Sitting of 22 November 2001

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

    Schools (Staffordshire)
    Michael Fabricant: If she will visit schools in Staffordshire to assess the condition of the (a) buildings, (b) heating and (c) associated infrastructure. [14632]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): The Secretary of State has no current plans to visit schools in Staffordshire. Staffordshire has, as requested by the Department, already carried out an assessment of the condition of its school buildings. Since 1997, £92 million has been provided to help meet the capital investment needs of schools in the county, and £39 million more has been allocated for the next two years.
    Michael Fabricant: Well, that would seem to be a rather complacent reply on behalf of the Secretary of State, which is, perhaps, not typical of her. She may well know that, two or three weeks ago, head teachers from throughout Staffordshire came to the House of Commons to meet all the county's Members of Parliament and talk about their budgets. Duncan Meikle, the headmaster of King Edward VI school in Lichfield, said that his budget for those services has already run out this year, and pointed out that it is the worst budget he has had since he became headmaster of the school four years ago. Is it not typical of Education Ministers, like Health Ministers, that they talk about millions, even billions, of pounds, but when it comes down to it, services are getting worse?
    John Healey: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his question was about capital, not services. We are not complacent; we are investing a massive amount of extra money in schools. Four in five of Lichfield schools have already benefited from targeted capital allocations since the election, and all Lichfield schools, like all the schools in every constituency, have benefited from direct funding through the new deal for schools. Over the next three years, £22 million more will be going direct to Staffordshire schools, and if the hon. Gentleman talks to two of Lichfield's head teachers, he will find that they are
    444
    part of the asset management forum in Staffordshire and they can tell him exactly what the plans are for capital investment in his county.
    Mrs. Janet Dean: Does my hon. Friend accept that the problems with Staffordshire schools and their buildings stem from the years and years of under-investment under Tory Governments? Does he accept that, in my constituency, although there are complaints about the needs of school buildings, many schools are seeing real benefits from the extra money being provided for capital spending?
    John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right, of course. We faced a massive backlog after two decades of Tory under-investment in our schools, and we still need to catch up in Staffordshire. The new asset management plan, prepared by the local education authority with schools, shows that over the next five years £72 million is needed for the county's schools. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that £52 million has already been allocated for the next two years.
    Mr. Graham Brady: But can the Minister guarantee that capital spending in Staffordshire schools will not be financed through the sale of school playing fields? In a year when there has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of playing fields being sold by the Government, is it not time that they started to live up to their promise to stop the sale of playing fields, or is the former Minister for Sport right when she says that the Government have lost the plot on the issue?
    John Healey: When the Conservatives were in power they did not keep any check on the sale of school playing fields. There are new rules and new controls, and under this Government the number of playing fields sold has been way down on the number sold under the, Conservative Government, and the proceeds of sales are earmarked for education purposes.
    Most of the new capital investment will now be formula-based and dedicated under the new asset management plans prepared by LEAs with schools. That is the guarantee of local control, of local decision making and of local transparency, and it means that the investment provided centrally will find its way into schools.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has enjoyed unprecedented capital investment over the last four years? We have a new primary school, several new computer suites and science laboratories, new extensions and additional nursery provision. However, I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that one local school has just suffered a devastating fire, in which the catering buildings and gym facilities were totally destroyed. Will he congratulate the school, the staff, the LEA, the pupils and the governors on the magnificent way in which they have coped in very difficult circumstances over the last two weeks? The school was closed for only one day, and Staffordshire LEA now—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the drift.
    John Healey: First, I pay tribute to the experience and expertise my hon. Friend brings to the subject as a former member of the Education Committee and one who knows a great deal about the system. It is telling that the picture of the education system that she paints differs starkly from the one painted by the Conservatives.
    As for the fire at my hon. Friend's local school, I congratulate all those who made tremendous efforts to pull together and ensure that only one day of schooling was missed. In addition, I undertake to make sure that our Department provides all the support that we can and should provide in such difficult circumstances, to make sure that the school recovers as it needs to after such a catastrophe.

    Student Finance (Wales)
    Adam Price: What recent discussions she had on student finance with the Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales. [14633]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the Welsh Assembly covering a range of issues, including student finance.
    Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, however brief. She will be familiar with the contents of the National Assembly's Rees report, which in June showed that student debt had increased threefold since the abolition of the maintenance grant; and that the greatest debt was found among students from the poorest backgrounds, who were most likely to drop out of university because of financial problems and least likely to enter university in the first place because of the psychological barrier of having to borrow, in some cases, more than their parents earn in a year. Does she agree with her Labour colleague in the National Assembly that the best way to widen participation in higher education is to reintroduce the maintenance grant? If she will not endorse that position, will she at least devolve powers over higher education funding to Wales so that we might at last get the system that best suits our circumstances?
    Margaret Hodge: We want to increase the number of students from working class backgrounds who go through higher education, but it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We need to raise their attainment at school so that they get the necessary qualifications to go to university, and we need to raise their aspirations. As I have said before, almost half of young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not during their school years hear about university as an option for them. Until we change that, we will not get those young people into university.
    In addition, we are examining issues of student finance and student funding and reviewing them to ensure that everybody, whatever their background, has access to a university place.
    Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that one of the reasons why some Members voted
    446
    against the introduction of tuition fees was their likely effect on mature students entering higher education. Will she comment on figures for the period since tuition fees were introduced, which show about 7,000 fewer mature students now entering higher education?
    Margaret Hodge: I have to say that my hon. Friend's figures are not correct. This year's acceptance figures—we do not have entry figures—from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show an increase of 12.5 per cent. in the number of 21 to 24-year-olds accepted, and an increase of 7.7 per cent. for those aged 25 plus. We should compare that with the increase of less than 2 per cent. in the number of Scottish people entering university. It is now generally accepted that people who gain a personal advantage from university education in terms of increased earnings over a lifetime, which average out at about £400,000, should make a contribution to the cost of that post-compulsory education. The issue is how and in what way.

    Teaching Vacancies (South-east)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: How many teacher vacancies there are in secondary schools in the south-east; and if she will make statement. [14634]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): Systematic data on teacher vacancies are collected once a year, in January, as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January this year, authorities in the south-east recorded 548 vacancies in secondary schools.
    Dr. Lewis: I saw some of those data: as they related to Hampshire, they showed 175 teacher vacancies in maintained schools as a whole, rising to 291 if nearby Portsmouth, Southampton and Isle of Wight are included. Might the reason for that unacceptably high number of vacancies be that, as recent research by Professor Smithers of Liverpool university shows, almost 60 per cent. of trainee teachers either never make it into the classroom at all, or resign within three years? Is that not a deplorable and unsatisfactory—indeed, intolerable—state of affairs?
    Mr. Timms: Let me begin by inviting the hon. Gentleman to join me in congratulating schools in Hampshire on the achievement of 54.9 per cent. of their youngsters gaining five or more good GCSEs in the results published today. That is a very good achievement, and I certainly pay tribute to all the teachers and schools in Hampshire who have contributed to that result.
    Of course, there have been pressures on recruitment in the south-east, but the rate of departure from the profession has been relatively stable. Eighty per cent. of those who enter the teaching profession and take up jobs as teachers are still in teaching three years later. The figures cited by the hon. Gentleman are not correct. Indeed, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recently issued data showing that education as a profession has one of the lowest turnovers of any profession in the country.

    447
    We are seeing rising standards, including especially good levels of achievement in Hampshire, and the whole House will welcome that.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping a cool head during the summer, when so many people on the Opposition Benches were calling "Crisis, crisis" and predicting short-term working in schools? I urge him to continue a pragmatic approach to shortages, to consider the problems on the ground and to make the appropriate responses. The Department has been doing that; I hope that it will continue to do so and will ignore those calls about crises that do not actually come about.
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. We have always made it clear that we need more teachers. Our target is for at least an additional 10,000 over the lifetime of this Parliament. We made the announcement, and confirmed in the White Paper, that we shall write off loans over 10 years for shortage subject teachers entering the profession from September 2002. That is exactly in line with the course of action advocated by my hon. Friend and I agree with the points that he made.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Minister agree that our head teachers deserve enormous credit for the work that they have done during the past few months to ensure that the crisis in teaching did not have the worst possible effect on our pupils? They deserve great credit for that, but when and what will the Government do to alleviate the pressure on head teachers, to find ways of dealing with teacher shortages and to provide real solutions to problems that will eventually show up in the quality of our education?
    Mr. Timms: It is good to hear a tribute to head teachers from the Opposition Benches. I am happy to endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman; it certainly is a tribute to the hard work of heads and schools during the summer. Many head teachers worked right through the summer holiday to ensure that their schools were operating normally—as every school has done since September. That is in contrast to the predictions of some people, including some Opposition Members, earlier in the summer.
    We have taken many steps to address the difficulties in teacher recruitment. We have increased teacher pay; I have already talked about paying off student loans; and we have introduced £6,000 training bursaries and fee remission for postgraduate trainees. The result is that this year we have had a second increase in the number of people applying for teacher training—the second increase in a row—after eight years of decline. Things are moving in the right direction, but there is much more to do.
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Last year, Ramsgate school in my constituency had problems with teacher recruitment and it was joint bottom in the league table. The school resolved its teacher recruitment problems by taking a generous view of pay scales and is now fully staffed, but this year it remains at the bottom of the league table. Will my hon. Friend agree that that is entirely due to the evil and corrosive system of selective education that we operate in Kent. which condemns
    448
    schools such as Ramsgate school to be, in effect, sink schools? Although we should not be complacent about teacher recruitment, will my hon. Friend give some thought to ordering an inquiry into selective education in Kent, so that Ramsgate can recover?
    Mr. Timms: I have heard the point made by my hon. Friend and others will have done so too. Wherever there are low standards of achievement in our schools, we are providing additional support. Last year, 41 schools had less than 10 per cent. of their pupils achieving five or more good GCSEs; that number has come down to 17, which is an important step. However, there are still serious problems of under-achievement; we will provide support and help to deal with them wherever they arise.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Will the Minister respond on the issue of teacher vacancies, which is of special concern in my own constituency, where a number of secondary schools have seven, eight or, in some cases, more vacancies? There is a crisis in schooling in Hertfordshire and many other counties in the south-east. Will the Minister comment on the recent National Union of Teachers report which, among other things, states that four out of 10 teachers leaving the profession do so because of the sheer weight of Government initiatives; they feel that that is a burden they should not have to deal with.
    Mr. Timms: I have dealt with those figures already and made it clear that they are incorrect. We are aware of the pressures on teacher recruitment in Hertfordshire—one of the areas to benefit from the starter home initiative, which will be particularly helpful to younger teachers wanting to buy their first home. We have demanded a great deal from our teachers in work load over the past four years; they have delivered a great deal in response, and we should pay tribute to their achievements. Where there are pressures on recruitment, we are addressing them in the way that I have already outlined.

    Religious Schools
    Tony Wright: What recent representations she has received on the issue of religious schools. [14635]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I have received a number of representations on faith schools from organisations and the general public since the publication of the White Paper.
    Tony Wright: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. May I suggest that the last thing our society needs at the moment is more schools segregated by religion? Before 11 September, it looked like a bad idea; it now looks like a mad idea. We have had some splendid policy rethinks recently; will my right hon. Friend give us another one today?
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is concerned about divisions in society and different groups living and working in different areas; I share his concern. However, the problem is not caused by parents having the right to educate their children in a faith-based school. My hon. Friend should not land the whole issue of segregated

    449
    communities on faith schools, as they do not cause it. However, there is an issue about bringing up our children to be tolerant and understanding and to appreciate people from different faiths and cultures. That is why I know that my hon. Friend will have welcomed the inclusion of citizenship in the national curriculum from September. There is a great deal to do but, for centuries, people in this country have been tolerant of parents' wish to have a faith-based education. That has been granted to Christians and Jews; I do not want to be a Secretary of State who denies it to minority faiths.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State accept that no Church school in receipt of state funds should be able to discriminate in its admissions policy against children of other faiths and those with no faith at all? Given her comments on inclusiveness and comments by the Bishop of Blackburn and, indeed, Muslim associations, will she give the House a guarantee that faith schools and new faith schools will have inclusive policies and that, if necessary, she will introduce legislation to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of faith?
    Estelle Morris: No, I will not go that far, but perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. In the case of over-subscription, it is reasonable for a faith-based school to say that it wants to give preference to those who share its faith. However, as I said to the Church of England—I pay tribute to Ron Dearing and the Church of England for their entirely inclusive attitude to Church of England faith-based schools—there is an obligation and a challenge, which are not being completely met at present, to make sure that children in faith-based schools have opportunities to meet, mix and work with people from other faith-based schools and schools of no faith at all. That change should take place. Under the new rules, new faith schools must show that they are inclusive; they could do so through admissions arrangements, which I welcome, but, if not, they must show school organisation committees ways in which they will be inclusive.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Many of us on the Labour Benches and beyond wish that the horse had not bolted 150 years ago, and that we had secular education, as is the case in America. However, the horse has bolted. In the communities that I represent, more than 27 per cent. practise the Muslim faith, and that number is growing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that greater damage is done by the hypocrisy that those people see reinforced when members of faiths whose numbers are diminishing have a protected right to faith-based schools, which they are denied? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is far more dangerous for our communities than allowing people to educate their children in a regulated faith-based school of their choice?
    Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know what message it gives about a multicultural society if people who are not Christians or Jews are told that they are the only group who cannot have faith-based schools.
    I take a further point that my hon. Friend makes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) mentioned 11 September; others have mentioned Bradford and the riots during the summer. We must remember that before last year there was not one
    450
    faith-based Muslim school in Bradford, but there were 18 in the private sector. Between 1997 and 2001, the new minority faith-based schools were independent schools that came into the maintained sector—all 13 of them. Let me be clear: I would sooner have them in the maintained sector, where they are inspected properly and teach the national curriculum and we can make sure that standards are kept high. I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons).
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Does the Secretary of State have any plans that could reduce the percentage of Catholic pupils at Catholic schools?
    Estelle Morris: No.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. In one of my Church of England schools, 90 per cent. of the pupils are Muslim. That demonstrates that faith schools can work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in some areas where we extend the number of religious schools, it could lead to further self-segregation, which would fly in the face of what some of us are trying to achieve—greater integration?
    Estelle Morris: I entirely respect my hon. Friend's comments. I know her constituency and I know of her extensive work with the Muslim community. She makes, an interesting point. In Birmingham, as in her constituency, there are maintained schools which are 100 per cent. Muslim. Children in faith-based schools are not always predominantly from one culture or another. Whether or not there are more faith-based schools will not depend on me or on Government; such decisions will be taken locally. It is not our wish to encourage them proactively. There must be a level playing field. Until 1997, every time a religious group other than a Jewish or Christian one asked for a faith-based school, it was denied it by the former Tory Government. We have moved to introduce a level playing field. That is all I ask. Whether my hon. Friend's community has more faith schools will be up to that community and the school organisation committee.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The headmaster and governing body of the Henbury high school in my constituency—an important secondary school to the west of Macclesfield—have expressed an interest in becoming a faith school. Although I am a strong supporter of faith schools and Church schools, can the Secretary of State clarify whether the final decision wi11 be taken by the governing body or by a majority of the parents of children who are at the school or are likely to go to the school? If that school subsequently merges with another school, would the second school with which it is to be merged be bound by the faith status that Henbury might have achieved?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman asks me a detailed question about two schools in west Macclesfield, and I should hate to mislead the House. I am happy to clarify in a subsequent letter the details that I shall give now. My feeling is that the decision would be taken by the governing body. When a school merges, it keeps its existing status. However, it is a technical matter and I am

    451
    not entirely confident about giving the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer now. I hope that he will allow me to clarify it in due course.

    Nursery Places
    Jim Knight: What progress is being made in ensuring a nursery place is available for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it. [14636]
    Mr. John Smith: What progress she has made in providing free nursery places for three and four-year-olds whose parents require it. [14641]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have had access to a free part-time nursery education place. About 62 per cent. of three-year-olds already have access to a free part-time nursery place. I expect that level to rise to 66 per cent. by March 2002, with universal provision by September 2004.
    Jim Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is her assessment of the number of three-year-olds in Dorset who are offered nursery places? Given the difficulties in recruiting staff for nursery schools in the rural part of my constituency, which are due to transport and remuneration problems, will she encourage and work with Dorset local education authority to ensure that rut al needs are addressed, possibly through a multi- agency approach such as that proposed by the By The Seaside charity, which is based in Swanage?
    Margaret Hodge: First, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 64 per cent. of three-year-olds in Dorset have access to a nursery education place—a level that is above the national average. Secondly, I recognise the particular difficulties that are faced in ensuring access to places for children in rural areas. We are doing a number of things about that, including undertaking a very strong recruitment campaign, which is successful. It might well be that we can provide a high-quality experience to young children through child minders, working together in networks. Of course, we will work with all voluntary organisations in all areas to ensure that all our children get access to good, high-quality nursery education.
    Mr. Smith: I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend's initial reply on universal nursery places, although I wonder whether I should declare an interest as the very proud grandfather of two-year-old Ryan Tomos. I have a picture in my wallet that I could show to her later. Will she inform me of the total increase in all education expenditure since 1997?
    Margaret Hodge: As the very proud grandma of a three-year-old, of whom I have plenty of pictures in my wallet and who has just started in her new nursery class, which I had the privilege of visiting a couple of weeks ago, I share with my hon. Friend the joy of being a grandparent—it is all love and no blame.
    I am extremely proud of our record of increasing spending on nursery education. We have doubled the amount that we are putting in: it is going up from £1 billion to £2 billion. I think that that is one of the most crucial bits of investment that we have undertaken since
    452
    we have been in office. Giving young children that very good grounding is the best way of trying to ensure that they develop their full potential.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: Is the Minister aware that half the pupils in the intake of a secondary school in a relatively affluent area of my constituency have a reading age of less than their chronological age, and that 30 per cent. of them have a reading age of two years less than their chronological age? What does she see as the root causes of that problem?
    Margaret Hodge: I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a primary school—
    Mr. Gibb: It is a secondary school, but—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman's question is out of order.
    Mr. James Gray: While many parents will welcome what the Minister has said about the availability of nursery places at primary schools for many children, does she agree that many parents prefer a less formal style of education for three and four-year-olds, which can be provided, for example, by pre-school and nursery groups and by child minders? Is not she concerned that there has been a significant fall in the number of pre-school playgroup places that are available? Some 300 closures have occurred throughout the country and 12 in Wiltshire alone. What is she doing to ensure that no undue influence is placed on parents to encourage the inclusion of children in three and four-year-old primary school intakes, thereby putting the pre-school playgroups at risk?
    Margaret Hodge: I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that what matters is providing parents with appropriate choices—a child minder, playgroup, or a place in a primary or nursery school—so that they can decide what they want. Our policies are based on that. If more parents choose nursery classes in primary schools or classes in nursery schools, that is up to them. We need to ensure that places and funding are available in the private, voluntary and state sector: we are doing precisely that.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Last year, there were approximately 200 funded places for three-year-olds in the Medway towns. We now have 2,300 places, which is clearly due to the failure to invest that Conservative Members talk about. We want that failure to continue.
    Those involved with pre-schools mention the crucial need for training. Will Ofsted, which is now in charge of inspection, link up with local authorities to ensure the provision of a good local training programme that is easily accessible and, most important, affordable?
    Margaret Hodge: The quality of the child's experience, wherever he or she is placed—in a playgroup, with a child minder or in a nursery class—depends entirely on the quality of the person who cares for and teaches the child. Investment in training is crucial. We have therefore asked the Learning and Skills Council to put a lot of money aside to ensure proper investment in and training for people who work with young children.

    453
    We have also set clear targets for the qualifications that we want them to achieve. We want to improve that over time. We acknowledge the importance of the early years stage by investing in training and ensuring good qualifications.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am happy to articulate the feeling of the House that we would never have guessed that the Minister could be a grandmother. [Interruption.] That was meant as a compliment. However, one never ceases to be amazed at what a Minister can do with statistics.
    Parents in the real world know that thousands of nurseries have closed in the past four years. Ministers like to provide statistics about increasing places on, for example, holiday schemes, but they are not equivalent to a nursery place. Anyone who runs a nursery in the real world knows that the increasing burdens of regulation are such that thousands more nurseries are now under threat. Ministers are fond of targets, and we hear statistic after statistic about them. They display absolute complacency. However, parents know that results, not targets, matter. What will the Minister do to stop the increasing closure of nurseries and loss of nursery places?
    Margaret Hodge: I have to say to my hon. friend that, as a recent mum, she will find many more places for her child than existed for my children when I had them some time ago.
    My hon. friend complains about regulation, but I hope that she supports our attempt to improve the quality of provision for the early-years phase. The only way to achieve that is through inspection, review and investment in training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said. If that is regulation, it is good.
    The hon. Lady, not the Government, talks about statistics. If one talks to parents in every constituency, one hears that more places are available. They may be in schools, nursery classes, playgroups or with child minders, but children have access to more places. She needs to get out of this place a little more and spend time in the community.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The new free places that have been created in nurseries in Lancashire are welcome, but is my hon. Friend aware that difficulties have been created because some people have the allocation and some do not? When can we get over that difficulty by extending the scheme so that they all get places? It ought not to take about three months before we realise that of, say, five places allocated only three have been taken up. In that case, two places have been lost for three months that could have been given to others. The scheme is welcome, but we must ensure that it works more efficiently.
    Margaret Hodge: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that, in a period of expansion, there will always be difficulties until there is a place for everyone: some people will get a place and others will not. I recognise the problem that he described but, by 2004, there will be a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old—something on which I have campaigned for 30 years. It is about time that it became a reality in everyone's lives.

    Teacher Retention
    Mr. Mark Hoban: How many teachers left the profession within their first three years of employment in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [14637]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): In each of the past five years for which data are available., approximately 80 per cent. of teachers were still in service in the fourth year after entering to teaching.
    Mr. Hoban: Has the Secretary of State read the comments of Davina Lloyd, the head of Coopers Company and Coborn school—a top state school—in The Times today? She said:
    "Leave us alone—let us get on with things and stop inundating us with bits of paper and bureaucracy."
    Given her comments and the survey by the National Union of Teachers, which showed that the growing tide of regulation and initiatives from the Department are a major factor in teacher resignations, what initiatives will she cut to stem the tide of resignations?
    Estelle Morris: I congratulate the head whom the hon. Gentleman quoted and other heads on the GCSE results which were published today. They have ensured that 50 per cent. of our 16-year-olds attain five good A* to C passes. That is a great achievement and I pay tribute to all those who have worked hard to achieve it. If leaving people alone means allowing some schools to teach in a way that is not based on good practice and evidence, I will not do so. We would not have introduced the literacy hour, the numeracy hour or the key stage 3 strategy for our younger secondary school children if we had done so. It is our responsibility to raise standards for every child. If the hon. Gentleman means leaving alone those schools that are good, that are proving it and that are improving even more, I will leave them alone. That is the thrust of the White Paper and the Bill that will be published later this week.
    Joan Ryan: At a recent meeting with secondary school heads in my constituency, I heard positive reports about the graduate teacher programme and the difference that it was making. What plans has my right hon. Friend to continue that programme and to expand it, as it is welcome on the ground and it is clearly effective?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The scheme is hugely popular. Its attraction is that it often brings in mature teachers with skills from industry and other walks of life. They train in school and receive a salary for doing so, and the school is paid as well. I think that the cost is £17,000, which, as hon. Members will know, is more than we normally pay for students to do initial teacher training. We have created more than 2,000 such places and I am conscious of the fact that it is an excellent way to train to be a teacher. We

    455
    certainly plan to build on the scheme as we roll out our plan to ensure that we get even more teachers to add to the 12,000 extra whom we have got into the nation's schools.
    Mr. Damian Green: Much mention has been made of the NUT report on teachers leaving. Does the Secretary of State not feel alarmed that that report makes it clear that significantly more secondary teachers say that the sheer weight of Government initiatives is a more important factor even than pay in driving them out of the profession? Is not it clear that her Department is not part of the solution to teacher shortages—it is a significant part of the problem?
    Estelle Morris: If that is the case, how does the hon. Gentleman answer the point that this year there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of people going into teacher training? The House must remember that more young graduates choose teaching than any other profession, which is a tribute to the attraction that education and teaching hold. I know that teachers feel under pressure and that we have asked more of them than any previous Government, but they have raised standards in a way that has not happened for decades. I pay tribute to them for that. I also know that we need to do more to support them, but that is why there are 44,000 more teaching assistants, more bursars and more investment in information technology.
    I say to the hon. Gentleman and to teachers that we will not take from them the literacy strategy, the numeracy hour, the strategy for our younger secondary school pupils and target setting, which are at the core of raising standards. We must not take away what works, but ensure that we offer all our teachers the support they need to do the job. We have made a start, but there is much further to go.
    Mr. Green: The right hon. Lady mentions trainee teachers. She knows that 60 per cent. leave the profession within three years of becoming trainees, so I am afraid that teachers will not be convinced, especially when they read the views of Lord Puttnam. The Government have put him in charge of the General Teaching Council, but he gave a newspaper interview in which he said, "All we need is fewer teachers." Will she confirm that fewer teachers is not just the side-effect of Government policy, but the target? Does she understand why teachers are so demoralised under her Government?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman did not listen at the last Question Time and he is not listening again. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already made it clear that the NUT figures are not accurate. In answer to the question—[Interruption.] Do not thrust NUT research at me expecting it to be taken as gospel. The hon. Gentleman will have to learn that lesson pretty quickly. After three years in teaching, 80 per cent. are still in the profession.
    Let us be clear about the NUT survey figures: they show how many leave, not how many leave and then return. Let me give an example. If someone moved to another part of the country with a partner for a job, left teaching for three months and then found a new post at the start of term, that person would be included in the NUT research as having left teaching in the first live years.
    456
    The truth is that 80 per cent. of people who go through initial teacher training join the maintained sector within five years of qualifying and 90 per cent. do some teaching in the maintained sector, the independent sector, further education or higher education. I am not complacent and I know that there is a genuine debate about improving retention, but the hon. Gentleman cooking the figures or selectively quoting research that was not accurate in the first place does not help one iota.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that a number of teachers have left the William Crane comprehensive school in my constituency? It appears near the bottom of the league tables. Does she also accept that most of those teachers have stayed the course and that it is difficult for teachers on tough estates with poor catchment areas to raise standards? To raise standards by even 1 or 2 per cent. is a near-miraculous achievement. Will she take the chance to praise those teachers who are not in the leafy suburbs, but who work very hard with pupils and parents to raise the standard in some of our toughest schools?
    Estelle Morris: All of us who have been teachers know that some of the toughest jobs are on the toughest estates with children who do not come from backgrounds and neighbourhoods with high aspirations. That is why I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that today, as well as publishing the raw data for GCSE, we have published for the first time value-added data on tests for 14-year-olds. In 2003, we shall be able to publish the raw scores and the value-added data on 16-year-olds.
    That school needs extra support to make standards even higher, and I know that my hon. Friend shares my view. We have turned our back on the days when people thought that children at schools in such areas almost inevitably leave with lower qualifications. They do not; they are as bright as kids anywhere else. It is our responsibility to ensure that we provide the support to go with the skill and commitment of the teachers my hon. Friend describes. We have done that for four years and we will never stop.

    Teaching Vacancies (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: How many teacher vacancies there are in Leicestershire. [14638]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): In January, when the last annual census of teachers and vacancies was carried out, Leicestershire recorded 30 teacher vacancies.
    Mr. Robathan: We all know that the vast majority of teachers in Leicestershire and elsewhere are working extremely hard and doing a good job under difficult circumstances and for little reward. I hope that the Minister will not repeat that answer when he replies again, but will instead tell me whether he will come with me to Leicestershire to see the reality on the ground. Will he come to the schools that cannot get teachers in information and communications technology? Will he visit the schools that have to advertise five times to get a single response? Will he come to South Wigston high school, whose headmaster told me yesterday that for two

    457
    years he tried to get a music teacher but could not get one? Will he address the real problems of schools in Leicestershire, not merely give us more waffle?
    Mr. Timms: My right hon. Friend and I, and other colleagues, visit schools all the time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the excellent job that teachers in Leicestershire are doing. I pay tribute to them for the substantial improvement in GCSE results in Leicestershire that were published this morning. It achieved a well above average rise. The vacancy rate in Leicestershire is about half the national average, so it is by no means an area with the most acute problems. We have increased teachers' pay, created more places on refresher courses so that former teachers can come back into the profession, and introduced golden hellos for people to train to teach in shortage subjects. Those measures are helping to improve what undoubtedly have been real problems and real pressures in schools in Leicestershire and elsewhere.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Jury Trial
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What the Government's policy is on trial by jury, following the publication of the Auld report. [14666]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Government's policy on jury trials is set out in our manifesto, and in the document "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead". The Auld report makes a number of new proposals on juries, and the Government are consulting on them.
    Mr. O'Brien: In the light of that answer and the Solicitor-General's consultation on the Auld report, does she agree that trial by jury should be replaced by a circuit judge and magistrates for many indictable offences, and that the decision-making process should be interfered with by juries having to give reasons for their verdicts and by the judge and the assessors having to second-guess verdicts by juries?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right that the substantial Auld report goes far beyond what was in our manifesto and in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead". The Auld report recommended that juries should give reasons for their conclusions, that we should ensure ethnic balance on juries and that the right to jury trial should be removed in certain serious fraud cases. We are consulting on those proposals.
    David Taylor: As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am aware that my colleagues have given a broad welcome to many of the recommendations in the Auld report. However, they are concerned about the status and powers of the two lay magistrates sitting with the judge, to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) referred. Will my
    458
    right hon. and learned Friend reassure us that she will take a fresh look at the powers of those two lay magistrates? They should at least have powers of sentencing.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will know of our manifesto commitment, and he will not need me to remind him of the importance of carrying out that commitment to remove the widely abused right of defendants alone to dictate whether they should be tried in Crown court. As for the respective roles of magistrates and the new judge in the district division, it is important to have the involvement and views of the magistrates on the relative responsibilities in the proposed new division. Consultation will take place in writing and at regional meetings throughout the country, and I hope my hon. Friend will encourage members of the Magistrates Association to come along to those consultations and put their views. The matter is not cut and dried, and is not written on tablets of stone. We genuinely want to consult on proposals that have such far-reaching implications.
    Mr. John Burnett: I pay tribute to Lord Justice Auld, his consultants and those who assisted him. His report is comprehensive and thorough, and I am glad that there is an opportunity for further submissions to be made on it.
    May I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) about the so-called middle tier? Does the Solicitor-General agree that there is a real danger that the two lay magistrates will be dominated by the district judge in the proceedings, and that, effectively, juries will be replaced by what used to be a stipendiary magistrate?
    Professor Vogeler conducted a study of the system of stipendiary magistrates in Germany. In his report, he concluded that
    "in guilt decision making, the lay-body's functional role is nil Decisions are dominated by the professional"—
    that is, the judge.
    The Solicitor-General: I am well aware that the proposals are controversial. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we have no set policy on whether we should replace the existing system involving a magistrates court and a Crown court with a jury with a system involving an intermediate court, the district division. In other words, there is no policy of replacing the two-court system with a three-court system; that is a proposal in the Auld report, and I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those who have put so much work into that radical and far-reaching document.
    The issues are under consultation, which will continue until the end of January. Only after that will the Government give their views. It is good that we have had an opportunity to note the concerns that have been raised, but the Government's views are not yet decided.
    Ms Bridget Prentice: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we already have a system whereby two lay magistrates sit with a judge on appeal cases? That is not particularly radical or new.
    Have the Government any timetable for the reintroduction of a Bill dealing with the mode of trial? At present, the defendant is the only person who can decide

    459
    where he or she should be tried. That system does not stack up, and it is time that magistrates were given an opportunity to deal with such cases properly.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend makes two points. First, she reminds us that we already have a system whereby, in some cases, lay magistrates sit with a district judge. That also applies in youth courts. I recently had an opportunity to see the system working—very well—in Camberwell youth court, where a professional judge sits with two lay wing members.
    Secondly, my hon. Friend asked us to get a move on and sort out the business of defendants' asking to go to the Crown court, only to plead guilty. She said that they should really be tried in the magistrates court. As she will know, we have a policy on that, but we are consulting in the context of the Auld proposals. The position is difficult to describe. We have a policy, but we are consulting on the wider issues. As I have said, the consultation will finish at the end of January; a White Paper will then be produced, and any Bill will be presented after that.
    Mr. William Cash: I am glad to hear that the Solicitor-General and the Government have a policy on this, but does the Solicitor-General agree with Liberty that jury trial is, on the whole, fairer than trial in magistrates courts, that there should be no discrimination in regard to who can choose trial by jury, and that jury trial is fairer to black defendants?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman would, rightly, be first to complain if we had made a commitment in our manifesto and did not implement it. Like him, however, we are anxious that trials should be fair—that there should be fairness as between defendant and prosecution, and fairness to the victim. Those considerations will be at the forefront of our minds, but we have a settled policy on the right to elect for trial by jury. We are consulting on the wider issues relating to juries that a number of Members have raised.

    Criminal Law Reviews
    Simon Hughes: What reviews have been undertaken to discover which criminal laws have fallen into disuse in the last (a) 10 and (b) 30 years and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to repeal them. [14667]
    The Solicitor-General: The Law Commission is responsible for the review of all statute law and has conducted a number of major reviews of specific spheres of criminal law. The reviews identify which criminal laws
    460
    have fallen into disuse, which are then dealt with in Statute Law (Repeals) Acts, the most recent of which was in 1998.
    Simon Hughes: Do the Solicitor-General and the Government have any plans to present proposals to Parliament to repeal laws that have not been used in the past 10 years, and possibly not in the past 30? Is it correct that there is a proposal on the table to get rid of the blasphemy law, partly because it has not been used for a considerable time? Do the Government have any other specific laws at the front of the queue for repeal?
    The Solicitor-General: The most recent private prosecution under the blasphemy law was the very famous Mary Whitehouse prosecution of Gay News, and there has not been a public prosecution under the law since 1922. As the House will know, the Home Secretary, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said that he expects that that law will soon find its place in history. Nevertheless, there is still a common law offence of blasphemy. However, if a blasphemy prosecution were to be brought before that common law offence had been repealed, it would not require prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the case were heard in a magistrates court, it would be open to the DPP to step in and discontinue the prosecution, and if it were held in a Crown court the Attorney-General could step in and discontinue it. As for other offences, there is a rolling programme to consider laws on criminal offences that have fallen into disuse.
    Laura Moffatt: Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell my constituents, who come from various backgrounds, whether there is a case for using old laws? As I understand it, the Treason Act 1351 may apply to those who are found guilty of fighting for the Taliban and wish to return to the United Kingdom. Will she comment on that, please?
    The Solicitor-General: The Treason Act is still on the statute book, despite its age. If there were evidence of the commission of an offence under the Act, it would be for the DPP to bring a prosecution, and the Law Officers would be accountable to the House for that decision. The police have already asked for information and advice on prosecuting for treason, and that advice has been given. As my hon. Friend will know, however, many other offences may be brought into play, not only when the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is enacted, but under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Law Officers will be accountable to the House for a decision by the DPP or by ourselves, acting under our consent provisions, to bring prosecutions for treason.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week, please?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 NOVEMBER—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Employment Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Civil Defence (Grants) Bill.
THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER—Consideration of an allocation of time motion followed by all stages on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 30 NovEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER—Opposition Day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—A debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER—A debate on the common fisheries policy reform and sustainable fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of theHouse.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader for giving us the business. Can he tell us what has happened to the debate that we always used to have—just before Christmas, I think—on public expenditure? We are having the Chancellor's pre-Budget report next week, on 27 November. I should have thought that if the economy is such an astonishing success, as the Government like to claim it is, they would be eager to have a full day's debate on public expenditure so that that confidence may be fully expressed. Opposition Members certainly look forward to such a debate. Can the Leader of the House say when it will be and whether the Government are ducking and evading as usual, or whether such a debate would reflect their confidence?
May we also have an urgent debate on the role and powers of Select Committees? The Leader of the House will know very well that Standing Order 152 says that Sub-Committees of Select Committees
"have power to send for persons, papers and records".
He will also know that this is one of the most cherished powers of our Select Committee system; and many people believe that the entrenchment of that power is one of the most important aspects of the Government's accountability to Parliament. I would have thought that all that was uncontroversial.
462
Is the Leader of the House aware of the recent press notice from the Transport Sub-Committee which says:
"The Transport Sub-Committee … invited a Minister from HM Treasury to provide oral evidence to the inquiry into Rail Passenger Franchising and the Future of Rail Infrastructure. HM Treasury has declined that invitation and refused to appear before the Transport Sub-Committee"?
It continues:
"The Sub-Committee is astonished that Treasury is unable to assist with this inquiry."
I would have thought that you are astonished, too, Mr. Speaker. I certainly am, because it seems to me to challenge the entire relationship that we thought existed between Select Committees and Ministers. This is the second such occasion in a fairly short time, is it not?
Will the Leader of the House please grant us a debate on the matter? In the meantime, perhaps he will clarify what he thinks is the relationship between Ministers and Select Committees, because his Modernisation Committee is busy claiming that Select Committees are very important and central to parliamentary activities. Given that, I hope that the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee may have something to say about this latest scandal.
As I suspect that the Leader of the House is a regular reader of The Guardian, which I happily am not, perhaps he has read it today? I emphasise that these are not my words, but the words of the paper's correspondent. Under the headline:
"Parliament misled over recycled dioxins",
the Westminster correspondent writes:
"A government minister has twice misled parliament over a serious health hazard…Michael Meacher, the environment minister, admitted that figures for levels of dioxins…have been heavily underestimated by the environment agency … This is the second time Mr. Meacher has had to clarify the issue."
Ministers in the other place regularly have to appear before their Lordships to apologise and to retract and correct what they have said. However, manners are much better in the other place and Ministers there obviously regard it as important to their integrity that they apologise, if necessary. Can I ask the Leader of the House for a regular slot—it may not be daily, but at least weekly—when Ministers can come to the House and apologise for what they have said?
Mr. Cook: I welcome the Opposition's interest in debating the Government's record on the economy.
Mr. John Bercow: We'd love to!
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman confirm that. We are very happy to take any opportunity that comes our way to remind the House that Britain currently has the fastest growth rate in the G7, the lowest inflation in Europe and the lowest unemployment for a generation. We are proud of that record and we approach it with confidence.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be coming to the House next week to present the pre-Budget report. I recall that the right hon. Gentleman wanted that. It is right that the Chancellor and the House should focus on that next week. I shall, however, draw the attention of

463
my right hon. Friend to the Opposition's enthusiasm for debating our record, and I hope that any amendments that they table to the motion relating to that debate will reflect their pleasure at what the Government have achieved and the contrast between that and their own lack of achievement when they were in office.
On the Transport Sub-Committee, I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to clarify some of what was said in the press statement from the Select Committee. It is not the case that Treasury Ministers have declined to appear before the Select Committee.
Mr. Forth: Oh?
Mr. Cook: It is true. In the previous Parliament, the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary appeared before the Transport Sub-Committee, and in doing so, they reported on their proposals for taxes that affected the transport industries. It is also the case that, in this Parliament recently, Treasury Ministers have appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee to report on the impact of the aggregates levy and on excise duty. Those matters are firmly within the ministerial responsibility of Treasury Ministers. Rail franchising is firmly within the ministerial responsibility of Ministers at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Frankly, I cannot imagine anything that will do more to undermine the system of ministerial accountability to the House and its Committees if the Ministers with responsibility are not held to account by the Committees and if other Ministers are held to account for decisions for which they are not responsible.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Very clever.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady should also take pride in the fact that the Conservative party showed the same cleverness when in office. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) also refused to appear in front of the Transport Committee, when he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should explain why he believes that this Government should follow practices that Conservative Members never dreamt of following themselves when they were in office.
Lastly, on the report in The Guardian today, I must confess that I did not see that part of the paper—perhaps my yoghurt splashed on it before I turned to that page —but my right hon. Friend has already written to the two hon. Members involved to put the record straight.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the reports in this mornings Financial Times about a very major restructuring of the Department of Trade and Industry and the introduction to the DTI of a significant component from private business? In terms of parliamentary accountability, to whom does the DTI account if those business leaders will be significant in the decision-making mode? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the concept of genuine social partnership will exist in the DTI; or can we perhaps expect a statement from the Secretary of State?
Mr. Cook: I am advised that the DTI will answer a parliamentary question today, setting out the new
464
arrangements for the strategy committee. Under Governments of whatever colour, the DTI has endlessly consulted business men and had committees on which they served. It is absolutely right and proper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should rationalise that system and provide a strategic focus for it by setting up that committee. That will be fully explained in the written answer to be published this afternoon.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. May I draw his attention to the private Member's business that will be conducted on 30 November—in particular, the Home Energy Conservation Bill? Will he confirm that the Government will give that private Member's Bill a fair wind and that they will try to avoid its obstruction and defeat, given its importance to home energy efficiency and energy conservation in general?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill, consideration of which will take place on 29 November? Bearing in mind the fact that the Bill appears to reinstate only one of the four protections of embryos that the courts struck out, is he satisfied that the amount of time allocated is sufficient to hold a properly measured debate and that the Bill's framework is sufficient to allow sensible amendments to be added to it?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that statements will be made next week not only by the Chancellor, but on local government expenditure? Will he consider holding a full debate on local government finance, especially on the gross inequalities in the funding of local authorities throughout the country?
Mr. Cook: The Government certainly want more energy to be conserved; thus we share the objectives of the Home Energy Conservation Bill's promoter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is consulting the Bill's sponsors. I hope that it will be possible to find common ground, but that is also down to the promoter entering into discussions in a way that enables us to produce a Bill that is not only laudable but practical.
On cloning, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have appealed against part of the judgment and that has a bearing on the terms of the Bill before us on Thursday. We are seeking to do no more than restore what was understood to be the law before the ruling last week. That is important for the House and for the country. At a future stage, we may need to consider further measures on the issue, but for the time being, we need emergency measures to prevent people from coming to Britain to exploit the loophole that has been revealed by the court decision.
I expect there to be a statement of one kind or another on local government finance in the near future. I will take on board the hon. Gentleman's point that we should have a debate and I shall add the subject to my long list of impending debates.
Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the future of education maintenance allowances? That would provide Ministers with the opportunity to explain why the county of Durham, the largest education authority in the north-east, is the only one in the area not to be selected

465
for a pilot programme. Because of the pilot, every one of its neighbours has experienced increased participation in further education. Durham would very much like to be included.
Mr. Cook: I understand my right hon. Friend's disappointment. I am sure that it is reflected in his constituency. However, it is in the nature of pilots that not every area is selected. I hope that the experiment will be successful and that we shall be able to extend the programme to areas such as Durham that have not been included in the pilot scheme.
Mr. George Osborne: Did the Leader of the House share my shock when he read this morning's newspapers and discovered that he was not one of the Chancellor's new best friends? Is that because he, like half the Government, has a long-standing feud with the Chancellor? Can we have an early debate to see whether these tantrums at the Treasury are impairing the proper functioning of government?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman obviously has an interesting question to put on the pre-Budget report next week. I shall give my bestest of friends the Chancellor advance notice to look out for it.
David Winnick: The shadow Leader of the House did not raise this issue, but will we have a statement on why the advertisement for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards states that the job is only for three days? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Three days a week, I mean—although I suspect that, if some people in the House had their way, it would be three days a year.
Why did the House of Commons Commission come to the view that the present occupant should not have her contract renewed, unlike the offer made to her predecessor, Gordon Downey? It is being interpreted—in my view rightly—as an Officer of the House being sacked for doing her job in a zealous manner; so does my right hon. Friend accept that that reflects badly on the House and on us all? I hope that, even at this late stage, the matter can be reconsidered. This person is doing a fine job; there is no need to sack her.
Mr. Cook: The reference to three days a week reflects precisely the terms of the advertisement placed on the last occasion the job was advertised. It is the basis on which Mrs. Filkin was appointed, but she negotiated an increase to four days. It will be open to any incumbent that we may appoint to enter into similar negotiations. The advert this time is exactly the same as the one used when Mrs. Filkin was appointed.
Sir Gordon Downey indicated that he did not wish to seek a second term, so the question of reappointment did not arise. I keep pointing out to my hon. Friend—and I am pleased to do so again for the benefit of the whole House—that it is important to be fair about the case of Mrs. Filkin. She has not been sacked. Nobody has expressed any dissatisfaction with the way in which she has carried out her duties. The decision of the House of Commons Commission is that it is right that the post should be filled by open competition and that the best
466
candidate should be appointed. Mrs. Filkin has been invited to apply, and if she is the best candidate, she will be reappointed.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Leader of the House not understand the widespread concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will have only two days for its Committee stage and Report, with the second day on Monday? Will he also explain why he was not on the Front Bench yesterday when the programme motion was debated and the hapless Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), failed to explain to me and to others why the British Overseas Territories Bill, which is being debated today, was so important that it had to be discussed this week? We could have had an extra day in Committee on a vital Bill.
Mr. Cook: I attach great importance to the British Overseas Territories Bill, as do the residents of British overseas territories and a number of hon. Members. Moreover, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those residents have been waiting some time for the Bill to be introduced and proceeded with. When I was Foreign Secretary I was regularly asked when it would be introduced, and it is important that it should proceed.
On the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, I understand that hon. Members want to debate its important contents. It is therefore a matter of regret that some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends wasted time yesterday debating not the Bill's substance, but a programme motion that had already been put before the House.
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Leader of the House knows that we are entering a difficult stage in which health authorities have to manage their demise by next spring and the transfer of their responsibilities to primary care trusts. Although I have nothing but praise for my health authority in Nottingham for the professionalism with which it is attempting to do that, I am conscious that we face the problem of staff haemorrhaging from health authorities to the embryonic PCTs. Some health authorities face the prospect of meltdown as they try to get the staff to support existing and essential services. Can we have a statement on how the Government are supporting the transition of responsibilities to the new PCTs and on what additional resources we are putting in place to ensure that existing services are not damaged in the process?
Mr. Cook: I accept that that is an important aspect of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, which is before the House. I anticipate that my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues will want to explore that issue as the Bill proceeds. I welcome his praise for his health authority and believe that there is a broad welcome for our proposed measures to put the funding of local services in the hands of local health service staff, especially general practitioners.
We are aware that there will be a period when staff of the health authorities are worried. That is why we have given an assurance that those who may not be transferred by 1 April 2002 will remain employees of the Department of Health, which will run a clearing house to ensure that

467
existing staff are placed. There is no need for staff at the present time to become anxious about their future after 1 April. We will ensure on a national basis that staff are placed.
Mr. Michael Jack: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to page 63 of "Erskine May", which says:
"ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest"?
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have read in Hansard the exchanges that occurred yesterday in which it was evident that a number of right hon. and hon. Members had great difficulty in obtaining answers to their parliamentary questions in pursuit of their duties as Members of the House. He will also be aware of the ombudsman's finding on my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). To that extent, will the Leader of the House consider making a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity about the way in which the code of ministerial conduct is being operated in respect of the answering of parliamentary questions, so that the House knows what service it can expect from Ministers in the provision of information?
Mr. Cook: I did read yesterday's Hansard with great Interest and I notice that you, Mr. Speaker, have undertaken to reflect on the points made. I stand ready to communicate to my colleagues any views that you may express.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Can we have a debate or a statement next week on the length of time that patients have to wait on trolleys before being admitted to hospital wards in Leicester? I appreciate that the Government have made a huge commitment to spend billions of pounds on our health service and that many dedicated staff work in it, but the news this morning that a 53-year-old Leicester woman died after being on a trolley for eight hours before receiving treatment has caused enormous concern. Can we have a debate on that important subject?
Mr. Cook: I understand the deep concern in my hon. Friend's constituency about the case to which he referred. He will be aware that the trust has expressed its regret to the family of the woman concerned. Waiting for a long time in accident and emergency is unacceptable, and that is why we have applied targets in the national health service plan to ensure that people are admitted to hospital within four hours of being assessed in accident and emergency as requiring such admission. I am pleased to say that the longest periods of waiting on trolleys are being reduced, but as long as anybody has to go through the experience described by my hon. Friend, we plainly cannot be complacent and have not achieved a satisfactory outcome. We must keep trying.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill is effectively unamendable, in that the main clause is the same as the long title. He claimed in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that the Bill seeks to restore the situation that existed before the judgment. If the right
468
hon. Gentleman is advised and convinced that it will not do so, will he give an undertaking that there will be scope to amend the Bill so that it does achieve that stated aim? Does he share my concern that the Bill is to be passed by both Houses of Parliament in one day, which makes it not only unamendable but practically undebatable?
Mr. Cook: By definition, no Bill is unamendable. It is beyond the wit and knowledge of even the parliamentary draftsmen to produce a Bill that it is not competent to amend. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Bill is tightly drawn. That is because its focus is to restore the position that we understood to be the state of the law before Friday, apart from those matters that are still subject to appeal.
The Bill is indeed being brought before the House next Thursday under an emergency procedure, for the simple reason that it is surely not in the country's interest that we should end up with no legal controls—controls that we thought did exist—to prevent people from coming here to take advantage of that legal ruling. I would hope that all Members recognise the importance of closing that legal loophole before it is abused.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Several weeks ago I was fortunate enough to lead a debate on manufacturing in Westminster Hall. Many Members from both sides of the House attended and many important issues were raised. However, the time allocated to the debate was far too short to flush out the Government's response to the issues that are affecting British manufacturing. Can my right hon. Friend allocate a whole day to a debate on that subject and the impact that it is having on our economy?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured that debate in Westminster Hall, demonstrating once more the value of that Chamber in ventilating some of the issues that we cannot accommodate in the House. I will happily add my hon. Friend's bid for a day's debate to the three other such bids that I have had in the last half hour. Perhaps I could point out that the Department of Trade and Industry will answer questions next week, and I am sure that that will provide an opportunity for an exchange on manufacturing.
Mr. John Randall: The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware of the plight of the 12 British tourists still being held in custody in Greece without having been charged. They include my constituent, Mr. Peter Norris. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to come and make a statement on that situation?
Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Office, through its consular department, is maintaining contact with the British citizens who have been arrested. We understand that they have been given access to legal representation and that they have had opportunities to contact their relatives by phone. We will continue to give the closest consular attention to their case.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Assuming that there will be a statement on Monday from the Foreign Secretary on his very important visit to Iran and Pakistan, could he include some comment on policy on the dropping of

