  4

  2

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  5

  2

  1—

  3

  1

  Hillingdon

  10

  3

  1

  20

  6

  3

  15

  3

  2

  20

  5

  3

  234W 235W

  Number of looked after children placed for adoption at 31 March 1998 to 2001

  England

  Number, percentage and rates per 10,000 population

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Number

  % of all looked after children

  Rate per 10,000 population

  Hounslow

  0

  1

  1

  15

  6

  3

  10

  3

  2

  15

  5

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  10

  10

  3

  5

  5

  2

  1—

  4

  1

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  2

  1

  10

  5

  2

  10

  6

  2

  Newham

  10

  2

  1

  20

  4

  3

  25

  5

  3

  25

  5

  4

  Redbridge

  10

  6

  2

  20

  13

  3

  15

  10

  3

  20

  14

  3

  Richmond upon Thames

  1—

  2

  1

  1—

  4

  1

  5

  5

  1

  5

  6

  2

  Sutton

  20

  19

  5

  10

  6

  2

  10

  8

  3

  10

  6

  2

  Waltham Forest

  1—

  1

  1

  5

  3

  1

  10

  2

  1

  15

  6

  3

  South East Shire Counties

  Buckinghamshire

  20

  8

  2

  25

  10

  2

  10

  4

  1

  10

  4

  1

  East Sussex

  20

  4

  2

  20

  5

  2

  45

  10

  4

  35

  7

  3

  Hampshire

  55

  8

  2

  40

  5

  1

  45

  5

  2

  50

  6

  2

  Kent

  60

  5

  2

  65

  5

  2

  65

  4

  2

  105

  6

  3

  Oxfordshire

  30

  6

  2

  45

  10

  3

  35

  7

  2

  45

  10

  3

  Surrey

  45

  7

  2

  85

  13

  4

  55

  8

  2

  50

  7

  2

  West Sussex

  40

  6

  3

  40

  6

  2

  35

  4

  2

  40

  6

  3

  Unitary Authorities

  Bracknell Forest

  5

  8

  2

  5

  10

  3

  10

  14

  3

  5

  10

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  20

  6

  4

  25

  7

  5

  20

  6

  4

  30

  8

  6

  Isle of Wight

  5

  4

  2

  1—

  1

  1—

  10

  5

  3

  10

  7

  5

  Medway Towns

  5

  2

  1

  25

  8

  4

  35

  11

  6

  15

  5

  3

  Milton Keynes

  10

  2

  2

  25

  8

  5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  3

  1

  Portsmouth

  1—

  1

  1

  10

  5

  3

  15

  6

  3

  15

  6

  4

  Reading

  1—

  1

  1—

  1—

  1

  1

  15

  13

  5

  15

  12

  5

  Slough

  0

  0

  0

  1—

  3

  1

  5

  4

  2

  15

  9

  5

  Southampton

  20

  6

  4

  25

  6

  5

  30

  8

  7

  15

  4

  3

  West Berkshire

  5

  5

  1

  5

  5

  2

  1—

  2

  1

  5

  6

  2

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1—

  5

  1

  1—

  3

  1

  10

  9

  3

  5

  7

  2

  Woking

  10

  12

  3

  10

  11

  3

  5

  7

  2

  10

  9

  2

  1Less than five (for numbers) or 0.5 (for rates or percentages)

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five

  n/a = not available

  236W

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Student Funding Review
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government
What plans they have to consult universities in the course of the review of student finance which has been announced; and whether it is an agreed basis of the review that universities should in any circumstances receive an increase in the resources available and not a reduction in them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government have announced a review of student funding in England and Wales. It will consider the balance between state funding and contributions made by students and families. We will consult and the higher education sector will be involved in the consultation. Resources for HE institutions will be dealt with separately and as part of the forthcoming spending review, against the background of a Government who have invested substantially in HE already.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and declare an interest as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Birmingham. Will she confirm that she and her department are aware that the cash flow provided by the present system of student funding is roughly£350 million a year? The withdrawal of that amount would be very serious. Recent studies conducted by the universities have shown a funding gap in excess of£900 million if they are to work with the Government, as they wish to do, on the attainment of government objectives, including the objective of having 50 per cent of young people in higher education by 2010. If the Minister confirms those figures, will she say how the Government intend to do something about those gaps?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, let me talk about the investment that the Government have made in higher education. We plan to increase that investment by£412 million this year and by£268 million in 2002–03. I am well aware of the needs of universities, not least the University of Birmingham, where the noble Lord is Pro-Chancellor. I am well aware of the research allocation that that university has been able to obtain—currently£29 million, I believe. It is rated as the fifth richest university in the country. That is no doubt a tribute to the work of many people at the university, including the noble Lord. As he has said, our ambition is to
124
increase the number of young people—and older people—who are able to come into universities to 50 per cent. We will do that by working closely with the universities and the review will form part of that process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what do those percentages mean in real terms for the universities? Will the Minister also tell the universities the Government's response to the Bett report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government have talked to the Bett committee and our spending plans in response to it include£50 million in 2001–02, rising to£110 million in 2002–03 and£170 million in 2003–04 to assist with the recruitment and retention of key personnel. That is a major part of what the Bett committee has been interested in. Noble Lords will know of our manifesto commitment to introduce golden hellos for new lecturers in shortage subjects. Those are significant contributions to the debate.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to confirm the report in the Times Higher Education Supplement this weekend that any funding to assist students will not be at the expense of university funding generally? If so, that is welcome. Does she agree that if we are to solve the problems of student funding, there must be some new money up front, even if it is to be paid back at a later date through some form of taxation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the question of funding for institutions is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the spending review. The review of student finance will report in the new year. I do not wish to say anything to pre-empt that. However, noble Lords will be aware that the Government are taking the issues seriously. The problems of debt and perception of debt can be a barrier to the take-up of higher education, particularly among lower socio-economic groups. Addressing that is one purpose of the review. We want to get more children from less privileged backgrounds into higher education. We will start from the principle established in 1998 that those who benefit financially from HE should contribute to the cost.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the deficit facing the universities is in the region of£900 million. The Government's present proposals do not come near to meeting those problems. Does the Minister have any real proposals to cope with the problems of recruitment and retention in the universities, which are becoming extremely difficult?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am well aware of the problems facing universities.I have

125
already referred to our manifesto commitment for a golden hello scheme, which we believe will make a contribution to solving that question. I have read the noble Baroness's speech from the debate last week and recognise her contribution. We will address the issues of funding and of how universities will help us to develop towards our 50 per cent target in the work that we are doing as regards the Chancellor's next spending review.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's comments about the lower socio-economic groups. Will she underline her awareness of the fact that in universities such as Huddersfield, where I am a member of the council, the complexity of the present student finance situation puts people off applying? As she has said, they come from groups where no previous member of the family has been at university. In universities such as Huddersfield or Portsmouth, that starts to undermine the financial viability of the whole university. Will she give an assurance that universities such as these will be consulted by the Government?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the system to which the right reverend Prelate referred has, indeed, been described as a "nightmare". Simplification is absolutely paramount to this review.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the Minister indicated that a contribution from the students is still on the cards. Do the Government see an advantage in looking at the experiences of, say, New Zealand and Australia, where a higher education contribution system has been run for a number of years?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am personally aware of some of the ways in which Australia has developed its education system. I am hoping that someone will send me there on a fact-finding mission, but I fear that that will perhaps not happen yet. At this stage, I am not able to comment on what the review will do. Suffice it to say that nothing is ruled out. I am sure that consideration of experiences elsewhere will form part of the review.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the noble Baroness stated correctly that it is the Chancellor who determines the overall figure for higher education. However, can she confirm that there will be no further reduction in the funds available in proportion for Oxford and Cambridge, which remain two of our three leading universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not able to confirm that at present. I simply do not have that information. However, I shall happily ask my honourable friend Margaret Hodge to write to the noble Lord in that context.

Zimbabwe: Election
2.44 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made through the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations and other international bodies in arranging for independent observers to monitor the forthcoming presidential elections in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, thus far the Government of Zimbabwe have not agreed to allow in independent international observers for the presidential election. We continue, through the Commonwealth, the European Union and other concerned members of the international community, to press the Government of Zimbabwe to accredit international election observers in good time for next year's presidential election. At Abuja, President Obasanjo of Nigeria agreed to raise the issue personally with President Mugabe. We welcome that.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the rule of law in Zimbabwe has been destroyed and that last week that once rich agricultural country was reduced to asking for famine relief'? Is she also aware that the question of observers is now becoming urgent because the elections could occur as early as next January? It is essential that observers are in place well before the elections take place because during that period it is likely that intimidation will occur and biased electoral arrangements will be put in place. That, at least, as the noble Baroness no doubt knows, is the clear lesson of the parliamentary elections held in Zimbabwe last year.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, knows, we remain concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe and, in particular, about the rule of law there. The question of international election observers has been raised with the Government of Zimbabwe through the Commonwealth and the European Union. I am aware that the United States has raised the matter with the Government of Zimbabwe, as have SADC members. As the noble Lord said, we want to see international observers in Zimbabwe in good time in order to ensure that the violence and intimidation which have marred other elections do not mar the forthcoming election. However, I must say to noble Lords that, if the Government of Zimbabwe refuse to invite international observers, the job will be made much more difficult.
With regard to the issue of food aid, the Government of Zimbabwe confirmed to donors on 23rd October that their country faces a major shortfall in maize and they appealed for donor support.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering that the Zimbabwean Government may well not give the lead for official observers to attend, will the international

127
community consider sanctions? I do not refer to sanctions which are aimed at aid to the poorest people in Zimbabwe but to sanctions which, for example, freeze the bank accounts of those in the regime and their families.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we continue to talk to our international partners about a range of measures in relation to Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will know that last week the EU agreed to move to Article 96 consultations. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that, in considering in the long term any move to sanctions, we need to put the interests of the people of Zimbabwe first. Concerns have been expressed in the region about the possible economic impact of such action. Therefore, with regard to the noble Lord's specific point about the freezing of bank accounts, we would certainly not want to take any kind of unilateral action. We want to work with our international partners and to see exactly what happens over the next few weeks.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have gone through this before and that, on the previous occasion, the only effect of putting observers in place was to give a sort of skin of respectability to a regime which is clearly corrupt and where the chances of a fair election are nil?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I should remind the House that Zimbabwe is an independent country. We are doing all that we can through working with our international partners, our partners in SADC, the Commonwealth and the European Union. We are also working closely with the United States. It is not clear to me what action the noble Lord considers that we in the United Kingdom can take that will prevent the Government of Zimbabwe behaving in this way.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is it not a fact that the SADC countries have laid down the most detailed rules for promoting fair and free elections and for the processes leading up to those elections? Is it not also the case that Zimbabwe has signed the document agreeing those rules? Therefore, is there not an opportunity for the other countries of southern Africa, with much more vigorous support from us than has been the case thus far, to put pressure on Zimbabwe to develop some kind of fair elections before frenzied looting and the collapse of the rule of law finally destroy that country completely?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with that. SADC leaders visited Zimbabwe on 10th and 11th September, and they shared their concerns with President Mugabe. They intend to have a follow-up visit. At Abuja we discussed our concerns about the situation in Zimbabwe with our Commonwealth partners. I myself participated in the follow-up visit. We made our concerns clear to the Zimbabwean
128
Government. Until they begin to put concerns about their own people first, I say again that we cannot force them to have international election observers.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are severe dangers in the current situation? The current difficulties have been exacerbated by the strident calls for severe action, but no one has spelt out what that means. Does she also agree that views have to be expressed to President Mugabe perhaps more stringently than previously, and especially through his friends? One difficulty that my noble friend has as a Minister is that she has to work through the Commonwealth. Frankly, the statement by the Commonwealth mission that recently went to Zimbabwe makes it clear that it received conflicting reports of violence and intimidation. That does not work. What mechanism—I ask this genuinely—can there be to find out precisely what is happening, instead of relying too much on hearsay, as often happens?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that there are dangers in the current situation. I am aware that, to use my noble friend's phrase, the friends of President Mugabe have been involved in discussion and conversation with him for some time. On my noble friend's suggestion of a mechanism to deal with conflicting reports, a UNDP mission will go to Zimbabwe in mid-November. It will spend considerable time in the country finding out exactly what is happening on the ground. The intention is that that mission will include representatives from the EU, the Commonwealth and the United States. My hope, which I believe is shared by the international community, is that when its report is published, any concerns that it expresses will be seriously taken up by the Zimbabwean Government.

World Trade Organisation
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to persuade the World Trade Organisation, when agreeing and applying its rules, to incorporate appropriate environmental and social criteria on an equal basis to economic criteria.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government have long recognised the importance of launching a new trade round—especially so since 11th September. We also recognise the importance of environmental and social considerations in the development of economic policy. At the WTO Ministerial Conference, we are supporting the European Union's call for clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures to protect the environment. We arc also

129
seeking clearer confirmation of WTO participation in an ILO-led dialogue on the social dimensions of globalisation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that it is disappointing that the text of the negotiating agenda in Doha does not specifically address either of those issues? How will the Minister judge the success of that round of talks? If the agenda fails to address the concerns of the 49 poorest countries, it will have failed to address the concerns of environmentalists and the concerns in which she said the EU is interested. It will then be hard to see for whom the agenda has been a success.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, no one is making a secret of the fact that we face some extremely difficult negotiations at Doha. I would not wish to leave any noble Lords under any illusions on that front. It is true that the United Kingdom would like language in the Doha declaration that actively supports the work of the ILO. In particular, we want a cross-reference between that and the WTO, which has a strong regulatory system.
On environmental issues, I hope that the noble Baroness understands the enormous difficulties that we face with regard to developing countries. There are questions about multilateral environmental agreements, about eco-labelling initiatives and about the precautionary principle, all of which are important to the EU and all of which are regarded as protectionism under another name by developing countries. The way in which we negotiate on those issues will be hugely important. At the same time, we must keep a balance with developing countries with regard to their serious worries about the way in which the WTO is developing.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I notice that my noble friend used the word "globalisation" in her Answer. For what it is worth, my experience—I have had recent discussions in India—is that we could help to remove some misunderstandings between the North and the South if all concerned acknowledged that the title "World Trade Organisation" is becoming something of a misnomer. The WTO is engaging increasingly with rules on direct investment—in other words, with rules on many of the activities of multinational corporations. Those rules will embrace a mutuality of interests with reciprocal rights and responsibilities in a broad field.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I make it clear that when we speak about developing countries, we are speaking about a wide variety of countries that, within themselves, have differing interests. For example, the differences between Africa, south-east Asia, South America and the Caribbean are very clear. My noble friend is right to say that international trade is much more complex than the mere arrangements surrounding the exchange of
130
goods. I point out, however, that the WTO is not a global governing body—no member government, so far as I am aware, want it to be. For example, in relation to the aim of including negotiations on the environment, it is not for the WTO to set environmental standards but to try to clarify the relationship between environmental protection and trade rules. We have enough on our plates for this trade round without being twice as ambitious by trying to change the WTO's name.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does the Minister agree that agricultural subsidies will be of prime importance at the forthcoming ministerial meeting? That issue will affect developing countries, to which she referred, and it is also an issue within which environmental and social issues can be embraced.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I certainly agree that agriculture will be of prime importance in the trade round; that matter is raised with the UK by many developing countries, and our friends in the USA have a great deal to say to us on the subject. Several members of the Cairns Group have also been robust in the arguments that they put to us. We fully support further liberalisation of agricultural markets in order to sustain development and economic world-wide growth. We shall argue robustly in relation to all of the issues that we have often discussed in your Lordships' House, particularly with regard to the common agricultural policy. We shall do that through the EU. I am sure that that, too, will take much time, effort and expertise in the coming days.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further? She mentioned the importance of agricultural discussions in the next round of the WTO. Does she accept that it is hugely important that all governments—whether they are developing governments or established governments in the widest sense—speak the same language? A current problem is that the United States accuses the EU of subsidy, but the Americans and some other countries have a very effective safety valve that they apply themselves. Surely it is high time that we all spoke a common language.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. I wish it were as easy as declaring that we should all speak the same language and that everyone should sit around a negotiating table and agree that, but I believe that it will be a great deal more difficult than that. To those who doubt the value of this trade round I say that if this trade round does not take place we will not have even the opportunity to speak the same language on agriculture. While I accept the enormous range of difficulties that all noble Lords are able to adduce—having worked on this for a number of months I am able to adduce them myself—I believe that the opportunity to launch a new trade round is the best shot we are likely to have at sorting out some of these complex issues, not least the agricultural ones.