469
cluster bombs and other ordnance that may not be exploding? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of our colleagues were disturbed by what General Sir Hugh Beach, Richard Lloyd and other experts from the all-party land mines group said, when they came to the House, about the amount of ordnance that has been dropped but has not exploded? Somehow, someone—perhaps the Halo Trust—is going to have to clear it up.
Mr. Cook: There are indeed many land mines throughout Afghanistan which are the detritus of a decade of civil war. Tackling that will be an important priority in the reconstruction of the country, and it must include tackling any unexploded ordnance from the bombing. I am not aware of the statistics that may have been presented to my hon. Friend and his colleagues, but in present circumstances I would be a little sceptical about whether we could be precise about the amount that has not exploded.
As I said to the House when we last discussed the subject, any cluster bombs that have been used—they have been used on very limited occasions—are designed to explode on impact.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In his statement, the Leader of the House announced the Second Reading of the Employment Bill. I genuinely seek information because I, like the right hon. Gentleman and others, fervently support pre-legislative scrutiny. Bearing in mind the impact that the Bill may well have on manufacturing industry—a subject that has already been mentioned—will he say whether it has been the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, and if not, why not?
Mr. Cook: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that the Bill has not been through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not see why that comes as a surprise, given that the Bill was first published only the other week. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I would like pre-legislative scrutiny to become the norm, not the exception, but several other changes to our proceedings would be required to make that feasible. One of those is to deal with the sessional cut-off and decide whether to adopt the interesting proposal in the—Conservative—report by Lord Norton that there should be a fixed period of 12 or 14 months within which a Bill can run, which would provide adequate time for exactly the sort of pre-legislative scrutiny that the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that 119 Labour Members have now signed early-day motion 226:
[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
The motion has also been signed by Members from other parties, including the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). When will we have a debate on reform of the House of Lords, and will that debate take place before Christmas?
Mr. Cook: I have followed the early-day motion and other representations on our proposals with the greatest of
470
interest. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have said that we want the consultation period to run until 31 January. It is my intention that the House should have a full day's debate on the proposals. Because of the legislative pressure, I cannot commit to having that debate before Christmas, but if not then, it will certainly be held in very early January and well within the consultation period.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House is aware of my constituents' great interest in the east coast main line route, so he will share their disappointment about the refusal of Treasury Ministers to take questions from the Transport-Sub Committee. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in requesting a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the powers of the Select Committees. I remind the Leader of the House that the Treasury team was invited to field Ministers for an inquiry into rail passenger franchising and the future of rail infrastructure. He will be aware that the Strategic Rail Authority requested a 20-year extension for Great North Eastern Railway on the east coast main line route and that the Secretary of State refused that request.
Mr. Cook: That is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. As I said, it does not assist the question of ministerial accountability to Committees of the House for that accountability to be passed to other Ministers. Treasury Ministers have in the past been perfectly willing to appear before the Transport-Sub Committee in respect of matters for which they are ministerially accountable. It is absolutely right that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should account to the Committee for matters for which he is responsible.
Mr. David Chaytor: As we now know, it took only seven months in New Zealand, nine months in Australia and 12 months in Canada, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is frustrating that in the United Kingdom it should take almost four years to implement freedom of information legislation? Given some of the clauses of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, will he find time in the near future for a debate—or at least a statement—on the implementation of the freedom of information provisions?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is uncharacteristically unfair about the proposals. He will remember that the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provided that the Act would be implemented in a five-year period. In fact, we are to bring it fully into force a year earlier than that, but it is not a matter of waiting four years for implementation: the roll-out of the Act's provisions will start next year. It conforms entirely with the advice that wt have received from the person appointed to oversee the implementation of the Act's procedures that it should be done one part at a time, so that we can gain experience and properly train and prepare staff to bring the measures into existence. It is a massive public administration undertaking and the House should not understate it. Broadly, there has been a welcome for the way in which we are proceeding with it—starting next year and completing by 2004.
Bob Spink: Will the Leader of the House convey my thanks to the Government for finally offering

471
help and hope to many multiple sclerosis sufferers by making beta interferon more widely available? Those talks are going on even today. May we have a debate to ensure that there will be no postcode restrictions, that we will allow at least 10 years before we start to draw conclusions on the trials, that consultants and patients will be able to choose between a variety of products and that the cohort who use those drugs will be about 10 per cent. of all MS sufferers?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the way in which we are proceeding. He is correct: talks are currently under way with the commercial manufacturers to try to find a financially viable and clinically acceptable way forward. I am not medically qualified, so I hesitate to comment on the particular parameters he imposes on the study, but I hope that we can reach agreement on it.
David Taylor: Two weeks ago, on 8 November, Garry Fagan of Kegworth in my constituency was among the group of 12 plane spotters who were arrested in southern Greece. The position is rather more serious than the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) suggested. Those 12 British citizens were charged with espionage on 12 November, and some or all of them may face even more serious charges next week, on 27 November. I am reassured as to the extent of consular and family contact, but will my right hon. Friend use his influence either to obtain a statement, to initiate a debate in the House, or to speak to colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which he led with such distinction, to ensure that they take a close look at a case that is starting to spiral in the most worrying fashion?
Mr. Cook: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and can well understand the deep concern that must exist in the family he represents. I am pleased to tell him that the Foreign Office has already been in contact with its opposite number in Greece. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe raised the case of the 12 people who have been detained with the Greek Foreign Minister only a week ago. We shall continue to take every action that we can to ensure that we draw the attention of the Greek authorities to the deep concern in the country and in the Chamber on this matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the need for an urgent debate on the working of the Select Committee system, does the Leader of the House not realise that the Chancellor is demeaning his office, and that it is for the Select Committee, in the exercise of its prerogative, to decide which persons and which papers to summon? It is not for Her Majesty's Government to decide which Minister should or should not go. If the Chancellor is to do his duty to Parliament, and to oar constitution, he has an obligation to attend.
Mr. Cook: I do not think that anybody can accuse Treasury Ministers of not carrying out their obligations to Select Committees. Earlier, I gave the House some examples: the Economic Secretary appeared before the Transport-Sub Committee on landfill tax and the Financial Secretary on green taxation. The reasons for their appearance before the Committee had everything to do
472
with the Treasury, but rail franchising has everything to do with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—[Interruption.] I put this question to hon. Members who are braying from a sedentary position: if they really disagree with it, why did they follow the same practice when they were in office?
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If my right hon. Friend has studied the school league tables that were published this week, he will have seen that the selective system of education in Kent is failing hundreds of my constituents by creating sink schools that do no one any good. My right hon. Friend has just announced the Second Reading of the Education Bill. If, on Second Reading, we find that changes to address the system of selective education and to make it a practical possibility to hold a parental ballot on the subject in Kent have inadvertently been omitted, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Committee and Report stages are programmed in such a way that we can thoroughly debate appropriate amendments to make those changes to the Bill?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. He is right to take the opportunity to stress the case for fair treatment of all the schoolchildren in his constituency. We are some way away from the Report stage of the Bill to which he referred, but I shall bear in mind what he said when we come to that point.
Mr. David Cameron: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), if we cannot have another day's debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, could we at least have a debate specifically on the powers that the Government have taken to pass into British law anything agreed by European Union home affairs and justice Ministers without introducing a proper Bill in the House? Last night, we had just 14 minutes to discuss an enormous constitutional change. I am sure that the Leader of the House will have seen, as I have, early-day motion 452 in yesterday's Order Paper. It states:
[That this House congratulates the entertainers comprising Puppetry of the Penis on their work to raise awareness of testicular cancer; notes that testicular cancers are the most common cancers in men under the age of 40; further notes that each year approximately 1,500 men in the UK develop the disease; further notes that testicular cancer is one of the most curable malignancies if caught at an early stage but that 81 per cent. of males do not know how to conduct a self-examination, further notes that self-examination is quick and easy and can form part of a regular awareness regime; and draws hon. Members' attention to NHS Direct's information webpage on this subject which will be of invaluable use during Check Your Tackle Day on 21st November.]
I accept that that is important, but have we reached a stage in the House where there is time to check your tackle, but there is not time to check the Government's legislation?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's closing line was beneath the dignity of the House and the seriousness of fighting international terrorism. I remind the House that when we met in the recall days immediately after

473
11 September, there was widespread concern in the House that we should act to make sure that the security of our citizens was foremost. The Government are doing that. If we had been debating the legislation in the mood that was around after 11 September, Opposition Members would not be objecting to us taking the measure through Parliament quickly to protect our constituents.
Mr. Mark Prisk: I should like to raise with the Leader of the House an issue that affects every taxpayer in the country, and urge him to raise it with the Chancellor. I am referring to yesterday's debate on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. There was no opportunity to discuss part 3, which relates to the Inland Revenue's ability to disclose information on personal tax records; colleagues on both sides of the House were deeply disappointed about that. Part 3 represents an unprecedented breach of personal confidentiality. The danger to the Chancellor is that there will be a significant problem in raising Government revenue. I therefore urge the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to make an early statement to the House that would establish clearly whether our constituents' tax records are dealt with by the Inland Revenue in complete confidence.
Mr. Cook: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the provision was introduced so that we can succeed in seizing terrorist funds and preventing them from being used for the commission of terrorist acts. Like many hon. Members, I was appalled to discover that it was possible for terrorists to use our banking and financial system to move their money around. My right hon. Friend should be praised, not criticised, for taking vigorous action to stop that.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I understand from the BBC that the Government intend to make an announcement on Monday by means of a written answer that they are converting another male prison into a female prison; that is in the face of a four-year sustained rise in the female prison population. So far, such decisions have been taken with about a week's notice for the prison to begin the changes. Could we have a statement rather than a written answer so that those of us who represent not only prisoners whose rehabilitation programmes have been disrupted but staff who are being asked to move around the country at a week's notice can make direct representations to the Minister concerned?
Mr. Cook: I cannot say that I am familiar with the pending question to which the hon. Gentleman referred,
474
but I am happy to draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Mr. John Hayes: The House will be aware that the Government have suddenly decided to end education action zones. They were a flagship initiative, as the Leader of the House will know, but the House will have learned of their scrapping not through a proper debate in the House but through press reports. Should not the House have an opportunity to debate the matter, which comes on top of scrapping individual learning accounts? If the Government are going to get rid of some of their important flagship initiatives, the repercussions for people employed in EAZs and the affected children should be fully debated in the Chamber.
Mr. Cook: As I understand it, education action zones were time-limited from the start. Therefore, the time at which they come to an end, far from being a sudden surprise, has been known ever since the date on which they commenced. As to communication with the House, I am advised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has written to every hon. Member who has an education action zone in his or her constituency.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Did the Leader of the House see today's report in The Times which read:
"Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, is to announce the death of Cool Britannia, the slogan that summed up Tony Blair's flirtation with youth culture…She will describe the label…as meaningless."
May we please have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport so that Opposition Members can congratulate her on that sudden outburst of candour, and may we offer a similar incentive to other Ministers who have been promoting meaningless slogans similarly to dispose of such catch-words and catch-phrases as "stakeholders", "communautarianism", "the third way", "joined-up government" and last but not least, that under Labour "things can only get better"?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his preparation. He has elevated the question to an art form and deserves congratulations from both sides of the House or entertaining us. Whether, as well as entertaining us, he illuminates politics in our time, I am more doubtful. I have heard "cool Britannia" buried three times over the past three years, and I am not surprised to hear it all over again. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the phrase has been used by any Minister for a very long time.

Points of Order
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you clarify the confusion that has arisen in the past hour, during business questions? I have the honour and privilege to sit on the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and I do not recall any Treasury Minister appearing in this parliamentary Session. Will you use your good offices to request the Leader of the House to explain when any Treasury Minister last addressed the Transport Sub-Committee?
Mr. Speaker: There is always next week. The hon. Lady can put her question to the Leader of the House then.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have this week—let us use this week. I referred to the Transport Committee in the last Parliament. However, the Government were the same, and we do not resile from that. The dates, if the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wishes to look them up, are March 1999, when the Economic Secretary appeared, and April 1999, when the Financial Secretary appeared.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady does not need to catch my eye next week, then.
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The surrender of the Taliban troops in Kunduz seems to be under way this morning. It is less clear what will happen to the many foreign troops who are fighting with the Taliban. Clearly, any bloodbath in that area, ahead of the conference in Bonn on Monday, would be catastrophic for the future of the peace process in Afghanistan. It has been unclear over the past few days who is responsible for what. We get the impression that the United States is washing its hands of the whole episode and walking away from events that are unfolding inside the country. That would be extremely regrettable. We have a responsibility. It is important that a United Nations security force be brought into the area immediately to monitor the withdrawal and what is happening in the country. Also, the humanitarian aid is not getting into the country. We should have daily statements from the Government about what moves are to be made next.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Ministers concerned. I am sure that they will note what the hon. Lady said.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Accepting that it is a matter for the Ministers concerned, I asked during business questions whether there would be a statement on Monday from the Foreign Secretary on his return from Iran and Pakistan. Through your good offices, perhaps he could be asked to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), which is so urgent, concerning the possible bloodbath in Kunduz.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

BILLS PRESENTED
  EDUCATION
  Secretary Estelle Morris, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Andrew Smith, Mr. Stephen Timms and Mr. Ivan Lewis, presented a Bill to make provision about education, training and childcare: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 55].
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTERS (RESTRICTIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS)
  Mr. Frank Field presented a Bill to permit a local planning authority to decline to determine an application for the development of telecommunications transmission to antennae in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January, and to be printed [Bill 56].
Orders of the Day

  British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill seeks to fulfil a commitment to grant British citizenship, and with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, to British dependent territories citizens in qualifying overseas territories. Many hon. Members will be familiar with its content and many have urged the Government to speed its passage on behalf of the people of the overseas territories. It was introduced in another place by my noble Friend and colleague Baroness Amos, Minister for the overseas territories, and has come to this House without amendment. I hope that it will secure the approval of this House too.
  Britain has 14 overseas territories. For the benefit of hon. Members who are not familiar with all of them, I shall list them: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic territory, the British Indian Ocean territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena and the dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus and the Turks and Caicos Islands. With the exception of Gibraltar, all those territories are islands or form part of them. Their populations vary from some 60,000 in Bermuda to only 50 in Pitcairn, which owes its population and its place in history to the mutiny on the Bounty.
  Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend mentioned the British Antarctic territory. I am not sure whether it has a permanent resident population, but my question relates to the fact that it is a claim rather than an agreed possession in the sense in which the other territories are so named. Can my hon. Friend clarify that point?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Not immediately. I shall endeavour to do so in my winding-up speech. None the less, my hon. Friend is absolutely right on this point: as far as I am aware, there are no permanent residents in the territory to which he refers.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Apart from Gibraltar, which my hon. Friend has listed, none of the other overseas territories is included in the European Union. Will he make it clear now or subsequently that, when the Bill is enacted, people to whom British citizenship is extended will, ipso facto, be citizens of the European Union? European Union citizenship is not geographical; it depends not on whether we are in the United Kingdom but on whether we are British citizens. I do not believe that that is made clear in the Bill or the explanatory notes.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I do not think that there is such a thing as a citizen of the European Union. There is, however, British citizenship, and the citizens of the territories will
  478
  become British citizens and enjoy all the rights that such citizens have in the European Union, so the answer on the premise of my hon. Friend's question is yes.
  Andrew Mackinlay: My hon. Friend had not been elected when the Maastricht legislation was introduced, so I understand why he does not know that it provided for the citizenship that I described. We are citizens of the European Union and I am pleased to tell him that he is, too. He needs to have the matter clarified by the time that he makes his winding-up speech, because it is a very important constitutional point. I believe that citizenship will benefit these folks, although some people might take a different view, so we need to know whether they are citizens of the European Union. I assert that they are.
  Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend may well be right. I shall try to help him on that point by the end of the day.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I understood the Minister to say that the citizens of our overseas territories would enjoy the same rights as other EU citizens. Does that include the rights to free travel and work throughout the Union and therefore throughout the territories?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, it does.
  Some of the territories, such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are prosperous; others are less so. Most, such as St. Helena and her dependencies Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, are remote. Whatever their differences, they have a close, long-standing connection with Britain.
  In March 1999, the Government published a White Paper entitled "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories." It was a culmination of a wide-ranging review of our relationship with the overseas territories. It laid the foundations for a new relationship built on the fundamental principles of self-determination, the acceptance of responsibilities on both sides and the greatest possible control for the people of the overseas territories over their own lives. It set out an agenda explaining what each side expected of the partnership in terms of support for good governance, sustainable social and economic development and protection of the environment.
  In his foreword to the White Paper, the then Secretary of State made it clear that our partnership must be founded on self-determination, and that the overseas territories would be British for as long as they wished to remain British. Britain has willingly granted independence when it has been requested, and will continue to do so when that is an option. I should like to reaffirm that that remains the position.
  Partnerships are not always easy, and I recognise that we may not always get the balance right, but I believe that our relationship continues to evolve positively, in consultation with the territories, and that we have made good progress on White Paper issues such as financial regulation, human rights, the environment, constitutional reform and good governance.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Bradshaw: I give way to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The Minister has mentioned two important words:

  479
  self-determination, which is fundamental to democracy, and partnership. Will he assure the House that there is no question of Gibraltar entering a form of condominium with Spain? Surely British citizenship means that the British flag should fly and that another power should have no jurisdiction in what is essentially British dependent territory.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I emphasise the assurances that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe have given. However, I warn Members that I am not prepared to be drawn on Gibraltar outside the scope of the Bill.
  We need to maintain momentum. The White Paper agenda still holds good, and there is further work to be done. The proposal to grant British citizenship to British dependent territories citizen' in qualifying territories, and to recognise their British connection properly, is an important component of that process. The proposed citizenship provisions in the Bill apply to all territories except the sovereign base areas of Cyprus, which are excluded because of their special status as military bases, established by treaty with Cyprus.
  The Bill formally changes the name of the territories to British overseas territories, and the term "British dependent territories citizens" to "British overseas territories citizens". It is no longer appropriate to use terms such as "dependent territory" or "colony". They are outdated and fail to reflect either the nature of our relationship and partnership with the overseas territories or modern reality. The Bill alters those terms in the British Nationality Act 1981 and will add a new definition of British overseas territory to the Interpretation Act 1978, so that it can be conveniently used in all future legislation.
  We estimate that around 200,000 people could become British citizens on or following enactment. The number is an estimate because it is not yet possible to tell exactly how many people will benefit. Apart from those who already hold British dependent territory passports and live in and outside the territories, others who live in them and do not yet have that status will come forward after commencement of the Act to seek naturalisation or registration as British overseas territories citizens and go on to apply for registration as British citizens.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point, which, surprisingly, is not about Gibraltar, but about the Falkland Islands? Will the people of the Falkland Islands, St. Helena and other places still have the right to self-determination? Will the Bill provide for that?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. There is, however, no compulsion about British citizenship. We believe that most people will want it, but British overseas territories citizens, as the Bill proposes that they should be known in future, will have the option to renounce British citizenship and to retain their current status should they so wish.
  British dependent territories citizens from the Falkland Islands already have British citizenship, and those of Gibraltar are already entitled to apply for it. We do not expect all British dependent territories citizens in other territories to want to apply for new passports describing them as British citizens.
  480
  I have already said that those people who prefer to continue with their British overseas territories passports will be free to do so. We expect the take-up rate to vary from territory to territory and according to circumstance.
  I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had an opportunity to read the Bill and the explanatory notes, both of which were deposited in the Library after First Reading and are readily available in the Vote Office. Nevertheless, it may be helpful if I summarise the content and scope of the Bill. As soon as the Bill has passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent, clauses 1 and 2, which deal with the change of name to "British overseas territory" and "British overseas territories citizen" will take effect. At that point, all references to the territories will be formally changed. I say formally, because the description "overseas territories" is already in common usage. Those clauses deal only with changes of name and involve no substantive change of law.
  Clause 3 sets out how existing British overseas territories citizens, as they will be known, will automatically become British citizens with the right of abode in the United Kingdom on commencement of the citizenship provisions of the Bill. In other words, they will not have to apply for citizenship, although they will have to apply for a British passport to show documentary evidence of their new status and to facilitate travel.
  Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that possession of a passport confirms, but does not confer, citizenship?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Yes.
  The date of commencement will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by statutory instrument once we are satisfied that the practicalities for implementation of the citizenship provisions are in place. For instance, we need to ensure that arrangements for passport issue are agreed and that the staff who will deal with passport and nationality questions are properly trained.
  Clause 4 sets out how British citizenship can be acquired by people who become British overseas territories citizens after commencement of the legislation. There are, of course, many people living in the overseas territories who are not British dependent territories citizens. The automatic provisions of the new legislation do not apply to them. To qualify for British citizenship, they will first have to qualify for British overseas territories citizenship by connection with the territory in which they reside. If their application is successful, they will thereafter be free to apply for British citizenship.
  Tony Baldry: The Minister is talking about citizenship and passports. The White Paper, "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories", published in 1999, was a series of quid pro quos. Will the Minister explain what the overseas territories and their legislative councils have given the Government in exchange for the citizenship that we are giving? As I understand it, this is a two-way deal that the Foreign Office has arranged. We ought to have some understanding of what is being given back.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I will deal with reciprocity later.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could tell the hon. Member for

  481
  Banbury (Tony Baldry) that we are returning to those citizens what they had prior to 1962, when the then Tory Government took away their right of abode in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bradshaw: The point is well made.
  Clause 5 and schedule 1 to the Bill further amend the 1981 Act to provide for acquisition of British citizenship by future generations having the requisite connection with any of the qualifying overseas territories. Those provisions will put the qualifying territories in the same position as the UK for that purpose so that, for example, a child born in a qualifying territory after commencement to a parent who is a British citizen or settled there will automatically acquire British citizenship in the same way as a child born in similar circumstances in the UK.
  Clauses 6 and 7 and schedule 2 deal with repeals of superseded legislation and the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill.
  British citizenship will mean that British overseas territories citizens have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement and residence, and with that the opportunity to work, in European Union member states. In short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they will have the same entry and residence rights as you or me. They will be able to visit friends and relations or travel on business or for employment without being subject to immigration controls. I know that that has long been a bone of contention.
  British dependent territories citizens have never considered it fair that they are subject to immigration control and must pass through the non-EU channel on arrival at UK ports and airports. As British citizens under the Bill, they will not have to.
  I should like to make an important point at this stage. The Bill is about nationality. British citizenship carries with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement in Europe, but other rights and obligations, including the right to preferential rates for tertiary education, health and social security benefits and the vote in UK parliamentary elections and the requirement to pay income tax, all depend on residence in the UK, not nationality. Those matters are therefore not covered.
  Furthermore, the Bill will have no impact on the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the overseas territories or that between the territories and the European Union. That has been confirmed by the Constitution Committee in another place.
  I am aware of concerns surrounding those issues, and also of continuing concern about reciprocity. Representatives of some territories are worried about what would happen if large numbers of British or European citizens were given the right to live in their territories, most of which are small islands that would be unable to cope with such an influx. They point out that granting British and European citizens the right of abode in their territories risks fundamentally altering the social, cultural and economic fabric of the territories.
  482
  We have already given assurances that the Bill is non-reciprocal, but in case there are lingering doubts, I am happy to reiterate that that is the case. Please do not think that support for the Bill will entitle you to retirement on Bermuda, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not.
  Tony Baldry: I am partly at fault, as I was not sufficiently clear. That is not the trivial type of reciprocity about which I am concerned. The White Paper refers to fundamental principles of self-determination and the acceptance of responsibilities on both sides. As a consequence of the Bill, what new responsibilities, if any, will the overseas territories in the Caribbean and elsewhere accept?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a longer list when I sum up, but, for example, territories have changed their laws on money laundering, same-sex relationships and a number of human rights and judicial matters, which they would not have done had it not been for the Bill.
  The legislation is eagerly awaited, nowhere more so than on St. Helena, which will celebrate—
  Bob Russell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Bradshaw: No, I am sorry. I shall give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman is patient.
  St. Helena will celebrate its quincentenary in May next year. How fitting for its people to be able to celebrate by having British citizenship conferred on them and residence rights in the United Kingdom restored to them.
  Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for answering the question before I have asked it. Is he confirming that the citizens of the island of St. Helena will be British citizens by 21 May 2002?
  Mr. Bradshaw: We hope so, but that depends to a certain extent on the rapidity of the progress we make in resolving the passport issue. My officials are confident that we will do so in time for the islanders' happy celebration.
  Peter Bradley: In my previous intervention I sought clarification, as possession of a British passport does not of itself confer citizenship, but simply confirms it. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is making the point that putting in place provisions on issuing passports is not necessary to granting British citizens' rights to the residents of St. Helena and elsewhere well before 21 May 2002. That point is extremely important to St. Helenians and their friends in the House and elsewhere, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister carefully considers what we are saying.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I shall consider those points carefully. The time lag between the passing of this legislation through both Houses of Parliament and the issuing of passports is being discussed in the light of representations that my hon. Friend has made to me and colleagues in the Home Office. I hope that the islanders will welcome the fact that we are bringing the Bill through now. I know that they have waited a long time, but we have a heavy

  483
  parliamentary programme, and we are showing our commitment to getting the Bill through by debating it now.
  I know that many right hon. and hon. Members take an interest in the overseas territories, and have urged the Government to deliver on the granting of citizenship. Given the pressures on the parliamentary timetable, we have been fortunate to secure an opportunity to debate the Bill. I am confident that hon. Members will share my desire to see it approved, and I commend it to the House.
  1.40 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: The British Overseas Territories Bill contains many positive aspects, and I should like to express my party's support for its objectives. We have waited a long time for this Bill since the original proposals were made. I remind hon. Members that it was on 27 August 1997 that the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), announced a review of policy on the dependent territories. Those plans stayed for too long in the in-trays of Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers. It was not until March 1999) that a White Paper was published. It took until July 2001 for it to appear as a Government Bill, which is an inordinate delay.
  John Austin: It occurs to me that, if it were not for a previous Conservative Government taking away the rights of these people, we would not have needed the Bill in the first place.
  Mr. Spring: Circumstances have changed somewhat in the past 40 years. Although there certainly was a powerful feeling that this issue needed to be addressed, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties that Hong Kong presented for the British Government.
  We welcome the Bill, even though it has taken four years and three months to be introduced. We recognise that the people of the overseas territories are very much in favour of the Bill, and we fully support their right to this change of status. It is good to debate legislation that has such widespread support among those whom it will directly affect.
  Britain's overseas territories include some of the most prosperous and some of the most remote islands in the world. They range from the barren wilderness of Antarctica to business, financial and tourist centres, such as some of the Caribbean territories and Bermuda. We understand the value that people in our territories attach to British citizenship—like the people of Gibraltar, if I may remind the Minister. The people in our territories have long sought the status that the Bill will afford them. The Conservative party will support their right to citizenship, as we have supported the right of the people of Gibraltar to remain British. I refer in passing to the widespread consternation that the inept remarks of the Minister for Europe have caused in Gibraltar.
  The main provision of the Bill concerns the granting of citizenship. We welcome this move, and so do the overseas territories. Many benefits will now be available to those who are soon to become full British citizens. At this time of terrorist threats from around the world, the overseas dependent territories are dependent on the United Kingdom for defence, just as in 1982 when Britain went to the aid of the Falkland islanders. Supporting the rights
  484
  of territories can take the form of military action, but happily of late that has rarely been needed, and it more often takes the form of diplomatic assistance. Only this week we have seen the importance that the residents of Gibraltar attach to their British status, which they clearly cherish, and which we cherish, too.
  However, it is not only close-to-home territories such as Gibraltar, or those further afield such as the Falklands, that depend on Britain for support. The Chagos archipelago, better known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, is claimed by both Mauritius and the Seychelles. The United States' lease is due to expire in 2016, and although that is 15 years into the future, we may be called upon to defend the rights of people who wish to return there.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Chagos islanders have already won their right of return? That happened in a landmark High Court judgment last year. As yet, however, there is no specific facility for their return, beyond an environmental impact assessment study that is taking place now. Is it not high time that these people were allowed back to all the islands?
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in the subject. The House will have heard what he said, and I am sure that we should consider it.
  The relationship between Britain and the overseas territories is also important to the development of their economies. A prominent example, which many will doubtless cite later, is St. Helena. I mention St. Helena for a specific reason: it illustrates the problems of distance and inaccessibility. I therefore hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not mind if I refer to it at some length.
  I am pleased to say that it was my constituent the Earl of Iveagh who, on 30 July 1997, introduced the British Nationality (St. Helena) Bill. It was intended to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by those with connections with St. Helena. It gives me great pleasure that this Bill deals with many of the issues to which my friend was so dedicated, including the need to boost employment, the need for an airstrip, and the value of education opportunities for the young people of the island. It is regrettable that the earlier Bill did not make more progress.
  I pay tribute to Ned Iveagh, who pursued the issue so singlemindedly and highlighted the plight of St. Helena before his departure from the House of Lords. On Second Reading, on 23 October 1997, he spoke of the "overwhelming sense of Britishness" on the island. He said:
  "The majority of the people are Anglican; their schools teach using the national curriculum, and, of course, the language is English."
  The citizens of St. Helena should have the right to British citizenship. They should be able to go through the British-European Union channel at British airports.
  In 1997, Lord Iveagh rightly asserted:
  "The civil rights of the St. Helenians were granted by King Charles II in 1673 by Royal Charter, which stated that its people"—
  at this point he quoted from the charter—
  "'Shall have and enjoy liberties, franchises, immunities, capacities and abilities of free denizens and neutral subjects within any of our dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our kingdom England or in any other of our dominions'".

  485
  He was also right to add:
  "This freedom has been eroded by the introduction of work permits for Saints"—
  that is, St. Helenians—
  "who want to work in the United Kingdom, followed by the British Nationality Act 1981".
  Peter Bradley: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that legislation of the 1960s, and indeed the British Nationality Act 1981—which conflicted directly with the royal charter—was in any way unlawful?
  Mr. Spring: The legislation was passed, obviously, and I do not think that it was successfully challenged. As the hon. Gentleman will surely accept, however, things have moved on. We are dealing with a limited number of people in specific circumstances.
  Members have spoken a great deal about the situation in St. Helena, especially since the changes in shipping patterns, and I am very glad that we have now reached this stage.
  Lord Iveagh pointed out that giving St. Helenians the right to British citizenship was important because it would address the "poor economic status" of the island and its dependencies. He also spoke of the unemployment problems that have sadly led to a damaging brain drain from the island. He said:
  "Restoring full British passports will create a much needed release valve for the islanders, who seek to raise their living standards from a very low base."
  An issue that is of great concern to the people of St. Helena, and to many Members, is the need for an airstrip on the island. During that debate of 23 October 1997, Lord Iveagh said:
  "The island's economic status is punctuated by lost opportunity. A Ministry of Defence survey back in 1941 declared an airstrip as feasible. It is now 1997 and there are still no plans for an airstrip. The island is very well served by the RMS 'St. Helena', which is an extremely versatile ship with a highly dedicated crew. However, the case for an airstrip comes into its own when we consider such things as medical emergencies and the development of the island's full tourist potential."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 1997; Vol. 582, c. 847–8.]
  The islanders of St. Helena are dependent on the United Kingdom for their transport links with the rest of the world. Those links have changed dramatically in the past 30 years, but the Government seem to be set on providing the cheapest option. They are focused on a short-term solution. The current proposals require spending £26 million on replacing a passenger cargo ship, and will require the continuation of an annual subsidy to operate the service.
  A recent recommendation, which will require £38 million in the short term but has the possibility of earning revenue in the long term, is to build an airport on the island. The 1999 White Paper itself recognised the problem when it stated:
  "In 1997, 8,698 tourists visited St. Helena but without an airport, no safe anchorage for yachts in heavy seas and the limited capacity of the passenger/cargo ship RMS St. Helena, tourism is unlikely to develop rapidly".
  486
  In a written answer, in July, the Secretary of State for International Development stated:
  "The St. Helena Leisure Company has held preliminary discussions with the St. Helena Government and my Department about its proposals to provide leisure facilities on the island. At the request of the St. Helena Government, we have made available to the Company a copy of the recent report of the 'Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access' for St. Helena. We understand that the Company wishes to take account of the study's findings in further formulating its proposals to the St. Helena Government."—[Official Report, 5 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 264W.]
  The Minister would also do well to read the comments of the late Lord Shackleton, who was a great supporter of St. Helena, and who argued on many occasions for an airport on the island. An airport matters to the people of St. Helena, as no airport means no tourists in any substantial number. Give the islanders an airport and the significant boost to the local economy, not to mention the much speedier transport link that will ensue will be greatly appreciated. Such action would also encourage people of other countries to invest in the island, which—as Viscount Colville of Culross stated in another place, on 10 July 2001—would be of great benefit to it.
  An airport is one means of boosting the economy of St. Helena. By helping St. Helena to achieve that objective the Government would be giving the islanders the opportunity to exercise more economic independence. I assure the Minister that, for the sake of an extra £12 million, the Opposition will not stand in their way.
  From the development perspective, we must all welcome the easing of the education restrictions that are currently endured by those wishing to study in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case for building an airport now. Why was one not built in the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government?
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman will know that the way of linking St. Helena to the outside world has changed dramatically. Previously, shipping went regularly between the United Kingdom and South Africa, and for many years much of it stopped off at St. Helena. Much of that shipping has now ceased, thereby aggravating the problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that.
  Tony Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that only those citizens of the overseas territories who come to the United Kingdom and take up UK citizenship have access to education here? The idea that all citizens of the overseas territories are able to avail themselves of higher education here and then return to the overseas territories is a misconception. All the Bill does is to provide people with the opportunity to come here and gain citizenship, from which other rights would follow.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which I was about to address. If he is successful in catching the eye of the occupant of the Chair, he may wish to expand on the issue.
  Hon. Members may be aware of the difference in the fees structure. The University of Manchester, for example, offers a very good degree in medicine. For a UK or EU citizen attending that university, the fees for the first four years amount to £4,300. For all others, the fees for the first year alone are £9,700. Fees for the third and fourth

  487
  years are significantly higher. The total fees bill for four years amounts to some £54,200. Through this Bill, we are offering, to some at least, tertiary education at an affordable price, and that is welcome.
  In the past, I have said to interested parties, such as the British Council, that there is an important long-term gain for Britain in attracting the brightest and the best to this country. I understand that it is open to individual universities to interpret the regulations on fee status and that decisions on access to education and differential fees are based on residence and not citizenship.
  What assurances can the Minister give on the measures he is looking at to encourage universities to undertake initiatives to encourage young people from these territories to study in Britain? There is an argument that under a changed status many islanders may leave to visit Britain either to work or to stay. I point to what happened on Tristan da Cunha, which faced a full evacuation in the 1960s to the United Kingdom. An overwhelming majority of the population returned to their homes when the all-clear was given. Indeed, the top estimate of those who would leave St. Helena at present amounts to some 500 people. People obviously prefer their own home base.
  All the evidence points to the fact that the Bill will lay foundations that can assist the British territories in their development and in their partnership with the United Kingdom.
  Another issue that Opposition Members are glad to see addressed by the Bill is the resentment that many feel concerning airport procedures at present. In 1998, my noble Friend Lord Waddington, who has substantial experience of the British territories as a former distinguished Governor of Bermuda, informed the Foreign Affairs Committee that the vast majority of white Bermudans of Anglo-Saxon descent have British citizenship but the vast majority of black Bermudans do not. He went on to say:
  "At Gatwick the whites go through the British and EU Channel. The black Bermudians, even Premiers and Cabinet Ministers, are lumped in with the foreigners and queue to obtain leave to enter. It is scarcely surprising that this causes immense resentment and black Bermudians simply cannot understand why as a matter of common courtesy those for whom Britain has a responsibility are not treated as favourably as foreigners for whom Britain has no responsibility."
  We welcome the fact that this situation will no longer continue.
  On the values of our relationship with the British territories there is also the issue of aid. One cannot forget the valuable contribution made by the British Government to Montserrat when nature took its violent course, spewing volcanic lava and ash over half the island and leaving its capital destroyed. It is right that we made that contribution.
  As a friend of the territories I would like to flag up a note of caution regarding this Bill. We will be seeking clarification on several issues which concern the fine detail of the Bill, and I am certain that the Minister will be able to provide assurances.
  The House may not be aware that some Governments of the overseas territories would not welcome this Bill if it came with conditions attached to it, such as an obligation to introduce British tax rates and regimes. It would be of concern to the Governments of the territories, to their people and indeed to the House if this Bill were to result in an unwelcome excessive influence of EU law
  488
  in the internal affairs of the British territories. The EU is seeking an active influence. A memorandum on a meeting of the preparation of the euro group and Council of Economic and Finance Ministers, which took place in July this year, stated:
  "As far as the EU's tax Code of Conduct is concerned, we must continue with member states to ensure that the timetable established by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers of November 2000 for rollback of harmful business tax measures, including in dependent and associated territories of Member States is observed."
  This matter was discussed in a letter to my noble Friend Baroness Rawlings, on 15 October this year, from the Baroness Amos, who stated:
  "The territorial scope of application of EC law is defined in the EC Treaty. This specifically excludes the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus and, with the exception of Part Four of the Treaty concerning the 'Overseas Countries and Territories' (OCT), the other Overseas Territories apart from Gibraltar. The EC Treaty applies, with some exceptions, to Gibraltar as a 'European territory for whose external relations a Member State is responsible'. The relationship between the other Overseas Territories and the EC is governed by the Council decision on association with the Overseas Countries and Territories, which is periodically renewed (the latest OCT decision is due for adoption in December and will run until 2007). The granting of British Citizenship to Overseas Territories citizens under the provisions of the Bill will have no effect on the Overseas Countries and Territories decision, nor on the constitutional relationship between the EU and the Overseas Territories. It follows that the Bill will have no effect on the rights of nationals of EC Member States, including British citizens, in the Overseas Territories, because the Territories fall outside the scope of the EC Treaty."
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not possible that there could be an increased perception that British citizens, including those who will now become British citizens, should be equally subject to the same tax obligations? Is not that a danger? Will my hon. Friend confirm unequivocally from the Opposition Front Bench that we have no intention of letting that happen and that those countries will be able to have their own fiscal policy and regime?
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so forcefully. Of course, taxation is a matter of residence and in no way should it be our responsibility, or, indeed, that of the European Union to impose a specific tax structure on the overseas territories. I should therefore like to ask the Minister to assure the House and the people of the territories, who would resist such a move, that the Bill will not result in the Government or our European partners further interfering in the internal workings of the British territories.
  Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether, as well as reading the Lords Hansard report of debates that took place in the other place, he has read the White Paper, the Bill and the explanatory notes, which clearly confirm that the citizens of overseas territories will not be subject to British tax unless they have taken up abode and qualify for tax and benefits in this country? Will he make that clear to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who clearly has not read that information?
  Mr. Spring: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to adopt a somewhat churlish tone about a perfectly valid point, which my hon. Friend asked me to reinforce. As I made clear in response to my hon. Friend's intervention, we are talking about residents. I am happy to confirm that,

  489
  but what I want to hear from the Minister is something crystal clear, from the Government's point of view, to echo the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  Mr. Wilkinson: These are extremely important points, which get to the heart of the Bill. Will my hon. Friend consider reciprocity again? Is it not the case that the Minister said in his speech that British citizens resident in the United Kingdom would not be able to settle in the overseas territories because he lumped them together with European citizens? He referred to British or European citizens. In other words, he gave the impression that, notwithstanding the fact that the overseas territories remain British and not part of the EU, European citizens from elsewhere in the EU could go to those overseas British territories. For that reason, he denied full reciprocity. Will my hon. Friend consider that point?
  Mr. Spring: I hope very much that, for the benefit of the House, the Minister will clarify that point in replying to the debate, because some confusion has obviously arisen from his remarks. The fact is that there is no reciprocal arrangement between citizens of the United Kingdom and those who live in the overseas territories for exactly the reasons that have been set out in the White Paper and the Bill. Obviously, it would be extremely difficult for that to happen in practice, as I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree, but I am grateful to him for making that point.
  Andrew Mackinlay: British and European citizens will be free to go to the overseas territories, but there will be no free mobility of labour. That is also the existing position in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. To invest or obtain employment, one has to meet the local work permits regimes. There is confusion because, although the right to live in the territories will be a matter of fact, there is also the question of employment.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It underlines the importance of the Minister addressing it when he winds up.
  The Minister talked about the relationship between the United Kingdom, the European Union and the territories. The White Paper states:
  "Under European Community law, giving British Dependent Territories citizens British citizenship will mean giving them certain European Community rights of free movement and residence in EU and European Economic Area member states."
  The Minister defined the difference between what was and was not available, but he might wish to refer to the issue when he winds up as there is some confusion.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The White Paper was probably written by the same person who wrote the brief.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's erudition.
  The Government raised human rights issues in their 1999 White Paper. It states:
  "Overseas Territory legislation should comply with the same international obligations to which Britain is subject, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
  490
  It also flagged up three human rights issues on which it wanted reforms in some of the overseas territories: judicial corporal punishment, homosexuality laws and capital punishment.
  We note that the laws making homosexuality a crime in Anguilla, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands were repealed in January 2001; that judicial corporal punishment has been abolished in all overseas territories; and that a variety of human rights projects in the territories are funded by Britain.
  However, many Members may not be aware that some lawyers and students of law believe that the Government may still risk being in breach of important and fundamental international agreements, including the European convention on human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights. It will be useful for clarity's sake if the legal position regarding the international agreements is outlined by the Minister for the consideration of the House when he winds up.
  In particular, I would like assurances from the Minister that the Bill's implications for the agreements were carefully considered when it was drawn up. A statement on the legal rights of individuals in the territories that will become British overseas territories is central to that. In particular, as a result of the Bill, will individuals be able to take action against the British Government regarding legislation or actions implemented in the territories that fall in breach of the ECHR? As Baroness Amos said in her letter to my noble friend Baroness Rawlings on 15 October:
  "British overseas territories citizens who gain British citizenship as a result of the Bill will come within the definition of UK nationals for EC purposes and will therefore acquire the same rights in EC law as existing British citizens".
  I take this opportunity to acknowledge my gratitude to my noble Friend Baroness Rawlings. She put much constructive effort into the debate and discussion of the Bill during its stages in another place and asked such questions.
  Addressing the situation in the Cayman Islands would add clarity to the problems that Britain may face in due course. Despite the progress on human rights that I have outlined, reports suggest that the human rights situation in the Cayman Islands—and indeed in some other territories—is at present below that demanded under the ECHR. One issue of particular concern is that spouses of citizens of the Cayman Islands do not have an equal human rights status. Does the Minister agree that this constitutes a violation of article 8 of the ECHR, which demands that spouses have equal rights even if one spouse originates from another country?
  In addition, there is the issue of statelessness. The noble Lord Redesdale mentioned that in the debate in the other place. Is the Minister aware that the problem extends to the Cayman Islands? I understand that children there who are subject to statelessness are entitled to British citizenship under provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981. Will he clarify that?
  Furthermore, what discussions has the Minister had on the human rights situation in the Cayman Islands and will he assure the House that before legislation comes into force, those matters will be considered and, if necessary, resolved? Will he consider placing in the House of Commons Library his assessment of whether the

  491
  European convention on human rights extends to the Cayman Islands, with particular reference to the right of individual petition applying as of November 1998 with the addition and changes to the treaty through protocol 11, which was ratified at that time.
  It would be of great concern to all hon. Members if the United Kingdom were found to be in contravention of its obligations under the European convention on human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights as a result of this Bill. That would expose the United Kingdom to an avoidable contingent liability of costs and possibly damages. Will the Minister assure the House that the Bill does indeed comply fully with those obligations? Will he also assure the House that no embarrassment will be caused to Britain as a result of the change of status of the territories?
  At present, citizens of the British dependent territories can acquire an entitlement to British citizenship if they qualify under the immigration rules to enter and remain for settlement in the UK. They are then entitled to register as British citizens as soon as they have completed five years' residence. I am interested to know what mechanisms, if any, are in place to stop terrorists obtaining citizenship in an overseas territory and using that status to apply for British citizenship under the rights afforded in the Bill. I understand that the Home Secretary will exercise scrutiny in that matter, but the detail of the process is less clear. We should consider that given the current international situation. Are there plans to scrutinise those citizens of the territories who apply for British citizenship shortly after obtaining citizenship of one of those territories? What mechanisms are in place to prevent known proponents of terrorism from obtaining British citizenship under this legislation?
  In whatever action we take we must be careful that we do not undermine either the political structures or the economies of the British territories. Will the Minister give assurances that the Bill will not result in unrealistic standards being forced on the overseas territories? It must not result in regulation in excess of that operating in the London markets, especially if financial markets are a primary source of revenue. What of the financial concerns that were raised in the White Paper? Several of the territories rely heavily on offshore banking. What are the implications for them? Will they be affected by European Union legislation on that sector?
  Clarification is also needed on some of the Bill's finer points. What is the cost of bestowing British citizenship? The explanatory notes to the Bill state:
  "The intention is that the costs of implementation will be recovered from the fees charged for nationality registration and naturalisation and passport issuing."
  Will the price vary from territory to territory? Does the Minister agree that it is important that any cost-paying mechanism is not discriminatory?
  What measures is the Minister taking to achieve the aim of the partnership that all hon. Members would welcome? The Bill implies that the people of the islands will become more closely associated with the United Kingdom, but little has been said about what positive steps will be taken to achieve that aim. What evidence will be required when applying for British citizenship, and what action has the Minister taken to ensure that arrangements for passport issue are agreed and that the staff who will deal with passport and nationality questions are properly trained?
  492
  What has been the outcome of the discussions being undertaken with the overseas territories with a view to developing a programme of secondment and training for overseas territories civil servants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's good governance fund? Finally, how will the pension and social security rights of those applying for British citizenship be affected?
  The Bill is a significant step towards the Government's notion, as expressed in the White Paper, of a partnership. In fairness to the Minister, I do not expect him to provide full answers to my questions this afternoon, but I hope that he will do so either in part in his response or in Committee. However, for the sake of clarity, I hope that he can be persuaded to write to me on some of those questions before we reach the Committee stage. I should again like to commend the Minister for introducing and explaining the Bill today. We fully support its aims.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: It was, and it may well remain, my intention to make a brief contribution. I must be honest, however, that in view of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the general political points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), I am tempted to speak for far longer.
  One of the main thrusts of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks echoed what Baroness Rawlings said about waiting too long for the legislation. Perhaps four years is too long, but had the Tories been elected in 1997 we would still be waiting for a report, and we would probably still be waiting in 2005. It is a little strange to hear the hon. Gentleman claim that we have been waiting too long.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Lord Waddington. He said in his contribution to the debate in another place that he had raised the possibility of restoring British citizenship to the British dependent territories when he was Governor of Bermuda. The then Tory Government made it clear that there was no possibility of that being considered while there was still a threat from Hong Kong and, even if that threat were to recede, they would still be highly unlikely to restore British citizenship to citizens of the British dependent territories.
  Peter Bradley: Although Lord Waddington made a thoughtful contribution to the debate in the House of Lords, it is worth pointing out that before he was the high commissioner for Bermuda he was Home Secretary and would have had more influence had he made that suggestion then.
  I want to reiterate a point that my hon. Friend raised in his intervention. Never mind waiting for the legislation, it would not be necessary to legislate had it not been for the British Nationality Act 1981 and previous legislation enacted by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Marshall: Naturally, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but I wish that I had refrained from giving way because he makes two of my main points.
  Lord Waddington was one of the most illiberal Ministers ever to serve in the Home Office. My hon. Friend might have forgotten—I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who also served on the Standing Committee that considered