Farmers: Environmental Regulation
3 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their commitments, made in response to the Better Regulation Task Force report on Environmental Regulation and Farmers, why they are continuing to place environmental regulatory burdens upon farmers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, developing an environmental regulatory framework for agriculture has been, and will continue to be, necessary. However, we are working to ensure that any regulation should be targeted so that it achieves the necessary safeguards while allowing the maximum flexibility and imposing the minimum burden on farmers and on landowners.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I remind the House of my family's farming interest. Can the Minister tell the House how many former MAFF personnel were moved from work on direct consultation and implementation to work associated with the foot and mouth outbreak? How many have been moved back and to what timetable are they working? Can the Minister also quantify the effect that the foot and mouth outbreak has had on the progress of the four environmental directives that are awaiting implementation and a further three that are still being discussed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Baroness the precise number of staff who have been moved into and out of work in relation to the foot and mouth epidemic. It is clear that some work has been delayed as a result of the transfer of staff to duties connected with the foot and mouth outbreak. The bulk of those are now back in place.
On the directives, in some cases we are under time pressures from Europe. Therefore, work in those areas has been less affected than work in other areas. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that how we deliver regulation, as distinct from creating any new regulations, should now be addressed.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I understand that a range of agencies impose regulations on farmers. Is the department doing anything to reduce the number involved to a single regulatory body?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with that objective. It is clear that frequently farmers regard the number of agencies with which they deal as a serious burden, as distinct from the fact that they recognise that the regulations themselves are necessary. Within DEFRA we have attempted to rationalise all the regulations and regulatory activity relating to IACS payments. The Environment Agency is looking at bringing together some of the approaches
132
that it operates under different environmental directives. In the long term it would be helpful if we could move closer to a one-stop shop, or a whole-farm type of approach to certification. The Government are addressing that and I am sure that the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food will also address that issue.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, some of the officials referred to by the noble Baroness were moved out of their jobs because they were simply incompetent. Why should they be moved back into the same posts?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that the people to whom the noble Baroness referred—those working on improving the regulations— could possibly fall within that category. There may be instances when people have been moved to priority jobs, simply because the pressure on all staff in the department has been so substantial during the foot and mouth epidemic that their previous work had to be reduced in priority. No implication of competence or incompetence was involved in those moves.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, Recommendation 6 suggests that money should be moved out of direct subsidy and into environmental incentives to a much greater degree. Can the Minister tell the House to what extent that has happened over the past year and to what extent he expects it to happen over the next year, having regard to the current incredibly low level of only 7 per cent towards environmental incentives?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is addressing the issue of the common agricultural policy payments rather than what happens under regulation. In relation to the payments for the agri-environmental schemes, she is correct. We are talking about approximately 7 per cent, which is a significant improvement on the previous year. It will grow more rapidly to roughly double that size over the next two or three years.
Of course, there are other mechanisms for trying to transfer money from direct production subsidy into environmental and broader rural development issues. We are starting to engage in modulation, which will grow as a proportion of the direct production subsidies in those regimes. Moreover, in the medium term one of our main priorities, in the renegotiation of the CAP, is that we shift expenditure from the first pillar—production-related subsidies—into the second pillar to deal with those wider issues. However, that will take place in the longer term and will depend upon the midyear review and eventually the post-2006 form of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many farmers spend more time filling in forms than farming? Does he also have sympathy for all the trees involved?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is the same issue as that addressed by my noble friend Lady Hilton. I believe

133
that there is a common recognition that farming has to face up to its environmental responsibilities and that, therefore, regulation is appropriate. However, the way in which that regulation is imposed leaves a lot to be desired and, therefore, the range of form-filling, the quantity of inspections and the different regimes with which farmers have to deal, need to be rationalised. I accept what lies behind the question posed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have reached the end of Question Time.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Baroness Williams of Crosby be appointed a member of the following Committees, in the place of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: House of Lords' Offices, Liaison, Privileges, Procedure of the House and Selection.—(The Chairman of Committees. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone. )
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Functions of existing regulators ]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved. ]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 4, leave out from "functions" to end of line 6.
The noble Baroness said: As we have constantly been reminded, this is a paving Bill to set up Ofcom in preparation for it assuming the functions to be set out in the substantive Bill. The existing regulators have a duty to assist Ofcom, to liaise with it and to give guidance and advice with regard to the proposed structure and the future operation of the new super-regulator. They will need to discuss with Ofcom the
134
best way to implement the new regulatory regime which it is expected that the substantive Bill will produce.
We are also concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—he mentioned the point on the first day of the Committee stage—about the role of the seconded staff. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee how Ofcom will deal with the competing issues of which staff are to be seconded from which regulatory body to carry out whichever function.
We are concerned that during the setting up of Ofcom money will be requested from the existing regulators, while at the same time they will be expected to continue to perform their function unabated. During that interim period, Ofcom will not be operational and will not take over any of the functions of existing regulators, so it can be assumed that any money provided will result in extra costs to the communications industry. The existing regulators would in effect be asked to pay for a shadow regulator that may never come into existence, if the substantive Bill is not passed. I remind the Committee that paragraph 24 of the Explanatory Notes states that the extra transitional costs of establishing Ofcom will be of the order of£5 million. There is no justification for the sort of creative accounting that the provision authorises to subsidise that figure—for subsidy it surely is. It is like asking a condemned man to pay the hangman for the rope.
Indeed, the Explanatory Notes admit that that is the object of the provision. They state:
'By adding to the existing regulators' statutory functions, the Bill will allow the existing regulators to recover a proportion of the establishment cost from the communications sector. These powers will mean that the net cost to public expenditure will be significantly less than the overall gross cost of the practical transition".
In other words, we have the hands of the Treasury trying to get something for nothing. Although the transitional costs will be kept from public expenditure, because we cannot get anything for nothing, it will be the communications industry that has to pay—twice. It will have to pay once for the existing regulators' current function and once for the duplication of function during the transitional period.
I shall read a final quotation from the Explanatory Notes:
"In the long term this Bill and the subsequent Communications Bill is expected to have little impact on net public expenditure, but will be more fully assessed in the draft Explanatory Notes which will accompany the draft Communications Bill".
In other words, "Trust us. We are the Government and we know what we are doing". Since a communications Bill was promised in the 1997 manifesto, all that the Government have done is dither. We certainly do not yet have the Bill. There is no real evidence of what is to happen, but we are told that all will become clear when we have the real communications Bill and the real Ofcom—not the virtual Ofcom with which we are being presented. We do not want to give Ofcom a blank cheque or carte blanche to tax the existing regulators and, through them, the communications

135
industry and consumers. That could be detrimental to the existing regulators who are at present fulfilling their functions. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The power provided to existing regulators in Clause 3(3)is a general one, to enable them to do such things as appear to them to be conducive to the duty placed on them by the Bill to help Ofcom to prepare itself. The provision sets out some examples of the type of things existing regulators might do under that power—for example, making payments to Ofcom, seconding staff and providing information.
It may help the Committee if I provide some examples of where the existing regulators might make use of the provision. They might make payments to Ofcom to help with the costs of obtaining specialist advice. Relevant information might be provided—perhaps on holders of particular types of licences—to enable Ofcom to prepare for the smooth transfer of responsibilities. They might second staff to Ofcom who have a particular expertise—in information technology procurement, for example—that would be needed by Ofcom during the transition.
To answer the question posed by the noble Baroness about how such decisions will be made, that will be a matter for the embryonic Ofcom that the Bill will set up, working with the existing regulators—after all, that is the whole purpose of the Bill—to decide what makes sense and where such secondments are useful. There will be sensible discussion about what is needed in the transitional period. Such decisions will be for Ofcom, along with the existing regulators.
The list in Clause 3(3) is not, of course, all-inclusive. Removing the references would not prevent the existing regulators from deciding to do such things. However, retaining the provision makes clear the type of thing that they could do, should they so decide. It may be helpful if I set out in writing for the noble Baroness greater detail of how the finances will work, so I shall do so, in so far as we are clear about it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation, and look forward to receiving her written explanation in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved. ]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved. ]
3.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Winding up of OFCOM on abandonment etc of proposals ]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 35, which is purely consequential to it.
Clause 4 deals with the winding-up of Ofcom in certain circumstances. It is paradoxical to find in a paving Bill setting up a body provisions to wind it up before it even begins to operate. Why should the Government need the power to wind up Ofcom merely because they have modified their proposals to regulate the communications industry? Either a communications Bill will be proposed, pursuant to Clause 2(3), or it will not. If not, Ofcom will be wound up in any case.
Subsection (1)(b) is therefore unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister will explain in what circumstances it could become effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I had thought that including the subsection would help the Committee, rather than the reverse. I remind the Committee that the Government hope that the powers in the clause will never have to be used. We do not intend to have to use them. They are included in the Bill simply to reassure the Committee that we have a sensible way of dealing with a situation in which the whole project of regulating the sector through Ofcom had, for some completely unforeseen reason, to be dropped. I cannot give the noble Baroness a list of such reasons, because I am optimistic that we will never be in such a situation. The clause provides reassurance.
Amendment No. 31 would confine the use of the power to a case in which at least one proposal to confer powers on Ofcom had been abandoned. While it is difficult to discuss the matter in the abstract. there could also be a case in which a series of proposals to confer functions had been watered down to the point at which the Secretary of State decided that there was no longer value in proceeding with Ofcom. It would be appropriate to be able to wind up Ofcom in such a situation.
As I believe this to be a probing amendment, what I have said may be of no great significance.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for her explanation. She is right that the amendment is a probing amendment, because I could not think of any circumstances in which Clause 4(1)(b) would be necessary. Either a Bill will come forward or it will not; if it does not, Ofcom will be unnecessary, so I could not see the need for the subsection. However, given the Minister's brave attempt to give some kind of explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert "or
(c) the switching-off of all forms of terrestrial analogue communication,"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 4(1) lays down the conditions under which Ofcom may be wound up by

137
the Secretary of State. The two conditions mentioned in the Bill are,
"the abandonment of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications"
and,
"the modification of any such proposals".
Presumably they have been included in the Bill because there will be such important changes in the communications environment that the Government expect Parliament to agree that it would be right to dismantle Ofcom.
Another dramatic change is on the cards for the communications industry and it might have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to consider the position of Ofcom as it is constituted in the Bill. I have tabled the amendment because I want to probe the Government on how the implications of analogue switch-off might impact on Ofcom.
Everything we are discussing in the paving Bill is set on the presumption that we are moving inexorably to the full implementation of the digital age. We all assume that it is not a question of if but of when. Can the Government give the Committee guidance on when they will take the step which is eagerly awaited by the communications industry? The industry is concerned that if the Government do not set a date, there will be no impetus for consumers to switch to digital.
In the meantime, consumers carry on buying new analogue television sets and a huge proportion of the television sets sold last Christmas were analogue, not digital. Consumers are buying analogue sets which may soon become useless. But, rightly, consumers want to be assured that before they take the gamble of switching en masse to digital it will be both affordable and available, regardless of where they live. They also want to be assured that they will be able to receive a digital signal on all their television sets. I am sure that Members of the Committee are among general members of the public who, when buying a new television set, relegate the existing one to a study or bedroom. I understand that in this country there is now an average of four television sets per household. What will happen at switch-off when people have not changed to digital perhaps because they cannot afford it or because they own more than one set?
The take-up of digital television is steady and slow but it is by no means overwhelming. There are therefore serious problems about the if and the when of analogue switch-off. So far the Government have indicated that it might take place between 2006 and 2010, although some members of the industry have predicted that it could be as late as 2018. I notice that yesterday in another place the relevant Minister, Dr. Howells, repeated the dates 2006 to 2010 as being possible.
We are all aware that the recent problems surrounding the sale of the 3G licenses have given the industry and the Government worries about what may happen when analogue is sold off by the Treasury. Analogue switch-off will be a dramatic change in the
138
communications environment and I therefore believe that it should be a reason for the Secretary of State, under Clause 4, to consider winding up Ofcom. As I said earlier, this is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I must congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on managing in such an ingenious way to secure a debate on analogue switch-off. She has tabled an amendment which would abolish Ofcom on the assumption of analogue switch-off. My noble friend said that it is a probing amendment. I am delighted to hear that because the last thing we would want is to have Ofcom abolished when analogue switch-off finally happens.
However, as my noble friend has been so ingenious in tabling her amendment, I am sure that as always the Minister is prepared to answer a couple of questions. No doubt, she will say that analogue switch-off will be addressed in the main communications Bill, but perhaps I may enter a short plea.
The Government have rightly set out a number of steps that they would require digital television to take before they consider analogue switch-off. It would be based on issues such as coverage, the number of analogue sets in the country and so forth. However, in order for those steps to be taken there must be an end date. One that is as wide as has been suggested will not help the industry to focus on when the changeover needs to take place. I believe that the gap between 2006 and 2010 is too wide and needs to be narrowed.
The industry needs clarity as regards the steps which are required to be taken and a date. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I realise that it will be no part of this Bill, but I take the opportunity to make that plea.
Lord Lipsey: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has laid such a tempting bait that I cannot help darting after it. I am reasonably confident that the amendment will never take effect because, as the Minister said, we shall have a full-scale communications Bill—touch wood, if there is any in this Chamber—and because I believe that all the tough talk of analogue switch-off is for the birds.
I know why the industry wants Ministers to continue with such talk; so that consumers are frightened into going out and buying digital television sets. The truth is that were any government to render redundant the television set in my daughter's bedroom and in the bedrooms of millions of daughters up and down the country, that would be their poll tax mark II. It simply is not practical.
I should like us to stop talking about analogue switch-off, therefore, and to start to talk about digital switch-on. We should make sure that the industry is organised to provide a range of digital services which are utterly compelling to every consumer who wants to buy a new set. I believe that that involves a deepening and broadening of the BBC's efforts in the field, made possible by the increased efficiency of the corporation in recent years and by the additional money granted to

139
it by the Davies panel, of which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and I were members. There must be a compelling offering to those who have not taken up the increasingly attractive, although somewhat less than high-grade offering, from the commercial sector. Let us have less talk of analogue switch-off and more talk of digital switch-on.
Lord Crickhowell: In making a couple of brief points I declare an interest, as I have on previous occasions, as the chairman of HTV. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who I see in her place, on her appointment as deputy chairman of the ITC and therefore my regulator. I look with proper respect in her direction.
I have a good deal of sympathy for what has been said about positive measures as well as negative ones. However, a number of other countries, including, for example, Finland, have come forward with earlier dates than those we are contemplating and are making more satisfactory progress. If satisfactory solutions for the transfer are not reached, we shall get ourselves into a terrible mess. Whatever industry there is to be regulated by Ofcom, it may be very different from the one we have at present.
I believe that as many as 4 million analogue television sets were sold in this country last year. It is a large number. We are therefore going down a road of considerable chaos and confusion and it is likely to get worse. I realise that we are dealing with a probing amendment of some ingenuity, but there is a serious point to be made and it is urgent that the Government consider a total and comprehensive examination of the issue. Otherwise Ofcom will have to deal with an industry in crisis.
Baroness Blackstone: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I was slightly surprised to see the amendment in the Marshalled List but I congratulate the noble Baroness on her ingenuity. However, I shall not rise to the bait and get into a long debate about digital switch on, off or over.
Clause 4 provides that if the Secretary of State considers that it is no longer necessary for Ofcom to continue to exist because of the abandonment or modification of relevant proposals about the regulation of communications, she may, by order, provide for its winding up. The proposed amendment would broaden greatly the circumstances in which that power could be exercised to include a specific sphere of its transferred regulatory responsibility; the incidence of terrestrial analogue communications being switched off. However, as the noble Baroness has openly admitted, that was a device for initiating a speech about moving from analogue to digital services.
I can only reiterate that, as my honourable friend Dr Howells said yesterday in another place, our aim is to achieve these criteria within the time-frame of 2006–2010. That is quite challenging. However, we anticipate that with a successful alliance between the Government, the industry and consumers, within the
140
framework set out in the digital action plan—I shall not go into that today—we shall be able to meet the criteria.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, thought that we needed to narrow down the time-frame. At this point it would be dangerous to do so, for a whole variety of reasons, one of which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I am not sure that I would go as far as the noble Lord did in suggesting that analogue switch-off is just for the birds. He may one day have to eat those words. However, I entirely accept that before we go down that road it is important that we go through the whole series of tasks set out in that plan. I hope that that will be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
We have certainly made clear that full switch-over—I think that that is the right term to use—will take place when and only when the tests of availability and affordability are met. We believe that that could start to happen as early as 2006 and could be completed by 2010. More than that at this point in time I will not say.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their comments. I hope to stretch my ingenuity on even more serious subjects in our later debates on the Bill.
My intent was not wholly or in major part mischievous. I am not trying to ferment a rebellion by teenagers around the land who may be alarmed at losing their bedroom programmes. Certainly, the amendment sought to focus our attention on the fact that, as my noble friend, Lord Crickhowell, commented, the Ofcom that we are creating today may end up in the future regulating a very different communications and telecoms environment. I said that this was a probing amendment. Such it was. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 33 is a simple amendment. We suggest that on page 4 at line 24 the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall". We assume that the use of the word "may" in the clause is a drafting error. The Bill is based on the premise that there will be a communications Bill. That will amalgamate the functions of the existing regulators into the person of one super regulator—Ofcom.
If the project for some reason is abandoned. Ofcom will have no reason to exist. It must be wound up. It cannot be left. Therefore, it is not "may" be wound up at the Secretary of State's discretion as stated in Clause 4(1)(b). We certainly do not want to have an unused and redundant regulator hanging around, eating up public money—perhaps like another Millennium Dome.
The amendment removes any ambiguity and ensures that if there is no need for an Ofcom then it must be wound up. If our amendment is successful, Clause 4(1)(b) would read:
"he shall by order provide for the winding up and dissolution of OFCOM".
I said that the amendment was simple. It has a simple purpose. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In order to understand the amendment, we must look at both subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4. Subsection (1) states that if, in consequence of various things,
"it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary for OFCOM to continue to exist, he may by order provide".
The noble Baroness rightly described that. However, subsection (2) goes on to state:
"If, in consequence of anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)…it appears to the Secretary of State at any time after the end of 2003 that it is no longer necessary for OFCOM to continue to exist"—
Members of the Committee will notice that the wording is parallel—
"it shall be the Secretary of State's duty to make an order under that subsection providing for OFCOM to be wound up".
In other words, the Bill sets the end of 2003 as a kind of deadline for the Secretary of State. If things were going wrong before then, she could seek to wind up Ofcom. But she could instead choose to give it another chance, even if the prospects were not very promising. After the deadline, however, she would need to be more confident that the project could be rescued in order to give it more time.
A deadline is a useful discipline. Amendment No. 33 would remove it. During the earlier period it will be more difficult to judge whether the project is making adequate progress or whether early difficulties will be surmountable. Therefore, at that stage, as the Bill states, she should have more discretion, but after 2003 she should not.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister for that clear and satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert "and he shall not require the repayment of any monies borrowed from him by OFCOM"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 34, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. They are linked. The purpose of the proposed addition by Amendment No. 34 to Clause 4(1) makes it quite clear that if the Government abandon the concept of Ofcom they shall bear the costs and expenses incurred during the transitional period. Otherwise, where would the money come from? If Ofcom is strangled at birth, what assets will it have from which to pay anything back to the Government?
142
If Ofcom follows what the Government says is its initial function in accordance with the Bill, it will possess only a few desks and a handful of paperclips.
Clause 4(5)(c)(iii) contains an ominous provision which enables the Secretary of State to extinguish interests, rights and liabilities. We may want to explore that at a later stage of the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 is a probing amendment because the provision in the Bill is vague and ambiguous. It provides for the compensation to be paid either by the Government or by Ofcom. But if it were to be Ofcom, where would it get the money from? It will be provided with the barest minimum of money to set itself up. In response to that question by my noble friend Lady Anelay at Second Reading, the Minister said that,
"if Clause 4 were invoked and the whole process aborted. The literal answer is that the Government and the taxpayer would have to pay. There is provision for Ofcom to levy charges, but I do not think it could quite be used for that purpose".—[Official Report , 15/10/01; cols. 466–467.]
Do the proposed powers to pay compensation include payment to the existing regulators for the expense and disruption that they will suffer while preparing to wind up their own affairs and hand over to the now abortive Ofcom? I ask that because Members of the Committee will have noted that Clause 4(5) grants power to transfer assets and liabilities of Ofcom to the existing regulators. Why should they pay for a U-turn by the Government over the establishment of Ofcom?
The Bill states that the Secretary of State will have power to pay compensation to,
"persons suffering loss or damage".
Does that mean every person or just those who, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, are worthy of consideration? Will suppliers of goods and services be fobbed off, like the unhappy shareholders in Railtrack were with the observation, "Well, you took a commercial risk"? Do the Government undertake to ensure that if Ofcom is wound up, taxpayers will not be faced with huge claims for compensation, loss of office and golden handshakes? As regulators of segments of the industry, surely Ofcom's board will not be personally liable. I say that because Ofcom is not a limited company.
Amendment No. 40 will make sure that the Secretary of State takes into account the value of resources transferred to the stillborn Ofcom by the existing regulators. Presumably those resources will be restored to the original provider, not just thrown into a liquidation pot. We want far clearer indications from the Government of who pays what, with what and to whom in the event of Ofcom being prematurely wound up—however remote the Government believe such an eventuality to be. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness's closing remarks sounded like a limerick that it would be improper for me to repeat in this Chamber. I will talk to the noble Baroness about it afterwards.
The noble Baroness quoted me correctly from Second Reading when, in summary, I said that if Ofcom were wound up the taxpayer would have to

143
pay. I meant that if Ofcom were unable to meet all its debts, the taxpayer would have to meet the deficit. It is possible that they might not entirely match. At the time of winding up, Ofcom might have assets that could be realised. In that event, there is every reason for the Secretary of State to recover what she can, provided that other creditors have been paid. Amendment No. 34 would prevent that happening.
The converse situation would be insufficient assets to pay all Ofcom's creditors in full. The Secretary of State has power to compensate people who suffer as a result of Ofcom being wound up. The Secretary of State would have to consider carefully whether to exercise that power if Ofcom's other creditors could not be paid in full. Amendment No. 39 would remove that power.
The noble Baroness questioned whether all the fine detail of the way in which the Secretary of State could use that power would be exercised. I am sure that the Secretary of State would use that power to compensate responsibly and even-handedly. If she did not, her actions could be challenged, as can those of all Secretaries of State. There is a balance between Ofcom and the Secretary of State because by this time Ofcom will have no power to levy charges. It will not do so until the main Bill is implemented. All the money going into Ofcom comes from the Secretary of State, mainly by way of a loan. Therefore, it is right that any money left over at the time of winding up should go back to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 40 seeks to influence the way in which the Secretary of State would conduct a winding up, giving particular weight to the relative value of assets and liabilities transferred from the four existing regulators to Ofcom. I do not believe that value should be a particular factor. Abandoning the Ofcom project would leave us with the four existing regulators, together with the Radio Communications Agency, to continue their existing functions. They are all part of the statutory apparatus. It is not like a commercial merger of companies with shareholders.
The Secretary of State should decide, subject to the reasonableness test, the best way of redeploying assets to maximise the efficient and effective conduct of the existing and surviving regulator regime. Valuing transferred property should have nothing much to do with it. I hope that that is enough to persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation, particularly with regard to Amendment No. 34. I was concerned to know where the money for Ofcom was to come from and therefore who would get it back. The noble Lord made it clear that Ofcom would only have the money that came from the Secretary of State in the first instance and it would be appropriate for the money to be returned there. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved. ]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 31, leave out "make" and insert "lay before Parliament a draft or'
The noble Lord said: When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee examined the Bill in July, it made one recommendation. The committee noted that Clause 4(3) applied the negative procedure to the Secretary of State's power to make an order for Ofcom to be wound up. The committee's view was that Parliament should have sufficient opportunities to discuss Ofcom's fate before any such order was made and recommended that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We welcome that the Government have taken due note, as they always do in these circumstances, of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. If such an eventuality were to occur, it is only proper that Parliament should have the opportunity, through the affirmative procedure, to consider such an application by the Secretary of State.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 4, line 34, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 35 and insert ", and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House"
Page 4, line 35, at end insert—"
()If—

(a) in performance of the duty imposed by subsection (2), the Secretary of State lays a draft of an order under this section before Parliament, and

(b) a motion for the approval of the draft order is defeated in either House,

that subsection shall not be taken to oblige the Secretary of State to lay any further draft of such an order before Parliament."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved. ]
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 5 [Interpretation ]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved. ]
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
"(e) the Board of Governors of the BBC;"
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to open up the issue of how much the BBC should come under the regulation of Ofcom, although I look forward to taking part in that important debate. The proper time will be when we have the full Bill, in draft form. one hopes, later in the current Session.
This amendment does not take the Government further with regard to the BBC. Those of us who attended the first day in Committee last week will recall that my noble friend Lady Blackstone, replying to Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, went into detail on how much the BBC was already covered, or would be, by Ofcom. In those circumstances, it is strange that there is not a single mention of the BBC in the paving Bill.
I examined all the clauses that refer to existing regulators and none of them takes the Government further than they have already said they want to go. There is a strong case for listing the BBC board of governors along with the other regulators at the beginning of Clause 5. After all, the BBC board of governors is a regulatory body. It does many other things but if it does not regulate the BBC, who does? There is no excuse for the board being left out on those grounds.
In Committee last week, the Minister said that Ofcom already had blanket powers under Clause 2(3)(a), which uses the phrase
"whether by transfers from the existing regulators or otherwise".
As a great admirer of the BBC, I am unhappy to see our biggest and best broadcaster consigned to the dustbin of a catch-all phrase such as "or otherwise".
There is an overwhelming case for including the BBC board of governors in the list of regulators specified at the beginning of Clause 5. That would not take the Government any further than they have said they want to go. I want them to go further but will argue that case later. To get the BBC's co-operation, arguably the board should be listed. There is no case for dealing separately with the BBC when the Bill's objective is to bring the BBC more in line with other broadcasters. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am sure that Members of the Committee will be relieved to hear that I shall not repeat all that I said last week on this point. I wish merely to emphasise my support for the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. I too seek a way of putting a duty on the BBC as regards preparing itself for the eventuality that it might be wholly regulated within Ofcom. Like the noble Lord, I agree that this is not the occasion on which to hold a debate on whether the regulatory powers are transferred to Ofcom. I wish only to investigate other ways in which both his objective and my own might be turned into a reality within the context of this paving Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendment would make the BBC an "existing regulator" alongside the other regulators. The position for the BBC under the Bill would be the same as for the other "existing regulators". Ofcom would therefore have duties to prepare to assume functions in respect of the BBC and the BBC would have new functions as regards facilitating the implementation of legislative proposals. It would also have to prepare an asset transfer scheme if so directed by the Secretary of State.
146
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gordon and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for accepting that there would not be much point in rerunning our debate on the BBC last week. However, perhaps I may reiterate what I said at the time. I sought to outline to noble Lords the fairer system of regulation that the Government propose to introduce for all public service broadcasters. I explained how our proposals in respect of the BBC and its relationship to Ofcom fit within the overall system. I also explained that those arrangements will generally best be implemented by amendments to the agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC. We expect to make available a draft of the proposed amendments for discussion when the main Bill is discussed.
At the same time I emphasised that I do not seek to pre-empt any different conclusion that Parliament might reach in due course. I explained how the Bill as drafted already allows for any legislative proposals affecting the regulation of the BBC that may come forward. Clause 2 of the Bill gives Ofcom the power it needs to facilitate or secure the modification of any proposals concerning the BBC. Under Clause 2(1), Ofcom has the power to do whatever is appropriate in preparing for its task. The BBC's Charter will allow the BBC to prepare for implementing our legislative proposals. Therefore, I cannot agree with the comments of my noble friend on the amendment.
The phrase,
"whether by transfer from the existing regulators or otherwise",
neatly includes the BBC and means that Ofcom can prepare for transfers from the BBC or the Secretary of State or, indeed, for new functions arising in relation to the BBC. But I should like to insist once more that the BBC is not a regulator of other broadcasting bodies in the same way as are the ITC, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Commission; rather it is a Royal Charter body in respect of which the governors regulate the BBC in accordance with the terms of the BBC agreement with the Secretary of State. It is not envisaged that the BBC will need to transfer assets to Ofcom to enable the latter to exercise its future regulatory functions so far as concerns the BBC.
I am satisfied that these powers are sufficient. They will allow Ofcom and the BBC to make preparations that will be needed. In concluding my remarks, perhaps I may make reference to that well-known production from the BBC, the "Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". I am convinced that in this case we need not panic and, although we are debating Amendment No. 42, this is not the answer to life, the universe and everything; specifically, it is not the right answer for integrating the BBC into the work of Ofcom.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: In thanking my noble friend for her detailed reply to the amendment, I should say that I am still a little unhappy. At this stage I do not seek for the BBC to be brought fully under Ofcom. I simply wanted to remind my noble friend of what she said last week:

147
"Broadly speaking, the BBC will be subject to the same degree of standard setting and monitoring as all other public service broadcasters for each of the three tiers regulated by Ofcom.
The overall result will be that the BBC will be subject to greater external regulation than at present".—[Official Report , 29/10/01; col. 1271.]
In those circumstances, it seems only sensible to list the BBC board of governors which, I repeat, is a regulatory body. If that is not the case, may I be enlightened as to who is the regulatory body for the BBC within the list of regulatory bodies?
I know that the Minister is far too intelligent to remain opaque to reason for very long. I am therefore happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage, although I shall return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 23, after "2(3);" insert—
""Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport;"
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment which asks the Government how they anticipate the two government departments concerned with the Bill are going to be able to work with Ofcom. How will appointments and all the related decisions be made?
Although I speak on these Benches on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I certainly do not regard that department as superior to that of the DTI. I had to choose one department for my amendment, and so chose my own. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has picked up the challenge and tabled an amendment to define the words, "Secretary of State" as "Secretary of State for Trade and Industry". I look forward to hearing his remarks.
It is important that the Government unravel the muddle that appears to have developed from the body being subject concurrently to two departments. The Bill has a potential to disclose that there is confusion rather than co-operation between the DTI and the DCMS. For example, the DTI appears first on the White Paper, but the Statement in another place was taken by the DCMS. DCMS Ministers are leading on the legislation in this House, but I understand that the DTI made the groupings for the Committee stage. How will the Government decide on the issues raised here?
Which department will take the lead on important decisions as soon as the embryo Ofcom is up and running? Appointments will be made during the transitional stage. Who will take responsibility for them, in particular as regards the appointment of the chairman? To whom will the chairman be accountable? What will happen if no agreement can be reached on that and on other operational matters? Once Ofcom is fully up and running, how would an intractable issue on competition policy be resolved? How will the DTI be brought into the loop?
In the meantime, the simple question I put to the Minister is this: which Secretary of State is referred to throughout the Bill? The Explanatory Notes refer to
148
"she". Does that mean that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is to take the lead? The noble Lord is quite right to remind me that both Secretaries of State are women—perhaps this is an ingenious plot on the part of the Government to ensure that we do not find out the answer until later. But I am sure that the Minister responding to the amendment will not use that as an excuse.
Paragraph 12 of the schedule requires Ofcom to prepare an annual report and submit it to the Secretary of State. To which Secretary of State will it be sent? I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: As my noble friend has pointed out, my amendment seeks to probe the mirror image of the question behind her amendment. Of course I am aware that, when used in legislation, the term "Secretary of State" is generic and thus covers all Secretaries of State. When I was a Secretary of State I shared responsibilities for organisations with other Secretaries of State. A case which comes to mind was that of the Forestry Commission. Furthermore, as a regulator I was answerable to more than one Secretary of State. I have been in the position envisaged in the Bill, but it would be useful nonetheless if an explanation were offered as regards how in practice it is envisaged the relationship will work.
Conflicts can arise. I recall that conflicts flared up in the context of the National Rivers Authority between MAFF and the Department of the Environment. They did not always agree on quite important policy matters, including eventually the entire reorganisation of that body and its participation in the Environment Agency. I think that it is at least reasonable for us to probe a little into the general powers being conferred by the Bill which I am sure will cover, quite correctly, all Secretaries of State, as is the practice.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I approach this from the perspective of trade and industry matters and thus would like to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, as well as having put my name to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend sitting with me here on the Front Bench.
These are probing amendments. It would he most interesting for the Government to tell us what they really mean. For example, do they mean that a report has to be sent to both Secretaries of State? That is the issue and it would be interesting to know about it. In particular, as I have said on several occasions—indeed, the noble Lord, the Minister, commented on this point when I spoke to an amendment on our first day in Committee—if one reads the White Paper carefully, one sees that telecommunications are mentioned only 78 times, whereas broadcasting is mentioned 592 times. If one were to read the Bill rather quickly, without taking too much notice, one might think that it related only to broadcasting. Of course. I do not suggest for a moment that any noble Lord would have done that; I am sure that they read every word very carefully. However, it is important that we make it clear that the Bill was, after all, prepared by

149
two departments. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are referring to one Secretary of State—and, if so, which one—or to both.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: It is very useful to have this contradictory advice from the Benches opposite. I must tease the Opposition. Two amendments have been tabled from their Benches that directly contradict each other. However, I accept, of course, that they are probing amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked for a little explanation. I think that I can be very brief. This Bill and the Communications Bill that will follow are concerned equally with economic and cultural issues. The communications sector embraces not only broadcasting, but telecommunications, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said. There is absolutely no intention of ignoring that or of giving that extremely important sector insufficient consideration. In the light of that fact, it is right that both the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry should be involved. They are, incidentally, both women—this is a Labour Government and we like to see plenty of women doing a wonderful job in the Cabinet, as they do.
All the ministerial functions under the paving Bill relate to appointments and other general issues concerning Ofcom. The intention is that, when the Secretary of State has to discharge those functions, the two Ministers will consult one another and decide jointly. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has admitted that it is very common in government for two Secretaries of State to be involved in making joint decisions. I am sure that we will be able to avoid the conflicts that he experienced under MAFF and the DoE, as they then were, when we implement the legislation. Ministers in the two departments have worked very closely together since before the White Paper was published. I see absolutely no reason why the provision should cause any difficulties. In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has said, Acts of Parliament invariably refer to "the Secretary of State", leaving it to decisions about the machinery of government to determine which Secretary, or Secretaries, of State should exercise which function.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response. This probing amendment was merely an attempt to elucidate some of the difficulties that may well arise. There is a perception in the telecommunications industry that it is perhaps being left a little on the sidelines on occasions. I am sure that all noble Lords would be keen in future debates to assure the industry that that is not the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43A and 44 not moved. ]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent ]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert—
"(2A) No order shall be made under subsection (2)—

(a) until a bill to give effect to the proposals referred to in section 2(3) has been introduced into either House of Parliament. and

(b) unless, before introduction. a draft of such a bill has been published and is available for scrutiny for at least twelve sitting weeks of either House.