  493
  the 1981 Act, will remember—that prior to Lord Waddington becoming Home Secretary he was the Minister of State responsible for interpreting and deciding immigration matters. As someone who wrote to him in that capacity, I cannot remember him ever giving a favourable response to a request for people in this country to be permitted to stay. As I said, he was one of the most illiberal Ministers to occupy high office in the Home Department.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk also referred to St. Helena. I almost cried for the island and its population. I appreciate their difficulties, but the Opposition are shedding crocodile tears. The hon. Gentleman referred to the royal charter granting the status of St. Helena and the right of its people to come to the United Kingdom. I remind him that the British Nationality Act 1981 removed those rights. I can only say, with due diffidence on my own part, that in the Committee proceedings on that Bill we protested against that, but the then Tory Government were impervious to our arguments and rode roughshod over those historical rights. It ill behoves the Opposition now to criticise the Government when the primary responsibility is theirs, and we are restoring rights to people who had them removed.
  I certainly welcome the Bill without reservation. As the Under-Secretary said, it restores the right of citizenship of, and abode in, the United Kingdom to those people who are currently citizens of the British dependent territories. In view of the way in which I voted last night, it is a pleasure to be able to say publicly that, on this occasion, the Government are to be applauded.
  I say that not only because of the contents of the Bill but because for the first time since 1966, nearly four decades ago, we have legislation on nationality and immigration which gives people a right—the right of abode in this country. For the past 40 years, each piece of legislation on nationality and immigration has successively taken away rights, ultimately removing all right of entry to, and of abode in, the United Kingdom. I certainly applaud the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, who has introduced the Bill today.
  As I have already said, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the British Nationality Bill in 1981. There are still a few of us left in the House. I have already mentioned the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. We also have the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who then went under the name Selwyn Gummer, and the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who was then the hon. Member for Petersfield; namely Michael Mates. I mention his name in case some hon. Members do not know to whom I am referring.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. It is normal just to refer to the hon. Member's constituency, and I do not think that there is any need to spell it out for the House.
  Mr. Marshall: I am aware of the propriety and the rules of the House, but I was trying to be helpful.
  To show how long the Tories have been involved in racist nationality and immigration legislation, and how high within the party that involvement ultimately went,
  494
  I should also point out that the Tory Whip on the Committee was a Mr. John Major, who subsequently became Prime Minister.
  Tony Baldry: I think that we have had enough of this. Will the hon. Gentleman be fair-minded and acknowledge to the House that the Government would not be introducing this Bill now if Hong Kong were still a dependent territory?
  Mr. Marshall: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of hiding away from the problem that Hong Kong posed, so I shall come to that question. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for West Suffolk said.
  John Austin: It was not worth hearing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a good example of how sedentary interventions simply disturb the debate.
  Mr. Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought to intervene on several occasions during the speech by the hon. Member for West Suffolk by rising in the normal manner, rather than trying to make my comments from a sedentary position. Unfortunately, he refused to give way. If he wishes to intervene and repeat his remarks so that I can hear them, I will give way.
  Mr. Spring: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way to him, but I did not see him rise. I hope that he acknowledges that I generously gave way to a number of his colleagues.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about the hypocrisy of our supporting the Bill after we complained that, although the way was clear for it to be introduced after 1997, there was a delay in doing so. Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), he then admitted that that was due to the Hong Kong situation. I do not see where the hypocrisy is, and I feel that his remarks were neither called for nor fair.
  Mr. Marshall: They were totally fair and they were called for. There was no reason for the then Tory Government to treat the 200,000 people who are now citizens of British dependent territories in that way just to protect the position of Hong Kong. If they had wished, they could have allowed those people to be British citizens, with the right of abode in this country, even if they could not allow them to retain citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. Unfortunately, 200,000 people scattered around the world have had to suffer an injustice because the Tory Government in 1981 were not prepared to give them justice. They had to suffer for that Government's decisions on Hong Kong.
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: As a new Member of the House, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that we should not waste time discussing what previous Governments did, and that our time would be better spent considering how we can now benefit the people of the overseas territories? Does he agree that it is rather strange that we are debating the future of people in

  495
  the British overseas territories who have no right to vote in British elections or to have a democratic say in what goes on in this House?
  Mr. Marshall: I can only say in my defence that I dwell—I hope at not too great a length—on the events of 20 years ago because, since I came into the House in 1974, I have always sought to protect the rights of British citizens both in this country and overseas. I have witnessed, particularly between 1979 and 1997, increasingly racist nationality and immigration law. I hope that this Bill now closes that chapter. We are seeing that trend reversed, which is why I so warmly welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it interesting, and does not he draw any conclusions from the fact, that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to introduce the Bill to grant British citizenship to people living in the overseas territories but have introduced no measure to end the statelessness of children of British overseas citizens born in east Africa?
  Mr. Marshall: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates a point that I hope eventually to reach.
  Returning to the Standing Committee on the British Nationality Bill, you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the legislation sought to bring into line nationality and immigration law at the same time. It abolished the citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies, and introduced three types of citizenship for the people concerned: British citizenship, citizenship of British dependent territories and citizenship of British overseas territories. Only the first of those conferred the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
  Despite the overwhelming strength of the arguments that Labour Members advanced in the Committee on the 1981 Act—we were led by Lord Hattersley, who had by far the better of the debate—we failed to persuade the Tory Government of the day of the injustice inherent in the legislation. That Government were so obsessed with the potential threat of mass migration to the United Kingdom from Hong Kong on its being handed over to China that they were prepared to ride roughshod over the claims of 200,000 people living in the other dependent territories. We repeatedly levelled that charge and the Tory Government never convincingly refuted it. I am delighted that that injustice is now to be removed.
  I wish that the current Government had been bolder and taken the opportunity to restore rights to British overseas citizens. The Tory spokesman and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood mentioned stateless children in the Cayman Islands and in Kenya. My understanding of previous debates and of remarks made by Foreign Office Ministers is that if there are stateless children, they will be given British citizenship. I would like to hear the Minister's comments and his estimate of how many people are involved.
  A decision has to be made on the position of British overseas citizenship, which is held by a group of people who are scattered throughout the world. Their numbers are dwindling and many are elderly, so a decision would not cause large numbers of new British citizens. Furthermore, that category of citizenship is racially discriminatory. For those reasons, I urge the Government to be bolder and to restore rights to British overseas citizens.
  496
  I also urge the Government to recreate a single British citizenship, which would cover not only British overseas citizens, but British protected persons, British subjects and British nationals (overseas). The three latter categories of person should also he brought within the ambit of British citizenship.
  I apologise for having taken the House down a path that leads back 20 years. I welcome the legislation, but I urge the Government to turn their mind to introducing a single British citizenship, so that we can do away with the various categories that I have described.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. Michael Moore: As our spokesman in another place said when the Bill was introduced there, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill, and—more importantly—so do the dependent territories. It is important that its passage through Parliament is swift so that the important changes it makes to citizenship can be established as soon as possible.
  The rights of abode, of employment and of movement are fundamental rights that go with citizenship. It is right that the people of the dependent territories—which are to be renamed overseas territories—are to have those rights, that those rights are to be automatic and that they are to be capable of being passed on to those people's children. As the Chief Minister of Gibraltar put it earlier this year, in contrast to some of the measures on offer, the Bill gives "first-class British citizenship" to the people of the overseas territories. We, too, welcome that.
  Several interesting themes have run through the debate, including that of self-determination. I do not want to get sidetracked by the issue of Gibraltar, but it is worth noting that in another place Baroness Amos confirmed that the Bill would not affect the right of self-determination, saying:
  "the right is reflected expressly in the constitutions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1037.]
  We must hope that the Government never lose sight of that fact.
  The important changes made under the Bill and their effects have already been explored by other speakers. Separate channels at airports are particularly humiliating, so it is welcome that they are to go at last. There is some confusion about the rights relating to education: universities will have discretion to decide whether to treat the new British citizens from overseas territories as though they were resident. That is important, but I hope that the Government will go further and encourage people to do that, rather than leave them uncertain about what financial burdens and opportunities would be open to them if they came to this country to pursue further or higher education.
  The other substantive change made by the Bill is the change of name, which is right and proper as it reflects the practical reality of how the territories are already described. It was not specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) today, but Conservatives in another place attacked the change of name, saying that it reflected some sort of political correctness. I hope that is not the hon. Gentleman's view. It appears that all of the—soon to be officially—overseas

  497
  territories support the change, so right hon. and hon. Members on both side of the House should be able to agree.
  The number of people affected by the Bill is relatively modest—the current estimate is 200,000—so many have speculated about the reason for the delay in its appearance. We have already gone over that territory, so I shall not dwell on it too long. Suffice it to say that during the 1980s and 1990s the previous leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Ashdown, fought a fairly lonely battle on the issue of citizenship on behalf of the residents of Hong Kong. That issue may have been the practical reason why the Bill could not appear under a Conservative Government. We opposed their treatment of Hong Kong, and we feel that it is not appropriate for the Conservatives now to make a big deal of the delay between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill.
  There is a separate issue relating to timing which has been touched on by previous speakers: the crucial and practical issue of implementation. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) said that the rights are conferred and are not dependent on a passport having been issued. My understanding is that at the point that the commencement order is passed following the Bill completing all its stages, all those in the overseas territories will have those rights of citizenship: none the less, it is important that they are quickly issued with their passports. Technical issues relating to passport provision and the training of staff have been mentioned.
  Peter Bradley: The point I was trying to make is that commencement is not conditional on the structure for issuing the passports being in place. I hope the hon. Gentleman will support me in urging Ministers to ensure that commencement is not delayed by delays in producing passports.
  Mr. Moore: I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is most important that the commencement order is introduced as soon as possible after the Bill has completed its stages and received Royal Assent.
  Having said that, I hope that there will not be many practical problems that might cause a lengthy delay between commencement and the issuing of the passports. I am sure that the people of St. Helena, whose 500th anniversary has been mentioned, would be delighted to be able to flourish British passports as a symbol of their British citizenship.
  The Minister's explanations of the problems are similar to those given by Baroness Amos in another place in July. Some months have passed since she made those observations, so I hope that the Minister can assure us that the problems are close to resolution and will be sorted out before too long.
  There have been brief references to points that are missing from the Bill: for example, the issue of stateless persons and British overseas citizens in the Cayman Islands, in east Africa and elsewhere. The Minister was strangely silent on that point. Will he inform the House of the state of discussions with the Kenyan and Cayman Islands authorities, in particular, and give us his assessment of the likelihood that that loophole will be
  498
  closed within those countries? Will he make a strong statement of intent that, if the countries will not fulfil those duties, the British Government will fill the vacuum?
  In response to an intervention, the Minister briefly mentioned some of the welcome human rights developments that have taken place in certain overseas territories during the past few years and which he directly attributes to the prospect of the Bill. He promised to give a fuller list at the end of the debate. I hope that he will take the opportunity to do so.
  The Bill is short, but it has huge significance for the people who will be affected by it. As the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, for years rights have been stripped away from people who live in the dependent—now to be overseas—territories. The Bill restores those rights and Liberal Democrats support it.
  2.41 pm
  Peter Bradley: I, too, welcome the Bill—not least because it is short, simple and straightforward. It rights wrongs that have been festering for the best part of 40 years. I had hoped that there would be (a measure of consensus for the Bill, so I am sorry that some of the contributions from the Opposition Benches have been contentious, especially that of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the Opposition spokesman. It would have been appropriate, opportune and gracious had the hon. Gentleman—rather than drawing a veil over the past and making only a grudging concession about the implications of the British Nationality Act 1981—taken the opportunity to issue some words of apology to the 200,000 people in the overseas territories who were not only disadvantaged but insulted by that legislation.
  I am especially pleased because, although the Bill may not attract much public interest, it is of huge importance to the territories that will be re-enfranchised and to many of the 200,000 people who will have their nationality rights restored. They enjoyed those rights until the legislation of the 1960s and, finally, the 1981 Act, which rendered them second-class citizens. In future, they will enjoy the right of British citizenship and, most importantly, the right of abode in this country.
  I suspect that few of the 200,000 people involved will take advantage of that right, however. Mercifully—not least because of the progress made in establishing higher standards of human rights in the territories—few people likely to be victims of persecution in those territories. Few of them are likely to be economic migrants: about 70 per cent. in the territories enjoy a gross domestic product that is higher than ours.
  Lord Waddington, a former Governor of Bermuda, made the point in another place that white Bermudans who had the benefit of British citizenship passed through the "British" channel when they disembarked at British airports, whereas their black compatriots all too often had to pass through the "other nationalities" channel. In future, I hope that insult will be removed.
  The restoration of citizenship rights will have a practical moaning for other people, especially St. Helenians. They will have open access to opportunities that were previously denied them; in particular, for education and training in this country and in the European Union.
  Mr. Michael Trend: The hon. Gentleman said that the measure would bring an end to second-class

  499
  citizenship, but citizenship, as we understand the word, will continue to be second-class for St. Helenians in relation to education. As Saints will have to fulfil residency requirements, and as they have no opportunity to take up tertiary, higher, or further education in their own islands, they will still suffer discrimination.
  Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; he is both right and wrong. As I understand it, he is wrong inasmuch as the conditions that apply to other people living outside the United Kingdom will now apply to Saints. In other words, they will not be disadvantaged compared with other people in the same position. However, I share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by other Members and make this plea to the Minister: given the importance of education to the economy of St. Helena, Departments should work vigorously with British universities and higher education institutions to ensure that places are made available to a small but important number of young people and others. They come to this country not only to enjoy the right to British citizenship and to acquire education and skills that enrich them, but to develop their economy in St. Helena—whither I suggest that the vast majority who will come to this country for education and training will want to return.
  I shall concentrate most of my remarks on St. Helena, because of its special position. Perhaps more than any of the territories, St. Helena was almost literally cast adrift by the 1981 Act. It is a tiny island: 47 square miles, mostly of volcanic rock. It has little more than 6,000 inhabitants, most of whom feel intensely British. Their island is incredibly remote and isolated. It is almost 4,500 miles from this country; about 1,200 miles from the coast of Africa; and about 1,800 miles from the coast of south America.
  The 1981 Act caused enormous hurt and grievance to the population of St. Helena. It also severed an economic lifeline—tenuous but nevertheless important—and forced the community into an unequal struggle for self-reliance.
  St. Helena has had a long association with this country. It was first settled in the year of the Spanish Armada, in 1588. It was more permanently settled by half a dozen families who were displaced by the great fire of London. For 150 years, it was administered by the East India company, but became a Crown colony as long ago as 1834.
  In those days, the island was of great strategic importance to this country. It was a key station on our sea routes and provided invaluable service both to the Royal Navy and to merchant shipping. In its heyday, about 2,000 ships a year put in for re-provisioning or repairs. Since the opening of the Suez canal, that number has declined swiftly and substantially; at present, only one ship, the RMS St. Helena, plies between Falmouth and the island.
  The island is rich in landscape and wildlife habitats, but in little else: economically, it is poor. It had a flax industry that was undermined by the development of synthetics. I am indebted to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who tells me that when the Post Office decided to bundle letters in rubber bands rather than string, not only was there enormous growth in the littering of our streets and doorsteps but St. Helena was deprived of an important export outlet.
  500
  Unemployment has reached about 18 per cent. in St. Helena. Provisions for a three-day week and job sharing were introduced because of the straitened circumstances in which the economy found itself. Retirement at 60 was also introduced, and 1,000 of the 6,000 residents of St. Helena now work outside the island—700 on Ascension Island and 300 in the Falklands. Its GDP is one of the lowest of all the aid-receiving overseas territories—£2,500 per capita, compared with just over £17,000 enjoyed by people living in the British Virgin Islands.
  It is vital that we reconfer rights of citizenship and of abode in this country and open up opportunities for training and shilling, but the aid provided by the Department for International Development should also continue. Hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the airport, which will make a huge difference to St. Helena. Reading the Hansard account of debates in the Lords, I came across an anecdote—probably apocryphal, as I have heard it several times—about the previous Government, who thought it expedient to dispatch a Minister to St. Helena. However, they could not spare one, so they sent a Whip, who disappeared off the radar, not for days or weeks, but for several months, so difficult is it to get to St. Helena and, more to the point, to get back again.
  The airport is crucial, not just to the quality of life of people who live on the island, but to the development of their economy. There are prospects for the limited expansion of their tourism industry. As I said earlier, although much of the island is volcanic, there are exceptional wildlife habitats and beautiful landscapes. Hardy and adventurous people will want to visit St. Helena and spend their money there, not least the French, who will want to visit Napoleon's former home.
  It is important that we restore citizenship rights to Saints, but this is not just about rights and opportunities: it is a matter of principle. The hon. Member for West Suffolk quoted the royal charter of 1673, which was conferred on the island by Charles II. It says that the inhabitants of the island
  "Shall have and enjoy liberties, franchise, immunities, capacities and abilities of free denizens and neutral subjects within any of our dominions to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this our kingdom England or in any other of our dominions".
  That was an unqualified conferring of rights and privileges on a people living 4,500 miles away. The provisions of the charter were intended to remain in perpetuity; it was never intended that they should be superseded by legislation passed in the 1960s or 1981.
  The 1981 Act did a great injustice to the people of St. Helena and, indeed, those elsewhere. I was not in the House in those days, so I am not sure how readily Conservative Members conceded that the 200,000 inhabitants of the dependent territories, as they were then called, should be disadvantaged by the need to protect the country, as their Government saw it, from the implications of returning Hong Kong to mainland China. I am not sure that they were willing to concede that point. However, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that rights were withdrawn from Saints and others, not by accident but by design. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made clear, with a little more thought and consideration, and to honour our commitments and the provisions of the charter, those territories could have been

  501
  exempted from the legislation; it is no credit to the previous Government that they were not. Much as they would like to, Conservative Members cannot escape that fact. I hope that they will take the opportunity during our debate to apologise to the 200,000 people whom we are re-enfranchising today for the wrongs done to them in the past.
  The White Paper "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity" was widely welcomed when it was published, not just for the rights that it re-established, but for the responsibilities that it conferred. Indeed, the previous Foreign Secretary drew attention to four subjects in his introduction: the important right to self-determination, which is not abridged in any way by the Bill; responsibilities on both sides; the right of territories to control their own destiny; and their right to depend on or look to this country for continuing aid where necessary. As I have just said, self-determination—the ability of territories to take control of their own future—is an important principle. Although a few people will regard it as political correctness, changing the term "dependent territories" to "overseas territories" is important; it is politically significant, not least because it makes it clear that those territories should no longer regard themselves as subsidiary to the motherland, even if the ties are strong, and have a right and responsibility to pursue their own future.
  The White Paper also insists on conformity to higher standards of human rights. An important by-product of the process that led to its publication and the subsequent introduction of the Bill is the fact that there have been changes and significant improvements in human rights in most of the territories. In most of them, corporal punishment and capital punishment have been abolished; laws that curtailed equal rights for homosexuals have been amended. We must be vigilant, as must the territories' Governments and people, that standards in human rights continue to improve. When they fall short, our Government and Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that every encouragement is given to Governments in the territories to improve them.
  The White Paper makes important reference to the need for stricter financial regulation. Money laundering has been a problem for a long time and pre-dates the events of 11 September, but the need to deal with it is now much more urgent. I hope that the Government will give aid, as well as incentives, to the emerging economies and their Administrations to ensure that their offshore financial regimes are not vulnerable to the money laundering with which we have become all too familiar recently.
  I referred to continuing aid, which is significant. Technical aid is given to Anguilla, Pitcairn Island and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Financial aid—budgetary supplements—is given to St. Helena, this year totalling £9.5 million. By comparison with our own public expenditure, that is not a great deal of money, but it is a considerable sum for an island with a population of 6,500. This year, Montserrat will receive £24.5 million, not least because of the continuing need to recover from the effects of the volcano. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the aid will continue and that, in particular, the Government will do all they can to advance the project to develop an airport. A consultation paper was completed this year and the Government have pledged aid for
  502
  whichever solution—replacing RMS St. Helena or constructing an airport—proves most cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness is a strange criterion; within reason, we should be looking at which solution is most desirable and can provide the biggest boost to the local economy and the quality of life of the citizens of St. Helena. I hope, like other hon. Members, that we will be generous in acknowledging our commitment and debt to St. Helena and give its people every assistance to develop their economy in future.
  When the White Paper was published in 1999, a newsletter from the UK branch of the commission on citizenship led by the Bishop of St. Helena said:
  "The Government has understood the justice of the case and responded with both honour and generosity."
  It is unusual for a Government to receive such a plaudit, but is welcome none the less. The newsletter went on:
  "It does not merely restore full British passports and the right of abode in the UK, it does so in a manner that is open, honourable and generous."
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South in saying that it gives us, as members of the Government party, a warm glow to be able to welcome a Bill that has generated such support from those whom it is intended to benefit.
  That welcome for the White Paper and the Bill was shared by my constituents, whom I ought to mention—Ken Butler and his wife, Edie, who provoked my interest in St. Helena. Like most hon. Members, I was blissfully ignorant of its existence, other than in the history books, arid of the plight of the people who live on St. Helena, mini the 1997 general election, when I knocked on Mr. Butler's door. He said, "You politicians—you only come round at election time." We are all familiar with that opening gambit. He went on to say, "There is one issue that concerns me and which I feel passionate about, but if you get elected, you won't take the slightest interest in it." I am particularly pleased to discharge a debt today and to redeem the pledge that I made to Mr. Butler—that I would remember his words. Since that time, I have taken an interest in the fate of St. Helenians.
  I pay tribute also to Dr. Dorothy Evans, who is a lifelong friend of the St. Helenians and has been extremely helpful to them in the development of their education system. She provided the basis of much of my knowledge about St. Helena and, I discovered, happens to live in the same village as my sister, from whom she bought a jumper recently. If anyone else would like to buy a jumper from my sister, who makes them for a living—very warm and elegant they are, too—please let me know after the debate.
  People like Ken and Edie Butler and Dr. Dorothy Evans have kept the flame burning and campaigned tirelessly for the rights of an isolated people many thousands of miles away. I pay tribute to such people, without whose support Saints would not be on the threshold of achieving their new status. Their commitment and love for that place are paying off. They have kept the faith and kept the crusade going.
  I am grateful to the Minister for offering a meeting some time ago to discuss the Bill. I repeat that, on 21 May 1502, the Portuguese Admiral Joao da Nova Castella discovered St. Helena, although it was the British who settled the island. In six months, Saints will celebrate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of their island. It

  503
  would be sad to have made the progress that we have made so far, but not to have conferred on Saints by that date their British citizenship and the rights that go with it.
  That is why, in a series of interventions today, I have made a plea to the Minister not to allow the bureaucratic difficulties of establishing consensus among the territories about the format of the new passports, and the technical ability to issue passports, to delay the commencement order which confers British citizenship on those 200,000 people. It would be sad if that were to happen. Conversely, it would be the cause of much celebration throughout the territories if we were sensible and sensitive to those people's needs and issued the commencement order as soon as the Act receives Royal Assent. We owe that much to Saints, to ensure that they can celebrate their anniversary as British citizens.
  I welcome the Bill. It discharges a debt and acknowledges the associations of the past, but it goes further. It will help to secure the future for hard-pressed economies and isolated communities such as those of St. Helena. They are a few, but they are an important few in the British overseas territories. I hope that when we have achieved Third Reading, Royal Assent and commencement, there will be happy days of celebration for those people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that the Second Reading is principally about citizenship? One or two hon. Members have started to stray rather wide of the mark.
  3.4 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall be brief, and I shall resist the strong temptation to reminisce to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) yielded all too readily, going back to the good old days of the 1981 Standing Committee that considered the British Nationality Bill. Let us deal with the points at issue, which were not all addressed with complete clarity or certainty by the Minister from the Dispatch Box.
  The Bill deals specifically with the granting of British citizenship to residents of the British overseas territories. As British citizens, they are to be on an equal footing with us. This is all to the good, and there is unanimity about it across the House. However, the Bill is singularly deficient because it does not address the responsibilities as citizens which those new British citizens will enjoy. The omission is deliberate. On the key question of the franchise, the Bill says nothing. That is an issue about which democrats such as us care profoundly.
  All the dependent territories listed are beyond the European continent, except for one—the dependent territory of Gibraltar. It is instructive for us to contrast the citizenship provisions of the Bill, and the attendant responsibilities, with those enjoyed, for example, by French citizens in the French overseas departements, especially the big ones—Reunion, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Those have been incorporated in metropolitan France—
  Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right to draw the parallel with the French overseas departements. They have direct representation in
  504
  the French Parliament and elections which are part of those in metropolitan France. Is it his wish that the same should happen in the case of British overseas territories?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No. I was about to point out an anomaly. The departements send deputies and senators to the French Parliament in a way that is not proposed in the Bill, unless, perhaps, some residents of the British overseas territories are fortunate enough to become people's peers and sit in the other place—anything is possible. Although the residents of the British overseas territories will be citizens in the fullest sense of the word, they will not be able to stand for election here in the territories where they reside or to take part in the democratic process for representation of those territories in the UK Parliament.
  With regard to Gibraltar, it is noteworthy that the United Kingdom continues to be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights decision of 18 February 1999, which ruled by 15 votes to two that the residents of Gibraltar should have the right to vote in the European Parliament elections. For that reason, I thought it was casuistry on the part of the Foreign Secretary to declare in the preamble to the Bill that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. In a strictly logical and legalistic sense, he is right, but the spirit of the legislation is not compatible. Following the resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe this year, it is high time that the United Kingdom found a means for Gibraltarians to vote in European elections.
  Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that the Minister did not draw the attention of the House to a written answer given by one of his ministerial colleagues yesterday, in which the Government state that
  "the UK is now actively considering taking unilateral action to extend the franchise to Gibraltar. This will involve bringing in domestic legislation without prior amendment of the 1976 Act"?—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 331W.]
  If the Government are considering taking unilateral action to extend the European franchise to Gibraltarians, one would have thought that the Minister would make that point today.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, indeed. Perhaps the Foreign Office is not sanguine that the proposal will receive the unanimous approval of the other member states. The Government may envisage a blocking veto but be reluctant to admit it at the beginning of discussions with the Government of Spain about the future of Gibraltar.
  Let us not be awkward, however, but return to the Bill and the more central question of citizenship. A most interesting principle is involved, as our conferral of full British citizenship on the residents of the overseas territories means that they will, ipso facto, become citizens of the European Union. The Minister denied it at the start of his speech, but then stood corrected, as he was not present for the exciting and interesting debates about the Maastricht treaty, which means that he missed a lot. The consequences persist: people can acquire citizenship of the European Union, whether they like it or not, by virtue of having citizenship of one of its constituent countries. This will also be the case for British citizens who live in our overseas dependent territories.
  I find intriguing the extra-territoriality of the measure in terms of European citizenship. It is a sort of imperialism, exerted via the route of citizenship, which is distinctly

  505
  odd. In the understanding of most people, citizenship is attached to territorial connection in a very particular way. It is not the case in this instance, inasmuch as the Minister specifically admitted that our overseas territories will, with the exception of Gibraltar, remain fully outside the European Union. In addition, when he was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), he said that European Union law would not apply to them. He is looking thoughtful, which is all to the good. If I am wrong, I am sure that he will put me right in his winding-up speech.
  I mentioned a significant omission regarding the children of British overseas citizens. I think that only Kenya now regards children as stateless if neither of their parents is a national of that country. The issue arose in the other place. I am not sure whether the situation still exists, as Baroness Amos seemed to suggest that the children in question could somehow acquire British citizenship by virtue of the British Nationality Act 1981—an answer which I did not comprehend. This is a most important point, not least for my constituents, as these are the sort of unaccompanied refugee children who end up at Heathrow, which is in the same borough as my constituency. My constituents have to pay for them to the tune of more than £1 million a year. They are a significant category not only in practical terms for my constituents, but also in terms of ethics. Nobody wants children to be stateless and therefore unable to enjoy the rights of citizenship in any country, especially if they owe their statelessness to a lacuna in British citizenship legislation.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I agree that we have a responsibility to avoid statelessness in respect of any category of British citizen, but does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence for his implication that the children of British citizens are arriving as refugees at Heathrow?
  Mr. Wilkinson: All I can say to the hon. Lady—I have not studied the figures—is that we seem to get unaccompanied refugee children from most parts of the world. I imagine that it would be easier for the refugees in question than for others to get around the visa stipulations of airlines, which are extremely vigilant, as they are liable to be fined if they allow passengers to board their aircraft without appropriate travel documents. I assume that Kenya is embarrassed about the situation, which is entirely of its own making, and will be all too happy to see such children elsewhere. Of course, once they arrive here, as do many other stateless children, we have a responsibility to fulfil. We do not shirk that responsibility in my borough—far from it. Every effort, from social services to health and schooling, is made to ensure that stateless children who come into this country are well accommodated and provided for, and that the transition to British life is smooth and harmonious for them. We are not shirking our responsibilities, but the point is important and the Government should address it. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
  I should like to make a couple of other points. They may appear to deal with matters of detail, but they are very important from the ethical viewpoint, which I have already mentioned. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been more assiduous than any hon. Member in championing the rights of the Chagos
  506
  islanders who were evicted from the British Indian Ocean territories and transplanted to Mauritius. From the middle of the next decade, they will be able to return, which is well and good. I wonder, however, what will happen to those who elect to stay in Mauritius. I presume that they will not get British citizenship. Is that the case, even though their transplant was occasioned entirely by the high-handed and dictatorial behaviour of the British Government of the time? Why should they be denied that right?
  Jeremy Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am under a misapprehension.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the Chagos islanders can return from the middle of the next decade. They currently have a right of return that was granted by a High Court decision of last year. The American lease on Diego Garcia expires in 13 years' time. So they have a right of return at the moment that has not yet been carried out.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has clarified the matter. I imagined, perhaps over-optimistically, that when the US lease on Diego Garcia ran out, the reason for this forced transplanting of people would be a thing of the past and the islanders could return.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I think that he may be confusing Diego Garcia with the rest of the archipelago. A very large number of islands are situated some distance away. Diego Garcia is the largest and is, unfortunately, occupied by an American military base. The others are unoccupied at the present time and are, therefore, available for return.
  Mr. Wilkinson: In an ideal world, they most certainly are. I referred to Diego Garcia because it is the island which is relevant to the United States lease. I am well aware that the territory is huge; it stretches for hundreds of miles and contains many islands. None the less, I should like the Minister to answer the citizenship point.
  I want to deal with one final matter. If any of our overseas territories elect, by virtue of self-determination, to become independent, what will happen to the British nationals who are resident in those former British territories? Will they continue to enjoy the British citizenship that the legislation confers, or will we introduce an Act of Parliament that contains special provision? What will happen? This came up in the other place, where the Minister made no clear reply. We should have a clear answer before the Bill leaves the House of Commons.
  I applaud the principle of the Bill, which is overdue. However, like so many other measures that the Government have introduced, it is ill thought through. Many gaps and inconsistencies remain. I am thankful that, unlike the more important and contentious constitutional measures, it has not been strictly timetabled. Perhaps we have time to get it right.
  3.20 pm
  John Austin: I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I congratulate the Government on finding time for it in a heavy legislative period. I welcome the Bill for the same reasons as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). It is one of the few occasions when such a measure confers rather than removes rights.
  The British Nationality Act 1981 removed rights from the people whom we are considering today. In 1983, citizenship was granted to the people of the Falkland Islands as a result of a rebellion in the Tory ranks. It has taken another 14 years for the election of a Government who are prepared to extend that citizenship to the other territories. That is one year for each dependent—now overseas—territory.
  I want not to dwell on the past but to look to the future, and to ask for clarification on one or two points. I should like the Minister to expand on his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about self-determination. As hon. Members know, the right to self-determination is an intrinsic part of the United Nations charter; it is covered in the first article. Some of the overseas territories, the Falkland Islands, for example, have that right enshrined in the preamble to their constitutions.
  I seek an assurance that, even though the right to self-determination is contained in a preamble, not the main body of the text, it has the same legal validity in international law. I also ask for an assurance about the reviews that are taking place of overseas territories' constitutions. Will territories be allowed to incorporate the right to self-determination in their constitutions?
  During the debate, several points have been made about Gibraltar. Self-determination is important in the context of Gibraltar. The Order in Council that established the 1969 constitution of Gibraltar stated:
  "Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes."
  I seek an assurance that that remains the case. I share the fear of other hon. Members that, unless the British Government stand firm against the measures that Spain have taken to affect normal life in Gibraltar, it may have to decide whether to compromise its sovereignty to obtain a telephone line or the right to issue a driving licence. That cannot be tolerated.
  Hon. Members have referred to the United Kingdom being in breach of human rights legislation because the people of Gibraltar are not represented in the European Parliament. Of course, the Government intend to put that right as soon as possible. However, their attempts may be thwarted by another European Union member, which would try to block and veto them, thereby continuing to deny the people of Gibraltar their rights. We need an assurance that the Government will stand up to Spain, which is infringing the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
  It has been said that approximately 200,000 people nay be affected by the Bill. They will have the right to British citizenship. The right of abode in the United Kingdom is part of that, but it is right to point out that few of those citizens will avail themselves of it. Few Bermudans would give up their climate and higher standard of living for the
  508
  British winter. However, the right to travel to gain education and work experience is important to many Bermudans.
  Hon. Members have referred to comments by Lord Waddington in another place about the injustice of the inequality in the treatment of black Bermudans and white Bermudans at British airports when they go through two separate channels. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) highlighted that problem in a debate in 1997 when the then Foreign Secretary announced the review of British citizenship and the overseas territories, and heralded the White Paper.
  Discrimination does not only occur when Bermudans come through different channels at airports. Bermuda relies greatly on banking and financial services, and therefore many Bermudans need to travel and work abroad to gain experience so that they can progress in their careers. Black Bermudans, who are denied British citizenship, do not currently have the right, whereas white Bermudans, who may have British citizenship by descent, do. I am pleased that the Bill will create equality between black and white citizens in Bermuda.
  Other territories are less fortunate in their economies than Bermuda. I acknowledge that we are not here to discuss the economy of St. Helena, but it is pertinent when it comes to explaining why British citizenship is so important to the people there. It has traditionally exported labour, and the money earned by Saints abroad has gone back to sustain their families and communities. It will be dependent for a long time on revenue and support from the United Kingdom.
  I echo the comments of my hon. Friends who have more experience of St. Helena than I do. Few hon. Members have visited St. Helena; few people have visited because of transport difficulties. The Government acknowledged that in the White Paper, which referred to the lack of safe anchorage and the limited capacity of the passenger ship. St. Helena would benefit if it were to be opened up through the provision of an airport to make it less dependent on the United Kingdom and on work elsewhere.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the importance of May, which marks St. Helena's 500th anniversary, in the context of the commencement of the measure. I hope that procedural difficulties will not prevent commencement before St. Helena's celebrations, and that the Foreign Office and the Home Office will work together to ensure that there is no delay.
  Will the Minister say what will happen to people who will become overseas citizens and may be abroad or in the United Kingdom with limited leave to remain between the Bill's passage and commencement. Will their position be secure? What is the position of people who will become British overseas citizens and wish to apply to come to the United Kingdom before the date of commencement?
  I also wish to refer to the situation of the Chagos Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory. In the original Government proposals, the BIOT was not to be included in the provisions for British citizenship. I suspect that that decision has been changed because of the High Court judgment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred. I am pleased by that judgment.

  509
  My hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Islington, North have championed the rights of the Chagos islanders for many years. The High Court judgment gives them the right to return and ruled that they were illegally removed. However, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is right to highlight the position of the children of the Chagos islanders in Mauritius who have been born since 1968 and who are automatically Mauritian citizens. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the children of the Chagos islanders—the Ilois—also have a right to return, as well as a right to British overseas territory citizenship and thus to British citizenship.
  I welcome the Bill for a variety of reasons, not least because it will remove the difficulties faced by my constituents from Montserrat if they wish to travel to France or other European countries. They have difficulty obtaining visas. Many of the Montserratians in my constituency would like to return to Montserrat. Unfortunately, some of them have no homes to return to. Some will remain in the United Kingdom, and it is right that if they are here, they are afforded full British citizenship and full rights as residents.
  I said that the citizens of the BIOT were not originally to be included in the legislation, but they now are. It would also have been possible to include British nationals overseas, British overseas citizens and British protected persons. The number of those persons who have not exercised the right to come to the United Kingdom and now have no right to do so is very limited. It would not be difficult for the Government to provide British citizenship for those people as well.
  I seek an assurance from the Minister that the children of British overseas citizens in Kenya—they have been mentioned by other hon. Members—who are effectively stateless, will not be allowed to remain so by the United Kingdom Government and that they will have the right to British overseas territories citizenship and, through that route, to British citizenship.
  My final point relates to Europe and to international bodies. Often, the interests of the overseas territories are affected by decisions taken in international and intergovernmental organizations—for example, the European Commission, the European Union, the North American Free Trade Area and the World Trade Organisation. Will the Minister consider how the voice of the overseas territories may be heard in those organisations? The Government could consider adding a representative from the overseas territories to the UK permanent representation to the Commission in Europe.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the way in which European legislation may affect the overseas territories, which are in a different position from the French dependent territories mentioned by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. They are an integral part of France, with direct representation in the French Parliament. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Reunion and, since he is passionate about the euro, he may be interested to learn that, because of that island's position in the time zone, when the clock chimes midnight and the euro becomes legal currency in Europe, it will already be the legal currency in Reunion. Our overseas territories are in a different position, however.
  510
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) referred to financial services and banking in some of the overseas territories. He is right to stress that those services need to be regulated. No one is arguing against that. Regulation is different from taxation, however. A substantial part of the economy of some of those territories depends on banking and financial services. An EU derogation allows them to be excluded from EU tax regulations. Concern has been expressed—I know that it is shared by the UK Overseas Territories Association—about whether that derogation will be affected by the legislation. I do not think that it will, but it Would be helpful if the Minister could assure the overseas territories that that is not the case in his response.
  In his opening statement, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact that there are 14 overseas territories. This legislation will be welcome to their citizens. I have visited only two of those territories, although other hon Members have travelled more widely.
  Returning to the problem of isolation and the needs of St. Helena, which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin mentioned, I visited the Falkland Islands for a Commonwealth parliamentary conference on citizenship and immigration issues. There was a representative from St. Helena at the conference, which took place in January. For me, it meant a day's travel from the United Kingdom and a day for the return journey, although it is not particularly comfortable travelling there in a Tristar out of Brize Norton, via Ascension. We picked up the St. Helena delegate in Ascension. He had left St. Helena before Christmas and was unlikely to get back home much before Easter. That emphasises the need for better communication links and the importance of an airport for St. Helena. I hope that the Minister will also deal with that in his reply.
  3.37 pm
  Tony Baldry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). The House will agree with much of what he said, in particular his remarks about Gibraltar.
  Gibraltar is an overseas territory and the rights of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination must be no less than those in relation to any other overseas territory. The treaty of Utrecht is unambiguous and clear. It must be a matter of concern that the Foreign Secretary appears to be colluding with the Foreign Secretary of Spain against the interests of Gibraltarians. I am not aware of any request from Gibraltarians to become part of Spain.
  It is a matter of great regret that the Government, in enraging in discussions with the Government of Spain, were not able to persuade the legislative assembly of Gibraltar that it was in Gibraltar's interests that the discussions should take place. There must be real concern in the House and elsewhere that the Gibraltarians are likely to be bludgeoned into some compromise of sovereignty, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead described it, which will be to their detriment.
  Not only is Gibraltar a British overseas territory: we should never forget that the Gibraltarians have supported this country, the Commonwealth and the allies in two world wars and that, without their support, we would have had great difficulty with the naval campaigns in the Mediterranean.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that Chief Minister Peter

  511
  Caruana and his delegation were not permitted to attend in their own right the meeting during the recent discussions between the United Kingdom Government and Spain that concerned their future? They could only have gone there had the situation been different.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and knows that he is leading his hon. Friend astray and taking us outside the scope of the Bill. He may have been provoked, but I am ruling that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) should return strictly to the terms of the Bill.
  Tony Baldry: The Bill is about citizenship, and we in the House are entitled to put down a marker that we are concerned about the people of Gibraltar retaining their right to avow their wish to remain citizens of Gibraltar and thus retain their links with the Crown. That should not be undermined by negotiations between the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Minister of Spain.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might indulge me, as I did not rule against him. I intervened because of the direction that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) were taking when he talked about the composition of delegations. I ruled those out of order.
  Tony Baldry: Perhaps I am being hyper-sensitive, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Bill is of relatively narrow compass and its purposes are to change the name of the British independent territories to the British overseas territories—no one could complain about that—and to confer British citizenship on citizens of the overseas territories. However, it has been suggested that more rights are being granted to British overseas territories citizens than is the case. As the Minister in the other place made clear, all the Bill does is grant citizenship. With citizenship, it grants the right of abode, but all the other rights flow from the right of abode.
  Fiona Mactaggart: No they do not.
  Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, dares to challenge me. Let me read to her what the Minister in the other place said:
  "The Bill grants citizenship, and with it the right of abode. Other rights come into effect on the basis of residence."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1034.]
  Fiona Mactaggart: I said, "No they do not," because residence and right of abode are two separate matters. The hon. Gentleman is right that those rights derive from residence, but they do not derive from right of abode.
  Tony Baldry: I think the hon. Lady is wrong, because what the Minister in the other place said could not be clearer or more unambiguous. Unless people from the overseas territories come here to live, they will not acquire any rights. That is a straightforward point.
  512
  There was great discussion in the other place concerning the ability of people from the overseas territories to come to the UK for medical treatment or to benefit from higher education. They will not have those benefits unless they choose to come to the UK to live.
  Fiona Mactaggart indicated assent.
  Tony Baldry: I am glad that we agree about that.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Those rights are the same for any British citizen.
  Tony Baldry: Yes, of course they are, but my point is that people in the overseas territories will benefit from those rights only if they choose to live in the UK. The Bill will give people in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and Montserrat no benefits unless they choose to exercise them in the UK. There have been suggestions in various places that the Bill will give various rights to people in St. Helena or Anguilla who may come here to benefit from medical treatment or higher education. It will not, unless they choose to come here to live.
  John Austin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the position is no different from that of a British citizen born in the UK who chooses to live elsewhere and then returns?
  Tony Baldry: I must be being very inarticulate this afternoon. I have no quarrel with that, but it is not the point that I am seeking to make. For citizens of the British overseas territories, such rights as the Bill will give may be acquired only if they choose to come to the UK to live. Those citizens of the overseas territories who may want to come here for higher education will have to pay the costs as though they were foreign nationals, unless they come here to live.
  Mr. Trend: Is my hon. Friend concerned that the remarks made from the Labour Benches are fallacious? Inhabitants of St. Helena have no right to higher education because there is no possibility of higher education, but it would be unfair for them to have to come here and pay an enormous sum to exercise a right as a British citizen.
  Tony Baldry: I agree with my hon. Friend and we are at one on this. It is perhaps a pity that the Government were not more generous, particularly to some smaller overseas territories, in at least making higher education available. Effectively, those rights are exercisable only if people choose to live here.
  The Bill, which effectively arises from the White Paper "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories", is about balancing rights and responsibilities, and the citizenship proposals are part of the package. If I may, I shall briefly explore with the Minister what has happened to the rest of the package on the balancing side of the equation, as I have some interest in the matter.
  For a while, I was fortunate enough to fill the post that the Minister occupies and lucky enough to visit five of the 10 overseas territories in the Caribbean: Montserrat, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands. For reasons that I shall

  513
  explain, I thought that my ministerial career would come to a sudden end through my being sacked as a consequence of my involvement with them.
  When I returned from the overseas territories, I recommended that we reconsider our relationship with them and that there ought to be balancing rights. The White Paper refers to various balancing rights such as
  "measures promoting more open, transparent and accountable government;
  improvements to the composition of legislatures and their operation;
  improving the effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and impartiality of the public service".
  What have the Government done to meet the various objectives on improving the quality of government? We are doing our part by granting citizenship. That is part of the package; the other part is what the overseas territories have to do. What have they done?
  How are the Government minimising the contingent liabilities of the overseas territories? In May 1997, the National Audit Office published a report on contingent liabilities in the dependent territories. I return to why I thought I would be sacked. One night in 1995, 3,000 Cuban migrants suddenly arrived on the shores of the Cayman Islands—then a dependent territory with a population of only 30,000. The governor had only two police officers and he was concerned that they would be insufficient to deal with 3,000 Cuban migrants, so he asked whether we could please send more.
  I realised that, whatever I did as a Minister, I was likely to get it wrong. If I sent no officers, there would inevitably be riots and I would be held responsible. If I sent a lot of officers, there would again be "bobbies on the beach" stories of the kind that arose in Anguilla in the mid-1970s. Either way, my ministerial career would come to a sudden end.
  The Metropolitan police kindly put no fewer than 500 officers on stand-by one weekend, but to my great joy and relief the American Government reopened Miami for Cuban migrants and, very speedily, those on the Cayman Islands went to the United States, which is where they wanted to go in the first place. The incident brought home to me the fact that the overseas territories place on the United Kingdom a number of contingent liabilities. To what extent have the Government assessed them and have they reached arrangements with the overseas territories to minimise them?
  This is not the only Bill before the House dealing with overseas territories. Clause 2 of the International Development Bill, which focuses international development on poverty, makes an exception in relation to overseas territories. The United Kingdom development budget is top-sliced to give money to the overseas territories. For understandable reasons, Montserrat is getting £22.8 million this year. St. Helena is to get £29 million over a three-year period; the Turks and Caicos Islands are getting £4 million; Anguilla is getting £2 million; and even the British Virgin Islands are still getting development aid.
  When I was in the Turks and Caicos Islands, I was slightly surprised that we were giving them substantial development aid while the people of those islands do not pay income tax. I found that rather curious. Although I fully understand why Montserrat and St. Helena may still require development aid, will the Minister tell the House
  514
  when other overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands, will no longer be a liability on our development budget?
  My predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Banbury was Sir Neil Marten, who was persuaded way back in 1979, when he was Minister with responsibility for overseas development, that if the Turks and Caicos Islands were given an international airport, it would so generate tourist income that they would no longer require any development aid. That was 20 or so years ago, and the Turks and Caicos Islands still receive a substantial amount of development aid in proportion to the population.
  I welcome the Bill, and I do not think that anyone could object or take exception to it. However, it was part of a package under the White Paper "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories", which required the overseas territories to do certain things in exchange for being granted citizenship. We have heard a lot about what we have done, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what the overseas territories have done in exchange and what they will continue to do. We should have a better feel for the on-going relationship.
  Clearly, it is unlikely that any of the overseas territories will opt for independence. Bermuda had a referendum not so long ago, and it voted against independence. The remaining overseas territories are likely to remain so for some time. The House is entitled to have a better explanation from the Minister than he gave in his opening remarks about how he sees our future relationship with the overseas territories, and about what their duties and responsibilities will be.
  3.53 pm
  Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate and the Bill. I want to refer to three of the overseas territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) highlighted the plight of the Chagos islanders and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I shall also refer to Antarctica and the sovereign bases in Cyprus.
  I tabled early-day motion 380, which noted
  "with concern the recent protest outside the British High Commission in Mauritius by hundreds of exiled Chagos Islanders and the protesters' declared intention to go on hunger strike until"
  the British Government have responded to a number of their demands. I shall try to explain those demands.
  The situation of the Chagos islanders is very serious. In the mid-1960s, the British Government indulged themselves in a deal with the United States in which the people of the Chagos Islands—the Ilois people—were to be removed. The majority of them were to go to Mauritius and some to the Seychelles, and the largest island, Diego Garcia, was to become an American base. Unfortunately it still is an American base, and is being used as we speak in the bombing campaign in Afghanistan.
  Ever since they were removed, the Chagos islanders have rightly demanded a right of return. They have protested strongly at the way in which they were removed—internal memorandums that have since been revealed used disgusting language against them, describing them as people like Man Friday—and they have sought a right of return. Many lived and still live in great poverty in Mauritius and in other places, and they feel dispossessed.