(2B) If the conditions specified in subsection (2A) above are not fulfilled, no order shall be made under subsection (2) until a bill to give effect to the proposals referred to in section 2(3) has received a Second Reading in either House."
The noble Lord said: I am aware that many noble Lords expressed concern in last week's debate on the Bill that we seemed to be creating an organisation before we had had an opportunity even to see the full legislation and let alone to debate it. There are various ways of trying to solve the problem. My noble friend Lord Lipsey proposed the highly desirable idea of pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. I found my noble friend Lord McIntosh fully convincing and very persuasive in his response to the debate. I think that he went as far as anyone could possibly go in reassuring us that the Government would try to achieve as much consultation as possible. However, he was quite right that no government can tie themselves down in advance to a particular form of pre-legislative scrutiny or a particular timetable. The route taken by amendments that contained such proposals may, regrettably, be closed off.
The amendment seeks to recognise the Government's difficulty in meeting those points. It allows us to recognise that they cannot tell us that we will have a Joint Committee or cannot guarantee a draft Bill. However, if they do not take those steps, the amendment would mean that this Bill could not take effect unless one of two things happened. First, we could have a draft Bill. I have made that suggestion for some 12 weeks and I did so on some advice, although I fully recognise that it is not written in stone. I am quite happy to listen to any proposal that the Government have in that regard. However, if they fail, through no fault of their own, to deliver a draft Bill, we can say that they cannot have Ofcom up and running before we have had at least a Second Reading in one of the Houses of Parliament on the major Bill that confers its powers. That is not very much to ask and I hope that the Government will be responsive.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 45, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and also to Amendment No. 46, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns.

151
If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, is accepted, as I believe it deserves to be, I shall not move Amendment No. 46. I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating the points that the noble Lord has just made. He spoke in general terms about why he thought that the amendment was necessary. Indeed, its details are written very clearly on the Marshalled List. His amendment clearly goes further than mine. All I can say is that he has more courage than I do, as I would not have attempted to take the proposal quite as far as he has. None the less, I hope that his influence with his noble friends will mean that his amendment will be accepted, as I believe it deserves to be. On the other hand, if your Lordships were to regard the amendment as involving a date that is too far away, perhaps I may commend Amendment No. 46, which was tabled by myself and my noble friend Baroness Anelay. It would provide the safeguard that we seek without delaying the setting up of the operation of Ofcom by an appreciable time, bearing in mind the time that the substantive Bill will take—I speak with all possible good will—to pass through both Houses.
Lord Lipsey: I was rather tempted by the amendment when I saw it. My noble friend Lord Gordon and I share a common objective to ensure that the final proposal, when we get it, comes in a timely fashion and is properly examined. I cannot agree with his comment that Ministers have gone as far as they can go with regard to the Joint Committee. Indeed, since my noble friend Lord McIntosh made his remarks, the Government have already gone a bit further, as was shown by the comments made by the Leader of the House of Commons in another place in last Thursday's business questions. I have great confidence that, in the period before Report, they will go that little bit further still to render us all content that we will, all being well, get the Joint Committee.
My other concern with this specific amendment is that it would render the Bill otiose. As I understand Treasury rules, they permit bodies to start off once the Bill that establishes them has had its Second Reading in the House of Commons. That was certainly the case in respect of the Financial Services Authority. It is not clear to me that it would be worth having the Bill if we were not going to set anything up until the proposals were introduced to one or other of the Houses of Parliament. I think that the body needs to set about its work rather earlier. The important thing is not the sunrise clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Gordon, but the sunset clause: namely, the assurances that we have had from the Front Bench that, if we do not get a Bill in the end, they will get rid of this thing because it will no longer have any purpose.
Therefore I hope that my noble friend Lord Gordon will come back to the task that we both have in mind—that is, getting the Bill properly examined by the other route—by pressing harder again for a Joint Committee, rather than by this route, tempting though I found his argument.
Baroness Blackstone: We need to move forward without unnecessary delay to create a modern
152
regulatory regime. These amendments would, I am afraid, cause an extremely unhelpful delay. Indeed, Amendment No. 46, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would delay implementation of any provision in the Bill. It is a wrecking amendment.
While I understand the concerns about undertaking a careful examination of the Government's proposals in the main Bill, I do not believe that the creation of Ofcom would close off any sensible options. The paving Bill is designed to be flexible and the planning process can be safely allowed to move forward in parallel with our debates on the substance of policy.
Either amendment would prevent us from making any appointments to the Ofcom board before the introduction of the main Bill at the earliest That means November 2002 on the most optimistic scenario. Yet, as I have made clear on several occasions, the Government's intention is to appoint the chair of Ofcom next spring. So we are talking about a delay of at least six months, and possibly longer, because we cannot predict exactly at what point in the next parliamentary Session the main Bill will be introduced.
Such a delay would be a serious matter. Appointing the chair is only the first step in the appointments process, as the chair and other non-staff members need to be appointed in order to choose a chief executive. Our plan is to have the chief executive in place by the end of the summer/early autumn so that Ofcom can start to discharge its duty of preparing. That is what this Bill is about. Either of these amendments would postpone that for quite a long time. By that time there will be perhaps less than a year before Ofcom is to start regulating, and the work that we want to get on with will have been delayed.
A lot of practical work can be done by the existing regulators and the two departments to prepare plans for the Ofcom board—the Towers Perrin report sets out a useful model—but only when the Ofcom hoard is in being can they decide whether to adopt those plans. If they want to make changes, there will need to be time at the practical level to implement them before Ofcom starts to regulate.
I have to ask myself what benefit would be gained from this delay. The paving Bill has been deliberately designed to be flexible. We want Ofcom to be able to react to changes in markets and technologies as they occur. We want Ofcom to have the freedom to organise itself internally in the best possible way to undertake its functions. So if Parliament were to make changes to the policy set out in the White Paper, or if details emerge in elaborating that policy, the practical preparations by Ofcom will be able to accommodate that.
Equally, however, as I said in Committee last week, I must emphasise that the broad principles of the new regulatory regime are fully set out in the White Paper.
The Government's proposals may of course emerge from Parliament with modifications, but I believe that most Members of the Committee would agree that the range of issues which the existing regime and the White

153
Paper address will need to be carried forward into the new regime. The objectives of competition, consumer protection, universal access to high quality diverse broadcasting and the efficient allocation of spectrum are not controversial objectives—there is agreement on them right across the board and the planning work should be allowed to go forward without jeopardising our timetable for bringing the new regime into force.
I hope that I have said enough to convince my noble friend. In Committee last week I gave an undertaking about frequent reports to Parliament on the progress of Ofcom. Given that undertaking on reporting, the explanation about the need to avoid delay, and taking into account what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I do not wish to appear ungracious, but the noble Baroness has not gone far enough. I can assure my noble friend Lord Lipsey that I in no way have departed from my enthusiasm for a Joint Committee of both Houses. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right when he said that it is unlikely that the Government will commit themselves to a definite timetable on that. If I am wrong, my amendment will be unnecessary and everything in the garden will be lovely.
But I must take issue with the Minister. Only two weeks ago, the Secretary of State in another place announced that there was to be a further consultation on cross-media ownership. That implies that the Government are not satisfied with what is put forward in the White Paper at the moment on cross-media ownership. We do not know—arguably the Government do not know yet—what the full Ofcom Bill will contain. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask that we are at least given sight of, and a chance to debate, either a draft Bill—which I hope we will get; I hope the optimism of my noble friend, Lord Lipsey is justified—or, if not, a Second Reading of the substantive Bill.
In the hope that the Government, with further pause, may reconsider this matter, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I obviously cannot speak for the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Anelay, on their amendment. I shall return to this matter on Report because the Committee is entitled to some assurance that it is not voting blindly to create an Ofcom, the powers of which we do not know enough about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I should say to the Minister that I was surprised when she called my amendment a wrecking amendment. It was certainly not intended to be. As I said when I spoke to my amendment, I thought it was rather more gentle than the noble Lord's amendment. My amendment relates to before a Bill is
154
introduced in either House and the noble Lord's amendment relates to before Second Reading, which I thought came after the introduction of the Bill.
However, as the noble Baroness is aware, I do not intend to move my amendment. I certainly wish to speak to her about it before we reach Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved. ]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule [Further provision about Ofcom ]:
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7. line 4, leave out "non-staff member" and insert "non-executive director"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 79, which is grouped with it. By way of reassurance, this is a probing amendment.
The phrase "non-staff member" strikes us as a curious term, which could possibly lead to confusion with the phrase "staff member" used elsewhere in the Bill. The amendment therefore suggests that it should be changed to "non-executive director", which, after all, is more commonly known and understood.
It may be a vain hope, but we believe that, for ease of purpose and understanding, the Government may just be inclined to accept the thrust of the amendment. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Government have referred to "non-executive directors" on many occasions. The term was used in the White Paper—the Minister even had occasion to use it during the Second Reading debate—and yet it does not appear anywhere on the face of the Bill.
By the same token, the only apparent reference to "non-staff members" outside the schedule to the Bill is an oblique one in Clause 1(3), which states:
"such number of other members appointed by the Secretary of State".
It would seem that, while it is not clearly stated on the face of the Bill, the non-staff members referred to in the schedule are intended to be members of the board—that is to say, they are, to all intents and purposes, intended to perform the functions of non-executive directors. That being so, it is somewhat confusing, if not untidy, to use such a woolly phrase on the face of the Bill to define them. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps I may indicate sympathy for the noble Earl's view from at least one person on this side of the Committee. "Non-staff member" is a very unhappy phrase. I do not know where it comes from. "Non-executive director" is a phrase that is widely known and would be eminently suitable in this instance.
Baroness Blackstone: The White Paper referred to the board of Ofcom as comprising a mix of executive and non-executive directors. The Bill differentiates between these two groups by using the simple distinction of "staff members", in the case of employees of Ofcom who become members of the board, and "non-staff members" in the case of the

155
chairman and other members appointed by the Secretary of State. The differentiation was felt to be perfectly acceptable in the case of Ofcom where the appointees are not merely the directors of Ofcom but are also its very members.
However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the view of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and with that of my noble friend. I am willing to consider whether it might be possible to change the terminology used in the Bill.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the sympathy demonstrated by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I hope that the Government may come forward with an amendment between now and Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7. line 8, after second "time" insert "(but at least every three months)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No 64, which is grouped with it.
The amendments raise the question of what happens when the Secretary of State makes appointments to Ofcom—as we understand will happen in a year or so—and those appointees have a financial interest relevant to the communications industry.
Paragraph 1 of the schedule relates to the qualification for membership of non-staff members. When the Secretary of State appoints such members, she is required by sub-paragraph (1) to ensure that they have no financial or other interest which is likely to affect in a prejudicial manner the way in which they carry out their functions.
It therefore appears that the members are allowed to have financial interests in the communications sector, but that those interests must not be prejudicial ones. How do the Government define what is to be considered "prejudicial"? Could an interest be prejudicial at one point in Ofcom's life but not at another?
I hope that the Government can today clear up some confusion about their position on this point. The confusion was compounded by statements during our debate on the first day in Committee on Amendment No. 4. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, argued (at col. 1214) that the members of the Ofcom board should have no financial interest in the communications sector.
In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, appeared to reassure the noble Viscount (at col. 1216) that his point was fully met by paragraph 1 of the schedule. But surely that is not quite the case. Is it not true that the Bill as drafted allows a member of Ofcom to have a financial interest in the communications
156
sector, just so long as it does not affect his or her judgment prejudicially—otherwise, what would be the point of the provisions in paragraphs 16 and 18?
Paragraph 1(2) of the schedule places a further duty on the Secretary of state; namely, that once she has made the appointment she will review the matter "from time to time" to ensure that the appointed members have not obtained such a financial or other interest subsequent to their appointment.
Amendment No. 48 asks the Government to place on record what they mean by the phrase "from time to time". As it stands, the definition seems far too woolly. We need to be reassured not only that there is regular scrutiny of such matters, but that it is clear to everyone at what intervals that scrutiny will take place. I believe that "every three months" would be a reasonable period for checking that all is well, and I use it as a probing measure to elicit the Government's intent.
In order for the Minister to respond to the amendment, it is important for the Government to place on record how they will define a financial interest. Are we talking about shares in a company? If so, would they be shares held by that member, by someone in his or her family, or by one of his or her friends? Is it a matter of the operation of a blind trust being acceptable, or not? Does the definition include employment by a company involved in the communications sector, whether directly or because it is a supplier?
Amendment No. 64 would introduce a requirement for Ofcom to include in its annual report a register of the financial interests of all non-staff members of Ofcom—I look forward to seeing whether we may get away from the term "non-staff member". Such an amendment to the Bill would be appropriate where a significant economic decision had to be made by Ofcom.
The standard code of practice for board members of public bodies requires that their internal regulations should make provision for the keeping of a register of interests appropriate to the body's activities. The code goes on to state:
"Public bodies should make registers of interests open to the public. They should ensure that details of how access can be obtained or available widely and include such details in annual reports. It will often be appropriate to publish registers of interests annually. Board members should in any case be required to update them as changes occur".
In the case of a regulator with such a potentially far-reaching remit, it is reasonable for the communications industry and the public to have a facility to find out with ease the relative interests of the parties making decisions pertinent to the supervision of their affairs—hence the suggestion that the keeping of a register of interests should be a statutory requirement, rather than it being imposed by the rather more nebulous means of a departmental decree. That, again, would be consistent with the promises made in the White Paper that Ofcom would be open in the conduct of its affairs.
The Government tell us that the model soon to be adopted in this House for the declaration of interests is "light touch". If that is the case, will the Government undertake to ensure that the same "light touch" is applied to Ofcom? If not, why not? I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Under paragraph 1 of the schedule, the Secretary of State is required from time to time to satisfy herself that the chairman and non-staff members—perhaps to be termed "non-executive" members—of Ofcom have acquired no financial or other interests likely to conflict with their functions. This provision is, of course, important to enable the Secretary of State to ensure the continuing probity of members of the board whom she has appointed. From everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said, it is clear that that is understood by the Opposition.
However, I suggest that it would be onerous on all concerned to require that this should be done every three months, as suggested in the amendment. We all want to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendment would involve a great deal of irritation and unnecessary bureaucracy and a waste of time and effort.
The important thing is to ensure that the chairman and non-executive members understand fully that they should not have any such conflicting interests and to allow the Secretary of State the discretion to satisfy herself periodically that no such interests exist. It would be wrong to set down in stone exactly how often the Secretary of State needs to be asking questions of this kind. Again, it would involve unnecessary bureaucracy. It is a matter of sensible good practice that we should leave this open to the Secretary of State's discretion.
We have some sympathy for the general principle underlying Amendment No. 64. However a requirement that all financial interests of non-executive members of Ofcom should be registered and made publicly available as part of the annual report would be too burdensome. It would not be necessary in order to establish the principles of probity that I have mentioned.
The noble Baroness asked for a definition of a "financial interest". Clearly, it involves anything with a financial element, including shares. The expression in the Bill is "financial or other interest". It is wide enough to include a variety of indirect interests, such as the financial interest of a close family member, and non-financial interests such as membership of a public interest organisation. I believe that the schedule is already full, by the standards of these matters, in setting out what is intended here.
At present the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, which have similar status as statutory corporations as will Ofcom, have drawn up codes of practice for members of their boards along the lines of that provided in guidance produced by the Cabinet Office for board members of public bodies. In the case of the ITC, the relevant interests of board
158
members are made available on its websites and any person unable to access the information in that form is able to ask to view it by another means.
This is simply a matter of good governance. We would expect Ofcom to adopt a similar practice to ensure that it introduces the most appropriate measures for registering the relevant interests of its board members. We agreed during Committee last week to consider Amendment No. 24 of the noble Baroness regarding inserting a reference to the generally accepted principles of good governance. I certainly would be prepared to consider this amendment also in that context.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I follow what my noble friend said but I go even further. Is it not proper—I do not suggest this should be included on the face of the Bill—that anyone appointed to Ofcom or a similar body should have the duty to inform the chief executive and, through him or her, the Secretary of State of any change in their interests which might be prejudicial to their continuing membership? In other words, should not that happen automatically as part of the process rather than by adding an amendment to that effect to the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: That is part of the good governance to which I referred. The schedule also makes clear that that is what would be expected.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and particularly for her comments on Amendment No. 64. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rightly says that it should be a matter of good practice for members of Ofcom to be open, honest and transparent in their dealings and to notify their chief executive or chairman of the changes that we discussed. I seek to establish the duty of the Secretary of State in monitoring the financial interests of members.
I am simply trying to tease out from the Minister the meaning of the woolly phrase, "from time to time". I was interested to note that she considers a three monthly check might be irritating and that it is reasonable to have a periodical check. I do not seem to have teased out any more precise term than "periodically" or "from time to time". I was intrigued to hear that the Government may reconsider Amendment No. 64 but that a register of financial interests which is considered a "light touch" in this Chamber is considered burdensome for Ofcom. However, I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall publish the guidelines which shall govern the appointment of members to OFCOM."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 49, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50 with which it is grouped.
Since the middle of September I have met many members of the industry and consumer groups, as, no doubt, have other Members of the Committee. There is one matter on which they all agree without reservation; namely, that there should be an open and consistent approach to appointments to Ofcom and that it should be based on the principles that emerged from the work of the Nolan committee with regard to public appointments.
At Second Reading the Minister said:
"We will, of course, follow the full public appointments procedures in making the appointments".—[Official Report, 15/ 10/01; col. 353.]
However, at the moment that is not clear from the way in which the Bill is drafted. This is a probing amendment which asks why the Secretary of State should not publish guidelines which will govern the way in which she makes appointments to Ofcom. I consider that that is simply good practice on the part of the Secretary of State. After all, the members of Ofcom will be powerful and influential people. Without the transparency of guidelines there may not be appropriate confidence in the operation of Ofcom.
Amendment No. 50 addresses the issue of tenure of office. How long can someone serve? The amendment concerns the appointment of non-staff members (the non-executive directors) and the chairman. The Government propose in the Bill that there should be no time limit on tenure of office and prefer to appoint the chairman and other non-staff members for a period determined by the Secretary of State at the time of appointing the member. In theory at least—although I am confident that the Government do not intend this—a chairman or a member could be appointed for life. The amendment proposes that members, including the chairman, should be appointed for a term of five years in line with the current practice of appointing existing regulators.
My amendment stipulates that the maximum term a person can be a member is 10 years overall or two terms of five years with a break in between. That would allow a person the option of being a member for five years and then pursuing other interests elsewhere before coming back a few years later, if that was appropriate, to be reappointed for a second term of five years. This simple amendment reflects good practice.
With the leave of the Committee I speak to two other amendments which are now grouped with Amendment No. 49 although they were not so grouped on the first day of the Committee stage. In so doing I hope to save the Committee's time.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 raise questions about what happens if things go wrong with the appointments made by the Secretary of State for reasons that the Secretary of State could not have foreseen. She will have taken all proper care that the persons appointed are absolutely appropriate but something may still go wrong. Amendment No. 51 requires the Secretary of State to remove a person from office in specified circumstances rather than allowing her—as the Bill does—the discretion of taking action if she sees fit to do so.
The circumstances in which someone can he removed from office are listed in paragraph 2(4) of the schedule. For example, someone may be removed if he or she is an undischarged bankrupt, has had his or her estate sequestrated without being discharged. has a financial or other interest that is likely to affect prejudicially the carrying out by them of their functions as a member of Ofcom, has been guilty of a misdemeanour, is otherwise incapable of carrying out the functions of a member or is unfit to do so. Will the Minister explain why a person who falls into any or all of those categories and is judged by the Secretary of State as unfit to serve may continue as a member of Ofcom? It is rather odd that someone whom the Secretary of State believes is unfit to serve may be allowed to continue in office. Why should the Secretary of State have discretion in that regard? Surely such a situation will destroy people's confidence in the organisation.
I turn to Amendment No. 52. The Government propose to give powers to the Secretary of State to force the Ofcom board to pay compensation in the event of the chairman or members of Ofcom resigning or being sacked by the Secretary of State. There is no indication in the Bill of what "special circumstances" would warrant the Secretary of State to direct that Ofcom pay compensation. What are those "special circumstances" likely to be?
Questions of compensation can normally be pursued through legal remedies available in the courts. Why have the Government decided to provide this alternative route to compensation in the circumstances listed in paragraph 3(3) of the schedule? Subparagraph (3) states that the Secretary of State would determine the amount of compensation, but how would it be determined? What are the limits? Is there a cap? How would it be paid? What would happen if Ofcom refused to pay? I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I want to address the tenure of office of the chairman and, I think—I am not quite sure of the intention behind Amendment No. 50—the non-executive directors rather than the staff directors of Ofcom. The Bill currently leaves the issue to the terms of appointment that are agreed. One of the concerns that I flagged up on Second Reading was the substantial need for Ofcom, like other regulatory bodies, to be independent of the Secretary of State— or the Secretaries of State in this case—so that the public can see that it is not likely to be readily leaned on by Ministers. As with High Court judges and many other people, security of tenure is often one way of achieving that.
I have not looked into this thoroughly, but there are precedents for the Government's proposals and for what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has put forward. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Utilities Act 2000, which set up the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, both contained similar wording to that in the Bill, leaving it to the terms of appointment. On the other hand, under the Competition Act 1998, the Competition Commission

161
has a provision for the chairman—and, I think, the other members, although I am not sure—to be appointed for a five-year term.
I am not sure whether I am right, but sometimes a phrase such as "not more than five years" is interpreted as a norm of appointment, resulting in appointments of five years and not less. I have already expressed my concern to ensure the independence of the chairman and other non-executive members of Ofcom. It is therefore important to me that the specified term of office should be a minimum as much as a maximum. In the case of the amendment, five years would be the outside limit of the first appointment, but there would be possibilities of further appointments beyond that to a maximum of 10 years. I am interested in establishing a minimum. I am happy if "for not more than 10 years" is interpreted as a normal term of five years, because that would give the chairman time to learn the job and settle in before starting to worry about whether he was going to be reappointed, should he so wish, which might lead him to be more cautious in his attitude to Ministers, who would determine the reappointment.
For the reasons that I have mentioned, I am a little anxious about the lack of a minimum or a norm of five years in the Bill. I think that five years is a suitable norm and I would be glad to hear the Government's response to the debate.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said. The independence of the chairman and non-executive directors of Ofcom from ministerial pressure, certainly on broadcasting matters, which are central to the running of a free and civil society, is of great importance. In my time as chairman of one of the broadcasting regulatory authorities I had my disputes with Ministers and found it a great protection to have a fixed term established in advance.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I shall speak on the opposite lines to the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Thomson, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. In my experience, if we are looking for independence and a turnover of people who do not get agency captured, it is important to have a limited period so that fresh and equally relevant blood can come in and be equally independent when dealing with Ministers.
I also draw on the experience of company boards over time. There has been a clear move towards shorter periods of appointment. The Cadbury report was in favour of quite short periods. Some boards may have argued for up to 10 years, but not many of them have more than three or four years in the first instance. On those grounds alone, I support Amendment No. 50.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I shall intervene very briefly. It looks as though we shall spend longer on these amendments than on many of the others that might have caused controversy.
162
I agree that it is politically correct to have rapid turnover of non-executive directors. It is all the fashion at the moment, but I think that it is entirely wrong. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns, because the danger is that too rapid a turnover of chairman and non-executive directors will strengthen the hand of the executive beyond what might be proper.
Baroness Blackstone: As was said in Committee last week, the Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and other non-executive members of Ofcom. The appointments will be made in line with the code of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The code of practice is already widely publicly available, so there is no reason to issue separate guidance for appointments made to Ofcom. I think that I said that on Second Reading.
Amendment No. 50 relates to the tenure of office for members of Ofcom. It is important at the outset to remember that the membership of Ofcom will be comprised on the one hand of the chairman and other non-executive members and on the other of employees of Ofcom, including the chief executive.
The chairman and other non-executive members will be public appointments. As I have said, their tenure in office will be governed by the code of practice issued by the OCPA, which stipulates that terms of appointment should be made for between three and five years and that normally terms of appointment and any reappointments should not total more than 10 years.
I have sympathy with the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Thomson, on the importance of having fresh blood and of reasonable turnover, but equally I am sympathetic with what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said when moving the amendment and with my noble friend Lord Gordon. Too rapid a turnover means insufficient continuity and accumulation of experience among the non-executives. This is a good example of needing a sensible happy medium. People should not be appointed for years and years, but neither should we have a constant merry-go-round, with non-execs being replaced all the time.
Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides the Secretary of State with flexibility in appointing the chairman and non-exec members of Ofcom to allow for operational requirements, while keeping within the provisions of the code that I have mentioned. For example, I am sure that noble Lords are aware that initial appointments to bodies are sometimes made to cover different lengths of time to avoid the appointments all ceasing on the same date. Some non-execs might be appointed for three years, others for four and others for five. It is important to maintain that flexibility.
Employees of Ofcom who become members of the board—apart from the chief executive, who will automatically be a member—will be appointed under the terms and conditions determined by the chairman and other non-executives under the provisions in

163
paragraph 6 of the schedule, though it will be for the chairman and non-executives to decide how long the services of an employee who will become a member of Ofcom will be required.
I turn to Amendment No. 51. It is important that the Secretary of State retains discretion in deciding whether to remove the chairman or another non-executive member from Ofcom. Fairness would oblige the Secretary of State to consider the individual circumstances of any particular case. Again, I believe that we must allow for that flexibility. For example, there may he instances in which a non-executive member becomes incapacitated or unfit to carry out the functions of the office for a temporary period. That may be due to illness or due to the fact that the non-executive director had for a temporary period taken on another job which was in conflict with his remaining a member of Ofcom. However, the flexibility provided in the Bill would allow the Secretary of State the discretion not to remove the person automatically from office.
The main point must be that the Secretary of State should be able to consider whether the factor—whatever it might be—which leads to a person being removed from office disables the person from performing his duties. If it does not, the Secretary of State would have the discretion to retain that person's skills and expertise after, perhaps, a temporary break.
I turn to Amendment No. 52. The power for Ofcom to pay compensation should a person cease to be a chairman or non-executive member for any reason other than the expiry of his term of office is important. Some circumstances may be beyond the control of the individual concerned; for example, where, on reflection, there is a need to reduce the size of the board. In such a case, payment of compensation may be justified. However, payments would be made only where the Secretary of State considered there to be special circumstances which justified them.
Perhaps I should add that the Secretary of State herself has no power to force or direct Ofcom to pay compensation. Paragraph 3(3) states merely that the Secretary of State may decide what is an appropriate amount of compensation. Ofcom then decides whether or not to pay it.
I believe that I have covered the main points of the debate. However, a question was raised as to whether a person who was bankrupt or badly misbehaved should be removed from the board. The power as it stands would allow the Secretary of State to act in such circumstances where removal from the board would be the most appropriate form of action to take.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving further explanation on these matters. I am also grateful to noble Lords who in particular addressed the issue of tenure of office. I certainly agree with the way in which the Minister summed up on that matter. In any organisation, however large or small, there is an inevitable tension between having people of experience and expertise who are able to exercise independence of judgment as
164
against having a sufficiently large turnover to bring in fresh blood and fresh minds. I shall certainly want to look at that matter between now and Report stage. I believe that it is a difficult area to cover.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said with regard to the discretion that should be exercised by the Secretary of State in removing persons from office. Perhaps I am encouraged that, throughout debate on this series of amendments, the noble Baroness referred entirely to non-executive members. I had hoped that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk would find proper favour with the Government.
I was a little concerned about one aspect of this issue. Perhaps I may discuss it with the noble Baroness not on this occasion but outwith the Committee. It relates to what might happen if a member of Ofcom took on a job, as I understood the Minister to say, for a temporary period which would disable him from being a member of Ofcom. At the moment, we understand that the Ofcom board is meant to be lean and mean in its operations. Therefore, I am a little concerned that the board should be considered to be able to afford to let one of its members go for any period. I should like to take up that matter with the noble Baroness between now and Report stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 52 not moved. ]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 8, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
"( ) The chairman and non-staff members of OFCOM shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, appoint a person from their number to be the deputy chairman of OFCOM.".
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 53, by the Committee's leave I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56.
As the Bill stands, the Government propose that the Secretary of State is to appoint not only the chairman but also the deputy chairman. We believe that that proposition is intrusive to the independence of Ofcom and is antipathetic to the Government's insistence that their wish is to deliver "light-touch" regulation. Surely the appointment of a deputy chairman is a managerial decision best taken by the Ofcom board rather than by the intervention of the Secretary of State. Would not the Government be better advised to have some faith in their own construct and to permit Ofcom's board to make that appointment? That is the purpose of Amendment No. 53.
Amendment No. 54 follows the same line of reasoning. Once again, the Bill proposes that the role and functions of the deputy chairman should be at the behest of the Secretary of State or the Government's appointed chairman. But we believe that it should be up to fellow board members of Ofcom to provide the direction required. Our solution, embodied in the amendment, is that the terms and conditions of the deputy chairman be determined by Ofcom itself.
In the same vein, Amendment No. 55 removes the power of the Secretary of State over the appointment of Ofcom's chief executive. If Ofcom is to be the truly independent regulator for the 21st century that the Government want, the implication that the Secretary of State should have to approve who is to be appointed as chief executive can only, in our view, undermine its independence. However, as an alternative in this context, consultation between the Ofcom board and the Secretary of State offers a shift of emphasis away from outright approval. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 56.
In conclusion, our aim in tabling these four amendments is simple. They are concerned with buttressing Ofcom's independence. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 relate to the appointment and functions of the deputy chairman. We believe that it is important that the Secretary of State has flexibility in determining whether or not to appoint a deputy chairman. At the early stages of Ofcom's development when the board will be small—perhaps with only three members—there is unlikely to be a real need to appoint a deputy chairman.
As the Secretary of State will be responsible for appointing the chairman of Ofcom and the deputy chairman will be responsible for carrying out the functions of the chairman in the absence of the latter, I believe that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State, should she decide to do so, should also be able to make the appointment of the deputy chairman. Similarly, as the deputy chairman will carry out the functions of the chairman, it is reasonable that the chairman and Secretary of State should be able to direct how those functions might be performed.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 55 and 56. It will, of course, be for the chairman and non-executive members of Ofcom to consider candidates for the post of chief executive and to reach a decision on the most suitable person. That is absolutely clear. However, when it is fully operational, Ofcom will be responsible for the collection of truly enormous sums of money. The amounts of revenue will be very large. As we have seen with the recent auction of spectrum for 3G licences, they can amount to billions of pounds. With that in mind, it is essential that the Secretary of State is assured that the chosen candidate is appropriate to carry out such an important stewardship role. Therefore, it would be proper for the Secretary of State to have a role beyond merely being consulted about the choice of candidate. She should be in a position to approve the choice made by the board. I expect that in almost all instances she will be able to approve such a choice.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for that reply—
Lord Dubs: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I am sorry that I did not manage to stand up before the noble Earl rose. I wonder whether I may make a brief point concerning appointments. I am not happy about
166
Amendment No. 53. However, perhaps I may be permitted to put to my noble friend one aspect of practice concerning appointments, even though it stems only indirectly from these amendments.
The chair of a body such as Ofcom or many of the existing quangos is not normally involved in the Nolan process of selecting members of the board, whether deputy chairmen or others. Would not it be better practice for the Nolan-type panel—it consists of people entirely independent of the body—to have present the chairman of the quango to which an appointment is being considered in order that information can be given to the panel about the detailed requirements of the post other than what is on paper?
This argument may be totally out of order in terms of the amendments. I could argue that it is not. I leave the thought with my noble friend. I do not expect the Minister to comment on it now. It would reflect the good practice which occurs on occasions. I suggest that it should become the norm rather than the exception.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for that intervention and the Minister's reply. We shall reflect on her reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 56 not moved. ]
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert "and after gaining a vote of approval from a designated Select Committee of Parliament"
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 65.
The purpose of Amendment No. 57 is to assist Ofcom and to enhance the standing of Ofcom by making the appointment of the chief executive subject to the scrutiny of an appropriate Select Committee. "Appropriate" means the Select Committee with the most direct concerns in the work of Ofcom.
As drafted, the Bill allows for a check on the appointments procedures of the board of Ofcom by making the appointment subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The amendment seeks to bring the elected representatives of the British public into the process so as to enhance the transparency and accountability of the process.
Any candidates intending to put themselves forward for the post would know in advance that their candidature would be subject to approval by a Select Committee. It is difficult to envisage any candidate who might be suitable for such an important post objecting to such a process.
The Committee will agree that a Select Committee represents, to a greater degree than the Secretary of State, cross-party views. Such a committee is in a position to stand back from the immediate political considerations underlying an appointment and seek to

167
engage the long-term public interest and the wishes of Parliament as expressed in the relevant legislation directly in the process of approval.
In the event of a vote of approval not being forthcoming, Ofcom would be free to reopen the process of advertisement and appointment. Knowing the concerns of the Select Committee, Ofcom would be in a better position to consider more carefully the criteria by which the final judgment of selection would be made.
For too long there has been a perception that appointments to the highest positions in such bodies, quangos, and so on, particularly in the area of broadcasting, have been made behind closed doors. The proposed amendment is not radical. It enhances the transparency and accountability of the process. It is on public faith in the transparency of the processes associated with Ofcom that its credibility will finally rest.
Amendment No. 65 deals with an extension of this philosophy. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen scrutiny of important bodies such as Ofcom by the use of the Select Committee procedure. Again, it will be most appropriate for the Select Committee to perform that scrutiny. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to receive and lay before Parliament the Ofcom report. It is surely a small step beyond that to allow the British public, through their representatives, a voice on the performance of Ofcom.
The public are those with the greatest interest in the success of the regulation. As such, they should have a viable route independent of Ofcom through which they can make known their concerns. A Select Committee would have the task of judging the report in the light of the express wishes of Parliament and of any current public concern about Ofcom. The committee would be able to invite suitable organisations and individuals outside Ofcom to comment on the report. The committee might also wish to offer points of guidance to Ofcom for consideration in its future activities. All of that would increase the degree of accountability and, ultimately, add to the credit of Ofcom in the eyes of the British public.
In the event of a Select Committee voting down a report—I hope an unlikely event—the sheer fact of such censure would be enough. It would be Ofcom's task to convince by action, persuasion and negotiation that it is operating in the correct manner. In time, constant disagreement between the Select Committee and the regulator would surely sound alarm bells, certainly in the press and to policy makers, and raise the question whether important changes were needed.
However one considers this new body, Ofcom will be an important super-regulator. We need to deal with this new situation, not with any radical departure from
168
current procedures, but with a thoughtful increase in the degree of public scrutiny of its activities; hence these two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 63 and 66 which are grouped with those of the noble Viscount.
Paragraph 12 requires Ofcom to prepare an annual report and send it to the Secretary of State. Subparagraph (1) gives Ofcom a lot of leeway in setting a deadline. Indeed, there is no deadline in sending the report to the Secretary of State. It is merely told to do so "as soon as possible" after the end of each financial year. That sounds very lax. How would the Secretary of State judge what time constitutes "as soon as possible". What factors would she take into account? How would anyone know what was expected to be "as soon as possible"?
If there are no clear guidelines about this, how can there be any sanction against Ofcom for the late production of its annual report? What sanction do the Government expect that there should be for late production?
Amendment No. 63 would ensure that Ofcom had to send the annual report to the Secretary of State within three months of the end of the financial year. I use that as a probing device to establish what good practice is intended to be in this instance.
The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is to require Ofcom to report annually to two committees in another place—the Public Accounts Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee. I tabled the amendment after listening to companies' experience of Oftel.
I understand that the director-general usually snakes an annual appearance before the Public Accounts Committee in another place. Although the brief of that committee is strictly financial—to ensure that Oftel is spending public money wisely—in practice, there are usually discussions about whether or not Oftel provides value for money by doing its job properly. That, however, seldom involves policy issues—it concentrates on detailed and frequently very local matters. It does not involve a thorough examination of what Oftel is doing, why it does what it does or how that relates to statutory responsibilities and current public policy objectives.
Oftel also appears before other parliamentary committees, the most significant of which is the Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place. That undertook a detailed review in 1994 of the policy on higher bandwidth services and it concluded that the local monopolies that are enjoyed by cable television companies should be ended.
It is important to consider whether scrutiny by Select Committees in another place has proved to be important and whether similar scrutiny should be applied to Ofcom's annual report.I therefore support Amendment No. 57, which was spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.