  515
  It was my privilege last July and August to attend two sessions of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The first was on indigenous peoples, in which the Chagos islanders were represented, and the second was the sub-commission on human rights. This issue was raised on a number of occasions.
  I shall give some further background. The Chagos islanders have pursued their eternal quest for a right of return with enormous diligence, brilliantly led by Olivier Bancoult and others from he elected committee. They pursued their case with the help of an excellent English solicitor, Richard Gifford of Sheridans, and last year took the case to the High Court, where they won an historic right of return—a declaration of their right of return to the islands. That right of return was made without qualification, and ultimately was not appealed by the British Government, even though they initially responded that they would appeal against the judgment.
  There are clearly problems over the right of return to the largest island, Diego Garcia, because the British Government have signed a lease agreement with the United States, which has another 13 years to run. There are serious questions about the legality of that lease arrangement, which may well be challenged in the American courts in the near future.
  I have tabled a number of written parliamentary questions, and I had a meeting with Baroness Scotland when she was the Minister dealing with this issue. On several occasions, I have discussed with the Foreign Office what will happen about the right of return. The British Indian Ocean Territory's high commissioner announced that there would be a feasibility study of the right of return and an environmental impact assessment.
  That concern for the environment is touching, given that the presence of a small number of people—a few thousand—re-inhabiting the islands of the archipelago is unlikely to have an enormous environmental impact. After all, they managed to live there for several hundred years in an entirely sustainable way by fishing, picking coconuts and small-scale farming.
  The idea that a small number of people returning to the islands is about to destroy that pristine environment is laughable. Far greater damage has been done to the archipelago around Diego Garcia by the presence of the American base, including the removal of some coral reefs to allow large American military ships to get to the base. If the experience of the United States leaving other bases around the world is anything to go by, the condition in which they leave Diego Garcia will be pretty appalling, if and when they finally leave, as we hope they will, in 13 years' time.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up the debate he will assure me that, on 3 and 4 December, when Olivier Bancoult visits London, he will be able to have a meeting with the Minister or with Baroness Amos, who is directly responsible for this matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it is extremely important that the Chagos islanders be treated with the courtesy they deserve and that such a meeting be afforded to them.
  Mr. Trend: I seek clarification, because I have not understood this point. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, as a result of the court judgment, the inhabitants have the right to go back home straight away, but the Government are delaying their return? I am not trying to make a party
  516
  political point I had assumed that they would not be allowed to go back until 2016, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be telling us something different.
  Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. The High Court judgment authorised the right of return without the setting of a specific date, so it might be assumed that that means now.
  There is also the perverse issue of the deal made between previous British Governments and the United States over Diego Garcia. It could be said that the issue should be viewed in two ways: as well as the opportunity, possibility and right of return to the rest of the archipelago, which is a subject of the current environmental impact assessment, there is the secondary—or, rather, connected—question of the right of return to Diego Garcia.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us when the assessment will be completed, and what assistance is being given to the islanders to return and, indeed, to visit and be consulted, as part of the arrangements for the assessment. They have very imaginative ideas about how the islands could survive. They are extremely intelligent and capable people, who do not deserve to be treated in a way that suggests that they should not sit at the conference table. They have submitted some ideas to me, including a return to fishing and coconut growing but also small-scale farming, eco-tourism and a number of other activities. They care deeply about the archipelago, and would be ideal custodians of it.
  I have referred to the wider issue of Diego Garcia. The lease expires in 13 years. Several thousand nationals of other countries currently work for the American base on the island. Some people, however, are specifically barred from civilian employment there: Ilois, or Chagos islanders. The Americans do not trust them, I assume—or the British do not trust them; I am not sure.
  I hope the Minister will tell us why the only people in the world who are not allowed to work on Diego Garcia are those who were expelled from it in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The arrangement is surely very unfair. Obviously, the island could be at least a temporary source of employment. The expulsion was one of the great injustices of the 1960s and 1970s, and the last Foreign Secretary made considerable efforts in that connection when Labour were in opposition.
  I now want to make a number of points. My great friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the Father of the House—may wish to do so as well, as he has taken an enormous interest in the issue.
  Responding to the demonstration outside the high commission in Mauritius, Lady Amos wrote to the solicitors representing the Chagos islanders. She replied to a number of points, including the suggestion that a visit was needed. Apparently, the possibility of a ship to take the islanders to the Chagos Islands at least for a visit is being investigated. Will the Minister confirm that that is happening, and also that the Foreign Office—or, more specifically, the Indian Ocean territories—will bear the cost of the visit, rather than the islanders' being expected to pay?
  There is also the question of resettlement, and the expected date for the pilot scheme. Another question, which has been raised by a number of Members on both sides of the House and therefore cannot be seen as a party political issue, relates to birth certificates and rights of residence.

  517
  As I have explained, the islanders were removed against their wishes, and many have subsequently led a very poor existence—some in Mauritius, some in the Seychelles, and a smaller number scattered around the world. Some of those are in France, some in this country and some in Switzerland. I have met many on foreign visits.
  Birth certificates are a sad subject. Apparently many birth records were lost and then discovered somewhere else, which does not say much for the quality of administration. Furthermore, there is the question of what rights are held by children born since 1968 in Mauritius, the Seychelles or anywhere else to a parent who was a Chagos islander. Being born in Mauritius would have given them an automatic right to Mauritius citizenship, but there is an added complication: Mauritius has a claim on the islanders, because it would like to take over the islands and make them part of Mauritius.
  I want the Minister to make it clear that when the right of return is exercised, the islanders' children will be included and will be entitled to the same privileges and rights—and will have the same responsibilities—as every other person in the British overseas territories included in the Bill. That, surely, is a fundamental demand.
  The issue of compensation for the islanders is mentioned in Lady Amos's letter of 15 November to Sheridans. I accept that the British Government paid the Chagos islanders individual compensation some years later—belatedly and reluctantly: it was not paid on a collective basis. We are talking about a poor community that suffers from high unemployment and poor access to further and higher education. I shall not pursue the issue of individual compensation, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether there is any possibility of general support and compensation for the community as a whole. That would enable elected representatives—in particular, Olivier Bancoult—to travel to this country for important meetings. It strikes me as perverse in the extreme that a poor community should be expected to organise collections to buy an air ticket enabling Olivier Bancoult to meet representatives of the Foreign Office.
  I feel that a social aid trust fund should be established. The Chagos islanders would be the trustees and administrators. The Foreign Office has already accepted the legitimacy of the raising of these matters by the elected representatives of the people. Surely, just as in the case of any other overseas territory, it is our responsibility to support the elected form of government. We have a recognised and elected committee here, and elected representatives there should be supported as they clearly deserve to be. The issue of pensions should also be considered.
  John Austin: As my hon. Friend will know, before the High Court action the Chagos islanders had a grievance relating not just to the loss of their homes but to the denial of an opportunity for them even to visit their ancestral burial grounds, which were very important to them. Does my hon. Friend know whether they have now been given that opportunity?
  Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. Visits have been undertaken by some people from the Chagos Islands, but I want to make it
  518
  clear to the Minister that the islanders want the right to visit the islands to assess for themselves the need for return. They also want the right to return itself. The issue of visits to ancestral burial sites is clearly important.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not this the position? It had been agreed in principle that such visits would be allowed, but after 11 September, the use of the Diego Garcia base—the biggest base outside the continental United States—made that impossible for the time being.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am a little concerned. The debate seems to be moving away from the main content of the Bill; the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) seems to be pinning a different debate on this legislation. I should like him to move back to the main stream of the Bill.
  Jeremy Corbyn: I am happy to move straight back to it, and suggest that these British overseas citizens have a right to visit Diego Garcia, at the very least to examine burial sites and other important memorials.
  Will the Minister confirm that Chagos islanders born in places other than the Chagos Islands since the unlawful removal in 1965 will qualify for British citizenship? It is extremely important that that right is confirmed. Will he also confirm that the Government might adopt as their policy the amended clause 4, on the conferral of British citizenship on Chagos islanders, that was drafted by the citizenship expert Laurens Fransman QC? The Foreign Office has received a copy of the amendment, and Baroness Amos has been involved in correspondence on that technical but extremely important point. Will the Minister also tell us what other practical action the Department has taken on the issue other than to appoint experts to study the possibility of return?
  Will the Minister give a date by which the islanders will be able to return? Does he accept that the United Nations human rights sub-committee was correct in its conclusions, in its report of 29 October 2001, on the British Indian Ocean Territory? In paragraph 38, the committee criticised the Government's failure to disclose information in their fifth periodic report, and it noted the unlawfulness of removing the population. The report also suggested that the Government
  "should, to the extent still possible, seek to make exercise of the right to return to their territory practicable."
  Does the Minister not feel embarrassed that the United Nations should criticise the British Government on this matter? Will he pursue that particular point? In her letter of 24 October, Baroness Amos seemed to ignore our obligations under the United Nations charter. Does the Minister accept that the UN human rights sub-committee has underlined the Chagos islanders' citizenship rights under the charter?
  Although I could raise many other issues concerning the Chagos islanders, I have sought only to highlight the islanders' main concerns, which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I have pursued both in an Adjournment debate and with Ministers. In the 1960s and 1970s, this country did a terrible wrong to those people by forcibly removing them. Earlier this year, in Paris, I spoke to a Chagossian family about the removal; the woman described what it was like to be dragged from her home as a child and shipped off to Mauritius, a huge

  519
  distance away. She told me she felt a burning sense of anger and injustice at her removal and at the fact that she has not been able to return.
  I think that we should applaud the Chagos islanders for the very peaceful and responsible way in which they have pursued their case. They have won their High Court case, and surely it is now time to settle the score. We should let them go back, give them the support that they need and recognise their children as British overseas citizens. That is what the Bill is about. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will be able to help us on those points.
  I shall deal briefly with two other points concerning overseas territories. I have frequently raised in the House the issue of Antarctica, and I was very active during the passage of the Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 and the consideration in Committee of the Antarctic Act 1994. In an intervention, I asked the Minister to confirm that, as there are no permanent residents in the British Antarctic territory, it is very unlikely that the Bill will apply to people living there. However, should anyone become permanently resident there, presumably the Bill will apply to them. The legal problem is that the Antarctic territories are a British claim and are not recognised by anyone else as a British territory. Indeed, most of the British claim is overlain by the claims of other countries, notably Argentina.
  Will the Minister comment on that situation? It could be argued that those who spend a considerable time at a British research base might be entitled to claim that they are normally resident there. Equally important, will the Minister say whether there is a ratification and implementation process to establish a secretariat and protect Antarctica as a world park and as a place of peaceful scientific research, rather than as a place for exploration and the exploitation of mineral resources?
  The Bill's inclusion of the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus raises some interesting issues. I think that Cyprus is the only place in, the world where Britain has sovereign base areas in a national area. As the areas are surrounded by Cyprus, there is clearly a great deal of traffic between Cyprus and the base areas. What will happen to the British overseas citizenship that has been granted to the relatively small number of Cypriots on the bases if a future Cypriot Government decide that the sovereign bases should close and become part of Cyprus's national territory?
  One previous President of Cyprus was persuaded that the bases should become part of Cyprus, and I am concerned that the citizenship issue could cause enormous future problems. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister will clarify the issue. Despite that dilemma, however, I generally welcome the Bill.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I welcome the Bill, which all hon. Members agree should have been introduced years ago. I think that it is fair for me to say that the Bill has been a long time coming from the current Government because one was never introduced by the Government whom I supported. I very much regretted the omission at the time.
  The Bill gives British citizenship to the inhabitants of the remaining overseas territories, comprising about 200,000 people. I have no quibble with the Bill's title; the new name overseas territories is a better general
  520
  description than dependent territories, although, as I shall explain later, some of those territories are still highly dependent on us. We must not lose sight of that fact with the change of name.
  The Bill puts an end to a long period of shameful inactivity on the international status of the citizens of those former possessions. My interest in the subject—like that of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley)—comes in part from a constituency case involving nationality. The case took years to resolve and, like the case cited by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), involved a visa for a spouse who wished to travel in Europe. Although successive Ministers oozed sympathy at us, it seemed that nothing could be done about it. It was eventually resolved, for which I am grateful, but I suspect that that was only because Ministers had already decided to change the law.
  As we heard, the Bill was preceded by a White Paper, "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity", which is a good document that raises many interesting and important citizenship issues. However, many of the questions asked in the White Paper are not answered in the Bill. We could avoid the problem that we have seen in the Chamber today, of hon. Members wishing to speak more broadly on those issues, by ensuring that the House is able regularly to discuss and debate the affairs of the overseas territories. Will the Government consider that proposal? May we have at least an annual opportunity to discuss and debate in Parliament the affairs of our new co-citizens?
  The idea of an annual report on those affairs was suggested in the other place. Such a report would be helpful, as it is very difficult for Back-Bench Members to draw together information and views from around the world. If the Government do not agree to that proposal, would it not be possible for a Select Committee of the House to put aside one sitting per year to call representatives from the territories to give evidence? I have the honour of serving on the Public Administration Committee, and we have an annual appointment with the ombudsman and the Cabinet Secretary. We regard it as our job to maintain a strict programme of keeping in touch with those individuals.
  Will the Minister say whether the rules of the House allow us to call witnesses from the overseas territories to the United Kingdom? Such meetings could coincide with those of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council. As I understand it, that council meets annually in London, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
  The Bill addresses the question of citizenship. It says that it gives British citizenship to the former British dependent territories citizens, but that is not quite right. In fact, it gives those with British dependent territories citizenship the right only to a modified form of British citizenship—as most people would understand that term.
  Unlike other European countries, we have not gone the whole journey with overseas citizenship. The inhabitants of overseas territories will still be a different class of citizen from those of us who live here. They will not have representation in the British or European Parliaments and will not enjoy the same benefits as those who live in Britain. They will not, as overseas citizens of other EU countries can, participate in the full democratic process of the country of which they are citizens. That is despite the fact that the British Government have imposed upon the territories European social legislation, sometimes against

  521
  the wishes of local populations. For a Government who say that they want to get rid of dependency status, one can scarcely imagine an act more likely to underline where ultimate power really lies.
  It seems to me that the Government have been trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they have insisted on certain requirements to bring the territories into line with our national law and then, on the other, they have refused to extend certain benefits and duties that we regard as essential parts of citizenship. I fully understand—and the point has been made frequently today—that some territories do not want to enter into such a relationship, but some may. Why can we not ask each of the territories what they think, perhaps in a referendum?
  The White Paper raised questions about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, which this Bill fails to answer satisfactorily. I hope that later in the Bill's progress through the House we can attempt to amend it so that the Government will have to explain why, henceforth, there will still be two classes of British citizens. I hesitate to say that the inhabitants of the overseas territories will be second-class citizens, but in some important respects that will be the case for inhabitants of some of the poorer territories.
  Present-day British citizens in the United Kingdom understand that while we have obligations to the Government, the Government have obligations to us. This understanding will not be available to the individuals entitled to British citizenship under this Bill, but it is the basis on which trust is built up between the citizen and the state.
  Indeed, to move for a moment from the general to the more particular, that is why the Government are currently in deep trouble with the people of Gibraltar. Whatever the Foreign Secretary says, he no longer enjoys the trust of the local people. If we really mean to guarantee the legal rights of Gibraltarians, what on earth have we got to discuss with the Spanish Government? The Government are clearly trying to tell the people of Gibraltar that they must alter their view on sovereignty. They are trying to put aside the fundamental principle of self-determination; and they are failing in their duty of trust.
  I do not know how this will appear to those in the other overseas territories affected by the Bill. What will British citizenship mean to them if they see that it is a negotiable concept to the British Government? The current negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar are to be deplored; and their timing, in light of the appearance of the Bill, is even more unfortunate. For most people, the ambiguity so beloved of the Government when dealing with questions of nationality causes serious concern. We all need to know who we are, what rights and responsibilities we have and where we fit in. We accept the duties and responsibilities of civic life because we are clear about the duties and responsibilities that the state has towards us.
  I know that in replying to a Second Reading debate the Government will not be able to answer all the questions that have been raised, but I would urge the Minister to consider the basic question of the trust that needs to exist between the citizen and the state. Why are we currently imposing obligations upon these new British citizens without giving them a voice here in our British Parliament? Are we prepared to offer them real
  522
  guarantees? I am thinking of the many guarantees of basic standards of progress and prosperity, to quote the title of the White Paper, which we take for granted.
  The Government must not think that I am wholly critical; I welcome many of the developments that are taking place in the overseas territories. After a distinctly wobbly start, the Government have done better with Montserrat and the offer of a new ship or an airport to St. Helena is also to be welcomed. I hope that it will be left to Saints to make this decision for themselves. I appreciate also that some territories will need further work to ensure a brighter future: I am thinking particularly of Pitcairn, which is going through troubled days.
  I am concerned, however, by the piecemeal way in which these problems are addressed. There is no clear understanding of what the British Government are responsible for and to whom they are responsible. These matters go to the very heart of the concept of citizenship. In normal circumstances, the Government would be responsible to their electorate in any given territory, but that is not the case here. Nor is it true that, in dealing with the overseas territories, the Government are responsible to the electorate of the territory which did elect it—the voters of the United Kingdom—because the recent changes in the human rights legislation made in the territories were done by Order in Council, through the Privy Council, without any reference to Parliament. In my view, the Bill, to borrow a phrase from the European arena, exposes a serious democratic deficit.
  I am aware that new constitutional arrangements are being discussed in some territories, but even under the terms in which the Government are operating their piecemeal policy there are still too many unsatisfactory louse ends. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) had to say about the Chagos Islands. He raised some important questions—some of which I was not aware of—that clearly need answers. For example, I would like the Government to explain why the sovereign bases in Cyprus are outside the scope of the Bill: we are always told that there is a good reason, but I have never heard what it is. I can imagine circumstances and so could the hon. Member for Islington, North in which that could become a serious problem, so I invite the Minister to tell us the reasons for excluding Akrotiri and Dhekelia.
  It would have been preferable if the constitutional arrangements for the territories involved in the Bill could have been agreed by now. I would like the Bill to have covered all aspects of citizenship. We need to know if some basic standards will apply across the board. For example, will the right of self-determination, which we have heard about in the context of Gibraltar, be available to all territories? Will it be written into their constitutions? What about the idea put forward from St. Helena about some sort of association with Britain, modelled on the Channel Islands?
  I would also like a clearer picture of what responsibility the Government feel for British citizens who, for obvious geographical reasons, have no access to higher education. In another place the Government implied that this could be an area where our universities might help. An uncertain nudge and a wink, however, is no substitute for clearly identifying where responsibility lies. An excellent recent paper to the Overseas Territories Consultative Council by

  523
  a delegate from St. Helena, the Hon. Eric Walter George, spelled out the problems in the primary, secondary and vocational sectors.
  Current UK overseas student rates can cripple the economic and social development of those small island communities. The Government should be more specific. We should be clear about the rights and responsibilities instead of asking people to rely on uncertain discretionary handouts. Generous as they may be, they provide no certainty and no ability to plan for the long term.
  The Government should be more specific about the possibility of making special arrangements for training civil servants, people who work in services that are vital to public life and people wishing to attend business courses, who could return to their islands better prepared to boost the local economy. I remind the House that in some of these territories there is, and will remain, a real dependency on us which will not disappear simply because we have changed a word in the description of their relationship to the United Kingdom.
  Another question that always arises is whether the British Government have responsibility for defending the territories? To borrow the NATO doctrine, is an attack on one to be understood as an attack on all? Is there a responsibility here, and do we offer guarantees? Those and other questions must be returned to. For the moment, however, I repeat my welcome for the Bill, as far as it goes.
  We have heard much today about Lord Waddington, who gave a number of excellent examples of the benefits of the Bill. I was struck by one that has not been mentioned today. Clearly he speaks with deep experience of the subject. He said:
  "When I was in Bermuda I was made acutely aware of the resentment felt by Bermudians who, on travelling to Britain, found themselves waiting in the foreigners' queue at London airport while EU citizens were whisked through immigration ahead of them. In fact, the situation was even worse than that because some Bermudians did find their way into the fast lane—Bermudians with British citizenship or the right of abode in Britain by virtue of ancestry—and they, of course, were white. Bermudians in the slow lane were for the most part black."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1023.]
  It is clear that the Bill will stop that nonsense—all inhabitants of the overseas territories can now have British passports. That is very welcome.
  However, what will Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State request and require of
  "all those whom it may concern"
  to do for those British citizens? Will the passport state that it does not confer an automatic right to
  "such assistance and protection as may be necessary"
  for other British citizens" Will we need to warn our partners in the EU that those passport holders might not be full citizens, so they should be careful how reciprocal legislation is applied in their cases? Will we need to spell out that we have not yet decided the constitutional status of the homelands of those citizens and cannot be sure if we would defend their territories; or that those citizens can be affected by legislation even though they have no representation in the legislative bodies which make it?
  In brief, the Bill takes one hugely desirable step in the right direction, but it leaves the way ahead unclear. It will put right a serious error from the past, but it will do little to map out the way ahead. I hope that we can have an
  524
  opportunity to test those matters further and that the Government will tell us more about how they will bring progress and prosperity to communities whose pride in being British should be matched with an equal striving from us for real partnership with them.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) referred to Pitcairn in his thoughtful speech. May I ask the first of the questions of which I have given notice to the Foreign Office? Even more remote than the Pitcairn Islands is Henderson island, which is uninhabited, but which has a pristine ecosystem. That ecosystem may be in danger, and I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that?
  The second point that I want to make is that, for many years the fount of all parliamentary knowledge on St. Helena was the father of the present Government Chief Whip, my friend the late Ernie Armstrong, who sat in your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with considerable distinction for a number of years. He recalled that, when he was sent to St. Helena, as Tony Greenwood's Parliamentary Private Secretary, all the inhabitants, it seemed, turned out to welcome his arrival with "God Save the Queen." Things may have changed since then.
  Jeremy Corbyn: A lovely man.
  Mr. Dalyell: The late Ernie Armstrong was a marvellous man.
  My third question is about Anguilla. A fortnight ago, William Whitlock died there. He was the unfortunate Under-Secretary who was turfed off the island with maximum publicity, and his parliamentary and ministerial career suffered accordingly. May we have an update on what has actually happened on that tiny island and on whether it is, in fact, as stable as we would like to believe?
  I now wish to ask a number of specific questions on the Chagos. Will the Minister confirm that those Chagos islanders born off the Chagos Islands since 1965 to a Chagos-born mother but not a Chagos-born father will equally qualify for British citizenship? Will he confirm that anyone so born before 1 January 1983 is not a British dependent territory citizen because, before the British Nationality Act 1981, United Kingdom citizenship was inheritable only by legitimate descent through the male line—a piece of gender discrimination remedied with effect from 1 January 1983?
  Does the Minister accept that article 73 of the United Nations charter, which requires an administering power to promote, as a sacred trust, the social, political and economic advancement of the population of a non-self-governing territory, is as binding on Her Majesty's Government today as it was when the population of the Chagos were unlawfully removed between 1965 and 1973? What steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take in furtherance of that sacred trust?
  I should like to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I feel very strongly about that, because it so happened that, in 1969, on the way back from Australia, I went to Mauritius to stay with the Governor-General, a former general-secretary of the Labour party. His name was Len Williams and his wife took me to see some of the Ilois on Mauritius. It was a very sad and moving occasion. Those people, who had come from an archipelago, had

  525
  been just dumped in that thriving commercial society. When people see such things, they stay with them and they can feel a bit emotional about it.
  Does the Minister accept that the so-called feasibility study, which calls into question the return of the population to the Chagos Islands, is a totally inadequate response to the finding of illegality by the High Court, and a breach of the sacred trust? In particular, why do the Government refuse to enable the Chagos islanders to conduct a reconstruction and rehabilitation study in accordance with the request made to the Secretary of State on 5 October in their solicitor's letter. I associate myself entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said—those people have their own ideas. They are able people, and they should be brought into the process.
  Why have Her Majesty's Government refused to make available the birth records of the Chagos islanders who were born between 1976 and 1983, which were previously lost by the Government but are now located in the registry on the Seychelles—where Chagos islanders are currently forced to live—to enable them to prove their identity and benefit from the Bill?
  Does the Minister realise that the failure to make any substantial progress in relation to the Chagos islanders' schedule of requested steps, dated 7 December 2000, for nearly a year was unlikely to persuade that community that it should trust the British Government to act promptly in accordance with English and international law? Does the Minister agree that the Chagos islanders are a community who have been driven to the edge of despair by the immoral and illegal actions of the British Government, carried out on a rather grand scale for 30 years?
  A letter, dated 12 October, from the British Indian Ocean Territory states that a visit to the islands was, in effect, refused. Those involved particularly wanted to go on 3 November this year—the date when Chagossians mourn their dead. That had been agreed in principle a year before in the wake of the court judgment. Her Majesty's Government have, however, done nothing to facilitate that visit, and, of course, the events of 11 September were used as a final reason to refuse it. I ask, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, whether that is a reason or an excuse. It does not seem immediately self-evident that, although a huge base operates there, those people should be refused something that was agreed in principle.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is not immediately obvious to me how that issue comes within the Bill. I have been very indulgent with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), and to repeat some of the same issues would stretch too far the boundaries of this debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: You have been very generous. Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I simply say that many people are interested in such issues; they are not quite as arcane as might be thought. The Friends of the Chagos—led by the former senior Foreign Office official, Nigel Wenban Smith, with expertise from Professor David Stoddart of the University of Berkeley—ask about the Charles Shepherd report on global warming and the rising sea levels around the Chagos and the changing ecology.
  526
  Time is of the essence, so I conclude by pointing out that the U. K. Chagos Support Association and its secretary, Celia Whittaker, are deeply interested in such debates. I hope that the Government will take seriously, as I am sure that they will, the plight of these people.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks to the Bill has been questioned. However, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, I pointed out that the Bill will make the Chagos islanders citizens of the European Union. If they are citizens of the EU, they will have the additional rights that result from that. Those rights are relevant to this case.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not dispute Mr. Deputy Speaker's ruling, and I recognise that there is a problem of time. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is a matter of rights. The European Union should be as involved as the British state.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I know that time is of the essence and that other Members wish to speak. I therefore wish to make one brief point. Like many Members, I welcome the Bill. However, I have slight reservations not about its purpose but about what it does not include. It is perhaps guilty of sins of omission rather than sins of commission.
  The Bill rightly restores to the citizens of the overseas territories the rights that they lost quite unacceptably many years ago. It recognises the UK's responsibilities to its overseas territories which, over the centuries—let us face it—we took possession of for our interests and our commercial and military benefit.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable the citizens of the overseas territories to enjoy rights similar to those enjoyed by UK citizens. Citizens of the territories will be able to live and work in the UK if they so choose. That is the first step—but an important one—towards the UK recognising its responsibilities to treat all its citizens equally wherever they happen to be domiciled in the UK's sovereign territories.
  The Bill also reinforces the importance of upholding our values and principles even when they might run counter to our perceived short-term interests. In the longer term, defending our values and principles must always be in our over-riding interest. Many Members will recall that point when we eventually debate the Government's proposals for the UK's citizens in Gibraltar. We should defend our values and principles rather pursue our short-term interests.
  The White Paper, "Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories" has been mentioned several times. It understandably points out that no reciprocal rights have been considered between the British citizens in the UK and the citizens of the overseas territories. That was a response to the unanimous views of the overseas territories and their concerns about migration. I certainly do not quibble with that.
  The total population of the overseas territories is less than 200,000. If all those people were to migrate to the UK, which is hardly likely, they would not have a significant impact on a population of 60 million. Equally clearly, however, the demographic structures of the overseas territories are fragile and vulnerable. Montserrat

  527
  has a population of 4,500, St. Helena a population of 6,500, and the Pitcairn Islands a population of about 50. Any change in the overseas territories could be traumatic in the face of the influx from the UK that might arise from the introduction of reciprocity. I fully understand that that might be a real problem.
  The overseas territories already enjoy significant protection through their own immigration laws. For example, the Cayman Islands have been mentioned a number of times and they have a population approaching 40,000. Only 10,000 of them are "belongers", the indigenous people of the overseas territories who are protected by specific rights. Baroness Amos explained:
  "The Bill will not alter UK definition of overseas territory "belongership", which is a concept of territory nationality. That confers the right of abode, voting rights, the right to hold public office and in many cases to own land in the territory. This status is automatically acquired by the indigenous population and normally by those born in the territory to people settled in the territory. Under local immigration laws, "belongership" can be conferred on a discretionary basis on long-term residents who meet certain criteria. None of that will change as a result of the Bill."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1871.]
  That is the crux of the matter.
  The Bill rather skates over the issue of maintaining the rights of all UK citizens equally wherever they happen to be domiciled. Those rights are the human rights that we, as a nation, have a duty to uphold under our international obligations.
  The main thrust of my contribution relates to a particular case. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referred to the fate of UK citizens intermarrying citizens from the overseas territories who will become British citizens with the passage of the Bill. I have been contacted by Mr. James Stenning, an industrial chemist who is now training as a lawyer. He is a UK citizen and he met and, after three years, married a Cayman islander, who was at the time a postgraduate law student at Sussex university. They assumed that, on marriage, they would have no problems living in the Cayman Islands, because they are a UK overseas territory. However, when Mr. Stenning arrived in the Caymans with his bride, he was granted just a two-week tourist visa—and that only on the production of a return air ticket to the UK. He is now able to renew his visa on a three-monthly basis, but he is expressly forbidden from working in the territory.
  The ultimate irony is that Mr. Stenning understandably considered the option of returning to the UK with his bride and settling here to raise a family only then to run into major obstacles with the UK immigration authorities. Basically, he cannot live and work with his wife in the Caymans, and she cannot live and work with him in the UK.
  Fiona Mactaggart: If Mr. Stenning's wife had obtained permission before she left the Cayman Islands, she would be able to live and work with him here.
  Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Lady. I know that she is an expert on these matters, but I have described the situation in which Mr. Stenning found himself. I do not know the details of his case law, but that was the position. The real issue is that the Bill removes the obstacle to living and working in the UK.
  528
  A former director of the Red Cross in the Caymans, who is now a volunteer in exile, was forced to leave, with his Caymanian wife, to seek work in Bahrain because he could not work in the Cayman Islands. The Bill will allow both Mr. Stenning and Dr. Dobson to settle in the UK with their wives, but surely there is an infringement of human rights if citizens of overseas territories who marry UK citizens are forced into exile for their economic survival.
  The White Paper states:
  "Overseas territories legislation should comply with the same international obligations to which Britain is subject, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
  In Committee in another place, Baroness Amos said:
  "As to human rights, the Bill will fully comply with the United Kingdom's international obligations. The establishment and maintenance of high standards of observance of human rights is an important aspect of our relationship with the territories. The European Convention on Human Rights was extended to the territories in 1953, with their agreement. Since then, the core UN Human Rights instruments have been or are being extended in the same way. Most territories have fundamental rights chapters in their constitution which protect these rights."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 1870.]
  I appreciate from earlier contributions that our overseas territories have made progress on human rights reform, but it is clear that they have some way to go to reform their laws on human rights. The UK runs the risk of being found in breach of its international agreements on human rights. We could well face legal challenge and liability for costs and damages to UK citizens whose human rights we have failed to uphold.
  The key consideration is how the Government intend to enforce the suggestions set out in the White Paper on the imposition of UK law on the overseas territories. That is clearly a controversial issue in the overseas territories. What action are the Government taking to persuade and to ensure that the overseas territories enact the necessary reforms in local legislation, especially on intermarriage, so that the rights of all UK citizens in international law are maintained?
  4.51 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: There is a small number of hon. Members in the Chamber, but it is a big issue. We need to recognise that the Bill, which is welcome, deals with one of the most important issues that politicians determine—people's nationality and their citizenship. It is not insignificant that the first thing that Hitler did to the Jews was to remove their German citizenship. That recognised the significance of people's citizenship to their identify.
  We cannot be too proud of the history of British citizenship because we have frequently taken the opportunity to narrow the group of people who can share a full identity with Britain. We should be proud that the Bill is moving in the opposite direction and once again widening that family of British citizenship. There has been much criticism, which I share, of the British Nationality Act 1981. In error, I once typed it as the "Brutish Nationality Act", and that is how I always think of it, because it is an accurate description of its effect.
  Labour Members should not feel smug, however, because we started the process in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. I am proud to be the successor to

  529
  Joan Lestor as Member of Parliament for Slough. That Act was rushed through Parliament as a response to the exodus of citizens of the UK and the colonies from repression in east Africa. She was one of the handful of Labour MPs who voted against the Government. I sometimes wish that I had shown her courage in some of our recent debates.
  The decision behind the 1968 Act was entrenched in the 1981 Act. The 1968 Act removed the right to reside in and travel to the country of one's citizenship, which is the most important right of citizenship. The European Court of Human Rights condemned that decision as a breach not of article 5, but of article 3, because it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment by the British Government of the citizens of the UK and the colonies who were not able to travel to the country of their citizenship. Our response was to allow a limited number of people to come to Britain through a scheme granting 5,000 vouchers a year to heads of households who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. That scheme continues today for that handful of people, who are now British overseas citizens, if they wish to exercise that fundamental right of British citizenship, the right to travel to the UK. These are people who have no other citizenship.
  Although there is still a worldwide quota of 5,000 vouchers, the average take-up for each of the past five years has been some 200. That is not a proper right. I am representing the relative of a constituent who sought a quota voucher to come to the United Kingdom but was refused one because the British high commission does not believe that she is divorced, despite the fact that she has provided it with her divorce certificate. Because she has no rights deriving from her citizenship, but is merely the beneficiary of a discretionary scheme that is not entrenched in law, there is no way for her to appeal against the high commission's decision. She has had to turn to me to press the high commission to fulfil the obligation that it obviously has to her.
  Although we have done the right thing by deciding that, following the slicing up of British citizenship, we should bring some of those slices together, we have failed to grasp the opportunity to extend the process to other people who have one of the residual forms of British nationality which they cannot exercise. Those people whose only nationality is British overseas citizenship or British protected person's status should benefit from a secure form of citizenship. I urge the Minister to find out whether it is possible to take that further step.
  It is not only those with British overseas citizenship or British protected person's status who have connections with my constituency. Slough has probably the largest Anguillan community in Britain and a substantial Montserratian community who are directly affected by the benefits of the Bill. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, before commencement, information about how the Bill will work is targeted at those communities? Only three weeks ago, an Anguillan came to my advice centre to ask for help in registering as a British citizen. I was required to tell him that that is not a sensible use of his money at present because when the Bill comes into law he will not need to pay for that process. Citizens of overseas
  530
  territories who are currently resident in Britain and who wish to become full British citizens need to be informed of the Bill's impact on them.
  There has been much talk in this debate about the rights that accrue from citizenship, and it is important that we are clear about the origin of some of those rights. The Conservative party introduced many of the barriers to what they called "benefit tourism", requiring people to be resident here for several years before they could qualify for benefits and education. The Conservatives introduced checks on people's resident status which inhibited immediate access to health care for pre-existing conditions when they were visiting the United Kingdom. We should not take any lessons from Conservatives suddenly seeking to reconnect rights with citizenship. We in this country take the right approach to public services, which is that people's access to public provision depends on their residence here, not on their citizenship. We do not ask people to produce their passport to prove their eligibility to attend school or to receive hospital treatment.
  We have a responsibility toward those overseas territories that have no higher education facilities for their residents. There are fewer than 10,000 residents of St. Helena and of the Falklands. The issue is not within the scope of the Bill, but it is covered by the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I hope that the Minister will confirm that within those Departments there is a recognition of the education needs of people in the dependent territories, and that help will be targeted on those people who are least able to access further and higher education and who cannot afford to travel to nearby universities and further education establishments. I hope to hear that schemes will be created to enable such people to benefit from higher education at a price they can afford.
  The Bill is an important step. Its message is that whether we are from the overseas territories or born in the United Kingdom, we are British together; it is that we value all sorts of Britishness. I urge the Minister to take a further step—even if he is unable to do so under the Bill, let us not end our journey here. Let us correct the mistake that we made in 1968 and state that everyone who is British is equally British and deserves equal rights.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am pleased to follow many of those who have spoken, not least the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). She spoke fluently and I agreed with much of what she said, especially her last sentence. I believe that we—Parliament—have not acted properly in respect of the British citizens of the overseas territories. It is time to treat them as we expect our constituents to be treated—equally. We have not done so and although the Bill goes some way toward achieving that, a great deal remains to be done.
  The Bill is long overdue, but Parliament should be doing far more to further the rights of British people who live in various territories around the world, 14 of which the Minister listed. I am secretary of the all-party Gibraltar and Falkland Islands groups, and a member of the St. Helena group, the Cayman Islands group and the Overseas Territories group—I have a special interest in

  531
  the subject. I speak today to express my belief that it is our fundamental duty to treat all those who are British in exactly the same way. I strongly object to the fact that in our—purportedly—modern and democratic society, we still treat people who are British differently, and in many cases unfairly.
  Our overseas territories are enormously important, but they are often forgotten. I am pleased that we are having a lengthy debate today, as it has enabled many of the issues that surround the overseas territories to be explored. I am only sorry that more hon. Members are not present. Our overseas territories are inhabited by people who regard themselves as British—just as we all do—yet they do not all have the opportunity to be legally considered full British citizens, nor arc they granted the rights and responsibilities that British citizenship entails.
  From conversations with citizens of the overseas territories, most recently with people I met in Gibraltar when I visited the Rock in September to celebrate their national day, I know of their great pride in being British. They do not want to be anything else. We can understand that view. Our constituents would not want to be considered as anything but British, so why should people in the overseas territories? Why should there be any question that they are different from people in my constituency or the constituencies of other hon. Members?
  The citizens of the overseas territories do not question their identity and are confused when we do not reciprocate by treating them as British, so I warmly welcome the spirit of the Bill. The measure will rectify the situation, and will extend British citizenship to all who are citizens of the British overseas territories. That move is long overdue and will, I am sure, be warmly welcomed by the people of all those territories.
  We have only to consider the history of many of the overseas territories to see their natural links with the people of the United Kingdom. Anguilla was colonised by English settlers from St. Kitts in 1650. That was pointed out to me when I had the privilege of visiting St. Kitts three months ago.
  In 1609, shipwrecked English colonists settled in Bermuda. I recently met the new, Labour, Prime Minister of Bermuda and discussed that point with her. Pitcairn was discovered by the British in 1767. Indeed, each of the overseas territories has significant links with and ties to the United Kingdom, deeply rooted in their history. Whenever a referendum is held, such as that in Gibraltar in 1967, the people of the territories vote overwhelmingly to remain British.
  Earlier in the debate, much was said about the record of the Conservative Government on this subject. I have not been a Member of Parliament for long, and I was certainly not a Member under the previous Conservative Government, so I shall not defend their actions. None the less, when an overseas territory was threatened and we were put to the test, we had a Conservative Prime Minister—Lady Thatcher—who led the Government and the country in our defence of the people of the Falkland Islands, restoring them to the liberty that they deserved.
  I clearly recall, however, that the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. Foot, and many Labour Members were not so enthusiastic about sending a taskforce to defend the freedom of the people of those islands. I am pleased that many Labour Members now share the view of
  532
  Conservative Members that it is our duty to defend all British people, wherever they are in the world. That most certainly includes the people of the overseas territories.
  Several Members made points about St. Helena, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), and other Members spoke about the people of the Chagos Islands and of the British Indian Ocean Territory. I concur with those remarks. The people of the British Indian Ocean Territory were treated shamefully, and I hope that in years to come—sooner rather than later—the British Government will address that and will recompense them.
  The Bill barely breaks the ice as regards treating the people of the overseas territories as fully equal members of our extended British family. The measure makes only a start towards giving the people of the overseas territories the support they deserve; it serves only as a limited statement of our commitment to them. Even though we are extending the hand of British citizenship and telling them that they are legally, as well as emotionally, British, that still does not give them the right, for example, to direct representation in Parliament. I agree with the Minister who, in his opening remarks, said that words such as "colony" are outdated. We should decolonise the overseas territories and treat them as we do our own constituents. They should have votes to elect Members of Parliament and be given the same democratic rights as any British subject, whoever and wherever they are in the kingdom. We should extend the right to vote to all citizens of British overseas territories.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am sorry to seek my hon. Friend's indulgence again, but is it not extraordinary and does it not reflect badly on our country that Gibraltarians are denied the chance to vote in the European Parliament elections, whereas the people of Gaudaloupe have their own Member of the European Parliament? French Caribbeans have representation, but there is no European representation for the European British.
  Mr. Rosindell: I thank my hon. Friend and agree with him entirely. The people of Gibraltar are told that they will have the right to vote in European elections, although the British Government have not yet stated how that will manifest itself or how they will be able to vote. I am pleased that a commitment has been made, but the issue needs to be addressed. As my hon. Friend mentioned, France gives the residents of its overseas territories an equal right to vote, not only in European elections, but in French national elections. There is no reason why we should not do the same; we should behave in a modern democratic manner. It makes no difference whether someone lives in Port Stanley or Slough; if they are British, they should have the right to vote.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The direction of the hon. Gentleman's remarks makes me anxious. Thousands of people in Slough are not British but can vote in British elections. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman is trying to attach citizenship to the right to vote in a way that we have never accepted in this country.
  Mr. Rosindell: I cannot understand why the point is difficult to grasp. In the democratic modern world in which we want to live, the democratic modern United Kingdom has overseas territories. Geography, to my

  533
  mind, is an irrelevance; what matters is the fact that we are talking about British people who, like those of us in the Chamber and those whom we represent, wish to be treated exactly the same. I cannot understand the problem with giving those loyal British subjects the same rights as we enjoy.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In his early days in the House my hon. Friend is playing a leading part, and I agree with everything that he has said. The Bill is about citizenship so, if we have given a commitment to a people to whom we are now giving full citizenship—the people of Gibraltar—and they have the right to vote in a referendum and vote for no association with Spain, is it not obligatory for the UK Government to recognise and accept their decision?
  Mr. Rosindell: I hope that it is obligatory. I certainly hope that Ministers will respect the rights of the people of Gibraltar if there is a referendum. I cannot understand why that is even an issue and find it puzzling. Why should there even be a question that the people of Gibraltar would not have that right to self-determination? I have extracts from the United Nations charter of 1945, which make it clear that people of all the overseas territories of the United Kingdom should have the right of self-determination. I find it insulting to the people of Gibraltar that any British Minister should go to Barcelona to discuss the future of Gibraltar, without the agreement of the elected—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is not about the future of Gibraltar. It is about British citizenship.
  Mr. Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall proceed with issues relating directly to the Bill. We are telling residents of the overseas territories that they can travel freely in Europe with the authority of their British status, yet we maintain that they cannot elect a Member of Parliament to Westminster, where decisions relating to the acceptance of Britons' free movement in Europe are debated and decided.
  I accept that the Bill is non-reciprocal, for many good reasons. Territories will therefore not become members of the European Union in their own right, but by being more closely linked with the United Kingdom, they will encounter EU regulations and practices, such as customs agreements, which will affect them directly. The most significant issue may be the threat from EU plans for tax harmonisation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk, the shadow Minister, mentioned that and quoted a memorandum. I emphasise that that is a genuine fear which we should consider.
  Evidence shows that the overseas territories will be affected by the European Union, but while Britain supposedly prides itself on democratic governance, the Bill permits British citizens to remain disfranchised, powerless to change the political agenda that affects them because they have no representation in the House of Commons. I am sure that the overseas territories do not want political structures imposed over their existing systems by us or by the EU. That would interfere with their tried and tested systems of government, and I hope
  534
  that no one seeks to do that. It would also have a serious impact on their local economies, with which we would not want to interfere.
  Truly to recognise citizens of the overseas territories as British—as I hope all hon. Members want to—we must do more than grant them citizenship. We must not simply tell them that they can live on the mainland if they want, and leave them to it, occasionally informing them of the latest round of EU rules and regulations that may affect them. That is not how we should treat the citizens of the overseas territories. They must be enfranchised and given a political voice, like every other British citizen. It is unacceptable to me and, I hope, to most of those present, that we claim to believe in democracy, yet we treat one British citizen differently from another. That is discriminatory and should be condemned.
  I find the Bill astonishing in one respect, although I shall not deal with the matter in detail. Through the Bill, the Government are attempting to send a message to the people of the overseas territories that they have our full support, and that by making them British citizens, we are recognising them as an integral part of the British spirit, yet at the same time the Government are pursuing an agenda to abandon thousands of fiercely proud Gibraltarians. We in the House must ensure that, regardless of which party is in government, we work to guarantee the rights of the people of all overseas territories. We should not negotiate away their independence, but defend their freedom, sovereignty and rights, just as we all would in a dispute regarding our constituents. I would see no distinction between a resident of Pitcairn and a resident of Portsmouth. Every British citizen should be treated in the same way.
  The Bill gives the overseas territories a greater degree of pride in being British, but it does not give them an equal deal. I urge hon. Members to support it, but I also urge the Government to look at the overseas territories again and to do so in a manner that will treat them equally as British, with no strings or conditions attached.
  5.20 pm
  Andrew Mackinlay: I want to follow on from a point made in passing by the hon. Member for Rumford (Mr. Rosindell). Albeit inadvertently, he traduced Michael Foot when he referred to the events of 1982 in the Falkland Islands. I imagine that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were present for the debate in which Michael Foot and John Silkin vigorously prosecuted the then Government for their dilatory handling of the Falklands dispute. For the record, one of the hallmarks of Michael Foot is that he does not yield to violence or tyranny. He did not do so in either 1982 or 1938, when other people were appeasing. I wanted to put the record straight on behalf of a distinguished Labour party and parliamentary colleague.
  Both Front-Bench speakers referred at some length to the White Paper on overseas territories. I think that my hon. Friend the Minister wanted the House to believe that the Bill represents a substantial commitment on the proposals that the White Paper canvassed. The provisions to grant citizenship to people in overseas territories and to change in statute the term "dependent territories" to "overseas territories" were indeed contained in the White Paper. I give him full marks for that, but the document also contained a hell of a lot more, and the Bill is seriously

  535
  flawed and deficient because it does not address other fundamental issues, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Romford.
  I canvassed proposals in the House by introducing a ten-minute Bill in the last Parliament to deal with the central problem: the severe democratic deficit that exists for these thousands of people who are soon to be British citizens, who are peppered around the globe and whose Parliament is, ultimately, this place. Their Prime Minister is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and their Foreign Secretary the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). If the United Kingdom decides to go to war, they go to war too. They do not have the privilege of saying, "If you don't mind, we'll sit this one out." They are committed lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, when such events arise, we invariably discover them, and the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and all these other archipelagos suddenly become important. I think that the word is "bunkering", but basically, we need them and suddenly remember them.
  There is a severe democratic deficit that is yet to be addressed. Hon. Members will see that, in the White Paper, which my hon. Friend the Minister prayed in aid, Baroness Symons, its architect and author, canvassed many ideas. One of them, which would be better than nothing, is the suggestion that the chief Ministers or legislative councils of overseas territories should be able to petition the House from the Bar of the House. Of course, that proposal has long been lost and forgotten.
  Personally, I think that there is no substitute for democratic representation in this place for all the people who will become citizens. That happens not only in France, but in Spain, the Netherlands and the United States of America. When the Minister listed the territories, he referred to the British Virgin Islands. Next door to them are the United States Virgin Islands, which have a delegate in the United States Congress. He cannot vote, but he has access. There are comparable arrangements elsewhere.
  Sooner or later, we will Dave to address the matter. If we do not, I shall look forward to the day when two or three of the territories w ill muster the strength to prosecute Her Majesty's Government with vigour—and they will win. They will do so under human rights legislation and, surprisingly, under European law. A lady in Gibraltar won the right to the franchise in Europe although Home Office and Foreign Office lawyers said that she would not. I predicted that outcome in the House. The Government are often badly advised by Home Office and Foreign Office lawyers, especially on the subject that we are discussing. Sooner or later, we must deal with that.
  One of the problems with the House of Commons is the cosy consensus between those on both Front Benches about so many matters. The Conservative Government have acquiesced in or perhaps caused all the wrongs that Back Benchers have mentioned today. For example, hon. Members referred to Lord Waddington, who was beating his breast about how black people from Bermuda had to go through one access channel at Heathrow when white Bermudans went through the other. Yet no one said that he was once Home Secretary. At least, I do not believe that such a comment was caught by the Official Report, but I put it on the record now.
  I wish to make one other point, only in passing, because it is not relevant to the Bill—I wish that it was. The Conservative Government could have dealt with all the
  536
  issues that have been canvassed about Gibraltar—you had to stop some hon. Members from getting involved in them, Mr. Deputy Speaker—when Spain acceded to the European Union and to NATO. As on so many occasions, we unhappily have to say of those on both Front Benches, "They're both the same and they're both to blame." The sooner we get the Government out of the legislature, the better. We would thus remove the nonsense of hon. Members who go into opposition pretending that they were not responsible for things that are wrong.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly provocative as usual, but he is fascinating to listen to. On citizenship, I hope that he agrees that some hon. Members from the Conservative and the Labour parties have held consistent views, whichever party has been in government.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) never took the Thatcher or the Major shilling. He certainly will not be offered the Blair shilling; neither, I suspect, will I. Time and again, hon. Members who have been Ministers pretend that they are not guilty. That was evident in a debate on human rights earlier this week. It makes this place nonsensical.
  Earlier, I asked the Minister why the Bill and the explanatory notes do not state that granting citizenship to people in the overseas territories means, ipso facto, that they are citizens of the European Union under the Maastricht treaty. Colleagues who are walking encyclopaedias on the treaty agree on that, although we may have different opinions about its work. I welcome the fact that people in the overseas territories will have the right to protection and some consular services that European Union citizens receive from other overseas missions when, for example, United Kingdom representatives are not available. I believe that if the Minister makes lawyers stay late at night and get their books out, they will find that such rights and obligations flow from the measure. That brings us back to whether there is a severe democratic deficit.
  I am sure that people in the overseas territories will be able to show that their failure to be represented here is unlawful under human rights and European Union legislation. We must now consider whether they should be enfranchised for the European Union. Of course, the measure does not make the overseas territories part of the European Union, but the people are European Union citizens. That will be tested sooner or later. Through their voting systems, most other European Union countries afford votes to people in archipelagos around the world. I wish that the Government would deal with the matter rather than be dragged, screaming and kicking, to fulfil obvious obligations. I hope that the Minister will at least say that he will ask the Department to reconsider that matter and, perhaps, be proactive, rather than merely pretending that it does not need to be tackled.
  The case for the territories to be represented here is overwhelming on moral as well as practical grounds. If we are going to afford these people British citizenship, this place has an obligation to ensure that they have good governance—we had that obligation anyway, but now it has increased.
  When you and some of the other hon. Members present entered the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a substantial slice of the globe was still made up of colonies, which occupied