169
In relation to Amendments Nos. 57, 65 and 66, we should consider carefully the scrutiny role of Members of your Lordships' House; so many noble Lords have expertise in these areas. When Ofcom is up and running, what scrutiny do the Government believe this House should embark on?
Lord Dubs: I should have earlier declared an interest—I am chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. I am sorry that I did not mention that during my first intervention.
On Amendment No. 57, I am in sympathy with what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is seeking to do but I wonder whether he has the right target. If one is going down the path of allowing Select Committees to approve key public appointments, the chairman of Ofcom, not the chief executive, should be subject to that procedure because, as the Bill is currently drafted, the chief executive is accountable to the chairman and non-staff members. The chairman, not the chief executive, should therefore be subject to that form of approval.
I turn to the period during which annual reports have to be produced. I have on occasion been involved with that. The difficulty is often in getting the accounts audited. It is hard to get the end-of-year accounts done and to have them audited within three months, simply because money and accounts come in late. We might have a rather unsatisfactory annual report because the accounts would not have been properly audited and approved. It is for that reason rather than any other that bodies such as Ofcom will need more time.
Viscount Astor: The purpose of Amendment No. 66, which also appears under my name in the Marshalled List, is to draw the Committee's attention to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. When the Minister replies, I am sure that she will say that it is up to whichever committee in another place to decide what it wishes and what it does not wish to scrutinise. However, that, in a way, is part of the problem.
We want to ensure that the Bill will place a duty on Ofcom to account for what it has done and intends to do. In effect, the Bill should say to Parliament that it must take notice of that and provide time for it. Otherwise, things tend to get lost. If that provision is not in the Bill, Parliament could decide whether or not to take such action. Ofcom will be an important part of industry and the amendments are therefore important.
I am sure that different approaches are possible but the Government should consider the principle that Ofcom will have to be accountable and that Parliament must in effect look into, and give its seal of approval to, what Ofcom has done during the year.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borde: I want to speak against Amendment No. 57. There was logic in the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Dubs, who argued that the amendment was wrongly targeted and that the chairman rather than the chief executive should be the key figure.
170
However, I do not like the idea of a Select Committee having to approve either appointment. The noble Viscount quite fairly wants to extend the job of the Select Committee to other areas involving the scrutiny of Ofcom. The job of a Select Committee is to call before it the Minister, the chairman and chief executive of Ofcom and others and to examine them from time to time to establish what they are—and what they should be—doing. It should also cross-examine them.
However, it is wrong to mix that with the executive job of appointing the chief executive or the chairman, which implies at least partial responsibility for the appointment. In that situation, the Select Committee's job of scrutinising the work of Ofcom would be more difficult. At least some people—those who voted for the chairman or chief executive—would feel somewhat committed to what the chairman or chief executive was doing, and they would not, as it were, prove themselves wrong by agreeing to the appointment of Mr X or Mrs Y. The proposal mixes up the executive appointment role and the valuable scrutiny role, and the former would make the latter more difficult to achieve.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, began by saying that his amendments were not radical; but they are very radical because they affect the whole relationship between government and Parliament. I—and, I am sure, other Members of the Committee—have been through that in relation to at least one other Bill during the past few years. During the passage of the Bank of England Bill a few years ago, there was strong pressure for members of the Monetary Policy Committee to be vetted and approved by the Treasury Select Committee. Some noble Lords will remember that debate. I responded then—and I respond to the proposal that is before us—by saying. with my noble friend Lord Borrie, that it is not for government to dictate what Select Committees of either House should do; it is for Parliament to make such decisions.
If we are going to go down the route of allowing advice and consent—of having, in effect, senatorial approval—to operate in relation to executive appointments, we should do so with our eyes open. That is a serious and constitutionally serious step. I do not suggest that it is necessarily wrong; I have a certain amount of sympathy with the proposal, although many of my colleagues in government do not share that view. However, we should not introduce the proposal in relation to a minor paving Bill such as this one without fully recognising the implications of what we are doing.
Apart from anything else, the system has not been working very well in the United States during the past year. After the events of 11th September, it turned out that a significant number of deputy under-secretaries in the Defense Department and the State Department had not been appointed because great delays were caused by the requirement of having congressional approval of the appointments. When a new Administration take over it can take months to obtain the relevant approvals. The example involving

171
congressional or parliamentary approval of executive appointments is not particularly attractive. If we are going to have that debate, we should do so in the open and in relation to a whole range of appointments; we should certainly not introduce it in a Bill of this kind.
That is all that I have to say on Amendment No. 57 and the appointment of the chief executive, other than to note that, if we were going to adopt the proposal, it would be rather odd to do so in relation to the chief executive but not in relation to the chairman. We take the appointment of a chief executive very seriously. The schedule states that it is for the chairman and non-executives to consider the matter and that the Secretary of State should have the opportunity to satisfy herself that the chief executive is the right person for the job; in other words, we require the approval of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Blackstone made that point clearly in responding to the previous group of amendments.
On Amendment No. 63, my noble friend Lord Dubs has answered the point. Of course, the Bill is right in saying, "As soon as possible", but all sorts of things can happen, notably any delay in the audit of the accounts which would mean that three months is something of a straitjacket. If one accepts the assurance that it is in no one's interest, and it is certainly not good for the reputation of Ofcom, that there should be any delay, the amendment should not be pressed.
The arguments against Amendment No. 57 apply also to Amendment No. 65. Despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said, if we were to add the words "for scrutiny and approval", we would need to have procedures for what would happen if there were no approval and if the report were to be rejected. If we do not believe that a rejection of the report is important, the provision is not necessary.
The same arguments apply with perhaps a little less force to Amendment No. 66. Of course, it is highly likely, and it seems virtually inevitable, that the Public Accounts Committee, the Trade and Industry Select Committee and possibly the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee will want to quiz the chairman and the chief executive on their annual report, but it is not for the Government to tell them to do that. Parliamentary committees must determine their own programmes. I am not sure what is meant by "to give an account". Does that mean actually appearing before the Select Committee? It is highly likely that that will happen, but surely it is not for us to say what parliamentary committees should do.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the Minister for that full answer and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. I shall study in Hansard what has been said. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I can see the logic and the conflict that he points out. That had not occurred to me. I shall read carefully his remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 66 not moved. ]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
"Annual meeting
12A ( 1 ) No later than three months after making a report under paragraph 12, OFCOM must hold a public meeting ("the annual meeting") for the purpose of enabling that report to he considered.
(2) OFCOM must organise the annual meeting so as to allow—

(a) a general discussion of the contents of the report which is being considered; and

(b) a reasonable opportunity for those attending the meeting to put questions to OFCOM about the way in which it discharged, or failed to discharge, its functions under this Act during the period to which the report relates.

(3) But otherwise the annual meeting is to be organised and conducted in such a way as OFCOM considers appropriate.
(4) OFCOM must give reasonable notice of its annual meeting.
(5) That notice must—

(a) give details of the time and place at which the meeting is to be held;

(b) set out the proposed agenda for the meeting;

(c) indicate the proposed duration of the meeting;

(d) give details of OFCOM's arrangements for enabling persons to attend; and

(e) be published by OFCOM in the way appearing to it to be most suitable for bringing the notice to the attention of the public.

(6) If OFCOM proposes to alter any of the arrangements which have been included in the notice given under sub-paragraph (4) it must—

(a) give reasonable notice of the alteration; and

(b) publish that notice in the way appearing to OFCOM to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.

(7) Not later than one month after its annual meeting, OFCOM must publish a report of the proceedings of the meeting, detailing the action they intend to take as a result of any matters addressed at the meeting."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 67 requires that Ofcom should hold an annual public meeting at which there could be a general discussion of the contents of the report that is being considered and a reasonable opportunity for those who attend the meeting to put questions to Ofcom about the way in which it has discharged, or failed to discharge, its functions during the period covered by the report.
The purpose of the amendment is to give both industry and the public a forum in which to provide feedback to Ofcom, during its formative, embryonic stage and subsequently as a fully-fledged regulator. This amendment is based on a similar provision— I say this quietly as the Minister is in his seat—to which the Financial Services Authority is subject. The Communications White Paper states as one of the main proposals at paragraph 6.1:
"Taking full account of the differences between services and people's expectations of them, OFCOM will be responsible for maintaining content standards in the electronic media. It will develop Codes underpinned by statute for the most pervasive broadcast services, and work with industry to ensure effective co-and self-regulatory approaches to protection for other services, such as the Internet, where they are more appropriate".
So how will that interface occur? That is the point of this amendment. Part of the answer is provided in the White Paper which promises that Ofcom will establish a consumer panel to advise the regulator, the members of which will be independently appointed. As that is not dealt within the present Bill, presumably it will be addressed in the communications Bill. There is no reason why the general meeting proposed in my amendment should not fit comfortably within that system of feedback.
The White Paper also states at paragraph 8.5.3 that,
"the regulatory practice of the new body should also be appropriately informed by the Better Regulation Task Force principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and targeting".
The White Paper goes on to state that,
"We will also particularly wish to ensure that OFCOM's work on content issues is organised so that it takes into account a wider variety of interests, including the interests of different parts of the UK, and reaches consensual judgement".
In the light of those points it must be difficult to say that it is not in Ofcom's interest to have from the outset some sort of public forum in which all-corners may be able to make their views known in relation to the manner in which Ofcom has already, or may in the future fulfil its functions. That must be consistent with principles of openness, transparency and good governance. That was clearly seen to be appropriate for the FSA, so perhaps there is no reason to suggest that the impact of Ofcom's work will be any less relevant, important or interesting to the public. Indeed, a general meeting of the type proposed will be vitally important to Ofcom to enable it to assess whether the feedback that it receives from its consumer panel is realistic and accurate.
I appreciate that the Government may claim that that sort of structure can be left for implementation by the communications Bill. However, I do not see why the proposed annual meeting is not more important—perhaps vitally important—while Ofcom goes through the process of advising itself upon its own creation. The public has a right to learn and to be involved in that stage too under a system of feedback to Ofcom. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, certainly has me in her sights. She knows that I recognise her amendment from the Financial Services and Markets Act. Last year the Utilities Bill went through the House and no comparable provision for an annual meeting was put forward. I believe we have to be more flexible than the noble Baroness suggests.
If I were chairman of Ofcom—this is not an application for the job—I would want not just one annual meeting for the public, but quite a number. It appears to me that public interest in telecommunications and in broadcasting—not necessarily the same people and not necessarily at the same time—is such that public meetings of the kind suggested here for the financial services community would be entirely appropriate. I would be nervous that
174
public meetings of that sort may be hijacked by special interest pressure groups, whether they were concerned with taste and decency in broadcasting or whatever, but I still believe that one of the objectives of Ofcom should be to consult directly with the public and to secure public support.
I do not believe that that is comparable to the provision in the Bill as proposed here and as we have in the Financial Services and Markets Act. The financial services industry is coherent, with many different branches, and people recognise the relationships between one part of the industry and another. One can imagine a public meeting of the Financial Services Authority that would have some kind of coherence and some kind of consistency. I find it difficult to understand how that would happen in relation to a public meeting of the kind described here.
However, the Financial Services Authority does not come into operation until the end of this month, so we are a long way off any annual meeting of the kind proposed in the Financial Services and Markets Act. On the main communications Bill—possibly not the draft communications Bill because we will have had no experience of the FSA annual meeting, but a main communications Bill—I am prepared to consider whether that is an appropriate provision to put in the legislation rather than the more informal approach that I have described. However, I believe that it is inappropriate to include such a provision at this stage.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: As the Minister implied, the amendment addresses a major problem, especially in the field of broadcasting and communications, of how to make people accountable to those who ultimately matter—viewers of and listeners to broadcasts, as well as consumers of telecommunications. After many years of wrestling—I hope positively and constructively—with that problem, I remain sceptical about what is the best answer. I certainly do not believe that the large and imaginative idea proposed in the amendment will be an answer. For one thing, speaking as an impenitent provincial, it represents an extraordinarily metropolitan view. I doubt that my fellow citizens in Dundee would feel that an annual meeting down in London in any way met their needs.
Accountability is an extremely difficult problem. It is important that Ofcom, like the present regulatory authorities, has a duty continually and seriously to sample and react to public opinion. Done scientifically and as well as possible, that is one of the better ways to ensure that the needs of listeners, viewers and consumers are reflected. There is also a need for physical meetings of one kind or another, but, with respect, the kind of annual meeting proposed in the amendment is not the answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot resist that temptation. As a researcher all my life, I cannot let the noble Lord's praise of scientific assessment of public opinion pass without giving it my personal assent. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, ever

175
thought that such a public meeting was to be the only way in which Ofcom should consult the people. It is clearly vital that it should consult the people continually as well as once a year; I am sure that she would agree with that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wholly agree with the Minister on that point. Like other Members of the Committee, my purpose in our debates is to find out how Ofcom may be properly accountable to both industry and public. I recognise that there is no one solution. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, pointed out, the problem is almost intractable but one that we are charged to resolve during discussion of the Bill and the ensuing communications Bill.
I am encouraged that the Minister sees it as proper that we return to the matter when discussing that communications Bill—or perhaps even a draft Bill. We will have to see what is the timetabling. The Minister referred to the fact that the FSA annual meeting system is about to begin; we may learn from that experience. If the draft Bill is published well after the FSA's first annual public meeting, we may be able to consider that experience in a joint scrutiny committee of both Houses of Parliament on the draft Bill.
I cannot sit down before referring to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. He commented on the danger of any organisation having a metropolitan view. One concern that has been raised throughout industry and by the public is that Ofcom may become a metropolitan body. It may not consider the needs of the industry outside Watford—to cite the place already mentioned. Perhaps, as I live south-west of London, in Woking, I should say, beyond Watford and Woking. I am sure that the Committee would want to ensure that the needs of the whole country were considered.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved. ]
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11 line 40, leave out "may make arrangements as they think fit" and insert "must make arrangements"
The noble Viscount said: I rise to move Amendment No. 69, but I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. Deep concern has been expressed in all parts of the Committee about how the Bill pre-empts debate on the communications Bill proper. The schedule as drafted does just that. The amendment would minimise the detail included in this paving Bill. As drafted, the words "as they think fit" on page 11, line 40, raise a question. If the functions of Ofcom are to be clearly laid out in the forthcoming communications Bill, why should the shadow Ofcom be allowed such discretion to decide the nature and function of its functional and advisory committees? Surely, it is incumbent on the Government to specify Ofcom's functions first and allow for a relevant committee structure rather than to allow Ofcom to develop functions by establishing committees as it sees fit.
Any specific committees needed to advise Ofcom should be specified in the Bill—or, more importantly, in forthcoming legislation. The wording of the schedule goes well beyond that. The amendment simply urges Ofcom to act with caution. It would ensure that Ofcom appointed committees in line with what we and those in another place consider appropriate to its overall ends. As those ends have not yet been decided by Parliament we must ensure that Ofcom acts with maximum caution so as not to preempt parliamentary debate. The amendment therefore allows for the development of relevant committees, but ones that conform to the spirit and letter of current and forthcoming legislation.
I turn to Amendment No. 70. Ofcom is being set up to regulate vast areas of the media environment. It is a justifiable response to the reality of technological convergence. However, while technological convergence is real and there for all to see, the output and use of media product does not display signs of convergence to the same extent. There is hence a need, at least for the foreseeable future, for distinct areas within Ofcom with clear remits to supervise different sectors and to review and authorise work in those areas, subject to ratification by the Ofcom board.
Radio immediately springs to mind as an example. Producers will conceive different ways to market television product across various platforms, but they also take account of the different audiences for whom they are producing. They take into account viewing and demographic patterns, requirements of decency of content and appropriate viewing times. Those factors differ across different media. To cite radio again as an example, radio has a completely different set of relationships between producers and listeners from those applying to either television or Internet services. As users of media, I am sure that all Members kit' the Committee read newspapers, watch television and listen to radio, which provide us with different types of service. Unlike the technology, they have not yet converged—and, I suggest, are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.
The press are left out of the regulation of Ofcom. However, some may argue that in various areas there is little difference between the product of the press and other areas of the media. They would put forward a view with which none of us would disagree that they have a particular set of social relationships between themselves and the users of their output which would make such a form of regulation impossible.
Our amendment therefore recognises that fact of life. It allows for the distinctive needs of the different sectors to play a central role in the regulatory process. It also leaves separate sectors in Ofcom and allows for co-ordination in various areas. It allows for sectoral regulators to gain experience of working together, which will be the case for some time as Ofcom sets off on its regulatory duties. Where appropriate, it will put forward plans for more integrated forms of regulation in the future when the time is right. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I intervene briefly on Amendment No. 70. While we agree that Ofcom will