  537
  the interests of a large number of hon. Members, who were familiar with those places. Now, the globe is only peppered with those small places and we are not walking encyclopaedias on these issues. Many of us do not have access to the territories. If we do have access, it is on a nice Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit—those are attractive and worth while.
  We do not know whether the stewardship and governance of the citizens that we will create through this measure are good. I am referring in particular to the governors of the territories. I do not mean their local legislatures, as they can throw out the Chief Minister or the Legislative Council. The governor, however, is appointed by the Foreign Secretary. We do not know if the governors are good, bad or indifferent. We have no way of knowing.
  I invite the House to consider that that is one part of our Administration that is not under the spotlight of scrutiny. Scrutiny generally is still seriously deficient, but we now have Select Committees, which are looking into every nook and cranny of the Administration. Due to the geographical handicap, however, we do not know if a governor in one of those obscure places is behaving like Terry Thomas in "Carleton Browne of the FO". We have no way of knowing because we do not have colleagues from the territories coming here to ask questions and we do not have access to them as Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Trend: As I suggested earlier, perhaps when consultative councils are in London, a Select Committee may be able to interview their members on a regular basis. Also, we may be able to investigate whether people could come here from overseas at public expense—as they will be British citizens—to give evidence to a Select Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman have any views on that?
  Andrew Mackinlay: Yes, I certainly do and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking. I am mindful of the fact that other business has to be dealt with by the House and I do not want to delay it. I have got the signals from the person who is paid a large sum of money not to say anything in this Chamber. I will wind up in a moment. However, this is one of the few occasions when the thousands of people who are peppered around the globe in the territories have their limited clay in the court of Parliament. As they cannot be here themselves, I and other hon. Members are obliged to protect and promote their interests.
  The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) asked me for my view. I regret that my colleagues on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs declined to consider this matter as a pre-legislative measure. That was a profound mistake. It also raises questions about the volume of work with which that Committee has to deal. If it is engaged with Kosovo and there are other things happening in the world, they cannot be considered simultaneously. Our obligations to people in the territories around the globe are always at the bottom of the pile.
  If I cannot persuade the House to enfranchise those people, we should have either a standing sub-committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee to consider overseas territories or an overseas Select Committee to do so—
  538
  a halfway house should exist at least. If we do not provide for that, we will make profound mistakes. We saw the gross irritation of the people of Montserrat when they had problems. I do not rush to judge whether the stewardship of the Montserrat crisis by the Secretary of State was good or bad, but there was disagreement and those people did not have the right to raise the issue in this place.
  I hope that we will see this Bill as the beginning. I also hope that, to whet the Minister's appetite, I can persuade him that he might make a name for himself by enacting legislation that would leave an enduring legacy for our British citizens around the world and which would give them a right of access to put questions here—not questions on Thurrock, Sedgefield or wherever, but on foreign policy, defence and the macro-issues to which they are entitled to answers, as well as issues relating to their constitutions.
  This year, we shall be asked to rubber-stamp Orders in Council that will alter the constitutions of some of those places. The best we will get is a one-hour debate and nobody will have considered whether they have approval In fact, I am so unsure of procedure that I am not certain that they will come before the House at all. The Minister may be able to confirm that we shall soon alter the constitution of the Falkland Islands, and there is an important proposal to alter the constitution of Bermuda by Order in Council. That serious issue needs to be addressed, and it should be dealt with by an overseas Select Committee.
  The Minister may think that I am labouring the point about Bermuda, but there is still conscription there and he should consider the fact that the Bermuda Regiment still uses shackles for those who do not answer the call. I do not want to argue about whether conscription is good or bad, but those who do not turn up are not asked to get in a police car—they are shackled. I have had that confirmed in a parliamentary answer.
  It is disgraceful that we are not dealing with such issues. We acquiesce by our silence, so the House of Commons must address those problems. Acquiesce by silence I will not; and I tell the Minister that when those people all have e-mail I shall beat the Foreign Office. I shall invite them to tell me what is going on and I shall table parliamentary question after parliamentary question. By attrition, I shall make the Government listen to them.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Spring: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  May I remind hon. Members why were are here today? The Bill has been comprehensively reviewed and has widespread support not only in the House but in the territories that it will affect. A number of important questions have been brought to the attention of the House and we look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech.
  One cannot underestimate the value that our territories attach to British citizenship. The people of Gibraltar not only value their citizenship, as we know well, but have long sought the status that the Bill affords them. The Conservative party supports their right to citizenship just as it passionately supports their right to remain British.
  I am sure that I have the support of the House when I say that I hope the Bill acts as a stepping stone to a more equal relationship between Britain and the 200,000

  539
  inhabitants of its overseas territories. It lays a platform for an updated relationship, and it contains many positive aspects. On behalf of my party, I reiterate our support.
  A number of important and interesting speeches have been made in the Chamber today and, ultimately, this is a cross-party issue. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) echoed the views and sentiments expressed in another place by Liberal Democrat spokespersons and, as always, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an eloquent speech. He described the spirit behind the legislation and the importance of the Gibraltarians having the right to vote. He also raised the question of the statelessness of children in British overseas territories—an important issue which I hope the Minister will address. We need to know more about it.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) made a thoughtful speech that questioned whether the overseas territories would he assured of self-determination should they so desire. He also touched on the importance of Gibraltar and normality of life there. A number of Members on bath sides of the House alluded to the discrimination against black Bermudans. We want to get rid of it and the Bill is part of that process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) showed considerable knowledge of the issues. He discussed education—I hope that the Minister refers to it—and made a powerful point about access to tertiary education in this country for people from the overseas territories. He also referred to the contingent liabilities and the reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and the British overseas territories. I hope that the Minister will respond to those important points.
  I should like to tell the hon. Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) most sincerely that few hon. Members appreciated the plight of the Chagos islanders until they brought it to the House's attention. We have been moved by their passionate commitment to that cause. It has given all of us considerable food for thought. The House, and especially the Government, will need to consider the islanders' plight, given the issues that the hon. Gentlemen have raised. They have done us a service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) made an original and thoughtful speech. He is a distinguished governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and knows a great deal about many of the countries with which we have relationships. He made powerful points about the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the possibility of an annual report, an annual debate or a Select Committee. Parliamentary scrutiny would be most valuable in the new relationship that we have been assessing.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the importance of Gibraltar and its right to sovereignty and self-determination. He talked about bringing UK law and, by implication, EU law into practice in the overseas territories, and the issues surrounding that.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) welcomed the Bill, and made a reasonable point about "belongership." He also talked about the imposition of UK law on overseas territories. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is obviously knowledgable on this subject, referred to the widening of the family of British citizenship, and I thought that that was an apt description.
  540
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) made a refreshing speech. He reminded us that we have defended overseas territories at times of stress. That has been part of the relationship, and he was right to remind us of the deep historical links that we cherish—as the residents of overseas territories cherish their links with us—and of the essence of Britishness in that respect.
  That leads me to the point about the democratic deficit, which was made with characteristic effectiveness by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I mention in passing—this is only a personal observation—that we could explore this matter as we consider the role of an upper House in this Parliament of ours. I do not think that anyone objectively considers the recent proposals as anything other than a dog's breakfast. We could explore the democratic deficit in the upper Chamber if it is to be substantially directly elected. What is on offer is utterly unacceptable, but the Bill may provide an opportunity to incorporate the overseas territories in some arrangement.
  The Bill has also given the House another chance to debate the building of an airport as a long-term solution to St. Helena's transport link problems. A number of hon. Members alluded to that. It would deal with the problem of distance and inaccessibility.
  The Bill also gives the Minister a chance to set out his position on the opening of further opportunities for students. I referred to that, and I hope that the Government will look into it. As I said, my discussions with interested parties suggest that there are long-term gains for people receiving tertiary education in this country, given the links that are thereby established.
  I hope that hon. Members will agree that addressing those issues would send a message that the Government intend to make the Bill the basis for a real and enduring partnership on a number of levels between Britain and the British territories. Like many hon. Members, I have raised questions in the debate, and we look forward to what the Minister now has to say. We shall pursue these issues in more detail in Committee.
  Our aim is to ensure that the Bill best serves the people of the British territories and that it achieves a better relationship, which is what we all want. We welcome the Bill in principle. I wish it fair passage as we consider it and its implications in greater detail in Committee.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Bradshaw: This has been an interesting and helpful debate, and I am grateful to all who have taken part. My overwhelming impression is that the Bill commands widespread support on both sides of the House. Its passage will send a welcome message to the people of the overseas territories, who, as I said earlier, have waited a long time for its introduction. I thank Members for their positive comments.
  As was said by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), many questions have been raised during the past five hours or so. Some were outside the scope of the Bill, so Members will have to indulge me if I do not reply to all their queries; I promise to reply to the rest in writing. I shall not be able to answer many of the questions that were within the Bill's scope because time will not allow it, but they will be addressed in Committee.
  Mr. Trend: I know that a vast number of questions have been raised. I believe that before the Committee

  541
  stage in the other place, and indeed before amendments had been tabled, the Minister met interested parties and officials, so that matters that were of no consequence or were susceptible of easy answers could be got out of the way. Will he bear that in mind?
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am happy to do so, as are my officials.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) raised a number of issues. He questioned whether all overseas territories were similarly disadvantaged by the British Nationality Act 1981. I can confirm that those who were previously citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—the form of citizenship that then existed—and who owed that status to their connection with an overseas territory became British dependent territories citizens under the 1981 Act. Because they are geographically within the European Union, the people of Gibraltar were in addition entitled to British citizenship by registration if they applied for it. That recognised their freedom of movement within the European Union. The Bill will entitle them automatically to British citizenship. Following the Falklands war, a private Member's Bill was passed giving British citizenship to 400 residents of the Falkland Islands who did not already have it.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk and others asked what progress had been made on human rights in the territories. I am pleased to be able to confirm that considerable progress has been made. We said in the White Paper that we regarded the establishment and maintenance of high standards of human rights as an important aspect of our partnership with the overseas territories. Our objective is that territories choosing to remain British abide by the same basic standards of human rights, openness and good governance that British people expect of their Government. We stated that, specifically, we wanted the abolition of capital and judicial corporal punishment where they were still on territories' statute books, and the decriminalisation in the Caribbean territories of homosexual acts in private between consenting adults.
  All our territories have abolished capital punishment for murder. All have abolished it for treason and piracy except the Turks and Caicos Islands, with which we are in active consultation concerning abolition. Judicial corporal punishment has been abolished by both Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, which were the last territories to do so. Following extensive consultation with the Caribbean territories, private homosexual acts between consenting adults were decriminalised by Order in Council on 13 December 2000.
  We are funding a broad range of human rights programmes in all the overseas territories. They include examination of children's, women's and migrant workers' rights.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked whether the territories were in breach of the European convention on human rights. All overseas territories have legislation that complies with the convention as it extends to them. The hon. Gentleman and others raised the question of self-determination. It does not feature, being outside the scope of the Bill. As I said in my opening speech, the Bill is exclusively about nationality.
  542
  A number of other issues that were raised—voting rights, taxation and education, for instance—are also outside the Bill's scope. There is some confusion over the difference between rights conferred on people as a result of citizenship and rights conferred as a result of residence.
  I assure the hon. Member for West Suffolk that, in addition to discussions with the Department for Education and Skills on developing closer links with United Kingdom universities and colleges, we are discussing twinning arrangements and scholarships. I suggest that he and other hon. Members who are concerned about the education issue make their views known to colleagues who are involved in the review of higher education funding. We think that it is very important that educational links between the UK and the overseas territories are strengthened rather than weakened.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) mentioned the educational rights of young people in the overseas territories. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) pointed out, he seemed to be suggesting that British citizens who reside in overseas territories should have greater rights of access to education in the United Kingdom than young people who are born and bred in this country who do not fulfil the residence requirement. Education funding and the requirement to pay fees are based on a residence requirement; they are nothing to do with citizenship. If the hon. Gentleman's children who are born and bred here left the UK and lived in a non-European Union country for more than three years, they too would not be entitled to the same educational rights as those who had been resident here for three years.
  Mr. Wilkinson: This issue concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. Is the Minister saying that EU citizens have priority and more entitlement to obtain grants for higher education than British citizens who are resident in overseas territories?
  Mr. Bradshaw: Their entitlement to education in the United Kingdom is the same as that for all EU citizens, but it is based on residency. The entitlement to education for British citizens, wherever they live, is based on residency, not on their citizenship.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk also asked about the cost of applying for a passport. The cost is the same throughout the territories; it is £46.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin asked how many overseas territories are in receipt of aid. There are six in total. Montserrat and St. Helena are in receipt of budgetary aid, while Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Pitcairn Islands receive contributions towards their public finances for specific programmes.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk and other hon. Members sought clarification on the position of an airport for St. Helena. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has assured me that she remains committed to meeting the lowest capital cost option for maintaining access to St. Helena. Consultation is still under way in and with St. Helena on which of the two options—replacement of the ship or an airport—it prefers. The Department for International Development has also agreed to assist the St. Helena Government in seeking funding from other sources to meet the difference in those costs.

  543
  Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and for Windsor (Mr. Trend) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), raised the issue of parliamentary representation. Overseas territories are not constitutionally part of the United Kingdom; they are separate legal jurisdictions. It is therefore not appropriate for them to be represented directly in the British Parliament and to take decisions on British legislation and internal UK domestic matters.
  Such an arrangement would represent a move in the opposition direction from the principle in the White Paper, which is that the people of the overseas territories should exercise the greatest possible control over their own lives. It would inevitably mean ant they had to accept much greater integration within our Government system than they have at present. The overseas territories have wide autonomy and self-government, and that is more precious to them than any risk of compromising it to gain representation here.
  Mr. Rosindell: Why is it not appropriate for British overseas territories to be represented here when the people of the Faroe Islands can send a Member of Parliament to the Danish Folketing and the French overseas territories can send representatives to the French National Assembly?
  Mr. Bradshaw: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we have a relationship with our former colonies similar to that which France and other countries have with theirs. We have not had a similar relationship historically and we are not changing it. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked whether it was illegal that there was no parliamentary representation. I am assured by my officials that it is not illegal, but I shall ask them to have another look at the issue.
  Andrew Mackinlay: They always get it wrong.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I do not think that the territories need to worry that their concerns will go unheard. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said that no one was a walking encyclopaedia on this issue. He surprises me, as I think there are several walking encyclopaedias in the House and they have made their knowledge and their care for the territories well known. As my hon. Friend said, he and others regularly raise these issues on their behalf.
  The hon. Member for West Suffolk suggested that the territories could have some kind of representation in the other place. That is an interesting idea that he might like to feed into the current discussions on the reform of the second Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Windsor and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) both referred to Cyprus. The hon. Member for Windsor asked why the Cyprus bases are excluded from the Bill. They are excluded because the treaty with Cyprus provides that they are for use as military bases only and not for the establishment of a wider community.
  Mr. Chidgey: I assume that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks and if I am wrong I apologise to him. However, I raised a particular question about the
  544
  difficulties experienced as a result of intermarriage between citizens of the overseas territories and UK citizens. I hope that he will try to address that before he concludes.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid I am not near the end of my remarks, although I am not sure whether I will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman; if I cannot I promise to write to him.
  All hon. Members feel very pained by the historical treatment of the Ilois, which was referred to at some length by my hon. Friends the Member for Islington, North and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) among others. Many of the questions that they raised lie outside the scope of the Bill, but I promise to write to them and answer every single one.
  One of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and others have raised does have a direct relationship with the Bill. It concerns whether children born to Bois since their exclusion from the Chagos islands will qualify for British overseas territory citizenship. The answer is yes, they will for the first generation. My hon. Friend asked about those born between 1968 and 1983 whose mothers, but not their fathers came from the Chagos islands. We are aware that an amendment has been suggested on this. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, at this stage I cannot speculate on the outcome of our considerations.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is an on-going saga, but attempts must be made to resolve it fairly soon. I understand that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for this and that the relevant Minister is Lady Amos in another place, so I plead with her to get the various officials at least to see the parties involved before things get any more sour than they are at the moment. Jaw, jaw really is better than conflict.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I can reassure my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North asked me directly whether my noble Friend who is responsible for this area of policy would be willing to meet those concerned. She has agreed in principle; it is just a matter of fixing dates.
  Jeremy Corbyn: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, the Minister mentioned the proposed amendment. I hope that it is debated in Committee and agreed. He also said that citizenship would be conferred only on the first generation of families who are living outside the Chagos islands. However, they have been outside for so long that there is now a second generation. If we are prepared to recognise the Ilois people and negotiate with them, surely any of their children or grandchildren should be recognised in exactly the same way as the first generation.
  Mr. Bradshaw: We are getting into even more complicated territory, which we could explore in Committee if my lion. Friend wants. The crucial advance that the Government have made is the recognition of the right of return. If we extended British overseas territory citizenship to future generations regardless of where people live, when they have been given the right of return, we would cross a number of lines and would create difficulties elsewhere.
  Mr. Dalyell: Rather than having an extended period in Committee, would it not be better to hold a meeting to

  545
  sort out such things before we get involved in Committee? We are not interested in creating difficulties, but the problem is on-going and real.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I shall consider doing so if I think that it will help to expedite the matter that he wants expedited.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked whether the non-reciprocity in the Bill had been agreed because of the EU—there was a certain amount of obsession about the EU among Conservative Members—but that is not the case. Neither British citizens from the United Kingdom nor EU citizens will be given rights to go to the overseas territories, and the overseas territories will retain control. The EU is involved because the overseas territories' British citizens will be able to move freely in Europe, but non-reciprocity would apply even if EU citizens were not part of the picture. The small size of the overseas territories means that they could not open their doors to 50 million United Kingdoms citizens, let alone all EU nationals.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked what would happen if one of those territories decided to vote for independence in future and whether the House would need to pass separate legislation to settle the nationality issue. He is right—such legislation would be needed.
  Some hon. Members have asked why there should be a delay between Royal Assent and the citizenship provisions coming into force. That delay is simply intended to ensure that the practical arrangements, such as those for the acquisition of British citizen passports, are in place at the time of commencement. We will not delay bringing the citizenship provision into force any longer than is absolutely necessary. Indeed, we are already in detailed consultation with the territories on the format and the arrangements necessary to train staff and issue passports.
  546
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked what we are doing in advance to inform people of what their rights will be. We have issued a leaflet to all the territories' representatives in London, and I hope that they are distributing copies widely in the territories. I am sorry that I have not been able to address all the questions that have been asked.
  Peter Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he, the Foreign Office and the Home Office will do all they can to ensure that there is no undue delay, but will he confirm that there is absolutely no need to delay commencement until such time as the passports can be issued? In those circumstances, is there any reason why commencement should not take place immediately on Royal Assent?
  Mr. Bradshaw: As I have said, there is a practical problem—people will naturally expect the rights to be realised on the date of commencement and we might not be able to do that. However, I have told my hon. Friend that I am discussing the issue with my officials, and I shall try to be as helpful as possible.
  Many hon. Members have said that the Bill rights wrongs. My hon. Friends the Members for Slough and for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who is no longer in his place—he told me that he would have to leave early—drew attention to the fact that this is the first nationality Bill for 40 years that does something positive; it gives people something, rather than taking something away. All hon. Members can take pride in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  Insolvency
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move,
  That the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3352), dated 6th October 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th October, be revoked.
  The order seeks to create a new form of insolvency. Although it is largely based on the insolvency legislation relating to the water industry, it purports to be something new. It is uncertain in its objectives and muddled in its thinking and it has generated considerable criticism from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has taken the unusual step of issuing a short extract from its 10th report.
  The Committee specifically draws
  "the special attention of both Houses to these Rules on the ground that their Explanatory Note is incomplete."
  It reminds us that the explanatory note states:
  "These Rules set out the procedure for the conduct of railway administration proceedings for protected railway companies under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Railways Act 1993. They apply the relevant rules contained in the Insolvency Rules 1986".
  The Committee's view is that
  "this note is self-evidently insufficiently informative … The Committee accordingly reports the Rules on the ground that their Explanatory Note is insufficiently informative and therefore incomplete."
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has rightly mentioned the Joint Committee's extraordinary decision to draw the House's attention to this matter. Does he believe that the Government's extraordinary omission—one might almost call it a sin of omission—reinforces the point that many Conservative Members have made, namely that the Secretary of State's decisions on Railtrack have been ill-informed, ill-judged, rushed and botched?
  Mr. Pickles: I agree entirely. "Ill-informed", "rushed" and "botched" exactly describe what has happened. Because the explanatory notes are so inadequate, I will have to ask in my short contribution 12 specific questions that I would not have been able to ask if the notes on such an important order had been even slightly reasonable. In particular, I shall ask one or two searching questions about the amendment that the Government made to the order.
  We want to know how quickly Railtrack will come out of administration and we will try to ensure that it will come out as soon as possible. We want to ensure that it will be able to provide vital improvements to our railway infrastructure but, above all, we need to know why it was thought that Railtrack was unable to meet its obligations. That is far from clear from the order or from the information supplied by the Government.
  The Government's information seems to be contradictory. We have almost developed a five-point programme for Government information. The first stage is when someone—for example, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Rail track or the Rail Regulator—meets the Secretary of State and the second is when they reach an agreement. The third stage takes place when they produce a version of events and the fourth occurs when it is immediately rejected by the Secretary of State. The fifth
  548
  and final stage is when those involved denounce each other in the press. Sometimes all the stages in the process occur simultaneously.
  I notice that after the much-vaunted meeting between the Secretary of State and the shareholders action group, Mr. Simon Haslam, who chaired the meeting, said that the Secretary of State had said
  "one thing to us and something else to the TV cameras".
  We are used to that. It is normal for the Secretary of State to say one thing to the television cameras, one thing to the Select Committee and another thing on the Floor of the House. I understand he might have an opportunity—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the narrowness of the debate. We are discussing the process of administration, not what took place before it.
  Mr. Pickles: You are right to tick me off, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot understand how I allowed myself to be drawn away from this most important order.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Pickles: I do not know; I am in the doghouse. I can give way only if my hon. Friend does not tempt me from the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Hawkins: I assure my hon. Friend that I will not tempt him to incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker. Although this is a precise order on the process of administration, does he think it remarkable, given the history of the problems that we have set out, that the Secretary of State does not have the courage to come to the House and deal with this important matter?
  Mr. Pickles: To be honest, I did not expect the Secretary of State to be present. He is probably going through texts of meetings and crossing things out. I will not stray further, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I hope that you will indulge me on a couple of points, such as the need to assess the background to the order.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I will stick religiously to the document, Madam Deputy Speaker. Paragraph 3.2 of part 3 is on verification, which, to me, means the truth. Is not my hon. Friend trying to get to the base of the problem and the truth of the issue? I am in no way questioning your ruling or observation, but are we not entitled find out the truth behind this administration order?
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has enormous experience of procedures in this place and he sums up the situation. However, I am not going to take Madam Deputy Speaker on, certainly not on a Thursday evening. I respectfully explain that the order relates to affidavits and so on and I will touch briefly on such matters, including the Chancellor's approach to them, but before I do that I shall address matters of substance.
  We need to understand what impact the order will have on Railtrack. Ministers have been kind enough to talk to us in the confines of the Lobby because they are unhappy with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We understand that the order has cost

  549
  £100 million to put together, which is to pay lawyers, accountants and financial advisers. We also understand that the Government have promised, in relation to the order and the way in which it comes into operation, £800 million to deal with the day-to-day operation of Railtrack, and that a further figure of £650 million is also to be used.
  It is little wonder that officials who helped to draft the order told the Daily Mail that they feel like deckchair attendants on the Titanic. They believe that Railtrack is under the control of an independent administration that cannot raise the cash in the City and that hundreds of rail improvement schemes are frozen. We need to discover how those matters will be dealt with in the administration process.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems that he identifies and the views of the officials would become much clearer if the Government were not ignoring their code of practice and their protestations on open government by blocking all the requests that we have tabled for the civil service minutes on the Secretary of State's private meetings on this saga to be placed in the Library and made open to the public gaze?
  Mr. Pickles: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he is not the only one complaining; I remind him of the views of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Government have paid no attention whatever to rules on openness, yet this most important of statutory instruments breaks new ground in laying down rules on insolvency in the railway industry. We will now have three forms of insolvency: one for the water industry, one for railways and a general set of rules.
  I hope that the Minister will explain whether the company will be subject to European competition rules when it comes out of administration. He will no doubt recall that I asked a parliamentary question of his colleague the Minister for Transport and was told in a written answer:
  "The Secretary of State will ensure that any proposals for restructuring the railway industry are compatible with European law."—[Official Report, 30 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 570W.]
  Yet we know that that is not the case because the administrators, Ernst and Young, have made two contradictory statements, or rather they have issued a statement and a retraction. It was suggested that because a trust facility was being created, European rules would require commissioners to give permission, by 7 April, for distributions made under the order.
  Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the same request had to be made to the European Union for sums that have already been given to Railtrack? There is no change in the procedures.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next remark. I am just trying to lay the groundwork.
  The substantive point is that we are unclear, from the order and from statements by the Secretary of State, who will ultimately make the decision about a buyer for the company. Will it be made by the administrators or by the Secretary of State? We have had conflicting advice. The
  550
  hon. Gentleman may have read The Times on Monday, which quoted Mike Rollings, a senior Railtrack administrator, saying that the Secretary of State will make the decision, but in the same paper this morning, the administrators disclose that they might try to overrule any decision made by the Secretary of State. These are matters of considerable importance.
  If this matter is subject to European competition rules, we cannot have the Secretary of State making decisions like a renaissance prince; we need clear procedures setting out who should make them. If they are to be made by the administrators, that all but puts a stop to the Government's preferred plan of setting up a non-profit company.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way generously, as usual. I just thought that he might like to remark that there are now only four Labour Members present—just rising to five as the Deputy Chief Whip sits down—for a debate on a matter of such importance to the country's commuters, rail passengers and pensioners.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend's grasp of arithmetic is as good as ever.
  If Railtrack is to come out of administration, could we talk a little about the potential bidders? Might the private bidders include the preferred bidders for the tube public-private partnerships? Will private railway companies in, say, Japan, the United States or France be given an opportunity? Such companies would regard a distress sale as a highly attractive opportunity. We also need to know whether Railtrack itself will be able to make an offer—to buy itself out. Under the order, what sort of long-term financial support do the Government intend to give to Railtrack and its successor? That is of considerable importance.
  We have a series of questions. Under the licensing agreement between Railtrack and the Rail Regulator, even on the most optimistic estimate that the Government have produced so far, a compliance statement will be needed toward the end of March. We and most people in the industry believe that Railtrack's network management statement is now all but finished. We need to know whether, before the company comes out of administration, a railway network management statement will be put out by the company. That would normally be produced in conjunction with the Government. What provisions have they made in that respect?
  Let us consider last year's compliance statement and the failure to fulfil condition 7. The Rail Regulator was riot satisfied with last year's compliance statement. Will Ministers say whether the regulator still has the power—my reading of the statutory instrument is that he does—to withdraw the licence if he is unhappy with the statement? To put it in simple terms, it appeared to me when I watched the Rail Regulator's appearance before the Select Committee that he was feeling a little bruised and somewhat resentful: withdrawal of the licence may well be Mr. Winsor's revenge on the Government. How do they intend to deal with such an eventuality?
  We have a series of technical questions about the order, and I apologise to the House for having to go through them. Had the explanatory notes been clearer, I might not have needed to ask them.
  The first question is, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the rules that were laid before Mr. Justice Lightman on 7 October contained the signatures of the

  551
  Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State by way of concurrence? One might consider the answer self-evident, but the Government have made an amendment to the regulations—hon. Members should turn to page 36—and the only reasonable explanation is that there was some sort of defect in terms of the signatories. Why was the correction on page 36 of the rules relating to dates of signing and the names of the signatories of both the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State made?
  On what date was that correction printed and published by The Stationery Office? The correction itself simply states "October 2001". What was the exact date? Why did the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State decide to make the order on 8 October, to bring it into force on 7 October—the same date as the petition to the court and the administration order itself—and to lay the rules before Parliament on 8 October, after the court had ordered the administration of Railtrack plc? On what date was the hearing before the court set down?
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept the criticism made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on Tuesday 20 November when the Committee reported the rules to both Houses? Does he accept the Committee's view that the Lord Chancellor's explanatory note is "self-evidently insufficiently informative"? Can the Minister explain which companies are affected by the rules and give a broader indication of the provisions that have still not been included in the Lord Chancellor's memorandum to the Joint Committee of 19 November?
  Does the Minister agree that the policy reasons given by the Lord Chancellor's Department in its memorandum to the Joint Committee of 8 October—which infringes the requirements of statutory instrument practice—do not adequately explain in the public interest the failure to comply with proper procedure?
  Will the Minister give the House his justification for presenting rules that alter the Insolvency Act 1986 in its application to Railtrack plc? Will he explain to what extent the contents of the affidavit presented to the court, the form of the petition, the filing of the petition and the choice of those who were able to appear before the hearing are consistent with the normal rules in administration procedure?
  I am embarrassed at having to put those questions, but if the Secretary of State had obeyed the rules, we would not have to undergo the tedium of asking so many questions. We are about to dispose of Railtrack plc with only three or four lines by way of explanation, so we have to take up valuable time to debate them on the Floor. However, I am still encouraged, so I shall continue.
  Will the Minister inform the House why creditors and others adversely affected by the rules were treated in a manner different from that normally applied under the insolvency procedures? Did any official consult the Strategic Rail Authority or the Rail Regulator about those rules?
  We have been presented with an inadequate set of papers. The documents are technically and financially flawed. Their content is dubious and they are clueless as to the future: in other words, situation normal in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I am not sure whether I should begin by declaring an interest. Indeed, I suspect that all Members should declare the same interest, if the recent report in The Sunday Times is correct. It stated that as a result of the order the MPs pension fund has suffered to the tune of £400,000, so I declare an interest, just in case I should.
  I hope that I shall not end up in the doghouse like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) because of some of his earlier remarks, although having listened to his subsequent remarks, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be put in the doghouse by anybody who was looking forward to the cut and thrust of debate on this issue. None the less, although it may not have been an exciting speech, the hon. Gentleman put several important and significant questions.
  I look forward to some detailed answers from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. As the debate began so late in the day, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have been fully briefed on those points.
  Perhaps it would be helpful to begin by reminding ourselves of exactly how we got into this position. On 7 October, the Secretary of State—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It might indeed be helpful, but it would be entirely inappropriate.
  Mr. Foster: Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will allow me about 30 seconds, you will see the complete relevance of my comments to the order.
  On 7 October, the Secretary of State petitioned a High Court judge to put Railtrack into railway administration, specifically under section 60 of the Railways Act 1993. The order is based on the 1993 Act, section 59(2) of which states:
  "The purpose of a railway administration order"
  is
  "the transfer to another company, or (as respects different parts of its undertaking) to two or more different companies, as a going concern, of so much of the company's undertaking as it is necessary to transfer in order to ensure that the relevant activities may be properly carried on".
  It is clear that a function of the administrator, as a result of the order, is to ensure the continued smooth running of Railtrack's operations so that all the requirements under the network licence pending transfer are met.
  It is legitimate to discuss what has happened since the order was introduced and consider whether or not Ernst and Young are delivering the best value and quality service for passengers. Will the Minister explain why, in the six-week period following the administration order, according to the latest figures, there has been a 26 per cent. increase in delays on our railways? It is important for him to explain why, following the order, there has been a significant apparent reduction in investment in a range of improvements to which Members representing many different constituencies had been looking forward. If I were speaking purely as a constituency MP, I would press the case for the improvements to Freshford railway station that we have been waiting for. That is a specific example of the investment that now appears to be held up because of the administration order.

  553
  It is important to remember that section 59 of the 1993 Act states that the administrator has the task of acting
  "in a manner which protects the respective interests of the members and creditors".
  Will the House bear that phrase in mind? The duties and responsibilities of the administrator are to protect
  "the respective interests of the members and creditors".
  The Act does not say that the administrator is responsible for protecting the interests of the Secretary of State; it certainly does not say that he is responsible for protecting the respective interests of the travelling public and the taxpayer.
  Having suggested that I am going to be a little critical of the way that things are going, I shall put firmly on the record my belief that the Secretary of State was right to introduce the order. If there were a Division tonight, I would recommend to those of my hon. Friends who might be around that they should join the Government in the Lobby, but we may not get to that. Nevertheless, the Government were right to introduce the order; Railtrack was in a mess and the travelling public were not being best served by its activities.
  Mr. Pickles: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Railtrack was insolvent?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can save the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) from getting into the doghouse by asking him not to reply.
  Mr. Foster: I will do everything that I possibly can to stay out of your doghouse, Madam Deputy Speaker, and shall merely refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech I gave in the House on 13 November, when I gave an answer to that very question. In that speech, I made a point relevant to the order. Some confusion has arisen as a result of the Secretary of State's initial failure clearly to distinguish between Railtrack plc, which is being put into administration, and Railtrack Group, which is not. I criticised the Secretary of State on 13 November for not being clear enough about that. It is not easy to make even the simple distinction between Railtrack plc and Railtrack Group, as the administrator, Ernst and Young, is finding out.
  We understand, although we have not been officially told, that Ernst and Young is earning £500,000 a week for its activities. It was interesting that the firm's first action on being appointed administrator was to ask the Secretary of State for an extension of time to carry out the work. It has been told that it can have six rather than three months to do it, but there are many in the City who suggest that the firm will be at it for much longer than that. The comment of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar about the amount of money being made from the exercise is a point well made.
  There is huge confusion even now about Railtrack plc and Railtrack Group. It is difficult for Ernst and Young, as administrator, to sort that out. Railtrack Group has a large number of component parts. Perhaps the Minister can clarify one example. Railtrack (Spacia) Ltd. is the United Kingdom's largest small business landlord, with 22 million sq ft of property, which it leases. It is part of
  554
  Railtrack Group, but its assets—the properties that it leases out—belong to Railtrack plc. I am not sure whether the properties belonging to Railtrack (Spacia) Ltd. are covered by the administration order, as Railtrack (Spacia) Ltd. is in Railtrack Group, which is not in administration, yet it can succeed only if the properties, which belong to Railtrack plc, are available to lease.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the Government appear to have learned from the difficulties of introducing the order, if the Evening Standard today is anything to go by? It states:
  "The private sector taking over large sections of the Tube … will be safeguarded against major financial risk if things go badly wrong".
  The Government are clearly determined not to repeat the experience.
  Mr. Foster: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall deal later with the financial arrangements proposed as a result of the order.
  I have a further example to illustrate the potential confusion facing the administrator. Can the Minister tell us anything about the demise of Totaljourney Ltd.? Totaljourney Ltd. is part of Railtrack Travel Ltd., which is within Railtrack Group, but on 15 November it ceased to operate. Was that the result of the work of the administrator, or was a decision made to close the company down because it was not working well?
  I seek an assurance from the Minister in respect of the operation of the order and of the administrator. I understand from the media that the administrator is planning to hive off the IT activities within Railtrack plc. We use the name "Ernst and Young" as shorthand for the administrator, but in fact the firm is Cap Gemini Ernst and Young. Cap Gemini is a major IT firm. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that there will be no conflict of interest between the administrator hiving off to a potential bidder the IT activities of Railtrack plc. and the administrator itself, which has a particular interest in that area.
  Mr. Pickles: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The order shows that those issues are exclusively in the hands of the administrator. The Minister is impotent in the matter. He can do nothing about it.
  Mr. Foster: I am rather hoping that the Minister will demonstrate that, before the administrator was selected and the appointment made, assurances about those very matters were sought from the firm that was chosen. I hope that we will get a positive answer on that point.
  I want now to focus specifically on the question asked by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar about who will make the decision on the future organisation of Railtrack. I asked the Secretary of State that question on 13 November, but I did not get a very clear answer. Of course, he could have given me such an answer, because it was there for all of us to see in black and white, in schedule 7 to the Railways Act 1993, on which the order is based. Paragraph 2(2) of that schedule states that the scheme
  "shall not take effect unless it is approved by the Secretary of State".

  555
  That makes it absolutely clear that it is the Secretary of State who has the power to make the decision. I note that he also has the power to modify a scheme before approving it. If that is the case, will the Minister tell us why a number of newspapers, including the Financial Times of 12 October, have been indicating that there is a possibility of the train operating companies having some sort of veto? I would certainly be interested to know whether he believes that that is the case.
  Let me turn to the crucial issue. The Secretary of State has asked the administrator to consider a range of different options for the future. He has made it absolutely clear that that is the case, but the problem for the administrator is that, while he has asked it to make a range of proposals, he has at the same time employed an organisation to prepare an option that he wants to put forward: the company limited by guarantee. How it can be that one body, the administrator, is charged with considering the range of options and making a proposal to the Secretary of State, while he is employing yet more people to develop a particular model that is based on what he says that he wants: the company limited by guarantee? We all know that it is the Secretary of State who is going to make the decision. Presumably, he will decide on the model that he wants anyway. So, I simply fail to understand, on the basis of the order, what is going on and why Ernst and Young is spending all its time in discussions with the train operating companies, WestLB, Barclays, Citigroup, Alchemy, Nomura and many others. The matter becomes almost inexplicable in relation to what Partnerships UK is going to do, other than effectively make the decision itself in its recommendation to the Secretary of State.
  Finally, as I said, the Secretary of State has asked Partnerships UK to develop a solution that is based on his requirement for a company limited by guarantee. However, Partnerships UK is a body in which there are a number of different partners, and 49 per cent. of it is owned by the Treasury. Thus, the Treasury holds 49 per cent. of the shares in the body that will provide the new solution. Furthermore, we know that, while the work has been developing, it has had its hands in the whole issue. I know that the Minister is not responsible for Treasury matters, but given the significant involvement of the Treasury in this matter, will he explain why it has refused to give evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions? I agree with the press report published by that Committee, which states that that refusal is disgraceful.
  Although I am delighted that the order was made to get us out of the mess that Railtrack had created for the travelling public, I believe that a large number of questions need to be answered. We look forward with great interest to hearing the Minister's attempts to provide those answers.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I had prepared a major speech for the debate after spending considerable time trying to digest such a complicated document. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), but I regret that he took so long to make his remarks because we have limited time in which to discuss the important order. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to respond in full to the many important
  556
  questions that have been posed. I shall therefore disregard my speech and speak almost entirely as a constituency Member of Parliament.
  I was deeply concerned to hear from the hon. Member for Bath that the parliamentary pension fund may have suffered to the tune of some £400,000 through Railtrack's failure and the Government's actions. I shall make no more of that. I am approaching retirement age, but I have no intention of retiring from the House in the foreseeable future. I hope that I shall continue to get my constituents' support.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) urged me to raise a specific constituency point. Many hon. Members who are present are worried about the modernisation and upgrading of the west coast main line. It is crucial not only to hon. Members' ability to get to the House, but—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been present throughout the debate and is aware of the constraints on it and its narrowness.
  Mr. Winterton: As ever, I am grateful for the courtesy that you show to hon. Members, especially to me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  How will administration affect the investment that was planned and scheduled for the west coast main line? It is crucial to the economic potential and success of the north-west. How will the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 that we are considering tonight, albeit too briefly, affect the line?
  There was a partnership between Railtrack, Virgin Trains and Macclesfield borough council to find the necessary further investment for Macclesfield station and upgrade it to fulfil the requirements of my constituents, who use the rail service.
  Mr. George Osborne: I use Macclesfield station twice a week; many of my constituents use it because it is the main—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member tempts his hon. Friend to go down a route that he would prefer not to use.
  Mr. Winterton: I thought that I had gone down that route. I do not know whether that was a coded message, but I shall take it.
  I appreciate that the Minister wants eight to 10 minutes to wind up, but I hope that he can deal with my points and perhaps help other hon. Gentlemen who have not been able to speak. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Ladies."] And hon. Ladies, although I am concentrating on investment in the west coast main line, which does not affect my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who is present. However, she and her constituents are clearly affected by rail investment.
  I have great regard for the Minister and his endeavours to deal with matters that hon. Members have raised. If he can give me an answer, I shall not try to divide the House at the end of the debate. The Minister is now giving me his attention again. If he can deal with the simple questions that I put to him, I hope that hon. Members will agree, albeit reluctantly, to the administration order.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Mark Field: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for ensuring that I have at least a couple of minutes. I realise that he had to give up his long speech. As my parents-in-law live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), I have also used the west coast main line. I fear that that is the last time it will be mentioned tonight.
  This situation is something of a mess. A number of questions need to be answered before we give our consent to the administration order, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out.
  I wish briefly to discuss two minor issues. The notion that the 71-page document that we are discussing would take a week to prepare is sheer nonsense. Anyone who has worked in the City of London, as many hon. Members have, will realise that these are boilerplate documents that can be turned round in hours in a global financial world.
  Part 5 of the order deals with the role of the administrator. On the one hand the Secretary of State and the Minister have insisted that shareholders will not get a penny from the taxpayer. As a number of speakers have pointed out, however, the administration structure is an extremely costly exercise and will remain so. Apparently, Ernst and Young, the administrators, are getting in excess of £500,000 per week. The lawyers, bankers and various other consultants seem to be engaged in a process that resembles an inversion of Christ's miracle of the loaves and fishes.
  A vast amount of public money is being frittered away and, meanwhile, what will be happening to the railways? How will Railtrack's statutory duty continue to be fulfilled? Even in the past six or seven weeks it has seemed that the answer to that question is: "not terribly well". Delays are up by about 30 per cent. throughout the country.
  I hope that the Minister will also be able to explain to some extent the slashing of the various investment programmes that has taken place, many of which were under way in the first half of this year. Obviously, I would be interested to hear some up-to-date details in that regard.
  No blame should be attached to the administrators. They are dealing with the paraphernalia of a very complicated process, not least in the document itself. The patience of shareholders and passengers must fast be running out with this whole circus, in particular as it will career on for at least six months or so. As there are only eight minutes left, I will give the Minister a full opportunity to answer the various questions raised in the debate.
  6.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I am delighted to be able to respond to this debate. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was speaking at the beginning of the debate, his hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) intervened on him, using the words, "ill-informed, rushed and botched". I thought for a moment that we had got off the subject and were talking about the privatisation of the railways in the first place.
  558
  As I have such a regard for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I will respond to his questions. I can assure him that investment in the west coast main line will be going ahead. I can also assure him and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne)—they will be on the platform at Macclesfield station together—that they will be able to continue to use that line and that the improvements will be taking place.
  I shared the concern of the hon. Member for Macclesfield about what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said about our pension fund. The hon. Member for Macclesfield is perhaps a little nearer the time when he will be drawing his pension than the hon. Member for Bath and I.
  Andrew Bennett: I am sure that my hon. Friend could please the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) by telling him that they could rename his station "Macclesfield International".
  Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman for a moment. I have only been on my feet for two minutes. He spoke for 23 and I stopped counting his questions when he got to 50. I will now attempt to answer some of those questions.
  We should put on record why the order is being made and what the provisions are. The railway administration provisions of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, can be applied in the event of insolvency of what is termed "a protected railway company" carrying out "relevant activities", or if anyone applies to wind up such a company. That, of course, was embedded in the 1993 Act.
  A "protected railway company" is a private sector operator with a passenger licence, or a network, station or light maintenance depot licence, and its relevant activities are, as appropriate, the carriage of passengers or the management of the network, station or light maintenance depot described in the licence. It is important to place that on record. It is also important to note that the provisions thus cover, among others, the 25 train operating companies as well as Railtrack.
  Although firmly based on existing administration procedure, the key difference in the railway administration process in the 1993 Act is that, although the relevant company must be managed by a special railway administrator in such a way as to protect the interests of members and creditors, he must also ensure—this is the important point—that the company's activities continue to be carried out while it is in administration until it, or an appropriate part of it, can be transferred to another party who will similarly ensure continuation of those activities.
  In simple terms, that means that while the primary duty in a non-railway administration is protection of the interests of the creditors, there is in a railway administration an equal duty to ensure that the train services, or at least the network, are kept running.
  I am sure the House agrees that ensuring the continuity of train services, including those on the west coast main line, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield

  559
  (Mr. Winterton) mentioned, must be vital to any railway administration process. [Interruption.] Now he is not listening to me, but I see that he has other interests. The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) may be telling him that his tea is ready. It is a rare moment in the House when the hon. Gentleman blushes, but I seem to have succeeded.
  I was waiting for the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to say what he would have done in circumstances similar to those we found ourselves in during September and early October. [Interruption.] Well, he had 23 minutes to tell us, but he did not do so. He may tell us in another debate. He used a nonsensical expression, saying that hundreds of schemes would be frozen. I can tell the House that that is untrue. I shall deal with other points he made.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: Will I give way? Oh no.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar asked whether the Secretary of State was bound to choose his own proposal. As set out in the legislation, the decision to approve any transfer scheme suggested by the administrator must be taker by the Secretary of State. I hope that that clears the matter up for the hon. Gentleman. He asked about European Union competition laws. I assure him and the House that the successor company to Railtrack will be selected in compliance with EU laws.
  As always, the hon. Member for Bath made a thoughtful contribution. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar stops interrupting and allows me to do so, I may get to some of his other questions. I have not finished with him yet and I assure him that the sting is in the tail of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Bath rightly said that the order allows the smooth running of the company. That was ignored in the debate, so he was right to make the point. It would be in nobody's interest if things did not run smoothly and properly. He asked specific questions about Railtrack's Spacia company, which deals with advertising signs. It is not in administration, but all its dealings will lie with the administrator until Railtrack's future is decided.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the dips in performance. Those are generally expected at this time of year, as performance is lower. Obviously it is too early to say whether going into administration—
  It being Seven o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stringer.]
  7 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the replacement of temporary classrooms. Indeed, I have raised it before. I cast my mind back to June 1998, when I introduced a Bill that would have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the number of temporary classrooms in current use, and to lay plans for their replacement. I would not say that, had that Bill found sufficient parliamentary time to progress, it would have by now cured the problem across the country, but had there been a five-year renewal plan, as I envisaged, we would at least be substantially along that path.
  I raised the matter in 1998, when I had been in the House for only a year. I had clear recollections of my time as a county councillor. For the previous 12 years I had tried desperately to wrestle with the problems of funding for education, and it seemed to me that this problem should have been high on the in-coming Government's list of priorities.
  At that time, 25,000 temporary classrooms were in use across the country. I should be most grateful if the Minister gave me the up-to-date figure. I suspect that it is slightly lower now, as there have been some welcome changes in capital funding that will have had an effect, but I am sure that it is still a substantial number.
  I know the number of temporary classrooms in use in Somerset. Even after the new deal for schools, we still have 618 temporary buildings in use, which represents 818 teaching places, as the jargon has it—or classrooms, in other words. So 818 classes of children are being taught in temporary classrooms. Although the county council is still making progress with replacement, it is desperately slow. I am advised that this year the total of 618 temporary buildings will be reduced by six: five classrooms and a toilet block will be replaced with permanent build.
  Some people would have us believe that this is not a genuine problem, and that children prosper. Clearly, they often prosper even in temporary classrooms, because some of them are well kitted out, if not by the basic structure of the building, then by the efforts of the teacher and the children. I have visited many temporary classrooms that are a joy. The children's work is on display, and a pleasant environment has been created.
  People also argue that it is necessary to have temporary classrooms because of fluctuating school rolls. I agree that a small number are needed at the margins to cope with fluctuating rolls. Some say that it is not the environment in which children are taught that is important: it is the quality of the teaching, and there is some truth in that. A good teacher is the first component of a good class in a good school. However, I still believe that the environment in which our children are taught and in which we ask our teachers to work is important.
  The problems with temporary classrooms are manifest. They are cold in winter and hot in summer. They often have windows or flat roofs that leak, and they are subject to structural failure as they get older, whereas purpose-built, masonry construction usually is not. They put