177
of practical necessity be obliged to operate via a series of committees, we believe that that is not the proper, best and most effective procedure. We believe that the detailed recommendations relating to committees, as contained in the Towers Perrin report which, after all, was produced by the regulators which Ofcom replaces, would be more helpful when the final communications Bill comes into being.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70, proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I want to inquire how far it is likely to fulfil the objectives of the White Paper to which I referred in my maiden speech; namely, that people should have,
"the right to complain directly to an independent body which is able to make and ensure the publication of adjudications",
and that,
"the right to seek such redress will be retained as an important remedy"
for those affected by a programme. I apologise for returning to the point, but it is one to which the draftsmen of the White Paper rightly attached importance.
The study of the debate so far makes me anxious that the need for independence in consideration of complaints risks being overlooked. Perhaps I may explain why. During debates on Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 on the first day in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke of the need to secure harmonisation of amalgamated functions and of a need to safeguard the interests of citizens and consumers.
The interests of citizens and consumers are not always identical. As was pointed out, consumers certainly need assurance in respect of choice, price, quality of service and value for money. All those are properly matters for Ofcom. But citizens as individuals need separate consideration in relation to complaints. There above all, complaints require—if a hearing is to be fair—independent consideration.
That point was most clearly focused by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he spoke of the existing group of regulators' resolve,
"to establish mechanisms to ensure that complaints are handled in order to avoid double jeopardy wherever possible".—[Official Report , 29/10/01; col. 1264.]
I do not dissent from that principle. It has been confusing for citizen complainants to be able to receive conflicting verdicts not just from programme makers but also from the BBC/ITC on the one hand and the BSC on the other. Obviously, it is quite likely—if not always likely—that the programme makers will reject a citizen's complaint. But it is equally obviously desirable to have an independent adjudication of that complaint, and to have one adjudication rather than two.
Therefore, I do not object to avoidance of double jeopardy at the hands of two adjudicators, but it is vital to ensure—perhaps I may put it like this—the
178
continuance of at least single jeopardy! We must ensure the survival of one place where a citizen's complaint of unfairness or infringement of privacy is assured of independent consideration. I do not see how that can be assured without being guaranteed by a statutory structure.
A slightly different approach may be possible for taste and decency matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, at col. 1271 of Hansard , foresaw tier one of the White Paper with exclusive responsibility for "overarching guidelines" on the portrayal of violence, sex and bad language. Those codes are now the responsibility of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
Even so, there could be a case—not least when the broadcaster has not responded in "a timely manner"— for independent consideration of complaints under that head. But surely there is no doubt whatever of the need for independence in the consideration of complaints relating to fairness and privacy. That requires something other than a separate tier; it needs a distinct independent agency.
So what kind of body or bodies is/are going to be established to perform the functions in respect of complaints now performed by the BSC as regards taste and decency and fairness and privacy? And how, when and by whom is that body going to be established? Will it be by Ofcom—this Ofcom—or by some other body along the lines to be recommended, presumably, by this Ofcom?
Most important of all, how is the independence of the intended body to be secured? I would argue that independence is important for more than one reason; first, because it is, understandably enough, expressly promised in the White Paper, and, secondly, because it may well be important if the new structure when it emerges is to be compatible with the provisions of the Human Rights Act. I say that because the Human Rights Act certainly appears to be relevant in other fields where quasi-judicial figures are now required to be sufficiently detached from the interests in respect of which they have to give decisions.
Finally—I do not wish to weary the Committee by trying to cover the whole field—how is the legislation intended to result in the emergence of a body with the same necessary powers that are at present exercised by the BSC? The White Paper expressly recognises that such powers will continue to be necessary; for example, the power to require broadcasters to transmit a ruling given by the BSC. So, in whom will those powers be vested? By whom will they be vested and when? Will Ofcom have any power to confer, or continue, such powers?
I believe that in order for those questions to be fully and sensibly answered, it would be desirable for Ofcom to be given some kind of steer at this stage. It seems to me that that might best be done by accepting an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 70. For that reason, I am disposed to support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the existence of a committee specifically

179
concerned with the future of the functions currently exercised by the BSC would be the best way of getting the right answer to the questions I have posed.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: It is clear that under this part of the schedule Ofcom can establish executive and advisory committees. Perhaps this is the appropriate point to reiterate the concern I expressed on the first day of Committee about national and regional interests within the United Kingdom. Those national and regional interests will not be directly represented on the board. But Ofcom will need to have regard to them, hearing in mind what is said in the White Paper and what was said at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
The importance of national and regional aspects of television and broadcasting were today re-affirmed to me by an article in the Western Mail by the chairman of the Independent Television Commission, Sir Robin Biggam. I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in her place. I understand that the noble Baroness has just been appointed as his deputy.
In that article Sir Robin referred to a series of public consultations that the ITC undertook last year. Towards the end of the article he referred to the Government's new communications legislation, including the creation of a new regulator—Ofcom. He said that,
"this will necessitate looking at the ways in which the most valued aspects of public service broadcasting can be viably delivered.
For our part, the ITC is thinking hard about how to ensure that viewers get the best quality and range of television and how to secure for the future the things they most value about ITV.
We know from our public consultations that these include high levels of original UK material, strong and popular drama, accessible and authoritative news, and regional news and other programmes reflecting the relevant nation or region.
The ITC wants to ensure that investment in UK production remains strong and that a good proportion of that is spent and based outside London".
I share totally Sir Robin's views. I am delighted that he has expressed them so clearly. It means that my own television experience, which goes back to the 1950s and 1960s, is not totally out of date.
Of course I am particularly interested in Wales. There we have the unique phenomenon of S4C. As I understand it, S4C's Welsh language output is supervised by the S4C authority. I can understand the Government's reluctance to change that. The programmes are drawn from BBC, HTV and independent producers.
The S4C English language programmes are drawn from Channel 4 and are subject to the same regulation as that channel. I imagine that its advertising, which is predominantly in English—although I am delighted to say that they do advertise in Welsh for Aspro and Aspirin from time to time—is similarly regulated. S4C also has two digital channels which broadcast Welsh language programmes and National Assembly proceedings. So clearly there will need to be liaison and co-operation between the S4C authority and Ofcom. I cannot imagine that that will be difficult as they are both statutory bodies.
180
With regard to the amendments, my sympathy is with the freedom that the Government are trying to give to Ofcom, in that they simply say that they
"may make arrangements as they think fit".
With Ofcom not yet in existence and with the detail of its work not yet worked out, Ofcom deserves all the freedom that it can get in establishing these executive and advisory committees. I very much hope that such committees will take into account the needs of national and regional broadcasting in the United Kingdom. It would be an indication of the Government's support for the regions and the nation of the United Kingdom if they gave some further indication of that in the Bill, particularly as we are to have a White Paper tomorrow which will indicate how there will be regional representation in your Lordships' House.
Lord Crickhowell: Despite the fact that Sir Robin Biggam, in the admirable article to which my noble friend referred, praised the company of which I am chairman and about which I have already declared an interest, I must say that I thought that both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, took us down a road which the Government might be justified in saying was for a later Bill. But that perhaps bears out the difficulty that we have about the Bill, which is that we are dealing with legislation that covers functions which the Government have not yet defined and policies which the Government have not yet decided. Therefore, to that extent at least, I sympathise with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, because he is really making that point.
I hope that the noble Viscount will not press the amendments as they seem to be almost bizarre. Surely the board of any organisation should have freedom to establish such committees as it needs. Even on the most practical measure, anyone who has sat on a board of any organisation or company will know that there are moments when it is necessary to set up a small committee to see that documents are signed by a given date when it is impossible to get the whole board together. There are a great many practical situations like that with which a board has to deal. Surely to goodness, when we are dealing with radical structural changes that are taking place, both in the regulatory regime and in the industries that they regulate, the new organisation would be wise to take advice and to set up advisory committees. To inhibit that freedom would be a great mistake. Therefore, like my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy, I shall support the Government on this occasion if they resist these amendments.
Lord Dubs: I agree very much with what the noble Lord has just said. Of course this is essentially a matter for the communications Bill. But even if we were discussing that Bill, I doubt very much whether it would be proper for the Bill to go into such detail about the committee structure to be followed.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding in Amendment No. 70. It refers to,
"the separate subject areas of the existing regulators".

181
The whole point is that the regulators' subject matter overlaps, one to the other. In some respects there is much double or treble jeopardy from the broadcasters' point of view because the regulators overlap in their functions. Therefore, to suggest that one can separate the subject areas reflects a misunderstanding of how the regulators operate. That is even more the case as the presumption in the communications Bill is that there will be a convergence, and the more convergence there is in telecommunications and broadcasting, the less can one talk about separate subject areas.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Far be it for me to be so foolhardy as to swim against the tide of committees. After all, we are in a committee now, although not a committee that many other committees would recognise. If there is one thing that the 20th century has left us as an inheritance, it is the spawning at frogspawn speed of committees. Of course Ofcom will have to work through committees. There cannot be any doubt about that.
Ofcom, as set out in the Bill, has only one purpose—to prepare for regulation when it is given regulatory powers by the substantive Bill. In that context, we can only debate the kind of committees that Ofcom might need to establish. To begin with, Ofcom might want committees to deal with pay, information technology and accommodation. It might want to start thinking about spectrum issues in advance of the decisions that it or the Government will have to take. Those committees may be temporary or permanent but they should not be required on the face of the Bill. That is the trivial answer to Amendment No. 69 but it is true.
This debate has produced some valuable contributions but mine has to be the "dusty answer" to those "hot for certainties"—for those who remember their Meredith—that we must wait to see what the draft Bill states, then debate it in Parliament when we consider the main Bill. I say that with particular regret because the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, made a particularly penetrating contribution—perhaps freed from the constraints of her maiden speech. I agreed with so much that she said about citizens and consumers not being identical and about the need for independence and authority in the panels or committees that will be examining the issues—which are not the same as each other—of standards, privacy, taste and decency. I commend the noble Baroness's remarks as a notable contribution to the debate that we will be having next year.
All that we say now—as we did in the White Paper—is that there should be a consumer panel. I acknowledge that there will be more, as did Towers Perrin—which, in addition to proposing a committee structure for Ofcom, suggested a content board. That interesting idea will, again, be debated next year. All those issues are properly for consideration when we consider the main Bill. Meanwhile, even at the level of the amendment we should not dictate to Ofcom—certainly not that it should establish committees on the lines of the existing demarcations or boundaries between regulators.
6 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I must reassure the noble Lord, Crickhowell, that I have no intention of pressing the amendment. I view the Committee stage of a paving Bill as an excellent opportunity to probe and open up subjects to debate. It has been a valuable discussion and, to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will become required reading as we progress with the legislation proper. I dare say that we shall hear the noble Baroness speak in detail on these subjects, which are central to the operation of the new regulatory body. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved. ]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 12, line 2, at end insert
"( ) The committees to be established under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may include—

(a) Radio Committee;

(b) Networks/Services and Spectrum Planning Committee;

(c) Networks/Services Compliance Committee;

(d) Communications Strategy and Policy Committee;

(e) Audience Interests Committee;

(f) Spectrum Customer Services Committee;

(g) Community Media Committee."

The noble Baroness said: With Ofcom undertaking such wide-ranging and technically complex activities, it will wish to do so via a series of committees, with specialised committees to advise the main board. This is also a probing amendment, to identify what kind of committees could be appropriate. All those listed in the amendment, with the exception of the community media committee, were recommended in the Towers Perrin report to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred a few moments ago.
The need for a community media committee is separately urged upon us in the briefing note from the Community Media Association that many members of the Committee have received. Although there might be a need for such a committee to represent the interests of the public, we do not go as far as the CMA proposal that the chairman of what it calls the citizenship panel must be appointed as a member of Ofcom. Neither do we seek, as does the CMA, to prescribe the membership of the community media committee. I suspect that that comes as a relief to the Minister. To do so would cause endless argument and possibly give rise to litigation by special interest groups—who might claim that they were wrongly excluded.
This little paving Bill tells us little about the nature of Ofcom's activities but one is clearly stated. Clause 2(1) states:
"It shall be the function of OFCOM … to do such things as they consider appropriate for facilitating the implementation of … any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications."
The Government clearly envisage an organisation that will function via a series of committees. We agree. Nevertheless, the Government have not specifically prescribed those committees' formation. It is merely stated that Ofcom may make such arrangements as it thinks fit for performing any of its functions by committees established by Ofcom. While that is giving Ofcom power to delegate its duties to committees, they may also be advisory. Our amendment carries that process one logical step forward.
The amendment presents a list of suggested committees in accordance with Towers Perrin and the Community Media Association. Ofcom does not have to create all or any of the committees in the amendment. Neither is that list final. There is nothing to prevent Ofcom creating further or different committees. On previous occasions, the Government have often complained about entirely logical amendments to other Bills as being too prescriptive. Amendment No. 71 is far from prescriptive. Following the precedent set by the Government with this Bill, the amendment is merely permissive.
The Bill is short on substantive content and mainly offers the prospect of jam tomorrow. It devotes almost as many lines to the subject of winding up Ofcom as it does to specifying Ofcom's initial functions. It is entirely right that Parliament should put down a simple marker to indicate its will. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: This is a probing amendment. On Second Reading, the Minister helpfully emphasised that the traditional aspects of public service broadcasting would be maintained. The problem of defining particular committees is an indication that other committees could be added. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clarify how he sees the public service broadcasting role being supervised in detail. I appreciate that Ofcom as a whole has responsibility but I suspect that specific areas of public service broadcasting—to which I refer as the traditional areas—could benefit from committees to oversee them not just in an advisory capacity but in a rather more prescriptive group.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, presses me too hard. She may think that I will promise jam tomorrow; I am certainly not going to do that, let alone promise jam today. She will have to wait and see what kind of jam, if any, will be offered.
Of course the simple response to the amendment is that it is not appropriate for us to specify what committees should be established by Ofcom. The noble Baroness knows that. Indeed, she emphasised that she has put forward a probing amendment. However, I shall expand my remarks.
Her suggestions for committees are helpful; her proposal for a community media committee is also helpful. However, the amendment does not reflect what was reported by Towers Perrin. That report concerned the staff of Ofcom rather than the setting up of committees. Secondly, once one starts to consider committees such as those set out in the amendment, including in particular the community media
184
committee, it is necessary to consider all the associated issues as regards who should comprise the membership of the committees. Should members be drawn from the Ofcom staff? Should they be non-executive directors of Ofcom? Should they be co-opted outsiders? Should they be representative of outside bodies? All those variables would have to be considered by Ofcom. hut not in a paving Bill.
It is hardly necessary for me to appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to withdraw the amendment because she has already made it clear that she will do so. However, I should like to add that discussion held in public of issues such as those raised by tabling the amendment is helpful and will aid our further consideration.
Perhaps I may respond to the points put to me by the right reverend Prelate. He asked who will be responsible for protecting public service broadcasting. I hope that he has not read the speech given last week by Mr Michael Jackson, chief executive of Channel 4. It was printed as a media lecture in the New Statesman . In it he explicitly rejected the whole concept of public service broadcasting. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate should read the article; he would find it challenging, shall I say. Ofcom will be responsible for delivering the policy set out in the framework of the Bill, but that will be for the main Bill rather than the paving legislation before us today.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Earlier I told the Minister that this was a probing amendment and I confirm that I shall withdraw it. However, I am somewhat disappointed. Not only did the noble Lord say that he cannot promise jam tomorrow, he cannot even promise it for today. The fact that he could not promise jam today caused me to start and do a double-take.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course he is right; I sought to highlight the way in which things could develop. I am glad that the noble Lord was grateful to me for mentioning the committees as set out in the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 12, line 18, at end insert—
"Citizenship Panel
(1) OFCOM shall be required to establish and maintain a panel of persons to be known as "the Citizenship Panel".
(2) The purpose of the Citizenship Panel shall be to represent and promote, in respect of the function of OFCOM set out in section 2(1), the interests of United Kingdom citizens with regard to those services deemed essential for citizenship.
(3) The person elected by its members to chair the Citizenship Panel shall also be appointed as a member of OFCOM.
(4) OFCOM shall appoint to the Citizenship Pane such persons representing the interests of citizens as it considers appropriate in order to give a fair degree of representation to civil society."
The noble Lord said: This amendment is about enabling citizens to speak for themselves. Too often that is done by others claiming to do so on their behalf.
Of course, those appointed as members of Ofcom are also citizens, but that is not why they will be there. They will apply and be appointed because they will bring to the organisation a particular range of experience and qualifications beyond and above that of the citizen.
I believe that we urgently need to listen, understand and respond to what citizens are trying to tell those of us in Parliament. The glib, easy and misleading verdict on the exceptionally low turnout at the general election held in June this year—noble Lords will recall that the turnover fell from 71 per cent to 59 per cent compared with 1997—is that it was due to apathy. But I do not think that it was only apathy. I agree with Professor Bob Worcester, the wise and respected chairman of the polling company MORI, who has argued that it more likely reflected disengagement rather than apathy. He said that interest in politics,
"has remained remarkably stable over the past three decades".
The low turnout, he said, was the result of,
"the lacklustre way the election was fought and in which the campaign was reported failed to give many of the public the stimulus they needed to turn out and vote".
I believe that we had better take note of those words as we debate how Ofcom is to be set up. Citizens must not be an afterthought, some optional bolt-on. We need to encourage, invite and make real citizen involvement. That can best be achieved by way of a citizenship panel, as suggested in the amendment. It has been proposed at the suggestion of Public Voice, a coalition of voluntary organisations that wants to make real the public service broadcasting commitments embraced by the Government.
What would such a panel do? It would supplement the work of the proposed consumer panel, which will be concerned primarily with service delivery. It would speak on behalf of citizens of the global information society on matters to do with content rather than with delivery. That content, primarily so far as broadcasting is concerned, is about information, education, knowledge and understanding. The distinction between service delivery and what is being delivered is what this amendment is all about.
But the citizenship panel would also be about something else: access to what is on offer and how any gaps in that access for some citizens could best be met. Earlier in the proceedings on the Bill we held a discussion on this point in the context of the changeover to digital broadcasting.
Few would argue with the need for a single regulator for telecoms and broadcasting, but I believe that it is vital for broadcasting properly to be recognised as being concerned with more than knobs and wires. Our broadcasting system has crucial social, cultural and democratic values that are totally distinct from the passive services delivered by telecoms. The citizenship
186
panel would ensure that the vital provision of such communications was monitored and, where necessary, improved.
Perhaps I may add that the citizenship panel would monitor the performance of public service broadcasters against their promises and would have a duty to research how the public and community groups react to their performance, and then report those findings to Ofcom, the Secretary of State and the broadcasters.
If my noble friend wants to tell me that all this will be addressed in the main Bill, I shall accept that, so long as he acknowledges and respects the need to empower the citizen in this communications revolution to ensure that all citizens are included. I beg to move.
The Earl of Sandwich: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, which follows on from his splendid maiden speech. At Second Reading I declared an interest through my connections with certain NGOs concerned with issues being raised by the paving Bill. The Minister may recall that at Second Reading I pointed out that there has been a significant fall in the television coverage of international affairs. Over the past decade, there has been a drop of the order of 42 per cent in the amount of non-news factual broadcasting on all channels.
Monitoring of the positive content of broadcasting is therefore a matter of public concern and serves as a powerful argument behind the proposal for a citizens' panel. The noble Baroness on the Front Bench knows—perhaps better than almost anyone else in the Government, given her previous responsibilities—that the idea of citizenship, including global citizenship, has gained enormously in educational terms. The proposal before the Committee, in the context of broadcasting, reflects a growing awareness of international affairs among the general public. That, of course, will be heightened by the recent events in America and the Middle East.
I turn now to the detail of the proposal. It is important to distinguish the citizens' panel from the proposal for a consumer panel as set out in the White Paper. Similar concerns have already been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. A consumer panel would advise on service delivery and important consumer issues such as pricing and accessibility. It would not be able to embrace the broader issues of positive content requirements.
I know that the Government like to bring citizenship into many aspects of contemporary life, and that is to be welcomed. However, this sets out a specific proposal to address the content of broadcasting. The citizenship panel would spend most of its time analysing the performance of public service broadcasters with regard to tier 2 and tier 3 public service requirements. It would also provide a useful focus for government and regulators to define and provide information services which could be seen as essential for citizenship.