  561
  constraints on the children and on the teaching, because they are remote from the main school buildings. Some things are inherent in good teaching practice, such as allowing children to circulate freely from their base classroom to other classrooms, to other parts of the school and to resource centres, without having to go through the rigmarole of putting on their coats and hats and going out into a cold winter's day. That is an important consideration.
  As for local education authorities and, indeed, governing bodies, it is important to bear in mind that they are expensive. It is very expensive to run temporary buildings. Heating and maintenance must be paid for, as must keeping the buildings in an adequate state of repair. There is also the problem of vandalism: wooden huts seem to be a magnet for every teenager with a grudge against the local education establishment. Such establishments are easy targets. All those factors make temporary classrooms more expensive to run than their purpose-built equivalents.
  We should not neglect the aspirations of governors. We ask people to give up an enormous amount of their time, and to put enormous effort into building school communities—building schools of which communities are proud. They have aspirations for their schools, and their aspirations will not normally include seeing substantial parts of those schools accommodated temporarily in a sort of shanty town. That does not give a good impression of a school, and does not help it to attract pupils. I share the governors' aspirations for permanent, proper, purpose-built accommodation.
  We need only think of our own working lives to realise that we would not put up with such arrangements. When there was a lack of accommodation for Members of Parliament, there was no suggestion that we erect a camp of portakabins across the road. No: we had Portcullis House built, at enormous expense—and very good it is too, but what is good enough for MPs is surely good enough for our teachers and children. We ought to have a sense of proportion.
  We speak of temporary classrooms as though they were there for a couple of terms and then disappeared. As the Minister knows, the reality is very different. Classrooms described as temporary have been there for more than 40 years, and are well past their design life. In Somerset, 75 per cent. of our temporary classrooms are beyond their design life.
  There is a strange nomenclature—a strange jargon—relating to temporary classrooms. "Horsas" have a design life of 10 years. "Elliotts" have a design life of 20 years. "Post panel"—usually "Prattens" in Somerset's case—have a design life of 25 years. All those design lives have being exceeded. The "Horsas" are probably the oldest of the lot, with the shortest design life. Children are being taught in classrooms which, although described as temporary, were used by their parents and, indeed, their grandparents.
  Some of these very old classrooms are in a parlous state. Somerset recently conducted a survey of 150 of the oldest and poorest-quality temporary classrooms, and found that 25 urgently needed massive treatment if they were to remain in use. Replacing them with permanent accommodation would cost between £2 million and
  562
  £2.5 million—but that is not available, and the local education authority will be unable to provide such accommodation. As usual, it will be a case of "make do and mend". There comes a point, however, at which that can no longer be done. I am told that 14 temporary classrooms in Somerset will need what is described as "propping or scrapping" if they are to keep going. That in itself will be expensive: it will cost £23,000. But what does that mean in practice?
  I have visited the North Cadbury school many times and know it very well. It is a delightful school in a delightful village and is doing wonderful things with its children. However, 100 per cent. of its pupils are being taught in its four temporary classrooms, one of which is among the 14 that I have just described. Although all the classrooms are elderly and past their lifespan, that one classroom is more than elderly: it is at the point of dropping dead. It is an Elliott classroom and its central beam is collapsing. To make it safe, so that the school can continue operating for the rest of this winter, a hydraulic beam will be installed.
  Can hon. Members imagine teaching a group of children in a classroom that has a hydraulic beam supporting the centre? It does not sound conducive to good teaching practice, and I do not know how the school will deal with it. If I were facetious I might say that the teachers may be able to disguise the beam as a Christmas tree for the next month or so, and then perhaps to paint it to resemble a maypole. It is not a proper way of providing an education for those children, but the alternative would be to take the classroom out of use entirely, the consequence of which would be that 25 per cent. of the school's available teaching space was gone. That clearly cannot happen. Moreover, one of the other classrooms is shipping water. The school governors tell me that they do not blame the local education authority, but they desperately need something to be done to solve their plight.
  The school governors are doing a marvellous job of investing in information technology, as the Government want them to do. However, they have to place those computers in which they have invested heavily in wooden classrooms that have very little effective security. Even if they were in perfect order, the classrooms would be almost an invitation for someone to take the computers in the next school holiday. The school governors feel let down by a system that does not allow necessary capital investment, and they are not alone in that. I could cite schools across my constituency that are in the same position.
  Milborne Port school, for example, which I visited a few weeks ago, has argued for years about the proportion of the school that is in temporary accommodation. Its governors would dearly love to do something about that. Trinity school, in Frome, is one of the most effective schools in my constituency, winning plaudits all round for the quality of its teaching. It has some new building in progress to extend its classrooms, to meet the requirements, but it also has four or five temporary classrooms. I could cite many other examples.
  Do those facts suggest that Somerset county council is a bad education authority? I do not think that it is, and no objective test shows that it is. Somerset county has always prioritised education spending, sometimes with great difficulty given the formula against which—not with which—it works. The Government's current distribution

  563
  formula ensures that every child in a Somerset school receives £1,500 less per year than every child in a school in a leafy London suburb. I think that, in terms of the value that we place on our children, that is a continuing crime.
  Somerset county council does it best, but it has simply not had the latitude in capital spending to enable it to make a difference. The Government have made a difference since they were elected; I shall not disguise that fact. When I was chairman of the Somerset education authority, which covers the whole county, we had authority to spend a maximum of £750,000 on the replacement of building stock. There was no way in which we could properly replace building stock with that laughable sum.
  Then we had the new deal for schools, and in subsequent years the capital programme increased to £2.5 million, and then to £5 million, which was extraordinarily welcome. However, there is a £25 million backlog in essential repairs and maintenance. I am sure that a similar situation prevails in many other local education authorities.
  The Government also introduced the asset management plan process, which is wholly welcome. It is a significant improvement in the way we identify need and the Government attempt to address it. Let me say in parenthesis how grateful I am to Ministers for recognising the concern of LEAs when designing the sufficiency element of the asset management plan in respect of so-called doughnut schools—schools based on the 1970s doughnut design—which would have faced extraordinary difficulties had the Government kept to their original plan.
  Looking at the situation nationally, the Local Government Association contrasts the £174 million in 2003–04 to achieve suitability of classrooms with the £500 million requirement for both 2003–04 and 2004–05 identified from the asset management plans. The basic problem is the incompatibility of so many of the Government's policies, some of which are their own and some of which were inherited. Emphasis is correctly placed on class size reduction—I have absolutely no quarrel with that—but trying to manage that within the framework of a limited capital programme, with the exigencies of parental choice on top, means that policy collisions will be inevitable. There is a policy of IT investment, yet there is a lack of suitable premises. There is a policy of encouraging sports education, but again a lack of premises that would allow schools to put that policy into action.
  There is heavy reliance on the private finance initiative, yet I am not convinced that it can deliver in this matter. The Minister may tell me that I am wrong, but it is extremely difficult to envisage a lot of disparate sites spread across a local education authority being dealt with by a single PFI programme that would provide for the replacement of temporary classrooms. Even if it did, it is inconceivable that an LEA such as Somerset would he able to make the necessary revenue payments to make a PFI scheme of that kind work effectively.
  We have made progress and I am grateful for it. I am riot taking credit for it because of what I said in 1998; I know that it has been a priority for the Government, but a lot more needs to be done. I urge on the Minister a national programme of renewal of the temporary classrooms because, in my view, the teaching
  564
  environment matters. It is something that we owe our teachers, our children and our school governors. However, it is not the only requirement. We need good teaching, a good curriculum and an adequate environment—whereupon, as has been shown time and again, the children will respond. We should do our best for our children, and at the moment many of our school buildings can be described only as second best. I ask the Minister to consider what he can do in order to further these very necessary plans for renewal.
  7.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate and I pay tribute to him for his concern, which is well established and based on a very detailed knowledge of the circumstances in his area. I looked at the ten-minute Bill that he introduced in June 1998, setting out many of the problems that we faced at that time. Like him, the Government believe strongly that schools must have suitable accommodation in order to be able to deliver the national curriculum. Teachers must be in a good environment where they can teach effectively and, most importantly, pupils must have classrooms where they can learn.
  The hon. Gentleman raised his concerns in 1998 and I am glad that he welcomes the changes that have been made since then and acknowledges that, since the Government were elected in 1997, they really have made a difference. Our strongly held view is that school buildings must be improved, and that has been part of the basis of the greatly increased capital investment that we have made in schools since we came to office.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that in 1996–97, the last year of the previous Government, central Government support for schools' capital investments was only £683 million, and it had been around that level for many years. That level of investment barely covered the need to provide additional new school places in response to population growth. It did not meet the repair and condition needs of schools that had accumulated during two decades of neglect and inadequate funding; nor did it address the problems of improving and modernising an ageing school estate to meet the teaching and learning needs of the new century.
  As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, in 1997 we inherited a schools estate that was seriously decayed and increasingly unsuited to the task of educating our children because of that underfunding. We have made much progress since 1997. In our first four years in office, we made available a total of £5.3 billion for capital investment in schools. That has allowed us to tackle the worst of the backlog of school repairs, including the replacement of many of the worst decayed, time-expired temporary buildings, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  In November 1999, as part of that programme, the Chancellor in his pre-Budget report made the then unprecedented move of introducing a capital initiative devoted entirely to removing the worst temporary classrooms. Some £43 million of ring-fenced new deal

  565
  money for schools was made available to local education authorities, specifically so that they could replace temporary classrooms in poor condition with permanent classrooms. That sum was later increased to £150 million. In total, that enabled the removal of 1,500 of the worst temporary classrooms in our schools. In particular, Somerset took advantage of additional opportunities during the four rounds of the new deal for schools to remove some of the temporary classrooms in the county.
  As the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge in this debate, but will know, there have been a number of successful projects in the county, including four in his constituency. At Trinity Church of England first school in Frome, construction work is being carried out to replace a temporary classroom and enlarge three other classrooms. There are similar projects at Wincanton community primary school, Christchurch in Frome and Horsington primary school. The pupils and staff at all those schools are benefiting from comfortable, well designed, permanent buildings.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have given the issue high priority in our first four years in office. Under the capital investment programme for schools, we can do a great deal more nationally. We are now providing £8.5 billion in capital over the next three years to improve and modernise school buildings. This year, the figure is £2.2 billion—three times the total in the last year under the Tories. By 2003–04, the total will be £3.5 billion—five times as much as the Tories invested in their final year in office. That is the largest sustained programme of investment in our schools estate for the past 50 years. That investment will enable authorities and schools to make real progress in modernising their buildings, so that they are fit for the curriculum and student needs of the 21st century.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to acknowledge the value that temporary classrooms can have. If they are modern and in good condition, they can be useful in certain specific circumstances. For example, they can allow schools and local authorities to cope with sudden, unexpected and perhaps short-term bulges in pupil numbers. They can also speed up the consolidation of multi-site schools on single sites. They can help schools that are unfortunate enough to be damaged by fire, arson attack or other major disruption. They can enable schools with very poor building conditions to be redeveloped without having to close while that work is going on.
  Many schools have found that temporary classrooms have other uses. They are frequently used outside normal school hours for the functions and activities that the schools want to run. Although many schools have had permanent classrooms built, they seem rather reluctant to give up the temporary classrooms. The Department regularly receives representations from schools that have had permanent classrooms built, objecting to our removing the temporary accommodation. Temporary classrooms can be useful if they are in good condition and if they are indeed temporary.
  The Government have recently introduced two major changes to the system for allocating capital investment in schools. The first is a move from a programme that was
  566
  essentially bid based to one in which allocations are based on a formula and on a comprehensive survey of the conditions of school building, throughout the LEA area. The second major change is that most of the decisions have moved from national level to the local LEA. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out at the heart of that new system is the asset management plan prepared by the LEA in close consultation, and normally after detailed discussion, with schools, teachers, governors and others in the area.
  The asset management plan is the basis for allocating resources for basic need work. It is based on forecast growth and capacity constraints in a school, and it is also the basis for allocating resources for improving conditions and modernisation work, based on pupil numbers and the priority that the plan assigns to conditions in the school. That is the old new-deal-for-schools bidding programme transferred to the local level and rooted in the asset management plan.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke with knowledge and passion about his local schools. I appreciate the problems that temporary classrooms cause, because many of them are shared in my constituency. They make it difficult to move children around the school. They are often too hot or too cold at precisely the wrong time of the year and one cannot use temporary classrooms for certain things, such as creating social areas, in the same way as one can use permanent buildings.
  I have two words of advice for the hon. Gentleman in an attempt to help him and the schools about which he is concerned. The principal step that they must take is to raise the issues with the LEA and with the asset management forum in the context of the plan in the Somerset area. No doubt they will do that with the support of the local Member of Parliament, who has strong connections with the school committee chair, Councillor Cathy Bakewell MBE. The asset plan provides the basis for assessing the condition of the classrooms, making decisions on priority, planning the work and allocating resources for all the local area. The Somerset asset management plan promotes the removal of temporary classrooms as a priority, and I know that the LEA is planning to add to the money that we can provide centrally for the programme.
  My second point is that, despite the changes, the Department for Education and Skills retains small-scale programmes that are bid based. In particular, the targeted capital scheme may interest the hon. Gentleman. He and the schools in his area may find it worth examining. It allows for building investment to deliver educational benefit; it does not deal specifically with the problem of poor conditions in schools. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am happy to ask my officials to discuss the details of the scheme with him. After he has talked to the schools, they can determine whether it might be suitable to bid on that basis.
  The hon. Gentleman may also want to consider a private finance initiative. Some 33 deals have been signed, with a value of more than £850 million and covering 450 schools. Not one deal has been used for, or has led to, the installation of a temporary classroom. Again, he may wish to discuss that point with his LEA.

  567
  Temporary classrooms in poor conditions simply do not provide a good learning environment. The Government are determined to improve conditions in all our schools and we have made a great deal of progress in replacing temporary classrooms with well designed permanent facilities. The unprecedented planned increase in capital
  568
  investment this year and over the next two years will speed up the process across the country and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and county.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Social Inclusion and Sport
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caborn.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to be addressing my right hon. and hon. Friends as the Minister for Sport. This is my first opportunity to set out some of the current policies and ideas of the Department for Culture. Media and Sport. When I came to this job, I did not need convincing that sport can be a tremendous power for good. It can transform lives and communities. Many of us in this Chamber today know that sport can engage, enrich and empower young people, but the real challenge is to create the structures and resources for that to happen.
I have two key goals as Minister for Sport in relation to the regeneration agenda. I want to ensure that there are more and better facilities to realise the goal of more people participating in and benefiting from the power of sport.
When I went to No. 10 Downing street to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and he gave me the job of Minister for Sport—which is a great privilege—he said that one reason he had done so was to see whether we could use the great asset of sport more effectively and productively. Immediately on taking up the post I went to the regions to see what was happening at the chalk face. Those visits made a lasting impression on me as I saw the tremendous amount of work that was being done at all levels, particularly by volunteers. I saw specialist sports colleges and local authority sports development initiatives. I was privileged to visit centres of excellence such as the Liverpool football academy and Loughborough university. Those are at the top of the range. I also saw many of the activities that are being developed by national governing body initiatives, such as the Royal Yachting Association's Sailability scheme, dthrough which young people of many backgrounds are being given what is probably their first experience of the thrill of sailing.
Perhaps I have been lucky to see the best of the facilities in question. However, I have the impression that although there are many very good facilities, provision is pretty patchy. Funding is dispensed in a way that does not always secure the best use of facilities in a sustainable way. There is a need for a more strategic approach to providing sports facilities and the human capital that goes into them.
The Government have been aware of that for some time. That awareness gave the impetus to our statement published earlier in the year, "The Government's Plan for Sport". The plan states how we will implement our vision set out in the sport strategy document, "A Sporting Future for All". It is a blueprint for the PE and sport development framework that we need if we are to
140WH
nurture sporting champions more consistently than we have in the past. The title "A Sporting Future for All" is a clear statement that the Government's priorities are not only about sports development. We are determined to widen participation in sport.
The development of schools and communities through sport is a central element of the sport strategy, because we are convinced that sport can make a real difference to all people's lives. The plan for sport maps out the practical steps that need to be taken at national, regional and local level if the potential of sport as an agent to improve health and tackle social exclusion is to be achieved.
Much of what is set out in the plan is happening now. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the allocations made under the £750 million new opportunities fund for PE and sport in schools. That unprecedented investment in school sport is giving every local education authority in England money to build and improve school sports facilities. That does not stand alone, as it comes on top of the space for sport and arts programme, which is providing about £130 million of further funding—£75 million from the Treasury's capital modernisation fund and £55 million from the lottery—to improve sport and arts facilities in about 300 primary schools in our most deprived communities.
Like the new opportunities fund facilities announced on Monday, those facilities, which are already being developed, will be based on and around school sites and will help to improve education standards. However, they will not be only for school pupils to use. We are investing in our commitment to wider social inclusion by encouraging the wider community to become involved in sport and physical activities and to enjoy the health and social benefits that school brings, making our schools community hubs.
There is a real need for that. Despite the drive to end social exclusion that was begun by the Government four and a half years ago, there are many evils blighting the lives of the most disadvantaged people, such as ill health, poor education, poverty, crime and drugs. Too many people are living in rundown, depressing and even threatening environments. Many hon. Members will be familiar with that sort of situation, which we inherited from the previous Administration, in the run-down areas of our inner cities. I say that with feeling because I represent Sheffield, Central, and the quality of life for many of my constituents has changed dramatically during the past four years. However, social exclusion still needs to be addressed. We have gone the first mile, but there is much more to be done.
That was borne out by the policy action team—PAT 10—report on social exclusion, which showed that although sport and arts initiatives can have a great impact on neighbourhood renewal, a body of evidence to make that case convincingly has been lacking in the past. I had the privilege of working in what was then the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on regeneration, planning and regional policy. We were shown that developing an urban renaissance was not only a matter of the urban environment, although that was important, but concerned human factors as well. We are trying, through sport and the arts, to tackle inequalities and improve the quality and standard of life.

141WH
To tackle that, the DCMS, in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills, is studying a range of projects targeted at addressing social exclusion in key areas of education, health, employment and crime. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) will appreciate the fact that Leeds Metropolitan university is carrying out a study for us with the aim of establishing what works best and to establish some common core principles. The projects include the Leeds community link project, which targets five to 16-year-olds from low-income communities and uses football to engage them in positive activities and divert them from crime and antisocial behaviour.
The relevance of the study is heightened in the context of the Government's cross-cutting reviews, which will inform the next spending round. That is an important development in Government policy. In trying to realise our assets, we are responding to a holistic agenda with a cross-cutting approach. The reviews focus on a number of key areas crucial to raising the quality of life of the most vulnerable communities. The subjects of these reviews include improving public spaces, tackling the problems of children at risk and health inequalities, and the potential of volunteering. In all these, sport can be a medium to deliver improvements.
It shows the seriousness with which the Government are approaching the cross-cutting review that the Departments leading it include the Treasury, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Home Office. I believe that they are all beginning to understand the contribution that sport can make; it can help them to deliver their policies and agendas much more effectively. It is essential that the DCMS makes those connections across government and that it responds to the interest of other Departments and in Sport England's social inclusion programmes.
We need to assess carefully the key priorities for Government policy towards sport, and ensure that our resources are effectively directed towards them. I do not want to go into detail about the major projects that we have had to deal with since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I took office. However, the major projects that we have considered include the Commonwealth games, Picketts Lock, and the national stadium. The latter problem has yet to be resolved, but we are determined to review it, as we promised the Select Committee. I hope that we shall return with a more considered, more cost-effective system that will be able to deal with the big events and programmes.
We should remember that although £120 million has already been invested in Wembley, we have not seen much movement. Against that, we could have embarked upon expenditure of between £120 million and £240 million for Picketts Lock; and the income from the lottery to sport is on average about £240 million a year. That puts into perspective where we ought to put our investment. That is not to say that we should not invest in some major events, but a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken. That would add real value to the sporting
142WH
infrastructure. That will form part of the review that will be undertaken by my Department—and I hope by other Departments.
Chris Grayling: I had the pleasure and fascination a couple of weeks ago of visiting east Manchester with the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. We saw at first hand the impact that the Commonwealth games development is having on that part of Manchester. Clearly, it is a huge benefit to bring major sporting events to places that need regenerative support. Given all the toings and froings over the national stadium, and the loss of Picketts Lock and the world athletics championships, what prospect is there in our lifetime of major sporting events like that coming to the UK?
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. One of the biggest sporting events will take place next year in Manchester. It has 17 disciplines and a budget of £330 million. and the public purse has paid about £300 million of that. It will be a first-class event. Immediately after the election, we put in place a robust financial structure, which has had a further injection in excess of £100 million. I believe that it has shown dividends, because I had the great privilege yesterday, with the Manchester organising committee, of announcing that 42 per cent. of tickets for the event have been sold and that the opening and closing ceremonies are sold out. Quite a lot of tickets remain for other events, but I think that it will be a huge success. Coupled with the Queen's golden jubilee, it will give us the opportunity to show the world that Britain is in the premier division. It is a major event, and it has 167 disciplines. I think that the north-west will be very proud of that, as should the UK and the Commonwealth.
Chris Grayling: I wholeheartedly endorse the success of the Commonwealth Games; it is a tribute to the organisers that it is likely to be such a success. Against that background, it is disappointing that we, perhaps alone of all the major industrialised countries, have had to walk away from one of the world's premier events, the athletics championships in 2005. As a result, it is hard to see that international sport will entrust us again, in the foreseeable future, with a major event.
Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman runs down the ability of the UK to host major sporting events. Of all the European countries, we probably stage more international sporting events than any other. Motor racing, tennis, golf and football have all been tremendously successful so far as the UK is concerned. We made a manifesto commitment to provide a venue for 2005 that would be commensurate with the aspirations of the International Amateur Athletics Federation. That is why, having undertaken the evaluation, we offered Sheffield.
Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene again, might I say that the late IAAF president, Primo Nebiolo, when he was the president of the Universade, said that it was a fantastic facility—one of the best in Europe—that was a credit to athletics and left a tremendous legacy. That facility is what we have just offered to the IAAF for 2005. To back it up, there will be an investment of about £40 million into

143WH
state-of-the-art amenities. There will be a 200 m indoor running track, serviced by a tunnel, with some of the best sports science and sports medicine to back up our athletes. There will not be better facilities to support athletes anywhere in Europe; not because of the IAAF but because of the planning that has gone on through the English Institute of Sport. That complex will be there, ready to be used.
Chris Grayling: In that case, perhaps I have misunderstood. Will the Minister confirm that the 2005 athletics championships will be held in this country?
Mr. Caborn: That is a decision for the IAAF, which it will take on 26 or 27 November. We have given it the opportunity to bring the 2005 games to Sheffield, and is up to it to take it; it is not the decision of the Government. If the IAAF heeds the words of its late president, the answer to the hon. Gentleman might well be yes.
Jon Trickett: Nobody doubts the passion and commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister to large-scale sport or to the regenerative effect in deprived communities of such events. He will also be judged—perhaps more so—by his capacity to bring about sporting regeneration at the grass roots, among the rank and file, particularly if he tackles social exclusion at that level as well as great events. If the Opposition focused more closely on that, we might have a genuine debate today.
Mr. Caborn: I hear my hon. Friend and will try to comply with his suggestion. One of the things that I have instituted since I became Minister for Sport is monthly meetings with my ministerial colleagues in the interests of cross-cutting, of trying to develop policy in a more holistic way and of using the assets of government more effectively. I meet Ministers from the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health, along with Trevor Brooking, the chair of Sport England and its acting chief executive, and the chief executive and chair of the new opportunities fund. We discuss monthly how we can move the sport agenda forward in a more holistic way. Next month, I shall invite Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
One of the big issues that the Select Committees have been addressing is the revision of planning policy guidance 17, which is important for the development of sporting facilities and open spaces. My Department and Sport England are working closely in the redrafting of PPG17. The regular meetings are reinforced by official meetings and contacts across government concerning the benefits of participation in sport and physical activity. For example, the School Sport Alliance was established last year and brings together DCMS, the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health under the chairmanship of Trevor Brooking to take a strategic overview of developments in and around school sport.
I firmly believe that if we are serious about widening access to sport, and using sport to tackle the manifestations of social exclusion, we must start at the real bottom, with school sport. School is where most children are first introduced to sport and where they
144WH
either develop a lifelong passion for it, as the vast majority do, or are turned off it for life, as I know from visiting schools. As we believe that that early experience of high quality sport and physical education is so important, the Government are investing more than £1 billion in school sport. The DFES has promised to deliver an entitlement of at least two hours high quality PE and sport per week for every child.
We are putting in place better sports facilities, but it is no good building state-of-the-art sports halls if people do not use them. Bricks and mortar and astroturf alone will not make an impact. To increase participation, there must be people with the right skills, expertise and time to devote to delivering quality physical education and getting young people involved in sport. The school sport co-ordinator programme builds on the networks created by the first 100 specialist sports colleges to provide a national infrastructure linking secondary schools, primary schools and local sports clubs. It works alongside the healthy schools co-ordinators to realise the health benefits of school sport. There are now almost 400 school sport co-ordinators in place, with 1,700 primary school link teachers attached to them. By 2004, there will be 1,000 school sport co-ordinators linked to up to 6,000 primary schools. We have a national placement strategy, so there will be at least one co-ordinator partnership of between four and six secondary schools in every local authority in the country, with more in areas with greater deprivation.
School sport co-ordinators are teachers who are released from the timetable for two days a week so that they can work alongside colleagues in other schools, make partnerships with sports clubs and national governing bodies of sport, link with local primary schools and organise competitive fixtures and a range of out-of-school-hours clubs and coaching opportunities.
By forging links between schools and local sports clubs, school sport co-ordinators are opening doors to constructive out-of-school activities and networks for children who might never dream of approaching a sports club themselves. One of the serious structural weaknesses in our sporting infrastructure is the fall-out rate, which is as bad as any in the developed world. Between leaving school at the age of 16 and going to university or to a place of work, about 80 per cent. of people do not go back into sport. In countries such as France, that happens in reverse proportion. That shows clearly the weakness of the sports club infrastructure.
We need to address the resources and development of facilities much more effectively. It is important to have cross-cutting and cross-fertilisation of cultures, so that we can use facilities in education—in the formal structure—in the development of sports clubs in the wider community. Our investment in building those facilities, in terms of quality, quantity and location, will go through the education structure, but must involve building a wider infrastructure for sport in the community.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: What does France do to make it so successful that we do not do? On another matter, can we pilot some schemes in which clubs take part in sport with schools? Kids get involved with clubs in the community on Saturday and Sunday, so why can they not do so on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday? A hundred

145WH
technical coaches across the land work after school on my sport, rugby. They go into schools, but are not enmeshed in them.
Mr. Caborn: I will come to coaching a little later, as it is important. However, coaching concerns human capital, and I have been talking about physical capital and facilities. My hon. Friend wondered why we could not transplant the French system. The French system is based on the club structure in villages and towns, although that is not true in areas such as Paris. The system in the United States is based on colleges, and the Australian one on academies. It is difficult to transplant systems from one country to another, but we can learn from them, and we are learning from several other countries that probably achieve better results than us.
Vernon Coaker: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will have the answer to my question. If he does not, I would ask him to find it out. He said that something like 80 per cent. of young people did not continue with sport when they left school. What is the gender breakdown of that figure? I suspect that it will be a lot higher for girls than boys, although it is high for everyone. We should not lose track of that point, because different solutions may be needed for different sexes.
Mr. Caborn: I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer now, but I know that we have those statistics, as I was considering them earlier in the week. I shall write to him on the subject.
I want to talk about volume. Some argue that the initiatives benefit only a minority of schools, but we are putting facilities and human resources in every education authority to create a national infrastructure from which good practice can spread to other schools in the same area. It will sit alongside a range of other initiatives open to all schools to encourage pupils to become involved in sport.
There is scope for a greater role for colleges and universities in developing sporting talent, and in community regeneration. Centres of excellence such as Bath have taken talented young athletes to the top, but their excellent facilities also benefit local people who want to play sport to improve their health, make social contacts or merely to have fun. We must be careful that we do not use sport as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, as centres such as Bath do extremely effectively. We need to make more use of our resources in higher and further education. I also look to other Departments, such as the Ministry of Defence, which have facilities that could be used more effectively in the community.
The sporting facilities of universities and, probably to a lesser extent, further education colleges are not the only reason why those bodies are important. The fact that many of our universities specialise in sports science and sports medicine is an asset that needs to be exploited much more effectively. When I was making a speech to some engineers a few weeks ago, I made an analogy with Formula 1 cars. Seven of the top 10 Formula I teams are in the UK due to our fantastic engineering abilities and design. The sport pushes the motor car to its extremes.
146WH
What happens in the Formula 1 car today happens in the luxury car market tomorrow, and in the volume car market the day afterwards.
Many of our universities push the human body to its extremes, and measure that. I was at Loughborough a few weeks ago and saw samples of muscle tissue that had been taken from cyclists in the tour de France to study recovery rates. A spin-off from that is the possibility for others to recover more quickly from illnesses and exhaustion.
In many areas, we are gathering intellectual property that can be exploited for services, facilities, goods and products, and we should be able to make bigger advances. In my city of Sheffield, 150 companies have been set up on a medipark in the medical and science area of the two universities. They are not driven purely by sport, and go slightly wider. They have put Sheffield's traditional skills—materials and engineering—into a modern setting. They export 80 per cent. of their products, using intellectual property and the skills of a place such as Sheffield. There are tremendous opportunities to exploit in the universities.
Other universities are involved in more direct advocacy of social inclusion. Loughborough leads the way in tackling educational inequalities. Its "Higher Education Participation through Sport" project is supported by Sporting Equals, the Youth Sport Trust, Leicester Racial Equality Council and Loughborough university and is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council. It does a great job of using sport as a vehicle to encourage young people from black and Asian communities into further and higher education.
Mr. John Greenway: The Minister is saying something with which I very much agree. He mentioned Loughborough, and he will know that there are also excellent facilities at Bath. I advocated to his predecessor that we should ensure that such regional centres of excellence at our universities were involved in the regional development of the English Institute of Sport and were not replicated, because that would dilute them. Will the Minister comment?
Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment in detail. I have had three sessions with Steve Cram, who heads the English Institute of Sport. The institute is evolving, and its broad regional base and the division of responsibilities will not be duplicated. However, I want the EIS to work more closely with higher education and centres of excellence to ensure that we use all our resources—whether physical or human assets—as effectively as possible. That has been done to a large extent, and I will encourage it in the future. That basis of facilities is necessary if we are to increase the quantity and quality of elite athletes. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but further work must be done, and there needs to be greater synergy between higher education, centres of excellences and the EIS.
The initiatives that have been undertaken are indicative of what the further and higher education sector can contribute to the development of sports and communities through sport in the regions, given the right conditions. That potential is not being fully realised, but I look forward to the review body's report about higher education and sport, which will come out at the end of this year or in the early part of next year. That, too, will fit into the Government's plan for sport.

147WH
The issue of children at risk of dropping out of education is being tackled. Schools and universities have much to offer, but many children still lose out on their education. Disaffection with education is one stage in a cycle of deprivation. Last Monday, I had the privilege of being with the Prime Minister at the announcement of a new opportunities fund scheme. I talked to some of the teachers who were involved in sport and physical education, and they told me of their experiences. They were from Birmingham, Manchester, Cornwall and inner London. They said how sport had transformed the ethos of their schools. Kids who did not want to go to school before now go to play sport and are then educated. That gateway into those establishments is important. We need to concentrate some of the research and resources in that area. We can see that sport makes a difference and can reverse trends.
The DFES "Playing for Success" scheme has been a phenomenal success in re-engaging 8 to13-year-olds who were beginning to miss school or lag behind. It is terrific news for all of us that this model is so successful and that it is expanding to bring in other influential sports such as cricket and rugby league. For young people who leave school with few educational qualifications and poor educational prospects, sport is now a new deal option. It is working very well. Pilots are under way in Stockton and Barrow, placing young people in secondary schools that are engaged in local school sport co-ordinator partnerships.
The new deal clients have the opportunity to undertake a range of tasks including general duties such as kit and equipment maintenance, planning activities such as setting up after-school sport and working with school and community teams. There is a programme of operation built around sport, giving young people access to sport and to organising it in their local communities. Again, it goes just beyond the education establishment into the wider community.
I turn now to coaching, another important area. Good coaching is as least as important as the big names in influencing children and giving them a leg up into sport. We have asked Sports Coach UK to look at the establishment of a coach development bursary fund to encourage under-represented groups to become sports coaches. Coaches play a key role in motivating and equipping sportsmen and women to succeed. That applies in the school playground and the local playing field, as well as at major international events.
The Government recognise that there is a need to develop and support coaches, to encourage more people to become coaches at all levels and to create a more robust coaching structure that starts at the grass roots and provides a clear pathway all the way up to elite coaching. To achieve that, the Government have established a coaching task force drawn from a variety of organisations involved in sport and coaching. I was with the taskforce this afternoon and some of the developments are very interesting. It will report its findings in the early part of next year.
I was astounded when I came into this job, as I did not realise that there was no career structure in coaching, which is one of the most vital parts of 'the whole infrastructure of sport. There are the various disciplines in coaching, but no national qualifications or career pathways. We are looking at how we can invest in this human asset in a much more systematic way. It also has
148WH
to be sustainable. We must look at how we can fund this for the medium to long term. If we do not improve the quality of coaching in this country and get the career path needed to sustain it, we will not realise the potential of our young people and we will not realise the investment that we have put into the facilities.
Mr. Andrew Love: I was looking for a suitable juncture to ask a question. In its submission to the recent report by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, UK Athletics stated that fundamental agreement must be reached on whether major events are wanted in the UK or whether the emphasis should be placed on wider sports development initiatives. The Minister is talking about coaching and the move from grass roots through to elite sports. Does he think that we have got the balance right between the development of elite sport, or should more go into the grass roots?
Mr. Caborn: These things must always be balanced. UK Sport is in dialogue with the governing bodies and resources have been allocated.
We are discussing the Cunningham report with the various governing bodies, with the athletes and with funding organisations such as Sport England and UK Sport. We are trying to strike a balance between concentrating on the grass roots and on the elite levels. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met athletes to discuss investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) asked some reasonable questions about the English Institute of Sport, and coaching; although the answers may involve some expense, answers are needed.
I want to create a structure in which to tackle three fundamental issues: facilities, which I have dealt with, coaching, and access to sport. Access to sport depends on the location of sports facilities, and the availability of public transport to those locations, whatever their quantity and quality, has a bearing on that. That matter was raised with us on Monday by local authority representatives and by teachers, and we are considering how to tackle it.
A taskforce is working on the problem of coaching. I do not know how much it would cost to have a sustainable structure of, for example, X number of coaches, which increased year on year in quality and quantity, at every level. We are quantifying what will be needed for elite athletes, in the light of the Cunningham report. Once we have done so, I may be able to answer my hon. Friend's question more effectively.
To conclude, I want to say something about the structure of sport in the next 12 to 18 months. I want a ministerial committee to look at the policy from Whitehall in a more holistic way and to consider how sport can help to deliver the policies of the Government on health, education, drugs, social inclusion and many other matters. We want Sport England to be in a more strategic position to give an overview of what is needed to tackle the structural weakness in sport.
We want a much stronger delivery mechanism to empower the regions to find solutions to their problems, because the problems of the north-east are not those of the south-west. Powers need to be devolved to the regions to ensure that sport is more outward looking; as

149WH
I said earlier, sport is not an end in itself, but is a means to many ends. We must encourage a greater involvement by the private sector, the education sector, the local authorities and others. That can be done at regional level, by empowerment.
There also needs to be another fundamental change. If potential is to be released, it must be facilitated, not frustrated, and power and resources are needed for that purpose. We must look seriously at funding at the grass roots. Sport England has about 60, 70 or 80 different schemes and programmes; could they be delivered at a local level, with money following those programmes? Would it be better for the regions to consider how to deliver a strategy for sport against targets such as year-on-year increases in coaches, facilities and access to sport, and for outputs to be measured against an agreed strategy that the various constituent bodies have agreed? That is open for debate; the Government and the Department are considering the matter seriously. Encouraging wider participation is necessary to realise sport's potential to deliver in many of the areas mentioned by members of the Committee.
I want to have an open debate. That will be facilitated by the appointment of the new chief executive for Sport England, who takes up his role early next year. [Interruption.] He is not an Australian—he was born in Doncaster—but he has been in Australia and New Zealand. Sport England will be refocused next year and I hope to strengthen the regional structure to deliver and build on many of the achievements to which I have referred.
3.15 pm
Mr. John Greenway: It is always a pleasure to debate sport. As I have said before—I repeat it for the benefit of the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to the post—we are fortunate to be able to shape the future of sport and participation in sport, which brings so much enjoyment to so many of our constituents. Sportsmen often say how fortunate they are to play sport for a living; the Minister and I are fortunate to have our jobs, which allow us to talk sport in a quasi-professional way.
I wish to make clear to the Minister from the off that while I will make some criticisms of Government policy, I am on as good terms with him as I was with his predecessor, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), although he has already demonstrated an approach different from hers. I think that he will recognise that I try always to have a constructive approach, as far as one can within the political environment.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned, albeit briefly, the Wembley and Picketts Lock issues. I was concerned that those subjects, which are much in the news and of great interest to the public, are slightly out with the title of the debate. I hope that the Government will find time soon to discuss the Select Committee report, to which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) referred, if only on one of the days allocated to discuss Select Committee reports in Westminster Hall.
Before I talk about sport, particularly in schools and the voluntary sector—the area on which I have chosen to concentrate within the theme of social inclusion in
150WH
sport—I wish briefly to comment on the exchange that the Minister had with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The Minister made clear, in discussion at Old Trafford on the day of the England-Greece match, his priority for where limited resources should be spent. My main criticism of the Government's position—is that the he did not say that the Government were making a commitment to provide a venue for the world athletics championships in London in 2005, as all the debates, parliamentary answers and Select Committee hearings have made abundantly clear. If we are to learn any lessons from that, it is that before Governments make such commitments, they must ensure that the wherewithal to deliver that promise and commitment is available. I am not saying that the Government are any better or worse than any previous Government in that regard.
The issue is a serious one. I understand what the Minister says about Sheffield but I suspect that on Monday Sheffield will not be accepted and that if it does decide to make a bid, it will not succeed. The IAFF has made it clear that it wanted London. The decision not to go ahead with the commitment on Picketts Lock has major implications for the future of athletics and the staging of major sporting events such as a future Olympics. If we want to host an Olympics, we must provide the facilities first. Who will believe a promise that we will create a facility? All of that has an impact on the standing of sport and on people's enthusiasm for getting involved. The Government have missed that element.
Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman commented on the recent report from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which recommended that there should be a Minister for events. Would the hon. Gentleman be sympathetic?
Mr. Greenway: I would love that job, but the Conservatives have to come to power first. It would be a lovely Government job, if one had the clout to go with it.
Sporting organisations can apply for lottery funding and develop a project or facility within the rules. There is a world of difference between that and the other extreme; projects such as the Commonwealth games, in which the Government had a role from the start. The Government appointed a Minister to oversee the games. The national stadium development and the Picketts Lock proposal seem to have fallen between two stools.
Mr. Caborn: For the record, I shall correct the hon. Gentleman. In 1991, I was involved with the largest sporting event in this country at that time—the world student games. The then Administration gave not one penny to Sheffield to support a major investment of about £180 million at 1990 prices. In 1995, when the hon. Gentleman's friends were in power, I had the privilege of representing the bid for the Commonwealth games. Sheffield's local authority was expected to write an open-ended indemnity to produce its bid for the 2002 Commonwealth games. Sheffield did not, but Manchester did; its local authority said that it would underwrite all costs. When Sheffield hosted the world student games, it had to pay for everything, and it is still paying off a debt of about £20 million per year. Sheffield ratepayers are paying for facilities that the previous

151WH
president of the IAAF commended as some of the best in Europe. In 1995, the previous Administration would not put a penny into that type of development.
This year, Manchester asked the Labour Government to invest £150 million to rescue the Commonwealth games. We have done that; the games have a robust financial structure and will be a huge success. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the games would have been saved under the Conservatives? Furthermore, in the light of the Carter report, would he have supported a decision to go ahead with Picketts Lock earlier this year?
Mr. Greenway: The Minister has waited a long time to get that off his chest, and I am glad to give him the chance to put it on the record. He asked two hypothetical questions, which I will do my best to answer. I understand that the agreement reached between the Government and Manchester city council meant that there would have to be a Government contribution; the Minister has seen the agreement, and I have not. There was not a total indemnity. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the bidding process is not fair, I am not responsible for that.
On the funding of Picketts Lock, if the Government's priority lay elsewhere, they should not have made the commitment to host the world athletics championship in 2005, or to provide a London venue. He and his right hon. Friend the Minister should do as we have asked and publish all of the Carter report. We exchanged correspondence earlier this year about the Carter recommendations on the Commonwealth games and, in the end, the Minister provided a helpful answer. However, the whole world wants to see exactly what Patrick Carter recommended, and I am particularly interested in his figure of £750 million to redevelop Wembley stadium. The Minister has access to the papers; we do not.
Mr. Wyatt: I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman a career path as the Minister for events, but perhaps I could offer him a different career path. We missed a trick in the report. The International Olympic Committee, the IAAF and FIFA are all based in Switzerland or Monaco, but there are no diplomats in either our Berne or our French embassy who are dedicated to sport issues. Not one single diplomat goes to one single meeting. That is a major flaw in the way in which we deal with sport.
Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman makes a further case for debating the issue on its own.
Mr. Caborn: The Carter report on Picketts Lock is in the public domain. Two factors changed the Government's position. First, Hatfield led to revised expenditure priorities for Railtrack that threw into question whether we would have an adequate transport system to Picketts Lock. For any major athletics event, people have to be able to travel in and out in a satisfactory way.
The second problem was the uncertainty about accommodation for the athletes. This was to have been student accommodation at Middlesex university, built through a private finance initiative. World-class athletes would have had to travel 19 miles across the north
152WH
circular and the M25 every day of an 11-day event for events, quarters, semis and finals. That situation was well outside the Government's control. Would the hon. Gentleman have made the decision to go ahead, in light of the information in the Carter report?
Mr. Greenway: The Minister says that it was inevitable that he had to say no to Picketts Lock when he took office. Last weekend, I said in The House Magazine, to which we both contributed articles, that it might well be that the Government had no alternative but to take that decision. However, proper research should have been done before the Picketts Lock site was offered. That was the clear conclusion of the Select Committee, which said, I believe, that the Picketts Lock proposal was plucked out of thin air. None of the issues had been properly explored. The Government should have learned something from the experience of the Wembley planning consent. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) knows about the discussions that we had on the all-party football committee. For two years, there was total stalemate on the development of transport infrastructure for Wembley.
I wish to make one other point about the Select Committee report. The Conservatives have always said that the decision to take athletics out of the Wembley project was wrong. The fact that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who was the Minister involved in that project from the beginning, is now saying that we are back to square one, with two years—
Mr. Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): If the hon. Gentleman believes that we have gone beyond the subject of social inclusion and sport, I was just going to interrupt to say that that is the case.
Mr. Gardiner: I believe that there has been social exclusion—of Back-Bench Members.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): If the hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity, I wish to say that the end of this part of the speech of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will be the last that I want to hear about Picketts Lock in the debate on social inclusion and sport.
Mr. Greenway: The debate demonstrates that there are strong views about the matter. The point that I want to make is that the World athletics championships in London would have had a major effect in motivating and encouraging young people from all walks of life to take up sport, especially athletics. I hope that a successful Commonwealth games in Manchester next summer—I believe that it will be a success—will have a similar effect.
As the Minister knows, many youngsters, especially girls, are not motivated to take up sport, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said earlier. Several Government initiatives depend on promoting participation with the support of active local communities and, significantly, encouraging participants to strive for sporting excellence at all levels. The need for increased encouragement,

153WH
motivation and opportunity is acute, and nowhere more so than in our schools. Our children need time for sport, somewhere to exercise and better facilities.
I can think of no more important subject for us to consider than inclusion in sport. Indeed, the Minister spoke of how the ethos of sport encourages school attendance by some children who would otherwise tend to drop out. Research by the Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust found that the number of obese children has reached record levels. By the age of 11, a third of children are overweight and a fifth of boys are obese. That should cause little surprise, considering that a third of primary schools reduced the time for physical education during the past school year. Children now spend twice as much time watching television and playing computer games as they do exercising or playing sport.
Children are supposed to have two hours' sport and PE each week in curriculum time. I know that the Government understand the problem and that many children are not being offered two hours because of an overcrowded curriculum. As I have said before, I do not blame Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport; the problem lies elsewhere. The Central Council of Physical Recreation best summed up the situation when it said:
"National Curriculum Physical Education is the only way that all children can exercise their entitlement to quality PE and sport programmes. At a time of record childhood obesity, curriculum PE ensures that all children benefit from regular exercise."
James Purnell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have just introduced a requirement for two hours of sport in school per week, and that it is largely irrelevant whether that happens within the curriculum or as part of after-school activity? It is a welcome development.
Mr. Greenway: I accept that the Government want every child to have two hours of sport, but like the CCPR—whose quotation I was halfway through—I do not accept that that is necessarily the solution. The CCPR continued:
"For 30 per cent. of children, curriculum PE is their only physical activity each week. After school sport is less accessible for children with special needs, children from low-income families and single parent families. Access to after school sport poses problems because of restricted transport."
I should put it the other way; restricted transport causes the problem. I guess that between 65 and 70 per cent. of secondary pupils in my constituency use a school bus. For younger children, the figure is probably equally high. The CCPR said:
"Children in rural areas have limited access to public transport to take part in after school sports clubs. However, whilst after school sport activities are welcomed, they must not be allowed to replace the unique position of PE within the curriculum."
That is what the CCPR says and what I have tried to argue in the two years that I have had this post.
On the question of places to play and exercise, school playing fields and other sites are still being sold off to fund non-sporting developments. According to a leaked DCMS report, 446 applications for building on sports fields were approved in the year between April 2000 and
154WH
March this year. That was 60 per cent. more than the 279 approvals in the previous 12 months. Before any Labour Member tries to intervene, we are conscious of the fact that Ministers have repeatedly claimed that 5,000 playing fields were sold off during the 18 years of Conservative Government, which is an annual average of 277. That is still fewer, but that is not my point. Numerous opportunities to justify the claim through parliamentary questions to Ministers have produced no concrete evidence for this allegation. [Interruption.] If the Minister has concrete evidence, I hope that he will publish it.
The previous time that we debated the issue—under the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Vauxhall—I readily acknowledged, as a former member of North Yorkshire county council, that pitches and playing fields were sold. Sometimes it was right to sell them; a sale is not always wrong. Frankly, however, we have now reached the stage where far more robust action is required. The cumulative effect is deeply worrying.
Referring to the leaked report, the hon. Member for Vauxhall was quoted in The Sunday Telegraph last weekend as saying:
"The figures bear out what I am finding when I go round the country and show quite clearly that our promises to save playing fields are not working."
The same article also quoted Elsa Davis, director of the National Playing Fields Association as saying:
"The loss of playing fields is proceeding at a rate which is totally unacceptable. For years, the Government has talked motherhood and apple pie, saying that they will save playing fields, but nothing has been achieved. Ministers can't keep talking about the need for children to exercise to stop them getting obese if there is nowhere for them to run around and play team games. We need much stronger safeguards."
Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that prior to the 1997 general election, 40 playing fields were being lost per month? The current rate is two playing fields per month. Will he not acknowledge that this Government have invested £750 million in a playing fields initiative for schools?
Mr. Greenway: I shall talk at some length about the latter point later. The hon. Gentleman may be shocked to discover that we generally approve of this money being spent, but not of the people who are spending it. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the former point. The figure I read from the leaked DCMS report suggests that 446 playing fields were lost in the 12 months from April last year to this March. That is considerably more than two per month. The hon. Gentleman intervened at an opportune moment, because I was about to quote the CCPR as saying:
"New published figures are required from Government on the sale of playing fields".
Will the Minister take that clear message away with him? We must know what is happening. He alluded to the need to strengthen the case for PPG17, through which the Government gave an advisory role to Sport England. The latest draft from DETR weakens the current planning guidance. It must be strengthened if we are to avoid judicial review of sale and planning refusals, which would lead to even more sales. The recent case of Foster's field in Dorset tells us that urgent action is

155WH
needed. Notwithstanding our past political arguments, I hope that we can move forward in the spirit of consensus. I hope that our debate will help the Minister in his discussions with colleagues in other Departments so that the much needed action can be taken.
Chris Grayling: Having heard the interventions of Government Members, does my hon. Friend agree that going through history lessons on this subject serves no purpose? We all need to tackle the problem today. Accusations about what took place in 1997 or before do not serve the interests of today's young people.
Mr. Greenway: I agree with my hon. Friend. One allegation after another has been made about what the last Conservative Government did, but sports organisations tell me, anecdotally, that it is worse now than it has ever been, although the position is supposed to have been improved. I hope that that brings that matter to an end.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) about the funding of new sports facilities in schools by the new opportunities fund. That should make a big difference to the quality of facilities that are enjoyed by many children. I am sure that the Minister was delighted by the Yorkshire Post headline, "Yorkshire schools to get £60m bonus", as we are both Yorkshire Members. The article gives a breakdown of where all the money goes. [Interruption.] I did not want to make a point about Sheffield but, having been tempted, I will say that Sheffield gets £6 million, but Leeds gets the gold star with £7.7 million.
The key point is that, although we welcome the bonus, many people will argue that some of the expenditure in schools should have been funded by the Exchequer and not by the national lottery. The test of additionality, which the Labour party in opposition thought was so crucial when the lottery was established, has been avoided.
The more important point raised by the article is how the money has been divided across the country. We have all seen the press release that states how much is going to each local education authority, but we need to know how that has been decided. I note that York will receive £818,000. To put that in perspective, that is little more than the cost of the excellent artificial sports pitch centre at Huntingdon school in my constituency, which all my children attended. That was two-thirds funded by the sports lottery fund. It is not as if we could not raise funds by other means.
It is reported that each local authority will receive the money as a grant. Is that the case, or will there be an allocation against which the LEA must submit a bid? Will there be match funding? Who will determine how the money is spent, and monitor that it is spent appropriately and effectively? Unless I have got it wrong, Sport England has been given no role in assessing the viability of the projects. Why not?
All the expertise that Sport England has built up over the past seven years as the lottery distributor would surely have been invaluable in ensuring the scheme's eventual success. Those are all valid observations, because it is not Exchequer funding, but lottery funding. Sport England's sports lottery fund is the appointed lottery fund distributor for sport in England and should have a role. I heard what the Minister said in his speech about the strategic role of Sport England, but: it also has the expertise to assess the viability of many of the projects.
156WH
There is a real danger that the new opportunities fund initiative, although well intentioned, will undermine the efforts of Sport England to ensure a more needs-based distribution of lottery funds. Sports lottery funding has become more scarce. Over the past few years, its available funds have dropped from £250 million to a likely £185 million this year, and that is down from the £300 million that it used to receive in the early days.
There is more demand and more need to allocate funds to major projects such as the Commonwealth games, as the Minister says. The money cannot be spent twice. For that reason, Sport England has been insisting that local authorities carry out a pre-application audit and needs assessment on any project sponsored by the LEA.
I have said for some time that we need an audit of facilities. That is not easily done. My heart sang when the Secretary of State said in the summer that she wanted a Domesday book. That is a very profitable suggestion, but it will take time. We are not sure who will spend all the money before we have even got off the starting blocks with regard to the audit or the Domesday book. I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to have an audit, but there is a danger that by sidelining Sport England from the NOF funding process—or, at best, relegating it to a minor role—some of the money could be spent in the wrong place and in the wrong way. Independent funding bodies, not politicians and particularly not local councillors, should determine where lottery money is allocated.
The NOF announcement will add to the growing sense of injustice and frustration felt by many voluntary sector grass roots sports clubs. They are finding it even more difficult to access sport lottery funds and they are still waiting for a more formal announcement from the Government about how the Chancellor's Budget pledge of help with rates and tax will be honoured. I note that the Chancellor will speak again in the House next Tuesday; perhaps we shall hear something then.
A clear sign of frustration was revealed in the CCPR's recent "Hit and Miss" campaign, which I commend to the Minister. Several governing bodies, including those of cricket, tennis and bowling, all of which have high participation levels among older generations—I am thinking of our generation, Mr. Griffiths—conducted surveys of member clubs. They show that the "Paying for Local Government" Green Paper proposals for rate relief will not help most clubs and, worse still, that many could be worse off.
Our policy at the general election was to work with the Charity Commission to amend the law if necessary to provide charitable status to more community sports clubs. The demand for sport to be given parity with charity must be addressed more positively, although we do not underestimate the difficulty.
I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity in demanding that the new sports facilities in schools that emerge from the NOF scheme be for community use; I think that he made that point today. However, there are huge practical difficulties in achieving that, one of which involves maintenance. Someone from York cricket club, which I think contributed to the "Hit and Miss" campaign, asked who would cut the pitch. That is an example of the tender loving care given by volunteers to ensure that facilities are kept in pristine condition. We

157WH
know from constituency experience that schools just do not have the budgets, manpower, skills or wherewithal to do all that. Something must be sorted out.
We should recognise that voluntary sector sports clubs provide the more thorough and far-reaching opportunity for community participation in sport and, as a consequence, the best chance for greater social inclusion. Helping more clubs to become genuine charities would nurture that process and, perhaps even more importantly, would secure their pitches and facilities for future generations.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: I will not give way, because the Minister and I will have taken up about 40 minutes each by the time that I stop speaking, and we have already had a good exchange.
We should remember that, particularly in many rural areas, children get the chance to participate in team sports such as soccer, rugby, hockey or cricket only through their local voluntary sports clubs. The 400 schools sports co-ordinators, whom the Minister mentioned and by whom the Government set great store, have a crucial role to play in securing and increasing co-operation between schools and voluntary sector clubs. If we really want every child to have a sporting chance, we need both elements. Schools and clubs need to be used to the full and to work in partnership to identify and nurture talent to ensure that when young people leave school and college, they continue to participate. I agree with what the Minister said about that.
It is right to use sport not only to tackle problems of social exclusion but to harness the benefits to health of people being more fit, the benefits to communities of less crime, vandalism and delinquency, and the benefits to society as a whole of taking pride in sporting achievement, both domestically and on the world stage. Our standing in world sport really matters to people in Britain, which is why there is so much dismay and disbelief about the situation with the world athletics championships.
Let me conclude on a more positive note, as sporting interest is founded more than anything else on hope, if seldom expectation. That is certainly the case if, like the hon. Member for Colchester and me, people follow teams in a lower league. One of the few items of sporting news that cheered me this week—a week in which none of our teams managed to win a European Champions League game—was buried at the back of the latest edition of Sport England's magazine. The magazine states that the under-12 Wolverhampton Wanderers team—representing the west midlands under-12 academy—defeated Brazil, the USA, Australia, Korea, Thailand and Japan to win a prestigious international football tournament, hosted by the organisers of next year's World Cup [Interruption]. That cheered me and, as I can see from their reaction, it has cheered hon. Members. If only they can do the real thing in 10 years' time; that has to be the point.
The magazine, which also carries two photographs—two that I have found so far—of the Minister, highlights a number of Sport England programmes that are aimed
158WH
at improving and strengthening social inclusion in sport, such as tackling racism, encouraging minorities and creating more opportunities for women and those with disabilities. I, too, pay tribute to Trevor Brooking and his team and welcome the appointment of David Moffatt, a Yorkshireman, as the new chief executive. I hear what the Minister says about what he wants to do with Sport England regionally; doubtless we can discuss that another time. Today, I strongly urge him to make the use of Sport England's expertise. Involve it in making sure that the money—which is not new, it has been announced three times—is spent wisely and effectively.
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Before we hear any further contributions, may I point out that about 10 hon. Members wish to speak and that the Minister is going to need about 10 minutes at the end to respond? Will hon. Members please think about the length of their speeches?
3.52 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: The issue is the place of sport in our political culture. It is lost in the Department dealing with culture. We need a Secretary of State for sport and health education, who should be the chairman of UK Sport. We have to locate the issue so that we are in control of decision making; we can no longer allow quangos to dictate to us. Until we have such a structure, we might have debates, but not much will change.
I have asked a number of questions about the new opportunities fund for sport. I cannot understand why we have set up a second administration for sport. We shall waste between £8 million and £10 million on a second system. What is the purpose of that? That money will be lost. I cannot see why the new opportunities fund for sport could not have been located with the Sport England offices, so that they could learn and be grafted together. What we have done is crackers; it makes no sense. We have missed a golden opportunity. The figure of £750 million is mind-boggling; nobody can say that it is not enough. However, all that we are to receive in Kent, the largest local education authority, is £10 million. I have heard what Yorkshire will get and I am amazed.
We should take lop in the pound from every lottery ticket sold and keep it in the community where that money was spent. Community sport would very quickly develop, because there would be a community chest. I have often said that if we could just tweak the lottery funds cleverly, we could create local community chests. At present, we do things the wrong way round; we do not want a top-class bureaucracy, which ours is not anyway. We want the system to be bottom up, so that a local fund is available to which people can go for their shirts, goalposts or netballs.
The main thing to address is planning. Wherever I look in my constituency, houses are being built. They are built before anything else is ready. There is no school, doctor's surgery or police station; in fact, there are not enough doctors, policemen or school places anyway. Nor are there enough schools, so we cram children in to use the playing fields, and they are being sold. If we are serious about the White Paper on

159WH
planning, we should ensure that we do not consider the playing fields at the end, after the houses have been built. Playing fields should be planned first, along with the surgery and the community hall. Putting planning first is an important trick. When it comes last, people start to argue. They say, "We meant to put the community hall there, we meant there to be indoor bowls, we did mean to include a football pitch, but when push came to shove we couldn't be bothered. Why don't we just pay £100,000, and someone else can do it." That is a game and it is played back and forth, but it is fundamentally wrong. We are talking about inclusion, but we should get it right; we have a golden chance with the White Paper. If we do not get it right, we will have to wait to get new facilities built. I urge the Minister to put his back into the fundamental change suggested in PPG17.
Mention has been made of ground staff, but we have none. We have no cricket squares left, and playing fields everywhere are flooded, and cannot be played on. If they are not flooded, in the summer, they are too hard. It is ironic that the schools in my constituency cannot use their grounds in the winter because they are not properly watered. It is nuts; the schools cannot play football or run around on the fields because the grounds are too crusty and dangerous, and the health and safety people say that they cannot be used. We need a fast-track ground staff training scheme. We must also include the clubs. They too need good facilities and fields; if they played on better fields, their skills would improve. We can provide coaches, but if we do not have good playing facilities, it will be pretty pointless. Indeed, hockey proved that when it moved from grass to an artificial surface; we could see the skill change. Real momentum is needed to ensure that there are good ground staff.
We have given public service broadcasters £1 billion extra, but they refuse to have a sporting coach education channel. It is, frankly, outrageous. In the late 1960s, Jennie Lee and Harold Wilson took £3 million from the BBC's licence fee money to start the Open university. Why cannot we squeeze the BBC for £20 million a year to pay for a sports and health education channel? The whole sporting curriculum could be included. People could watch Steve Redgrave rowing every day for two hours, and see his brilliant skills online and on television. I have written to the Minister to say how ridiculous it is that it is not a public service requirement for the BBC to provide such a service.
As people know, sport has been a huge part of my life. However, there remains a skill shortage in sporting management, which could be taken up by the institute. As it is, we cannot manage big events, we cannot deliver them on time and we cannot do it on budget. That is another aspect of the culture of sport that must change.
3.57 pm
Bob Russell: We have rightly been reminded that this is a debate on social inclusion and sport. I regret that the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman have taken 81 minutes between them, speaking on matters that had nothing to do with social inclusion and sport. As a result, I, and other hon. Members, are unable to contribute to the debate as we would wish. The subject is serious, and I resent the fact that our time has been eaten up. My speech will be brief, like those of other hon. Members, yet we have undertaken considerable research for the
160WH
debate. I regret that not all of my speech will be on the record—but others will not have the chance to speak at all.
It would be a refreshing change if the Government were to include sport as a serious part of its overall strategy. Surely sport deserves more consideration than an occasional debate in Westminster Hall when there is a need to fill a gap in the timetable. The problem does not lie with the Minister or his predecessors, nor, in fairness, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, although it must be said that sport always comes third even in that Department, which seems to rank lowest in the Government's ministerial league table.
Sport has been the poor relation under successive Governments because they have underfunded it and failed to recognise its importance to the nation's health and well-being. One football song says that people only sing when they are winning. The same can be said of the performance of the ministerial first team squad, because we hear from them only when sport is going well.
If we are serious about sport and social inclusion, we need to get back to basics. According to an Ofsted report, 75 per cent. of pupils are not getting the minimum two hours' physical education a week under the school curriculum. We do not have school league tables for physical education and sport, but perhaps we should. We could then see which schools were failing our children. Three quarters of pupils are excluded from the two hours' physical education, so let us sort that problem out before embarking on gimmick slogans about social exclusion and sport. Mrs. Jean Gates, an honorary officer of the National Council for School Sport, who is also an assessor for the International School Sport Federation, tells me:
"Pressures of examinations and the shortening of the summer term have contributed to the sharp decline of tennis and cricket in schools, also athletics."
What does the Minister intend to do to reverse that shocking state of affairs? Why do so many schools fail to provide the basic two hours' PE per week, let alone proper involvement in competitive sports? Many say that they would love to do that, but that Government strictures about higher academic standards—about which the Prime Minister again boasted yesterday—and the need for better exam results each year and for a higher league table place mean that they must cancel or reduce the timetabling of physical education and sport. That is a daft thing for schools to do, because all the evidence is that healthy children are likely to do better academically than those not in good health.
In the light of the unhealthy obsession with academic achievement, it is little wonder that sport is increasingly excluded from the lives of the nation's young people. If sport is not undertaken at school it is unlikely in most cases that it will be pursued outside school and in adulthood. That is borne out by research done by Sport England, suggesting that children's experience of sport at school will greatly influence their decision whether to remain involved in sport on leaving. A caveat to all that I have said is that sports coaching and training must be undertaken only by qualified staff. Sport England's head of public affairs, Mr. John Zerafa, says:
"Essentially, if you can win hearts and minds early you tend to keep them committed to a more active lifestyle which, in turn, delivers numerous health and social inclusion benefits—both for the individual and society as a whole."

161WH
Education policies under successive Governments have resulted in today's young people being less fit than their parents' and grandparents' generations. As a consequence today's youngsters will, as a generation, experience breathing, mobility and heart problems at an earlier age, putting even more pressure on our health services. The situation appears even bleaker when it is realized that the less well-off in society are those who are the most excluded from sport.
I welcome proposals for after-school sport, but it should be additional to, not a replacement for, the two hours' physical education in the school curriculum. The Central Council of Physical Recreation has already flagged up concerns that after-school sports provision does not necessarily produce the social inclusion that many may think it will achieve. As its senior policy officer Simon Taylor told me:
"Transport barriers can prevent children taking part in after-school sport. The school bus is often the only way home for those most at risk of exclusion. As such there is a real danger that the record lottery investment of £750 million in school sport facilities will only benefit those children with access to private cars."
The council also states:
"It is widely recognized that the most inactive pupils are those least likely to volunteer to stay behind for after-school sport. Those at greatest risk of exclusion are less likely to be able to stay behind after school. This can be for a variety of reasons including access to transport, having to do part-time jobs, looking after siblings or doing other after-school activities—particularly homework."
There is also a fear of vulnerability for some children returning home out of school hours.
I should be obliged if the Minister would explain how he proposes to address that major hurdle of transport, which will be particularly acute not only in rural areas but in all schools where a large number of pupils rely on the school bus. "Sport for all" is a slogan we should return to. It is far more meaningful than the current politically correct phrase "social inclusion and sport". Although I have concentrated my comments on those of school age, social inclusion applies to people of all ages and from all social backgrounds.
Had I been given the time that the debate warrants I should have developed many of the themes that I have outlined. I hope that we shall return to the debate, and that the Minister will treat the occasion with more sincerity in future.
4.4 pm
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I should like to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for coming to Durham recently to launch the northern regional sports strategy. What he has said today is similar to what he said at that meeting, and it was highly refreshing to hear him remark that the problems of the north-east are different from those of the south-east.
I want to highlight the concerns of young people and to focus on my constituency, particularly with regard to health and social inclusion. Redcar and Cleveland council, one of the two local authorities in my constituency, has a good track record on education. In 1999, Redcar and Cleveland was among the top five
162WH
most improved local education authorities nationally at key stage 2 and was the most improved LEA nationally at key stage 4. Five schools in the borough have been identified in their Ofsted reports as outstanding. We have everything—sure start, beacon school status, education action zones and single regeneration budget bids. Money is flowing in from all directions.
Without a good education, a good start, we cannot expect our children to do well. It is that simple. Reading, writing and arithmetic are at least as important as they ever were, if not more so, but there are many other subjects that are of value to young people in their formative years. As the Minister said, the many activities that comprise sport or physical education lessons in school have in common the aim of creating well motivated, healthy, independent young people. They are so important that they should be seen as a vital part of children's education. They should not just be a Wednesday afternoon filler, or an add-on to enable us to tick the national curriculum "sport" box.
Increasingly, there is an acceptance that the education system in general, and schools in particular, do not just shape young minds, but affect the whole package. Making children mentally strong is only part of the answer. As well as encouraging healthy minds, schools should be encouraging healthy bodies. Sport can offer our children the opportunity to gain extra skills and confidence. By giving children healthy meals in the canteen and engaging them in sporting activities, schools can help them to become successful in later life. If young people are taught from an early age the ideas of healthy living, there is a better chance of them staying fit and healthy in later life. The alternative to healthy young people, and the resulting problems in later life, does not bear thinking about.
There is ample evidence to suggest that there is a link between poor health in adult life and lifestyles. Health indices in many of the wards in my constituency show, in marked fashion, the health patterns that unfortunately mar much of my constituency and the north-east of England. The indices of death from cancer and heart diseases across Teesside are among the worst in Britain, a rate that is mitigated and disguised by the fact that some more prosperous wards have relatively low rates of those diseases.
For example, parts of Middlesbrough such as the suburb of Hemlington have a standardised mortality rate for heart disease of 147, compared with a national average of 100. They also have astonishing SMRs of 236 compared with the same national average of 100 for women dying of cancer. In other areas, such as Park End, the SMR for men dying of lung cancer is 262, with a female equivalent rate of 223. In the neighbouring Easterside ward, the female lung cancer SMR is 252. A similar pattern emerges at the rural end of my constituency.
A recent study conducted by Teesside health authority found that younger people, men and affluent people were more likely to be physically active than older people, women and people who are poor. It also found that the proportion of men and women not taking part in any moderate or strenuous physical activity rose between 1995 and 2000 from 36 per cent. and 46 per cent. respectively to 50 per cent. and 51 per cent. I do not claim that playing football for two hours a week can

163WH
prevent cancer, but growing up with a culture of fitness and regularly taking part in sporting activities can bring dramatic health benefits.
Not only the young can benefit. Age Concern in my area recently published a document with several low-intensity exercises for older people that can provide mental and physical stimulation, as well as an improved sense of camaraderie when conducted in group settings. It is often hard for older people to participate in sporting activities, as opportunities are more limited. That is not the case for one of my constituents, Mary Russell, who teaches aerobics in Guisborough despite having recently celebrated her 65th birthday. It is important that older people are borne in mind when we discuss inclusion in sporting activities.
How can school sports help social inclusion? In January, the social exclusion unit published the conclusions of the report of policy action team 10 on best practice in using art, sport and leisure to engage people in poor neighbourhoods. It especially considered those who feel most excluded, such as disaffected young people, and ways to maximise the impact of Government spending on policies for art, sports and leisure in those neighbourhoods. Its stated aim was to draw up an action plan designed to maximise the impact of arts, sports and leisure policies that contribute to neighbourhood regeneration and increases in local participation.
The report found that participation in arts and sports, and the provision of services to support it, could assist neighbourhood renewal by improving communities' performance in the four key indicators, which are more jobs, less crime, better health and improved educational attainment. In addition to the well established benefits to physical health, regular moderate-intensity exercises can contribute to greater self-esteem, improved mental well-being and, in certain circumstances, improved mental ability.
I began my speech by talking about young people, and moved on to acknowledge the wide-ranging nature of the subject. I shall approach my conclusion with the fact that organisations such as the Young Women's Christian Association have suggested that young women, who, as has been said, are under-represented in sport, would benefit from changes to the way in which sport is taught in school and to the range of activities available. Many organisations believe that allowing external and community bodies to use school sporting facilities can turn sports into family and group ventures that might be more appealing than a compulsory weekly slot in an academic timetable.
Rather than physical education being a purely physical event, there should be additional instruction on the physiology of sporting activities. Young people should be taught about the benefits of sport—that is one of the best ways to convince them of its value—rather than forced to join in with no explanation of why they should do so.
My shopping list might appear long and varied, but I genuinely believe that by educating people throughout the community on the benefits of sporting activities, and by making those activities affordable and accessible, we will see a notable reduction in some health problems known to result from the lack of a healthy lifestyle. I shall finish on that point, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
4.13 pm
Vernon Coaker: I want to contribute to the debate, as I was a teacher of physical education a few years ago. I was a couple of stones lighter then as well, which is worrying. Leaving aside the debate on Picketts Lock and Wembley, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on the many interesting points that they made. Other hon. Members made similarly important points, which reflects the importance of the debate.
The value of sport cannot and should not be underestimated. We must ensure that every member of society, of whatever age, gender or ability, has the opportunity and is encouraged to take part in sport. That is valuable not only for that individual but, as the title of the debate suggests, for the life of our communities; it will tackle some social exclusion problems and enable neighbourhood renewal to take place.
I want to make some specific comments. I am constrained by my role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the DFES from saying too much about school sports, but I am pleased to see some of the developments that have taken place and are to take place, especially with respect to sports colleges, the school sport co-ordinator programme and the proposed improvements of school sporting facilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said, without those improvements, the extra improvement that we all want would be difficult to achieve. It is good that the National Council for School Sport, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust and many other organisations are involved in the project.
How can we continue to encourage competitive sports in schools? They are essential but, whichever way one looks at it, they have taken a knock. We could discuss the reasons for that, but we must continue to develop those sports. We should also consider the issue of competitive sports and sports facilities available to girls at school. School playing fields are dominated by football and rugby posts, with sometimes the odd hockey pitch. We need to reflect the gender balance in our schools.
Moving beyond schools to the wider community, a number of programmes address social exclusion issues. I do not know whether hon. Members had time to read the preliminary report on the operation of the new youth justice system, which referred to new splash schemes run in school holiday time to keep young people off the street. The report says:
"The summer 2000 Splash programmes kept 20,000 young people off the streets and had an impressive impact on crime. In areas where the schemes ran, the total crime rate fell by 6 per cent. compared with a national rise of 3.8 per cent. Criminal damage fell by 14.2 per cent., compared with a national rise of 8 per cent. and domestic burglary fell by 26.6 per cent. compared with a national fall of 8 per cent."
Those are astonishing figures. The report also mentions new youth inclusion programmes, such as the project in Sunderland that promotes midnight basketball. They are exciting initiatives. I have never legally played basketball at midnight.
The report refers to youth inclusion programmes that have resulted in a reduction in crime that
"ranges from 32 per cent. in Doncaster to 14 per cent. in Gateshead and Wrexham."

165WH
I quote those figures because they show the value of sport in tackling problems in our communities.
I have made the following point to the Minister before, but it is an important one. I have a suburban constituency in Nottingham. Many of the targeted initiatives seem to assume that social exclusion takes place only in the middle of the city. Will the Minister ensure that programmes aimed at tackling social exclusion of young people through sport are run in rural and suburban areas, where there are pockets of deprivation, although the figures are often swamped by the general affluence? Those pockets of deprivation need support and help as well.
I also refer to the fact that many Premiership football clubs and first division clubs use their status in the community to tackle problems of social exclusion. The "Playing for success" programme seems to be remarkably successful. In my own city, Nottingham Forest and Notts County do a lot to tackle social exclusion. The players go to schools, youth clubs and difficult areas. Nowadays, we knock our professional sportspeople, but we should use the debate to say that many do a lot of expert work and voluntary work to help young people and to turn them away from crime and a life of disaffection. Nottingham Forest and Notts County deserve support, but Nottinghamshire county cricket club, Nottingham rugby club and many other clubs also involve themselves in such activities.
It is important for us to consider the role of local clubs at the grassroots. Local clubs struggle on shoestring budgets, but many of us feel that they still do a remarkable amount of work with young people.
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Vernon Coaker: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall try to keep to our agreed allotment of time so that we can all speak.
Local clubs do a great deal, and many in my constituency have extended their youth club roles and the work that they do. They have also tried to ensure that young women are included. Many local football clubs now run girls football teams. Local netball and hockey teams have also been helped.
Many clubs struggle to get even small amounts of money. Often, they do not want a huge amount—they are not putting in lottery bids for £150,000, £500,000 or £2 million. Sometimes they struggle to get £200 or £250 or to hire a minibus to go somewhere. I do not have a magic wand, but I wonder whether there is some way that we can help.
I also want our public leisure facilities to be improved, because there is a real need for them. Some of our local authorities clearly struggle to provide facilities for public use or facilities for talented individuals to ensure that they progress as much as they can. Some public facilities, such as tennis courts and public pitches, need more done to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said. We also need to consider the issue of groundsmen.
We should ensure that youth clubs are available in our communities to provide table tennis and other recreational activities, which must be accessible to
166WH
young people. As hon. Members have said, accessibility and the availability of public transport to such facilities are real issues.
I have gabbled through my notes to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. I have tried to make some important points. Grass-roots sport is important, as is the help that professional clubs give to the development of our young people. Sport plays an important role in social inclusion in our communities.
4.23 pm
James Purnell: I, too, will keep my remarks short. First, I must declare an interest. I am a director of the Tameside Sports Trust, which provides sport for Tameside, often on behalf of the authority. It is fitting that I have taken over that position from Tom Pendry, who all hon. Members will agree did much to raise the profile of sport in Government policy. I pay tribute to him for that.
Tom's argument was always that sport was not only incredibly important—our national newspapers often give it more coverage than politics—but incredibly good as a tool of anti-crime, pro-education and health policy. Most of all it is a good policy against social exclusion, and I am delighted that we have a chance to debate that.
Sport is a great tool for attacking social exclusion, but the participation rates are unfair. The data show that people from classes D and E are three times less likely to participate than people from professional classes. The inequality is greater among ethnic minorities. People from Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds are nearly 50 per cent. less likely to take part than people from white backgrounds.
We must ensure that we use sport as a tool to reduce social exclusion, but we must also reduce social exclusion in sport, and schools are important if we are to achieve that goal. I welcome the fact that the previous Government introduced the national lottery and ensured that sport was one of the good causes funded. Money was initially allocated through bids, but the previous Government were successful in ensuring that it was allocated more strategically. I welcome Sport England's commitment that 75 per cent. of their lottery money will go into grass-roots sports. It is better to invest in them to develop sports for the future and ensure that people can participate. That is better than chasing after major sports events, which are important at the time, but which often do not leave the legacy that some claim.
The allegation that the Government have raided the good cause of sports to fund their priorities through the new opportunities fund is a lot of nonsense. That fund has been extremely successful in funding sport. After-school clubs are a good example of that, as are healthy living centres. I am glad that the process culminated in the £750 million grant for school playing fields. I urge the Minister to ensure that local councils, Sport England and the new opportunities fund use the money for the benefit of the wider community and not just for schools. Copley high school in my constituency is a good example. It is on the same site as a sports centre, which creates excellent synergies. The school's Copley club allows students to use the facilities for free during the school day, and at a reduced rate at other times, which has greatly reduced the amount of truancy and is a good example for general policy development.

167WH
I pay tribute to schools in my constituency that run fantastic sports activities despite having atrocious facilities. West Hill and Mossley Hollins schools have sports halls that are barely big enough to play badminton in, and their changing rooms are falling apart. Long overdue money should be made available to those schools to match the effort put in by staff and students.
Sports facilities should be designed for use in the evening and at weekends. I find it frustrating to drive past schools—or defence facilities, as the Minister said—in which there is a facility available for the community, but it is locked up and unlit, with no ground staff present to make it available for the community as often as possible. In my constituency, the council is building a school that can be locked off from the facilities, so that those can be open in the evening without putting the school at risk of vandalism or intruders. If that example is not followed, future generations will not forgive us. The huge amount of money is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a massive difference to the infrastructure of our sports facilities.
However, facilities are not enough. We need coaches, ground staff, and properly exploited facilities. I welcome the school sports co-ordinators programme. It is a fantastic idea to release people from the timetable so that they can coach in their schools and work in primary schools too. That is a great way of using the lottery to ensure that we can pilot a programme, develop it and experiment with new ways of delivering policy. How will that be made a permanent feature of the system? I would encourage both the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to look at ways of funding that from Government money so that all our schools can benefit and so that we can combine the resources of our coaches and youth service.
We all struggle in our constituencies with the problems caused by young people hanging out on street corners, not having enough to do in the evenings and getting into problems with alcohol, drugs and criminality. Encouraging the youth service to work as much as possible with our local sports clubs and local councils to attract people into sporting activity is a fantastic way of reducing the risk of young people slipping into criminality and drug abuse. It is something that they are interested in. It is not just putting a bit of sugar in the medicine; it offers them the resources of the youth service to advise them on drugs, career development and so on to ensure that they have a much better chance of achieving their full potential.
I should like to congratulate my local council on the work that it has done in that respect. Tameside decided to move from traditional youth centre work, as only a small number of people were using the facilities and they were not reaching the harder parts of the community. It is better to try to use sport to reduce social exclusion by getting into the harder parts of the community. Although we have fantastic initiatives such as the Youth Justice Board, Sport England and the Children's Fund, I am slightly worried that because they must bid for funds and receive a one-off investment, they do not support a long-term sustainable infrastructure for providing sport in the community and for dealing with the problems of young people.
168WH
I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in the comprehensive spending review to see whether we can develop one source of sustainable long-term funding, probably distributed through local authorities, because it is they who have the most to gain by reducing the problems caused by some young people to make sure that we fully maximise the potential of sport to tackle social exclusion.
4.32 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: This afternoon my right hon. Friend the Minister repeated a phrase that he used yesterday at the annual conference on business in sport and leisure. He said that he believes that sport is a means to many ends, not an end in itself. That is very much a politician's view. For many people who live sport, breathe sport, but drink a popular brand of cola, the view from the terraces may be somewhat different. They engage in sport with a passion. It has the all-consuming quality that many in this place consider politics to have, much to the bewilderment of our constituents who think that we must be off our collective trolley to be preoccupied with programme motions, Adjournment debates and sunset clauses.
But my right hon. Friend is right to claim that sport, like politics, has the power to transform, not just individuals, but whole communities. He probably expects me to give a lengthy exegesis on the power of the national stadium to regenerate my own community of Wembley, which contains some of them of the most socially excluded wards in Britain, but he will be relieved to know that that is not my aim on this occasion. In the time available to me I wish to focus on the economic case for investing in sport in order to achieve the social inclusion that is the subject of our debate, and is certainly one of the most important ends to which sport can lead.
As the Chamber is aware, I am privileged to sit on the Public Accounts Committee. There are those who would say that the PAC is itself a somewhat barbaric sport, akin to bear baiting in which unsuspecting Whitehall mandarins are subjected to cruel and unnatural abuse and ritual humiliation. In fact it can be an enlightening process, as the Committee's recent investigation into the Government's efforts to tackle obesity showed.
The National Audit Office report revealed that obesity in the United Kingdom is increasing at a staggering rate. Some 25 per cent. of people aged 16 to 24 are obese. That increases with age, and about 70 per cent. of people aged 65 to 74 are classified as obese. If any Member wishes to check their body mass, I have a body mass index calculator, which will tell them whether they are morbidly obese, obese or just overweight. By obese, I do not mean a little overweight; I mean recognised as having a clinical problem that is damaging to one's health.
The problems that obesity brings for the health of the nation extend into the coffers of the Exchequer. The NAO report concluded that the total direct cost to the Exchequer in 1999 of the treatment of diseases related specifically to obesity was £469.9 million. The indirect costs to the country include 80 million working days lost to the economy and £2.6 billion, which is 0.3 per cent. of our gross domestic product. That equates to £43.33 for every one of the 60 million inhabitants of the United

169WH
Kingdom and, given that the national health service spends an average of only £750 per head of population in any one year, it does not take challenging arithmetic to work out that investing in sport to reduce obesity would produce huge long-term savings. I trust that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity in the pre-Budget review next week to make those points to the Chancellor.
There is an old song with the refrain "It's the rich what gets the pleasure, and the poor what gets the blame," so it will not surprise hon. Members to know that the National Audit Office found that people in lower socio-economic groups are twice as likely to be obese. Some 14 per cent. of women in the highest social class are obese, compared with 28 per cent. in the lowest. Participation in sport is the best way to combat obesity and one of the best ways to combat the social exclusion that results from it.
How can the Government make the necessary investment in sport in ways that will be cost-effective in promoting health and social inclusion? This year's Red Book was subtitled "Investing for the Long Term: Building Opportunity and Prosperity for All". In addressing those issues of social exclusion, it discussed the extension of tax relief to amateur sports clubs, which
"play a valuable and important role in promoting the health and cohesion of their local communities but do not attract tax relief, because they are not recognised as charitable."
The Government undertook to consult on the best way to help those clubs qualify for that tax relief. In my capacity as joint chair of the all-party parliamentary sport and leisure industry group, I speak to many representatives of the sports industry from the private and public sectors. They welcome the Chancellor's initiative, but the Central Council of Physical Recreation pointed out that certain issues must be addressed. It is concerned about the lack of adequate statistics on the community sports sector and considers that the Charity Commission might be confronted with a deluge of applications that could prompt the Government to water down their proposals.
The centre for the study of voluntary sector policy at University College London estimates that, as well as the 135,000 registered charities in 1998, there were between 180,000 to 360,000 other unregistered community organisations, with sports clubs making up a large proportion. It is unsurprising that the Charity Commission is somewhat daunted by the prospect of widening the market. The obvious solution would be to create a new form of sports-based charity that is not ruled by the Charity Commission but enjoys similar benefits. It is crucial for those clubs to be offered a degree of protection, and for the Government it would be sound fiscal management. Will the Minister share with hon. Members the results of the consultation?
I am the honorary president of the Brent community sports club. It was set up this year on 29 July and has 1,500 members already. For £10 a year they can take part in any number of activities, including five and seven-a-side football, judo, yoga, basketball, netball and volleyball. The group is entirely self-sufficient, has no outstanding loans and has not received a penny in lottery funding. Its membership is drawn from every class, creed, colour and age, and many activities are
170WH
dominated by women and girls. It holds a firm place in the community, using its hall as a venue for bar mitzvahs, christenings, funerals, Irish wakes and engagement parties. I am pleased to say that my constituency party will be holding our Christmas party there, and if any hon. Members would like tickets, they can see me after the debate.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gardiner: No, I will not, as there is not much time left.
The Brent community sports association is an example not only of what such associations can achieve, which is considerable, but of the demand that they fulfil. The driving force must originate from the public sector. The Government have identified the benefits of an increased role for the voluntary sector and the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit is undertaking a large-scale review of the sector. In doing so, it is undertaking for the first time a census of the community sports clubs in this country. Until now, the number of such clubs has only been estimated, their role has been dismissed and their potential benefits as a tool of social policy have historically been ignored.
I am delighted that the Government recognise the importance of the clubs through the PIU. They are also working with the CCPR, which is an umbrella group of the governing bodies of all sports and recreational activities in the UK, from the Football Association to the Ramblers Association. The CCPR recognises that community sports clubs are unique in providing grass-roots access to sports provision that is open to all.
There is a need for local authorities to get back statutory responsibility for sports and leisure in this country. The fact that local authorities have been under financial pressure has meant that sports and recreation have always been the departments to be cut back. That is the one aspect of local government that has always suffered because it is not a statutory responsibility. The Minister should be working with colleagues throughout Government to ensure that that statutory responsibility is placed firmly back on local authorities, so that someone has the responsibility to assess deficits in sporting facilities, especially playing fields. No one has that responsibility at the moment. That should be a statutory responsibility, because until we know where the deficits are, we cannot know how to construct a sensible sports policy throughout the country.
With regard to the school day, the obesity report from the NAO was a wonderful report. It came before the PAC, on which there were some real heavyweights—no pun intended—including permanent under-secretaries from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills, and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and all sorts of people from other Departments. However, we must ensure that the focus is on our schools.
We must get away from the idea of two hours of sports a week. It is great to have a target, but let us have a target that will make a difference. Two hours a week is absolute nonsense. It should be two hours a day. I am serious. We should be thinking radically on the subject, and the secondary school day should coincide with the

171WH
working day. A child should get to school at 8.30 am and leave at 5.30 pm, and two hours should be allotted to sports in the middle of that school day. In schools where there is no sporting provision, there could be music, chess and other worthwhile activities. That is the way to put sport at the heart of our young people's education and the way to take sport seriously. Afterwards, children can go back to school for an hour or one and a half hours to complete lesson time. That would demand a huge input of resources, but we need only to look at the figure—£2.6 billion a year—that the obesity report claims is being wasted in our health service on obesity alone. The money is there, if we transfer it from where it is going down the drain into productive activity in sports in schools.
4.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I apologise for not being here for the opening speeches.
As someone who was brought up on the book "The Art of Coarse Rugby"—1 mean reading it, not taking part in it—I am not convinced that the prescription of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) would ensure that people took part in sport in the long term. We may take part in sport in school, sometimes enforcedly so, but that does not necessarily lead to long-term involvement. However, that is not the main thrust of my remarks this afternoon, which I shall keep brief.
It worries me that as Governments have become more involved in sports they have done so at the most socially exclusive levels. It is good to know that, since the introduction of the national lottery and the creation by John Major of the Department of National Heritage, there has been a change of direction. Government involvement now reaches down to the local level, but we must understand that the Government do not always make everything happen; more often than not—sometimes through unnecessary intervention or failing to recognise what is happening—they stop things happening.
Mr. Hawkins: I apologise, as vice chairman of the all-party sports group, for not being here earlier. I had to serve on the Front Bench of the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sagas and fiascos over Wembley, Picketts Lock and so forth reinforce the point about—
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman missed our earlier debate in which that subject was covered at length. I ruled then that we had said enough about it. We are now debating social inclusion. Please excuse me for asking the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to continue.
Mr. Turner: I nevertheless thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The less we hear about Picketts Lock, the better.
Since my election to Parliament, I was pleased to meet Trevor Brooking when he attended the Sandown and Shanklin rugby club and saw much of the activity of Sport England and other local sports organisations. I do not diminish what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about Government involvement; I am
172WH
just taking a slightly different angle. I also want to put on the record the Isle of Wight's appreciation of the great contribution to sport made by lottery funding—from Gurnard sailing club right across the island.
The Government must recognise that some sports—especially the less politically correct ones—may be more socially inclusive than people think. For example, shooting sports make a significant contribution to the rural economy. They involve a large number of people of a wide social range—men and women—and contribute to our national sporting success.
I was fortunate enough to open the Isle of Wight gun club's new clubhouse earlier this year. It is a small club, but the coach is an England international, and it is socially inclusive with men and women of all ages taking part. People under 18 are entitled to free membership and the free use of equipment. That is how to involve people in sports. To open the new clubhouse, I was required to hit a clay on a ribbon. It was not much further away from me than the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) is now, but I was at least able to hit it.
Mr. Greenway: Was it as big as him?
Mr. Turner: It was certainly of more modest size, but it was bouncing up and down as I took aim. Clay pigeon shooting, rough shooting and game shooting involve people across a wide social spectrum in rural areas, and I would be pleased if the Government recognised that. I also want to put on record that I deplore the attacks on pistol shooting by Governments of both political persuasions. Such attacks were a grave error, which has damaged young people's participation in shooting sports. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentions—not too sotto voce—the disabled.
Equestrian sports are also important. It may be unhelpful to mention hunting, but it is a sport that involves the whole rural community. Other equestrian sports demonstrate that riding is not an exclusive activity. It is said of the Isle of Wight—it may be said of other rural areas—that there are more ponies per square mile on the island than in any other part of the country. I am sure that that claim is not limited to the island.
Equestrian sports involve women and girls disproportionately. They are interested in them, and that benefits both them and our international performance. One of my constituents came to visit me the other day. She is a disabled young woman in her early 20s who can walk only with the aid of crutches, and she is the daughter of a care assistant and incapable of full-time work. She takes part in dressage, wholly funded by herself and by local donations, including sponsorship from Red Funnel Ferries. In time, she hopes to participate in the disabled Olympic dressage squad. Her sport is one in which people are able to participate, and I hope that the Minister will recognise it.
Finally, we are famous for yachting and sailing. Cowes week activities embrace a wide social range; it is not all champagne and gin palaces, although there is plenty of champagne. I confess that when I first went to the island and learned that money was given to sailing clubs, I thought that the sport was too socially exclusive for such support. However, it involves the whole community.

173WH
As the Duke of Edinburgh has said, there are dangers in taking too careful an approach to sporting and other outdoor activities. This year, for the first time, the Royal Yacht Squadron required people racing at Cowes to wear lifejackets. It was fearful of being sued because of the duty of care that has been laid upon it. Individual skippers in individual boats used to make their own decisions about the conditions in which they sailed. Such restrictions do not promote personal responsibility.
I wish to put on record those few examples of sport. I emphasise that we are not asking the Government for money, but for recognition of the role that such sports play in the continuum from recreation to international success. I thank the Minister for his recognition of GBR Challenge, which is being built in Cowes to take part in the next America's cup in New Zealand.
4.52 pm
Jon Trickett: I shall try to keep my contribution as brief as possible. There has been some unanimity this afternoon on the proposal that sport can be an engine for social inclusion. With my background, I was someone who could have ended up in a great deal of trouble. Some people say I did, by coming to this place. However, I could have been in even more trouble, in an entirely different kind of institution, had it not been for the fact that I was good at sports.
Sport has been important throughout my life, and it kept me from behaving unpleasantly. It worked for me, and I know that it can work for thousands of others. However, sport is increasingly failing as an engine for social inclusion. Although I recognise the Minister's work to overcome the structural, financial and cultural problems that sport faces in trying to achieve social inclusion, an argument can be made that much more radical measures must be taken.
I am a politician who likes to look forwards rather than backwards—as progressive politicians, that is what we should do—but conditions for sport have become worse. There are two professional clubs in my constituency, both distinguished. Frickley Athletic football club is one of the oldest professional clubs in the league. It was linked to the Frickley pit and was funded by sixpence from each miner; that was how professional clubs began at the collieries. Every man put sixpence in, not only for football but for other things as well. The link between professional sport and working class communities was tight and organic.
At the other, north end of my constituency, we have Featherstone Rovers, which was similarly connected to the Featherstone colliery. It never had a large squad; whenever the number 3 or the number 7 was injured, players would go to the pithead and shout down, "Send us up a number 3" or, "Send us up a number 7." Plenty of lads in the pit would come up and do a fine job on the rugby field rather than work underground.
Those stories illustrate that the organic link that existed between working-class communities and sport has atrophied and fragmented. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) speaking about taking money from the BBC. He has a point, but there is a bigger point to be
174WH
made: the Government should have the courage to take on Sky. Pay-per-view for sport has been one of the most significant mechanisms for separating community sport from professional sport. Hundreds of millions of pounds are going into football, and to a lesser extent rugby union and rugby league, to buy in sports professionals from all over the world. Huge amounts of money are going to pay players' very large wages. No one begrudges them that money and, like everyone else, I want to see the best possible athletes on TV; if we see athletes from Italy, Argentina or Brazil, it is all to the good. However, the money that is being spent in that way is not finding its way down to the grass roots of sport. The link that used to exist between community sports facilities and teams and the professional clubs has atrophied to the point where it is almost non-existent. That troubles me, as it troubles anyone who is interested in finance and sport.
Featherstone Rovers was the recipient of attention from Sky, as was the whole of rugby league. Hon. Members who know the geography of my area well will know that there are three bitter rivals in rugby league in Wakefield: Castleford, Wakefield Trinity and Featherstone Rovers. Someone in Sky—someone not too far away from my area—had the brilliant idea that the three clubs should be merged. That was an outrageous proposal and the people of Featherstone rightly rose up as one against it. The only thing left after the pits at Featherstone were closed was the rugby league club. There was a sit-in; the people of Featherstone refused to move and Sky eventually had to back down. That demonstrates the regrettable way in which TV has threatened the organic links that used to exist.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jon Trickett: No, because we have all agreed that we will each speak for eight minutes.
Working-class communities of the kind that I represent do not necessarily have the skills—what one might call white-collar skills—to fill in forms and make applications. They are not as articulate as middle-class people. The way in which funding is allocated is a cultural issue because some sports in some areas benefit more than others. The people who make decisions about sports funding tend to be interested in sports other than working-class ones. Again, that is to be regretted and needs to be tackled; I know that the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend have it at the front of their minds.
The problem exists with nearly every sports governing body. Such bodies are made up of wonderful people who give their whole life to sport; most of them are failed athletes, and some never got to the stage of being an athlete. I call them people in blazers. They are wonderful people. This country relies on that dilettante ethic. However, such people have no relationship to the working-class people about whom we are talking in relation to social exclusion. My own sport is cycling; I have raced a bike in anger many times and hope to do so again next season. The gulf between the people on bikes and those who run the sport of cycling is as great as that between athletes and the governing body. That is another cultural problem that we need to address.