187
Unfortunately, although the Minister earlier mentioned the content board, the Towers Perrin report places positive content requirements alongside much more practical categories such as licence fees. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will confirm that an emphasis on and interest in citizenship will eventually stand apart from consumer concerns, as sought by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. It should be recognised as an interest in its own right, a point which Ofcom would be required to take on board.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I regret to say that we oppose the amendment, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. I remember very well his excellent Second Reading speech, as does the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I believe that it was his maiden speech. I dropped him a note to say what an excellent speech it was. I am, therefore, doubly upset to have to oppose the amendment.
I oppose the amendment on similar grounds to those on which I opposed the proposals made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, during our first day in Committee. Their suggestion was simply that, if Ofcom were to appoint members of a citizenship panel, and if such a panel were, in the words of the amendment,
"to give a fair degree of representation to civil society",
its size would or could be absolutely enormous. What would happen with regard to those parts of civil society that, for whatever reason, Ofcom declined to include in the panel? I suspect that they will form a long queue at the law courts to litigate against their exclusion. What are the interests of United Kingdom citizens with regard to services that are deemed essential for citizenship? Indeed, what services are deemed essential for citizenship? The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned serious global and international matters, but other people closer to home might ask whether the phrase means more or less football on television, or more or less soap operas or street telephone boxes. I could go further. The point is that one just does not know. Is it right that Ofcom should appoint its own pressure group, to the possible diminution of the credibility of genuine independent groups that already exist or that may form in future?
I accept that the amendment was tabled with every good intention by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. I began these remarks by saying that we very much regretted that we could not support it. However, it is our view that it is too vague and too impractical to be considered as a useful addition to the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like so much of the discussion that we have had in the past hour or so, this is another useful contribution to the debate that we must have next year. I do not know whether this will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, but let me say that we made it clear in the White Paper that we wanted to safeguard the interests of citizen consumers. We recognise that those interests are not identical. People have interests as both citizens and consumers, and their interests must be expressed in both regards. We set out in the White Paper our proposals for
188
safeguarding the interests of citizens. Our proposals for strong public-sector broadcasting will ensure that high-quality services are available to all citizens. We recognise the need for a forum in which issues that are of crucial importance to society can be debated. Of course, that includes the international issues to which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred.
This point makes my dusty answer argument a little bit weaker, but it comes from the White Paper. We have already said that Ofcom will be able to commission independent research and establish bodies to reflect public interest in the content of communications services, as well as the independent consumer panel to advise the regulator.
I have perhaps gone further in expressing support for the thinking behind the amendment than I have in respect of some other amendments about which I have spoken, but I have done so because the communications White Paper is very positive about the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has raised. They will be debated when we consider the draft and main Bills, but I hope that my answer will satisfy my noble friend that we have very much at heart the interests about which he is concerned.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: As I hope that your Lordships will understand, I was more taken with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, than with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. None the less, I am grateful to her for the charming note that she sent to me after my maiden speech. If I may, I should like to make a comment to the noble Baroness on something that I read in the paper about what is happening down at the other end of the Corridor. Perhaps I paid to much attention to it. It said that the new leader of her party is all cuddly and open-minded. Apparently, he wants to stop saying "No" and to start saying "Yes", and to be terribly inclusive. So, I was a little taken aback with her dismissal of the amendment's importance.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that we have to get out of the habit—if this is what he implied when he said that Ofcom could commission research—of simply saying that people can speak when we speak to them and that when they are asked, we will listen. The gut of the amendment was the intention to go beyond that. We wanted people to be able to speak in their own right and to do so directly on things that affect their daily lives. That is what public broadcasting is all about.
I thank my noble friend the Minister because he has demonstrated that he has taken the sense of what the amendment is about. I shall accept that and take his word that these thoughts, like ones expressed earlier today, will be taken into account when we come to consider the main Bill and when that legislation is drafted. It is very important that that is done. I want to underline again that we must go out of our way to encourage citizens to speak and those of us here and elsewhere to demonstrate that we understand, listen

189
and respond. The more that we do that, the better it will be for our democracy. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 27, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 74, which is grouped with this amendment. Both are simply probing amendments on issues of good practice with regard to the mechanics of Ofcom's decision making.
The schedule gives guidance, vague though it is, on the proceedings of Ofcom and its committees. We have had much discussion about why we cannot debate committees and what they do until the main communications Bill comes before us, but procedural issues that relate to committees are dealt with in the paving Bill that we are considering. Sub-paragraph 15(3) of the schedule states that Ofcom,
"may include arrangements as to quorums and as to the making of decisions by a majority",
when it draws up its rules about its proceedings. My amendment would merely remove its discretion in this matter and require that, when it makes arrangements for regulating its own procedure and that of its committees, it must include arrangements about quorums and about the making of decisions by a majority.
I wonder what objection could be made to the amendment. Surely Ofcom could not operate under a procedure that gained the respect and confidence of the public if it did not have clear rules about the quorums and the making of decisions by a majority. As ever, it is also important to ensure that the quorum is set at a proper level. If it is too low, one risks allowing the board and committees to be controlled by a small clique. If it is too high, it becomes impossible to reach decisions because members may be absent or disqualified by reason of their declared interest.
Amendment No. 74 deals with the making of decisions by a majority. Its purpose is to prevent Ofcom instituting internal arrangements that enable its decisions to be made only by staff members. Subparagraph 15(3) of the schedule refers briefly to,
"the making of decisions by a majority".
My amendment would simply add the proviso that no arrangements shall be made that,
"enable the members of OFCOM to make a decision in the absence of at least one non-staff member".
The need for the amendment arises out of the balance between staff and non-staff members that is proposed in Clause 1. Clause 1(6)(b) requires the Secretary of State,
"to secure that the number of staff members of OFCOM is, so far as practicable, at all times less than".
the number of non-staff members. The intention of the provision seems perfectly reasonable, as it seeks to
190
prevent staff members dominating decision-making by the regulator. However, that will provide no reassurance to the industry or the public if Ofcom can, in practice, institute arrangements that enable decisions of its full board to be made in the absence of non-staff members. All that the amendment would do is carry through into the schedule what appear to be the intentions of the main part of the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, knows that the simple answer to Amendment No. 73 is that it goes into too much detail. I do not know of any legislation which specifies that there should be provision for quorums and reaching majority decisions. However, if it helps her, I shall undertake to send to the chair, when he or she is appointed, a copy of either Citrine's ABC of Chairmanship, as published from time to time by the Fabian Society, or Model Standing Orders for Constituency Labour Parties. I shall not commit myself as to which I shall send.
I was glad to have the noble Baroness's explanation of Amendment No. 74 because I read it as if all the non-staff members or non-executive directors had to be present. Certainly Ofcom may well wish to take seriously the suggestion that there should be at least one non-executive director present—which is not what the amendment states—but, of course, it should not appear on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I did say that these were straightforward amendments because such they are. The Minister replied—as he has done on previous amendments in Committee—that we are going into too much detail. The difficulty is that there is so little detail in the Bill that we are groping in the dark to find what on earth is this beast that we are being asked to set up and let loose upon the citizens of this country. I share, as does my noble friend Lady Miller, some of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, about how the beast will become accountable when it takes off and makes its own character even before it comes into fruition with the communications Bill.
I am tempted to make comments about whether Model Standing Orders for Constituency Labour Parties should be sent to Ofcom or any other body. Whether it will have the same record of obeying them as the Labour Party constituency committee is for someone else to comment on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 74 to 76 not moved. ]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 12, line 41, leave out from "interest" to end of line 3 on page 13.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 78. Both amendments address the question of what should happen when a member declares that he or she has a financial interest.
Amendment No. 77 is a probing amendment, the effect of which would be to prevent members of Ofcom or those exercising functions delegated to them by Ofcom from taking part in decisions in which they have an interest. At the moment, the drafting of the schedule to the Bill quite correctly recognises that members of Ofcom and members of its committees will, from time to time, find that they have an interest—whether personal, financial or fiduciary— that conflicts with their involvement with the functions of the regulator. This must be expected to occur on a fairly regular basis, given the wide brief that Ofcom will have.
Paragraph 16 currently proposes that if a person has such an interest, they can not only remain present but also take part in the decision in which they have a collateral interest, provided that everyone else there says that they can. Indeed, one can say "everyone else" so far as concerns members of Ofcom because paragraph 16(3)(a) refers to unanimity. The problem is that the same cannot be said of the committees of Ofcom, the members of which will simply be making the decision in accordance with their standing orders, which may or may not require unanimity. We simply do not know at this stage.
It is surprising that this proposal is regarded as good governance. The norm would be, surely, for the person subject to the conflict of interest to leave the room, unless the others required him or her to stay to assist with their discussions. The presumption would be that they should not be there. It takes self-regulation to new extremes to suggest that the members of Ofcom can decide among themselves whether or not a conflict of interest is sufficiently important to exclude someone from the decision-making process. It is vital that the public perception of the decision-making processes of Ofcom is that they are honest and transparent.
I was intrigued to note the report of a problem which has apparently arisen at BBC Worldwide. The Committee may have noted that it was reported in the Sunday Times on 28th October this year. Rupert Gavin, the chief executive of BBC Worldwide, chaired the meeting that approved the appointment of his associate, Dan Colman, to a contract to stage pop concerts starring the children's characters the Tweenies. I believe that the Tweenies is the BBC's most commercially successful show. The turnover for last year's concerts, also staged by Colman, was£5 million. The Sunday Times reports that his appointment for the second season of concerts was approved at a meeting of the BBC Worldwide's investment committee which Rupert Gavin chaired on 5th July 2000.
The BBC has said that the process of awarding the Tweenies contracts was,
"entirely above board, properly implemented and fully declared".
I am sure that was exactly the case. But the problem that this matter highlights is that even where a person who may influence the awarding of a contract does declare a relevant interest, it may be perceived by the public as wholly wrong that they should then continue to be present at and take part in a meeting which comes to a decision which could benefit a colleague, friend or relative of theirs. It is a matter of perception.
So, looking at this probing amendment, it would perform a useful function to determine in what circumstances someone should be allowed to remain present when matters are discussed from which they or their friends could benefit.
Turning to Amendment No. 78, paragraph 18(1)(d) of the schedule makes it possible for the proceedings of Ofcom to be valid even when the board or any of its committees breaches the rules set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the schedule. The rules in those two paragraphs are as follows: paragraph 15 sets out the rules covering procedure, including the rules about quorums and the making of decisions by a majority; paragraph 16 covers the rules about the declaration of interests and the requirement that members shall thereafter not take part in decision-making on matters where that interest has been declared.
These are serious matters. It seems extraordinary that there is provision in the Bill for members of Ofcom to break their own rules and yet still be permitted to go ahead with the decisions made in breach of those rules. That means in theory—I hope it would never happen in such a prestigious body—that a person who has a financial interest could take part in the making of a decision, and perhaps influence it to their own financial advantage, knowing that if they were found out the decision would still stand and the financial advantage which they had gained by breaking the rules would still be secure. That surely cannot be right. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that there is some way of preventing that happening. I cannot see it in the Bill at the moment.
As the Minister said earlier, huge sums could be involved in the decisions made by Ofcom—billions, perhaps, if analogue is sold off. So this is a very serious matter. People who take decisions at Ofcom should not only be seen as not benefiting from them. But if, by any remote chance, Ofcom broke its own rules and someone benefited because they had not declared an interest, then surely that Ofcom decision should not stand and thereby benefit that person for breaking the rules. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: Amendment No. 77 relates to declarations of interest. Ofcom and its committees will, of course, need people who have experience gained in a whole variety of different fields. It is essential that people with particular skills, interests or experience are not automatically ruled out from participating in actions and decisions where that experience would be of great benefit. I am sure the

193
noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would agree with that. Ofcom must, therefore, have the means of enabling people to declare their interests in matters which may be under discussion, but, in doing so, it should not necessarily rule them out from continuing to take part if other members of Ofcom or its committees decide that they should. For example, it might be the case that a member of a consumer body was appointed to one of Ofcom's committees. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if that person were to be excluded from participating in matters relating to consumer interests by the fact of his or her connections with an organisation involved in those matters.
I entirely accept the important point made by the noble Baroness about public perception: that people should be clear, and should be reassured, that there are not serious conflicts of interest. But it must be left for the members of Ofcom and its committees to take a commonsense approach in these areas.
It would perhaps be open to Ofcom to require unanimity in making decisions about this for some or all of its committees. It may not always be necessary; however, the noble Baroness has raised an interesting point. Unanimity is required for Ofcom as a whole but we should perhaps look at it in the context of committees. Therefore, I am happy to consider the point.
Turning to Amendment No. 78, many of the arrangements that Ofcom might make for regulating its own procedures and those of its committees under paragraph 15 of the schedule could relate to matters of a fairly minor nature. For argument's sake, these arrangements might refer to the publication of
194
documents in Braille or in an ethnic minority language. While it might be administratively careless should that not happen, it would be invidious to suggest that Ofcom's proceedings should be invalidated because, perhaps due to an oversight, this did not take place.
Similarly, the requirements in paragraph 16 are entirely appropriate and sensible for ensuring that declarations of interest are made where they might exist. However, the fact that, for example—in relation to paragraph 16(6)(b)—a declaration that was made is not read out at a meeting, again, should not make the proceedings of Ofcom or one of its committees invalid.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Perhaps I may refer first to Amendment No. 78. I shall look carefully to see whether my amendments should possibly have been drawn in a different position and whether, given the way in which I have tabled them, they refer to matters of administrative oversight rather than decision-making.
Turning to Amendment No. 77, I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she might look again at the matters regarding unanimity as regards committees and how decision-making ought to be dealt with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved. ]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before seven o'clock.

  Land Registry: Disaster Recovery Plans
  Land Registry: Disaster Recovery Plans
  Barry Room: Ventilation
  Barry Room: Ventilation
  International Humanitarian Law
  International Humanitarian Law
  British Airlines: Temporary Insurance Scheme
  British Airlines: Temporary Insurance Scheme
  Passport Numbers
  Passport Numbers
  Public Order and Community Cohesion
  Public Order and Community Cohesion
  Charities: Registration
  Charities: Registration
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate :Ethical Review Processes
  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate :Ethical Review Processes
  EU/Israel Association Agreement: Article 2
  EU/Israel Association Agreement: Article 2
  Incapacity Benefit and Personal Capability Assessments
  Incapacity Benefit and Personal Capability Assessments
  Teacher Training: Mentoring
  Teacher Training: Mentoring
  Business Links Programme: Costs
  Business Links Programme: Costs
  Business Recovery Fund
  Business Recovery Fund
  Quality Parish and Town Councils
  Quality Parish and Town Councils