175WH
There are some good practices in my constituency, as in others. I want to mention Havercroft sports centre and the Featherstone Lions amateur rugby league football club. Working-class people who are genuinely committed to their communities lead excellent activities, but they struggle all the time to raise funds. That has to do with financial, cultural and organisational barriers in sports.
Organisational divisions among schools, local authority health and sports centres and local sports clubs should not exist. We should try to find ways at grass-roots, community and neighbourhood levels to bring together the various people who are interested in sport. It is bizarre that there are divisions among those facilities, each of which is led by people who are excellent in their own way. Sometimes they are men and women in blazers, but often they are not. There should be synthesis among those organisations.
I am running out of time, but, on an entirely different issue, I want to mention the exercise referral regime, with which the health service is experimenting. It is recognised that sport, exercise and health are intimately connected. Unskilled manual workers, for example, are three times more likely to die of heart disease than the rest of the population. GPs recognise that, and the Government have been piloting an exercise referral regime under which GPs refer people who are obese or have heart problems to local health and sports centres. That excellent regime has much to commend it and should be encouraged. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider that.
Having given some anecdotal evidence and made some analytical comments, I think that I should shut up and hand over to the next person who wants to speak.
5.1 pm
John Mann: In the spirit of brevity, I shall cast my planned rhetorical finery into the fluctuating waters of Picketts Lock and be blunt. Diane Hopkinson is one of my constituents. She voted at a very important meeting at Manton miners welfare club last Sunday—a point to which I shall return. Diane is deaf, and a number of years ago, under a previous Government, she was selected to represent England at swimming. However, no one would provide the funding for her to attend the international competition. I can tell hon. Members and the Minister that, as long as I am the local Member of Parliament, any young person from my constituency who is selected to represent their country at any sport will be able to do so. I shall be looking to hold the Minister accountable to ensure that funding is in place so that they can reach their full potential.
I want to talk about disaffected youth—truants, joyriders and perpetrators of petty crime. I call it the Jack-the-lad syndrome in areas such as Manton. Jack the lad is the person who copies Nintendo games and Sky cards properly and gets 20 rather than 10 quid when he sells them to friends, family and others. As a result, his young peer group in the community holds him in great esteem. For Jack the lad, cash is the key currency. When dealing in cash, the key currency is drugs, particularly heroin, and there are an estimated 500 heroin abusers in the constituency.
176WH
A little bit of sport is involved. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned shooting. In the context of Jack the lad, shooting is less well regarded by the farming community in my constituency, because we describe it as lamping.
Aspiration and expectation levels are key. Expectation levels have been far too low, not least in schools. People presume that if someone lives in a particular pit village or on a particular estate, they will not do well and should not be expected to do well. Aspiration levels mirror that: they are far too low. We are talking about a Jack-the-lad or car-boot economy aspiration level.
The only way in which we can get those young people to re-engage in the community is with a carrot and stick. We can probably rely on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to provide the stick and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and his Department, the carrot. We must encourage young people to take responsibility for others and introduce them to the benefits that responsibility can bring them. They can learn the responsibility for team-mates or of being a coach. Sports clubs, or other clubs, are places where young people can feel a part of the community, instead of ostracised from it.
In sport, young people are not competing against the established norms that they encounter every day. They can work to and set their own standards and get a sense of achievement, which, for many of them, happens for the first time in their lives. The new money will have a real impact in my community in Bassetlaw. It is right that it is going into schools, because far too many initiatives have not had permanence in community structures. The beauty of the new money is that schools have that permanency. Indeed, if I have one criticism, it is that the money should have been directly funded to schools instead of filtered through local education authorities. I believe in the concept of community schools that are open for, accessible to and engaged with all the community round the clock, rather than being insular. As the money will go through LEAs, we must be able to hold them accountable through the Department, so that the money is spent in that way.
In my constituency, we are setting up a partnership in Manton that goes further still. It will be a partnership of industry, community and Government, for which sport is the glue. Manton, on any indicator, is one of the most deprived communities in the country. It has a fine historical sporting tradition, and we will use the £6 million of private sector money invested in the local football team, Worksop Town, as a catalyst to bring in the business community, including groups such as British Waterways and Severn Trent. We are committed to putting resources into expanding sports and community provision. The council will not be the provider through a structure of council committees, but the enabler, allowing the private and voluntary sector to thrive. That is a critical difference from normal concepts within a council such as Bassetlaw. The council has never been in an enabling rather than providing role.
We will have to work across the sectors, not in different categories. What is the point of having a health sector drugs action programme that does not link with a sports action programme or a programme such as the healthy living project for young women and girls that is so successful at the moment? The work must be

177WH
integrated, and the community alliance that we are setting up, aside from the public sector, is crucial. Having the police involved is fundamental, and I am glad that the Government's east midlands regional office has announced this week that it will give us seedcorn money from the crime and disorder budget to help us get going.
The chief executive of the Prince's trust visited us last Friday to give us his blessing and—more important even than funding—share the trust's expertise in linking enterprise and its successful schemes with, for example, football in the community. Our partnership will involve the first example of a non-league football team doing what the Prince's Trust is doing successfully in 69 Football League and FA Premiership teams. I am pleased to say that both Leeds United and Mansfield Town football clubs have invited us, on the basis of their success, to look and learn from how they have used sport to re-engage disaffected young people in out-of-hours learning. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mention the success of the Wolves youth academy. To show the success of the Government's policy, Sport England recommended that we visit Wolverhampton Wanderers football club sports academy, which we did last week.
Our partnership goes beyond sport. Play forums and performing arts are being linked, as is the college, which has a sports science faculty. We should have an integrated and aspirational approach that builds community capacity, and addresses lifelong learning and social inclusion. At the core is the East Midlands Development Agency, because the link to economic regeneration is fundamental.
I ask the Minister for two things. First, there is a certain obscurantist tendency about the assets of the former Coal Board and the charity laws. We need assistance to get around the obstacles of some of the charity laws and allow miners welfare, which is at the forefront of the partnership, to be the deciding factor in the use of the Coal Board land assets. They should be used in the way that their members and the community want and they should be developed with the private sector in a way that enables us to have a myriad of sporting opportunities linked to community and economic regeneration. I do not have time to list those opportunities, but I will give the Minister a note.
Secondly, I gave the Minister an idea about sports coaching some time ago, and now I have a plan for it. Sports coaching should not be provided to 14 or 15 disaffected youths, but by them. We should offer to mount a pilot scheme. Bad attenders and truants, and those who use sawn-off shotguns for lamping—killing farmers' animals left, right and centre—should be the coaches of the younger generation, so that they can learn management and leadership skills. They should not be perceived as recipients of sports coaching, but as coaches themselves. We would welcome that. It would play a key part in unlocking the potential of sport in the community. In the final analysis, we can go with it. Give us the tools and we will do the job.
5.10 pm
Chris Grayling: I represent a very different kind of constituency from that of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). However, I echo
178WH
his comments about the potential of sports coaching. My constituency is a prosperous part of north Surrey, but that does not mean that we do not have areas of deprivation. Nor does it mean that we do not have disaffected youth and problems of anti-social behaviour. I sincerely believe that sport can and must play an integral role in our community's strategy for tackling those problems.
I would particularly like to highlight the case of the Preston estate in Tadworth in my constituency. The area is in the bottom quartile of wards in terms of deprivation nationwide. The local community is putting in considerable effort to try to resolve many of the problems in the area. To me, that ward is a perfect example of the contradiction between ambition and delivery. By that I mean that we need much more emphasis in this country on informal as well as formal sport. Communities may say that they need to build leisure centres, sports clubs and youth centres, but Preston ward has all those things, and the disaffection and the alienation of youth remain. I strongly believe that we need to build a bridge to that disaffected youth, not in the form of fixed institutions but through people going out into the community and working with them.
Mr. Hawkins: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, and as he knows, I have one or two similar estates in my constituency, such as Old Dean and St. Michael's in Camberley. I echo the interesting and powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. In terms of social exclusion, is it not vital, particularly if we are to get disaffected youths away from drugs, that we show those youths the health benefits of both formal and informal sport and physical activity?
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes his point appropriately and articulately. Finding ways to involve young people in sport, without necessarily expecting that they will come into the formal environment of club sport, is an important part of our strategy. That is why I found the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on coaching resonant. We should pay a little extra within the community to send a team of paid volunteers out as coaches to local playing fields and open spaces on a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night to organise informal sport. They could organise football games, or cricket matches in the summer. They could go where the young people are and organise sport on their doorstep, rather than always encouraging them away from their doorstep into fixed facilities.
That is the aspiration of many in the police force. I particularly commend the example of PC Paul Thomas, who operates in the Banstead area on the Preston estate. He strongly believes that if we took sporting organisation and informal coaching to those disaffected young people, we could make a real difference. Perhaps that would provide a bridge bringing them one step nearer a much more formalised sporting environment.
My message to the Minister is that the Department should develop its strategies. It should look at ways to provide funding for an army of part-time sports coaches, organisers and sporting people in the community, who could work with those disaffected youngsters on their doorsteps. They could take away the

179WH
need for disruptive behaviour and prevent them from loitering around on Friday nights by getting them to play football. On some estates, that would make a real difference.
The Government's strategies are encapsulated in the consultation document on PPG17. My fears that the Government have not placed enough emphasis on informal sport are echoed in that document. For example, the National Playing Fields Association cited the absence of guidelines for developers and local authorities on the provision of sports fields and open spaces in new developments. That is a serious omission. Government guidelines should be in place to give local authorities parameters for the provision of open spaces. Local government officers and councillors work under tight planning guidelines. They are often under intense pressure from developers. They need guidelines when taking decisions, and I would encourage the Minister to talk to his colleagues in Government to ensure that when PPG17 is revised, it reflects those needs.
Many concerns have been raised about the policy document on planning, which is not entirely joined up with many other parts of the Government's strategy. A number of organisations cite the fact that it contains no clear references to the previous urban White Paper. That is an important omission, because the impact of sport, recreational facilities and open spaces on the community should be integral to the Government's urban and inner-city strategy. I ask the Minister to ensure that those omissions are rectified in the revised document.
Sport is hugely important. Informal sport is vital and necessary. I hope that the Minister will give it due attention.
5.17 pm
Mr. John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to be called to speak, Mr. Griffiths. I hesitate to do so, because I am one of the failed athletes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).
I want to tell a success story about cricket We have heard a lot today about class in British sport; it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was right to say that regardless of one's background, one should be able to participate in any sport. For instance, he was dead right about horse riding in rural constituencies because many people from all sorts of backgrounds participate. Too often, schools offer only football or rugby, but such barriers should have no part in our society.
My hon Friend the Member for Hemsworth said that people used to whistle down the mines to find rugby league players, but when Yorkshire was short of cricket players the same strategy was adopted. Cricket is a cross-class, cross-cultural sport, not only in Yorkshire, but nationally. Over the past five to 10 years, the England and Wales Cricket Board and the Yorkshire county cricket club have made enormous strides to popularise cricket. Quick cricket is now the fastest growing sport among school children. Half a million primary schoolgirls play it.
I shall never forget being at Headingley this summer when we won a test match against the Australians. Everyone under the age of 16 was let in free by the
180WH
England and Wales Cricket Board. Cricket is one of the first sports to achieve a charter mark from the Commission for Racial Equality and the English Sports Council for its racial equality development. Cricket is in many ways an integrated sport. Nasser Hussain is our national captain.
I end with a message. Yorkshire has made great strides in integrating sport. The cricket club is desperately trying to attract more Asian support, because the cricket clubs are often as divided in Bradford as the schools. We have Asian leagues and white leagues, but there is tremendous talent. I would urge all former players from Yorkshire not to be a drag on the process. They criticised the new development at Headingley stadium that got rid of the old western terrace, which had been a centre of yobism and racism on many occasions. Some players criticised the gates, which featured Len Hutton and, in a frieze in the background, two Asian women who were photographed at the England-Pakistan game earlier in the summer. The gates were meant to reflect the present, past and future of Yorkshire cricket. Those players should shut up.
I may be a failed athlete; a definition of middle age is that you realise that you will never fulfil your childhood dreams. I will never walk out to open the batting or bowling for Yorkshire, but one day a British Asian, born in Bradford or Leeds, will do that. That day should be soon, and Yorkshire players who oppose that should shut up. The Minister should do everything he can with local authorities to use the power of cricket in Yorkshire to promote integration.
5.20 pm
Mr. Caborn: First, I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which has been of a high standard. I will not have time to respond to all the points, but they will be taken on board. My officials are present, and I will inform the various agencies about the comments that have been made.
In response to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Opposition spokesman, I would like to address two areas. Several hon. Members raised the question of planning and PPG17. The DTLR and my Department, along with Sport England, are working closely together on that matter. Trevor Brooking and I met the Ministers and officials, along with David Payne from Sport England, and discussed our response to points that had been made about the weaknesses in the draft of PPG17. As a result, I hope that it will become a more proactive document that will address some of the genuine concerns raised here today, and that it will be accompanied by a good practice guidance note. I hope, too, that Sport England will be employed to advise in a more systematic way local authorities and other authorities that apply for planning permission; I hope that we can use that good resource.
PPG 17 should come out next spring, although we must wait for the Select Committee and the open spaces task force to report. If those reports come out early in the new year, we should be able to publish the report. It is important that PPG 17 comes out soon, as it will influence the massive investment in sports facilities.

181WH
We have been asking for a needs assessment of local authorities in terms of open spaces, sports facilities and play areas. The dialogue that is going on with the Local Government Association and my Department should put sport high on the agenda of local government politics, and the needs assessment should be completed. I will encourage that process and give some inducements for its completion. Sports England is fully involved in that process and has joined the open spaces taskforce as well, creating a clear working relationship that should give positive results.
I turn to the question of the new opportunities fund. The formula devised for the spending of the money was approved by Sport England, which continues to be involved in advising local authorities—and the local education authorities in particular—on the schemes proposed by the various authorities. That formula does not depend simply on competition. Money has been allocated, some of which will be fast tracked. We want to devise a more strategic approach, along with local authorities and education authorities, to the planning of facilities.
I accept that there is a weakness; we have not yet done the audit of all sports facilities, but we are putting the scheme into place bit by bit and we will be able to form more informed and meaningful conclusions when the information is available. That should not prevent programmes from going ahead now. It would be wrong simply to wait for that information to arrive, as we need to make that investment, as was clearly demonstrated by the contributions this afternoon. I suggest to hon. Members that they set up a dialogue with their local education authorities to discuss where the investment should go. The new opportunities fund will be handled by people in the regional government offices, and major schemes will be cleared at national level. There is complete transparency, and no element of competition in the fund; it exists in response to a strategic overview by the local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) put his case in his usual modest language. I was disappointed with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). He did the usual things; he wished a plague on both our houses, had a jolly good whinge and then asked some questions. I shall answer the questions. Yes, we are trying to deal with transport. My Department and the Department for Education and Skills are developing a policy to try to address the transport difficulties posed by after-school activity. It is a real problem, but I can give some very good examples of how it has been successfully handled in a number of areas, where the fund's out-of-school-hours learning budget has been used. The problems of after-school activities and transport were raised with the Prime Minister on Monday when he met other Ministers and the delegates from Manchester, Birmingham and Cornwall whom I have mentioned.
182WH
We must address this, together with the other problem area—it is also a revenue issue—which is the supply of people to make sure that facilities, whether cricket pitches or anything else, are well maintained and that the caretakers or others responsible ensure that they are open to the general public after school hours. We shall be looking at that to ensure that we fully integrate all the assets in a locality so that they are available not only during school hours, but after hours.
Floodlighting is another matter that has created problems for planners. An increasing number of objections are being made about the floodlighting of pitches. However, the only way to exploit such assets is to floodlight them. Astroturf is not enough on its own, especially on days like this when it is dark by late afternoon; we must have floodlighting. We recognise that there are problems and hope that planning authorities will take a balanced view. We should be able to address that in PPG17.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) —who is two stones heavier than he was—about the need to use facilities and how they can be opened up is very important. We are trying to encourage local authorities to become involved through public-private partnership and public finance initiative schemes. Having addressed a conference on business in sport and leisure, I know that there is a tremendous appetite to become involved with local authorities. We need about £10 billion of investment over the medium term to bring our facilities up to a recognised international standard. We must embrace all those who can make a contribution to that. The private sector could be used more effectively, in terms of developing management to run facilities as well as in building those facilities. We positively want to encourage PPPs and PFIs to that end, and I am hopeful that the business community will respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling referred to splash schemes. They are among a number of schemes that we should like to develop during the holiday period and beyond. We must make them much more sustainable, because they were highly successful during the summer. There is no doubt that where they were taken up fully, crime rates came down. I think that it was Nelson Mandela who said that sport laughs in the face of racism. That is very true and we saw it over the summer when we brought people together across the ethnic divide to participate in sport. Both that and the issue of leadership which also comes out in sport—are very important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) mentioned new opportunities fund schemes. I have spoken about those. I only have a few seconds left now, so I shall try to reply in writing to people whose points I have not covered. I have no doubt that this will not be the last such debate and I hope that everyone will have a full chance to contribute in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Overseas Entertainment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision has been made for UK forces' overseas entertainment in the current financial year; and if he will give equivalent figures for each of the past five financial years. [16205]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 November 2001, Official Report, columns 525–26W.

  "Rapid Effects"
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the Director of Land Warfare's "Rapid Effects" paper in the Library. [15514]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The paper "A Rapid Effect Capability for the Future Army" was produced for internal discussion purposes. It has been used subsequently to inform wider force development work. It has also contributed to other work to determine the optimum balance of future United Kingdom land forces.

  A version of the paper, which omits sensitive material, has been prepared and I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are based at(a) RAF Lyneham and (b) RAF Brize Norton. [17042]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 1 November there were 2,469 RAF personnel based at RAF Lyneham and 3,113 RAF personnel based at RAF Brize Norton.

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will guarantee the long-term future of RAF Lyneham; and if he will make a statement; [17155]

  (2) if he will provide an assurance that he has no plans to close RAF Lyneham. [15228]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to close RAF Lyneham. The hon. Member is aware however that a study has been commissioned as part of the Ministry of Defence's normal planning process, to consider the future roles of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St. Mawgan.
  370W
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medically downgraded personnel are serving at RAF Lyneham; if they may be deployed in the Falklands; and how that policy of deployment differs from that of the(a) Army and (b) Royal Navy. [15232]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are 818 medically downgraded personnel serving at RAF Lyneham. Of these, 238 are fit for detachment to the Falkland Islands. The policy for deployment of service personnel to the Falkland Islands is centrally set by the Surgeon General's Department. It is designed to prevent risk to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. Royal Naval personnel who are graded fit for service worldwide but subject to a specific medical condition may be deployed to the Falkland Islands if their condition permits. Army personnel must be employable on full combatant duties. RAF personnel must be fit for the full ground duties of their branch or trade, including all general service duties.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army's Lynx AH7 helicopters will be withdrawn from service. [16555]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under current plans the majority of the Lynx AH7 fleet will reach the end of their service life towards the end of this decade.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Army's Gazelle helicopters will be withdrawn from service. [16554]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under current plans the Army's Gazelle fleet will be withdrawn from service towards the end of the next decade.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the oldest airframes of the(a) Sea King HC4, (b) Sea King HAR3 and (c) Puma HC1 operational with Her Majesty's forces. [16552]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is in the table.

  Helicopter

  Serial number

  Entered service

  Sea King HC Mk4

  ZA291

  1979

  Sea King HAR 3

  XZ585

  1978

  Puma HC 1

  XW198 and XW199

  1971

  Warship Deployment (Caribbean)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which warships will be in the Caribbean on anti-drugs patrol from mid-November to mid-February. [16549]

  Mr. Ingram
  Counter-drugs patrols in the Caribbean theatre of operation are undertaken by the RN as one task of the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) duty ship.

  As is standard operating procedure, no RN ship will be deployed to the Caribbean between mid-November and mid-February although a ship will be held in the UK on reduced notice to deploy to the Caribbean area of operations. Royal Fleet Auxiliary Gold Rover will, however, remain in the region throughout this period and will provide additional presence and assistance to ships of other nations in the Caribbean involved in the counter-drugs effort.

  HMS Cromer
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons HMS Cromer has been decommissioned; and what plans there are to dispose of her. [16548]

  Dr. Moonie
  The decision to decommission HMS Cromer on 23 November 2001 was taken as a result of the policy-led Strategic Defence Review. The Review recognised the reduced requirement for mine clearance in home waters and concluded that a balanced force of 22 Sandown and Hunt class minehunters would be sufficient to meet envisaged levels of threat, operational tasking and commitments rather than the 23 previously planned. Plans for her disposal, including alternative Ministry of Defence use or sale, are currently under consideration.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of racial discrimination have been brought against the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Navy in the last 12 months. [17204]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of formal complaints of racial discrimination from Service personnel in the last 12 months are shown in the table.

  Year/Service

  Number of formal complaintsof racial discrimination

  1 November 2000–31 October 2001

  Naval Service

  0

  Army

  10

  1 November 2000–30 September 2001

  RAF1

  3

  1 RAF figure for October is not yet available

  Medical Downgrading
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who have been medically downgraded(a) have continued to be and (b) have subsequently been employed in operational areas in the last 12 months. [14269]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel were medically downgraded in each service in each month of the last 12 months. [14268]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: The information requested is given in the table for the Army and RAF. The figures requested are not available for naval personnel. As at 20 November 2001, there were 3,678 trained naval personnel in a medically downgraded category.

  Date

  Army1

  RAF2

  November 2000

  9,284

  3,772

  December 2000

  9,369

  3,801

  January 2001

  9,431

  3,813

  February 2001

  9,529

  3,907

  372W

  Date

  Army1

  RAF2

  March 2001

  9,595

  3,860

  April 2001

  9,365

  3,888

  May 2001

  9,674

  3,893

  June 2001

  9,675

  3,869

  July 2001

  9,700

  3,873

  August 2001

  9,718

  3,871

  September 2001

  9,788

  3,867

  October 2001

  9,837

  3,888

  1 The figures for medically downgraded Army personnel comprise personnel at all levels of medical downgrading below fully fit. Of these, some two thirds are able to be deployed on military operations but not at the front line. The figures comprise trained personnel only.

  2 The figures for medically downgraded RAF personnel comprise personnel who are considered unfit for any type of deployment. The figures comprise trained and untrained personnel.

  Hercules Aircraft
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air-to-air refuelling probes have been purchased for the C130J; and how many aeroplanes will be operational by 1 January 2002. [15141]

  Dr. Moonie
  Nineteen air-to-air refuelling probes have been purchased for the C130J fleet. Full operational air-to-air refuelling capability is planned for late 2002. This will be achieved incrementally in accordance with an agreed Flight Clearance programme

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Defensive Aids Suite capabilities on the C130K Hercules aircraft; how it compares with the US equivalent; and what plans he has to install it on the C130J. [15223]

  Dr. Moonie
  The capability of the C130K Defensive Aids Suite was assessed as part of the installation development and acceptance programme, based on system requirements arising from detailed threat and countermeasure evaluation. The C130K Defensive Aids Suite will not be fitted to the C130J as Lockheed Martin is currently working to finalise an installation concept for a higher performance defensive system.

  The capabilities of systems operated on US aircraft are a matter for the US authorities.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to acquire a secure communications system for the C130J. [15224]

  Dr. Moonie
  The operational advantages of secure communications systems are well recognised and the capability is already fitted to some aircraft and others are due to be fitted. As with any defence equipment capability, decisions have to be made about priorities. A secure communications capability is not currently planned to be fitted to the Hercules C130J aircraft as we have higher operational priorities

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of(a) the fulfilment by Lockheed Martin of the terms and conditions of the contract for the supply of C130J spares and (b) the likelihood that the terms of that contract provide sufficient spares support to achieve 80 per cent. serviceability of the aircraft once fully trained crews are available. [15225]
  373W
  Dr. Moonie
  Lockheed Martin is currently meeting the terms and conditions of the contract for the supply of C130J spares.

  The generation of serviceable C130J aircraft is not solely dependent on spares supplied by Lockheed Martin but also on the provision of spares from other sources and a number of other factors.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence until what date a Defensive Aid Suite was designated as essential for deployments of Hercules aircraft in the middle east; and for what reason this designation was downgraded to desirable. [15226]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details about the defensive measures associated with aircraft deployments in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when 16 Air Assault Brigade last exercised with Hercules aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [15230]

  Mr. Ingram
  16 Air Assault Brigade last exercised with Hercules aircraft during Exercise Eagles Eye—an aviation battlegroup exercise that took place between 29 October and 9 November 2001. One Hercules aircraft supported the exercise on the morning of Friday 2 November 2001.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) personnel and (b) tonnes of freight have been carried by Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham in the last 12 months. [15140]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the last 12 months Hercules aircraft have carried(a) 38,721 personnel and (b) 10,144 tonnes of freight to and from RAF Lyneham.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the operations upon which Hercules aircraft have been deployed over the last 12 months; and what assessment he has made of the performance of(a) the aircraft and (b) service personnel of RAF Lyneham. [15139]

  Mr. Ingram
  The operations upon which Hercules aircraft have been deployed over the last 12 months are: Operation Agricola, Operation Banner, Operation Basilica, Operation Bolton, Operation Deliberate Forge, Operation Palatine, Operation Warden, Operation Engadine, Operation Silkman, Operation Contravene, Operation Resinate North, Operation Resinate South,

  Medical officers

  Dental officers

  Year

  Intake

  Trained outflow

  Net difference

  Intake

  Trained outflow

  Net difference

  2000–01

  68

  59

  9

  22

  17

  5

  1999–2000

  76

  71

  5

  19

  26

  -7

  1998–99

  71

  75

  -4

  30

  25

  5

  1997–98

  62

  83

  -21

  16

  23

  -7

  1996–97

  86

  160

  -74

  19

  39

  -20

  1995–96

  64

  170

  -106

  14

  37

  -23

  1994–95

  51

  120

  -69

  13

  37

  -24

  1993–94

  35

  78

  -43

  19

  34

  -15

  1992–93

  72

  80

  -8

  25

  31

  -6

  Notes:

  1. The figures in the table include transfers between the services, re-entrants and transfers from medical specialties to dentistry.

  2. It is not possible to identify the exact intake dates of army medical and dental officers. The Army intake figures included in the table have been calculated by taking the difference in strengths at the beginning and the end of the year plus the outflow.

  3. The intake figures comprise former medical and dental cadets and, in the RAF, former bursars plus direct entrant qualified doctors and dentists.
  374W
  Falkland Islands, Operation Bessemer and Operation Veritas. Both the Hercules C130J and C130K have consistently met operational requirements. Personnel at RAF Lyneham have continued to perform to the very high standards typical of the armed services.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the serviceability in percentage terms is of the RAF fleet of Hercules(a) C130Hon. and (b) C130J; and if he will make a statement outlining the restricting factors on performance. [15138]

  Mr. Ingram
  In answering this question it has been assumed that C130H should read C130K.

  In performance terms, the operational performance, or operability, of the C130J, when compared to the C 130K, is as follows:

  Range (without external fuel tanks): 15 per cent. further

  Operating ceiling: 20 per cent. higher

  Normal speed: 13 per cent. faster

  Fuel economy at operating ceiling: 20 per cent. better

  Field length at take off: 30 per cent. less required

  Field length at landing: 10 per cent. less required

  Much reduced running costs.

  Although in all other respects the two aircraft have similar levels of performance, there are at present certain temporary limitations on the C130J's operation. These issues are being addressed and operational clearances will proceed incrementally. Full clearance is planned by the end of 2002.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many clinicians have(a) joined and (b) left the Defence Medical Services in each of the last 10 years. [14304]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of trained medical and dental officers joining and leaving the Defence Medical Services (DMS) in the last nine financial years are provided in the table. No figures are available before financial year 1992–93. Trained medical officers have completed a medical degree, finished a year as a pre-registered medical practitioner and undertaken their initial officer training.

  Trained dental officers have completed a dental degree and their initial officer training. The intake figures include those who have completed their medical or dental training under DMS sponsorship.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the changes he is making to the advertising account for the Territorial Army. [R] [17079]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following a restructuring of the external marketing operations of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency's recruiting division, the decision has been taken to seek a re-tender for the national advertising contract for both the Territorial and the Regular Armies. The requirement will be re-tendered over the next few weeks and it is hoped to identify the successful tenderer in mid-December.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 250W, on the Territorial Army, if he will make a statement about the reasons for which those members of the Territorial Army unfit for role have been so categorised. [14377]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not specifically categorise members of the Territorial Army (TA) as unfit for role.

  As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 7 November 2001, Official Report, column 250W, members of the TA are considered fit for role when they have completed two phases of training which will vary in length depending on an individual's role and trade, given that the fit for role numbers are based on 100 per cent. of deployable establishments, the majority of those who have not yet achieved fit for role status are undergoing their required training.

  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that, in the light of the likely warning time for any large deployment, just over half the TA strength should be fit for role at any

  Exercise name

  Dates

  Location

  Reason for cancellation

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Tartan Eagle

  January-September 2000

  UK/USA

  Americans reduced annual commitment to one reciprocal exercise a year. Two exercises, one in the UK and one in the USA, were cancelled as a result.

  Aswex 00

  10–21 January 2000

  South western approaches

  Lack of funding

  Winter Deployment 00

  January-March 2000

  Norway

  Lack of funding

  Hairspring 00

  March 2000

  Norway

  Lack of funding

  JTFEX 1/00

  3–15 April 2000

  USA

  UK assets withdrawn and re-programmed to another exercise

  Dynamic Mix 00

  20 May-10 June 2000

  Med

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Sharem 133

  11–18 June 2000

  Med

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Entgrou 2/00

  25 September-5 October 2000

  France

  UK assets withdrawn and re-programmed to another exercise

  Unified Spirit 00

  5–27 October 2000

  USA

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Niriis 00

  20–30 November 2000

  Greece

  UK assets withdrawn and re-programmed to another exercise

  Joint Winter 01

  5–16 March 2001

  Norway

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Hairspring 01

  5–18 March 2001

  Norway

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Tradewinds 01

  1 April-31 May 2001

  Caribbean

  Lack of funding

  Rolling Deep 01

  8–21 May 2001

  UK

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Dynamic Mix 00

  20 May-10 June 2000

  Med

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Burmese Chase 01

  June-July 2001

  USA

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Final Nail

  July 2001

  UK

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Joint Spirit

  1–30 September 2001

  USA

  Events of September 11th

  Tartan Eagle

  September 2001

  USA

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Sea Dagger

  September 2001

  UAE

  Events of September 11th

  Ursa Minor 01

  October 2001

  Bulgaria

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other other operational and exercise tasking

  376W
  one time and as I explained in my answer on 26 October 2001, Official Report, columns 403–04W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) the TA is very close to meeting that requirement.

  Unlike the Regular Army, the TA holds its untrained soldier strength against its deployable establishment and in order to replace the TA wastage of 25–30 per cent. per year, equivalent numbers of personnel must be recruited and trained to the required standard.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exercises involving tactical air transport have been(a) cancelled and (b) reduced over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [15229]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1 April 2000 when records on the cancellation of exercises involving the tactical air transport element began, 10 exercises have been cancelled. Records were not maintained before this date. The cancellation of these exercises has had no impact on our ability to conduct operations. Records of exercise reduction are not maintained.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military exercises that have been cancelled in the last 24 months together with the reason for cancellation. [14470]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table covers those exercises from the Ministry of Defence's Defence Exercise Programme (which lists some 350 exercises each year), the exercise programmes of the Front Line Commands, the Permanent Joint HQ and the Defence Logistic Organisation HQ which have been cancelled in the last 24 months. It does not include unit-organised exercises, details of which are not held centrally and which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  377W 378W

  Exercise name

  Dates

  Location

  Reason for cancellation

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Spirochaete

  8–26 October 2001

  UK

  UK assets withdrawn and re-programmed to another exercise

  Highport

  10 May 2001

  Scotland

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Lonestar

  31 May 2001

  Scotland

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Lion Sun 15/99

  October/November 1999

  Cyprus

  Lack of funding

  Ferro Ariete/Iron Ram

  November 1999

  UK/Italy

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Cossak Steppe

  November 1999

  Poland

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Winged Star

  December 1999

  UK

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Gobi Dust

  November 1999

  USA

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Druids Dance 8/99

  November/December 1999

  UK

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Rhino Charge

  6–22 January 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Snow Shoe

  January-March 2000

  Canada

  To reduce unit commitment

  Thor/Odin

  Two 2-week reciprocal exercises March-December 2000

  Denmark

  Cancelled by Host Nation

  Ferro Ariete/Iron Ram

  March 2000

  UK/Italy

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Marble Tor 2/00

  29 April-13 May 2000

  Gibraltar

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Ponte Vehio 00

  Two weeks April-November 2000

  Italy

  Cancelled by Host Nation

  Asterix Sapper

  Two weeks April-November 2000

  France

  Cancelled by Host Nation

  Gaulish Star 2/00

  May 2000

  France

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Pond Jump West 2/00

  11 July-23 August 2000

  Canada

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Lion Sun 03/01

  4 February-4 March 2001

  Cyprus

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Lion Sun 3/01

  5 February-5 March 2001

  Cyprus

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Ponte Vecchio/Tower

  Never confirmed

  Italy

  Cancelled by host nation

  Bridge 00

  Ponte Vecchio/Tower

  Never confirmed

  Italy

  Cancelled by host nation

  Bridge 01

  Iron Ram/Ferro Arriete 01

  Never confirmed

  Italy

  Cancelled by host nation

  Roman Eagle 01

  Never confirmed

  Italy

  Cancelled by host nation

  Arrcade Guard

  March 2001

  GE

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Adventure Express 01

  March 2001

  Albania

  Cancelled due to concerns over force protection

  Swabian Crusade

  12–20 March 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Premier Link

  19 March-1 April 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Thor/Odin

  Two reciprocal exercises March-December 2001

  Denmark

  UK assets withdrawn and re-programmed to another exercise

  Arrcade Guard 01

  18–30 March 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Artful Image

  12–16 March 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Gobidust/Steerspike

  n/a

  USA

  Cancelled by host nation

  Pacific Kukuri 1/01

  2 April-7 May 2001

  Hawaii

  Cancelled by host nation

  Cobb Ring

  1–23 April 2001

  USA

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Cygnet Vine

  April/May 2001

  Cyprus

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Medicine Man 1

  22 April-16 May 2001

  Canada

  Operational commitments (Bosnia)

  Rhino Charge

  April 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Ardent Ground 01

  15 April-18 May 2001

  Poland

  Cancelled by host nation

  Druids Dance 3/01

  14 May-3 June 2001

  UK

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Active Improvement

  7–18

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Cygnet Virgin

  May/June 2001

  British Virgin Islands

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Gaulish 3

  21 May-3 June 2001

  France

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Asterix 3

  21 May-3 June 2001

  France

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Pondjump West 1/01

  30 May-11 July 2001

  Canada

  Operational commitments (Kosovo)

  Gloworm/Rattlesnake

  9–23 June 2001

  USA

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Mulberry Tree/Prickly

  2–15 June 2001

  USA

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Pear

  Orient Express 1/02

  30 June-13 July 2001

  Belgium

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Paper Chase

  19–30 July 2001

  Germany

  Cancelled by host nation

  Rhino Spear 01

  1–15 July 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Orient Express 2/02

  14–28 July 2001

  Belgium

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Lion Sun 10/01

  23 July-20 August 2001

  Cyprus

  Operational commitments (Bosnia)

  Asterix 4

  July 2001

  France

  Cancelled by host nation

  Lion Sun 12/01

  20 August-17 September 2001

  Cyprus

  Operational commitments (Bosnia)

  Wet Gap

  1–15 October 2001

  Germany

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Britannia Way/Iberian

  15–26 October 2001

  Spain

  Cancelled by host nation

  Focus 01

  Hard Flint

  13 May-8 June 2000

  Canada

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Collective Training 00

  27 September-5 October 2000

  UK

  National fuel crisis-uncertainty of impact on fuel reserves prevented deploying forces to exercise area

  379W

  Exercise name

  Dates

  Location

  Reason for cancellation

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  Snow Falcon

  25 September-6 October 2000

  Norway

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Jagged Corse

  16–27 October 2000

  Corsica

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Sqn Bilat 5/00

  30 October-3 November 2000

  Slovakia

  Operational commitments (Sierra Leone)

  Ample Train

  March 2001

  Europe

  RAF Air Transport unavailable due to other operational and exercise tasking

  Collective Training 01

  12–24 May 2001

  UK

  Foot and mouth disease restrictions

  Chef de Mission

  24 September-5 October 2001

  France

  Operational commitments (Veritas)

  Combat Effectiveness
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what physical tests were included in the combat effectiveness gender study; and if he will publish the(a) male and (b) female failure rates. [14471]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 767W.

  Somme Battlefields
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has collated on proposals to exhume British and Commonwealth war dead and clear cemeteries in the Somme battlefields in connection with major construction proposals. [16819]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is responsible for the care and maintenance of the graves of all British and Commonwealth war dead who fell in the two World Wars and the memorials to those who have no known grave. Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Commission have received proposals about major construction projects on the Somme which could require the exhumation and relocation of war graves.

  Air-to-Air Refuelling
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to bring in air-to-air fuel replenishment for special forces helicopters. [15231]

  Mr. Ingram
  The hon. Member will be aware that it is our long-standing policy not to comment on matters relating to the operational capability of the UK special forces. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers information whose disclosure would be harmful to national security, defence or international relations.

  Tactical Air Transport
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual allocation of hours for tactical air transport training; and what is the actual number of hours training achieved in the last 12 months. [15227]

  Mr. Ingram
  From 1 November 2000 to 31 October 2001, 3,827 hours were allocated for tactical air transport training. Of these, 2,910, or 76 per cent. were achieved. This type of training is very dependent on weather conditions. Restrictions imposed by foot and mouth disease and additional operational tasking also contributed to the shortfall in training hours. Despite, this, crews have met their Basic Training Requirements.

  Absence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been absent without leave in each of the last 10 years, broken down by service. [14376]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of service personnel recorded as being absent without leave, by individual service, during each of the last 10 years up to 31 December 2000, are shown in the table.

  Service year

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army1

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  1991

  74

  16

  2,228

  125

  2,443

  1992

  75

  23

  2,093

  95

  2,286

  1993

  53

  15

  1,776

  72

  1,916

  1994

  57

  25

  1,548

  35

  1,665

  1995

  37

  12

  1,211

  36

  1,296

  1996

  45

  10

  1,189

  36

  1,280

  1997

  32

  10

  1,181

  23

  1,246

  1998

  29

  6

  1,385

  26

  1,446

  1999

  34

  9

  1,537

  34

  1,614

  2000

  57

  210

  1,917

  27

  2,011

  1 Army personnel can be formally reported as absent without leave immediately, the Royal Navy and RAF only initiate formal reporting procedures after the seventh day of absence

  2 Figure includes two Army personnel serving with the Royal Marines

  Reservists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the most recent figures, by service, for those reservists on full-time reserve service. [14469]

  Dr. Moonie
  The most recent figures, by service, for those reservists on full-time reserve service as at 1 October are:

  Naval service (inc. RM): 619

  Army: 812

  RAF: 284.

  These figures are contained in Tri-Service Publication 2 (Tri-Service Personnel Strengths and Trained Requirements), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The publication can also be viewed on the internet at www.dasa.mod.uk.

  C-17s
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had about the effectiveness of the C-17; whether he has considered buying the four C-17s which are leased; what plans he has to expand 99 Squadron, using further C-17s; and if he will make a statement. [16262]
  381W
  Dr. Moonie
  The C-17s, which achieved their in-service date three months ahead of schedule, have fully met our expectations and performed well in Operation Essential Harvest and Exercise Saif Sareea 2. We have no current plans to purchase the leased C-17 aircraft or to expand 99 Squadron using further C-17s. The current arrangements meet the Short Term Strategic Airlift requirement and are expected to continue until the A400M enters service.

  F35
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sponsor trials of the F35 in connection with developing UK requirements; what trials of the aircraft will take place in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [16558]

  Dr. Moonie
  In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and cost, a dingle integrated Future Joint Combat Aircraft/F35 test programme with our US partner is being considered. Under this strategy, the work would be undertaken primarily in the US. UK Test and Evaluation personnel from the Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ would be integrated into the joint test activities.

  Examination of test programme options reflects best practice under Smart Acquisition in delivering defence programmes to performance, time and cost.

  In any event, the Joint Strike Fighter prime contractor will be required to demonstrate that the aircraft is compatible with UK aircraft carriers and support infrastructure. This may involve UK based trials.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries, and the number of troops they have promised, as part of their commitment to the international coalition's actions in Afghanistan. [15823]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The following countries have promised military assets as part of their commitment to the international coalition against terrorism: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and Turkey.

  The Ministry of Defence does not hold records of the number of personnel that each country has offered.

  SS Somali
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if diving operations have been(a) carried out and (b) authorised by the Ministry on the wreck of the SS Somali since 1971; and if he will give details of the purpose and results of any such operation. [16860]

  Dr. Moonie
  The SS Somali was a British merchant ship and as such is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Responsibility for merchant vessels lies with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what statutory powers govern the operation of the Ministry of Defence Police Service's Police Committee. [16830]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 provides the statutory basis for the Ministry of Defence Police Committee.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that the MOD police receive training in dealing with members of the public. [17077]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence police undertake the same basic recruitment and continuation training as their Home Department police colleagues.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the establishment and (b) the current strength of the MOD police. [17080]

  Dr. Moonie
  On 31 October 2001 the total authorised complement of the Ministry of Defence police was 3,437 and the strength 3,354, including 63 officers currently serving overseas.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanisms exist for measuring the efficiency and performance of the MOD police. [17078]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence police (MDP) is subject to efficiency and performance targets set by MOD. As with all next steps agencies, the MDP are set annual key targets which are published in the House of Commons Official Report. The chief constable's accounts are audited by the National Audit Office and published in his annual report which is laid before Parliament. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary undertakes periodic inspections of the MDP. The MOD Police Committee, during its quarterly meetings, review aspects of MDP performance.

  NATO
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the UK pays to NATO as its share of NATO's overall costs, broken down into budget headings. [16778]

  Mr. Hoon
  In financial year 2000–01, the Ministry of Defence contributed £42.915 million (net of receipts) to the capital costs covered by the NATO Security Investment Programme. It also contributed £58.301 million to the Military Budget which funds NATO's military command structure and its associated programmes. Finally, £15.600 million (£15.404 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and £0.196 million from the Ministry of Defence) was paid to NATO's Civil Budget which funds NATO's Headquarters and associated programmes.

  Osama bin Laden
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent discovery of notes for the design of nuclear weapons in houses captured from al-Qaeda in Kabul. [16422]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.
  383W
  There is no evidence of a specific nuclear threat. We know that Osama bin Laden has sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but we do not believe that he has the capability to deliver them. We have no doubt that Osama bin Laden would have no moral compunction about using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, if he could.

TRANSPORT; LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Train Operating Companies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations have been received from train operating companies about the conditions imposed by rolling stock manufacturers on holders of short-term franchises. [12741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am aware that representations have been made by one train operator for which a franchise extension is being considered. The Strategic Rail Authority is not aware that any proposal to enter into a lease has been refused. In the event of such difficulty, the Authority has powers available to assist with procurement arrangements.

  Rail Freight
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 782W, on rail freight, if the Draft Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority specifically mention the 50 per cent. target for freight. [14679]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No, because the target is 80 per cent.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which members of the London Transport or London Underground boards have at any time within the period since 1990(a) served on the board of, (b) been employed by and (c) had a material connection to any of the companies which make up the consortiums which have been accorded preferred bidder status for the Public-Private Partnership for London Underground. [14591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: Balfour Beatty is a member of the Metronet consortium, which has preferred bidder status for the Bakerloo, Central and Victoria lines infrastructure contract (BCV) and the sub-surface lines infrastructure contract (SSL). Sir Malcolm Bates served on the board of BICC plc (as a non-executive director) from 8 July 1997 to 31 January 1999, at which time Balfour Beatty was a wholly owned subsidiary of BICC plc. At no time did Sir Malcolm have a material connection with Balfour Beatty. Sir Malcolm resigned his appointment as a non-executive director of BICC plc immediately prior to accepting the office of Chairman of London Transport which he took up on 11 February 1999.
  384W
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many escalators on the London Underground system are out of service; where they are located; and for how long they have been non-operational. [15568]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for London Underground, who have provided the table. They point out that escalators out of service include those subject to planned replacement or refurbishment programmes, and that the table represents a snapshot in time, reflecting the situation on 15 November 2001. The escalator situation can change rapidly.

  Escalators out of service at 15 November 2001

  Station

  Escalator reference number

  Date taken out of service

  Manor House

  2

  6 April 2001

  Embankment

  7

  21 May 2001

  Charing Cross

  11

  26 May 2001

  Bond Street

  4

  28 May 2001

  Marble Arch

  3

  3 June 2001

  Euston

  2

  2 July 2001

  Rotherhithe

  1

  12 July 2001

  Heathrow 1, 2, 3

  6

  19 August 2001

  Notting Hill Gate

  1

  30 August 2001

  Holborn

  6

  10 September 2001

  Liverpool Street

  8 and 9

  3 October 2001

  Kilburn Park

  1

  7 October 2001

  Heathrow 1, 2, 3

  5

  9 October 2001

  Bank

  2

  15 October 2001

  Kings Cross

  5

  27 October 2001

  Kings Cross

  4

  29 October 2001

  Bethnal Green

  3

  6 November 2001

  Clapham South

  3

  9 November 2001

  Holborn

  5

  14 November 2001

  Earl's Court

  1 and 2

  23 November 2001

  Tottenham Court Road

  4

  16 December 2001

  Standards Board for England
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of all guidance so far issued by the Standards Board for England. [14544]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The Standards Board has published the following guidance:
  Guide to Part III of the Local Government Act 2000: Local Authorities;
  Guide to Part III of the Local Government Act 2000: Police, Fire, National Parks and other authorities;
  Guide to Part III of the Local Government Act 2000: Parish and Town councils.
  I have placed copies of these documents in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the criteria by which he selected people to be appointed members of the Standards Board for England. [14551]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: The Board members were appointed by Ministers of the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions on the 7 February 2001, 22 March 2001 and on the 3 May 2001. I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State on 7 February 2001, Official Report, column 535W; on

  385W
  22 March 2001, Official Report, column 292W; and the answer given on 3 May 2001, Official Report, column 753W.

  The published criteria were:

  commitment to the value of local democracy;

  unimpeachable integrity

  significant achievement in any field;

  tact and discretion;

  the ability to act as a team member;

  proven strategic and communication skills commensurate with the board of a national body.

  candidates must not be holders of national elected office.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) remuneration and (b) superannuation is paid to board members of the Standards Board for England. [14552]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the then Under-Secretary of State on 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 292W and on 3 May 2001, Official Report, column 753W.

  The Chair is paid £50,000 a year for working two and a half days per week. The Deputy Chair is paid £7,500 a year for working two days a month. The Members of the Board are paid £6,800 a year for working two days a month.

  None of the posts is pensionable.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the cost of the establishment of the Standards Board for England; and what is its continuing operating cost. [14553]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: My Department spent £111,234 on recruitment exercises for the board members and chief executive. Preparatory work for the establishment of the Standards Board for England was also carried out by officials in my Department.

  Since the establishment of the Board in March 2001, it has been paid a further £935,384 in grant-in-aid to fund its establishment and running costs.

  The allocation made for the Standards Board for England for this year in the Department's request for resources was £7.5 million.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the Code of Conduct signed by the board members of the Standards Board for England, giving the dates on which each board member signed it. [14548]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I have today placed in the Library, the Code of Conduct adopted by the Members of the Standards Board for England. This code was adopted by all board members on 8 August 2001. It is based on the draft Model Code of Conduct for Councillors, adapted to reflect the differing nature of the Board and the local authorities for which the model code was designed.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who are the board members of the Standards Board for England; and what are their relevant(a) experience and (b) qualifications. [14549]
  386W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the then Under-Secretary of State on 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 292W and on 3 May 2001, Official Report, column 753W.

  Tony Holland, a solicitor, was Principal Ombudsman to the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau Ltd., 1997–2000. In 2000 he was appointed to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel and made Chairman of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission.

  Patricia Hughes was Chief Executive of the London borough of Sutton from 1990 until February 2001. From 1987 to 1990 she was deputy Chief Executive and Borough Solicitor to the London borough of Islington.

  Alan Doig is Professor of Fraud Management at Teeside Business School. He is author of numerous publications on ethics, conflict of interest, fraud and corruption. He works with a number of bodies involved with ethics and public office both in the UK and overseas, including the Council on Europe.

  John Bowers QC is a barrister specialising in employment law, human rights and pensions. He is author of books on whistleblowing, human rights and employment law.

  Margaret Pratt is a management consultant in local and central Government and district, metropolitan and county councils. A past president of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), she sits on the Audit Committee of University College, Northampton.

  Roger Taylor is a solicitor and was Chief Executive of Manchester City council from 1984 to 1988 and Chief Executive of Birmingham City council from 1988 to 1994. He is currently Managing Director of JSSPinnacle Consulting, a Government Research, PFS/PPP and non-health consultancy.

  Paul Sabapathy OBE is Pro Chancellor and Deputy Chairman of University of Central England. A past President of Walsall Chamber of Industry and Commerce, he has served on the boards of both the Black County Development Corporation and Birmingham Heartlands Development Corporation.

  Celia Cameron CBE is leader of Norfolk county council and has been Leader of the Labour Group on Norfolk county council since 1990. Since November 1999 she has been Chair of the county council's Cabinet and the Executive, Services Development and Investment Committees.

  Peter Chalke CBE is Leader of Wiltshire county council. He has been a county councillor since 1982 and Leader of the Conservative Group on Wiltshire county council since 1986. He is also Deputy Leader of the LGA Conservative Group and the LGA Conservative Education Spokesman.

  Rail Services (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many railway stations were opened in Scotland in each year between 1992 and 1999. [15875]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new stations opened in Scotland between 1992 and 1999 include those shown in the table.
  387W

  Year

  Station

  1999

  Drumfrochar

  1998

  Dalgety Bay

  1994

  Prestwick International

  1994

  Camelon

  1994

  Sanquhar

  1994

  Wallyford

  1993

  Maryhill

  1993

  Summerston

  1993

  Lambhill

  1993

  Possilpark and Parkhouse

  1993

  Ashfield

  1993

  Kirkwood

  1993

  Baillieston

  1993

  Mount Vernon

  1993

  Carmyle

  1992

  Whifflet

  1992

  Glenrothes with Thornton

  1992

  Bentley

  Route Management Strategies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) route management strategies under way and (b) those which are planned to commence. [15730]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following route management strategies are under way:

  A1 (London to Peterborough)

  A1 (Peterborough to Blyth)

  A168/A19 (A1 Dishforth to Gateshead)

  A35/A31/A30 (Southampton to Exeter)

  A417/A419 (Swindon to Gloucester)

  A421/A428 (M1 to Cambridge)

  A49 (A40 to A5)

  A64 (A1 to Scarborough)

  A69 (Newcastle to Carlisle)

  M180/A180/A160 (M18 to Grimsby)

  M20/M26/A20 (London to Dover)

  M4 (J1–15) (London to Swindon)

  M5 (J21–31) (Weston to Exeter excluding Junction 21)

  M53/A55/A483 (Birkenhead to Welsh Border)

  M55 (Blackpool to M6)

  M6 (Junction 20–44)/A74 (Warrington to Scottish Border)

  M6/A45 and M45/A46/A5 (M1 to Birmingham Corridor)

  M62/A63/A1033 (Liverpool-Hull).

  The following route management strategies have yet to commence:

  A1 (Blyth to South of Gateshead (A194M))

  A11 (M11 to Norwich)

  A120 (Bishops Stortford to Al2)

  A13 (London to Tilbury)

  A19/A194M (South of Gateshead to North of Newcastle)

  A2/M2 (London to Dover)

  A21 (London to Hastings)

  A249 (M2 to Sheppey)

  A27/A259/M27(J4–12) (Southampton to Folkestone)

  388W

  A3/A3M (London to Portsmouth)

  A30 (Penzance to Exeter)

  A303/A30 (M3 to Honiton)

  A34 (M3 Junction 9 to M40 Junction 9)

  A38 (Exeter to Bodmin)

  A404/A404(M) (Windsor to Beaconsfield)

  A43/A45 (Bicester to Thrapston)

  A46 (M5 Junction 9 to A45 at Coventry)

  A46 (Leicester to Lincoln)

  A47/Al2 (Peterborough to Lowestoft)

  A5 (Dunstable to M1 Junction 18)

  A50/A500 (Nottingham to Stoke)

  A52/A453 (Derby to A1)

  A590 (Barrow to M6)

  A66/A174/A595 (Middlesbrough to West Cumbria)

  M1/M10 (London to M6)

  M1 Junctions 19–30

  M1 Junctions 30–42

  M1-A1 Link

  M11 (London to Cambridge)

  M18 (M1 to M62)

  M23/A23 (London to Brighton)

  M25 London Orbital North

  M25 London Orbital South

  M3(J1–13)/M27(J4–1)/M271 London to Southampton

  M4/M32/M48/M49 (Swindon to South Wales)

  M40 (London to Birmingham)

  M42/M5/M6 Birmingham Box (including M6 to Junction 10a)

  M5 Junctions 4a-15 (Birmingham to Bristol excluding Junction 15)

  M5 Junctions 15–21 (Bristol-Weston including Junctions 15 and 21)

  M50/A40 (M5 to Welsh Border)

  M54/A5/A483/A458/A449/A5 (M6 to Welsh Border)

  M56/A5117/A550 (Manchester to Welsh Border)

  M57/M58/A5036 (M6 to Liverpool to M62)

  M6 Junctions 10a–20

  M60/M502/A663/A627(M) Manchester Ring Road

  M61 (M6 to Manchester)

  M65/A56/M66 (M6 to Burnley to M62)

  M67/A628/A616 (Manchester to M1)

  M69 and M42/A42 (Birmingham-Nottingham) and A38 (Birmingham-M1).

  The Highways Agency intends to have a route management strategy in place by March 2004 for each of the routes comprising the core trunk road network. The agency is currently revising the timing and boundaries of individual route management strategies yet to commence, to ensure that they dovetail with the multi-modal and roads-based studies.

  Roads (Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much his Department has spent on roads in Surrey in each of the past seven years. [16174]
  389W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The provision made for capital expenditure on local major road schemes and maintenance of local roads and bridges in Surrey in the period 1995–96 to 2001–02 is set out in the table:

  Type of road spend

  £ million

  Year

  Capital maintenance of roads and bridges

  Major road schemes1

  Totals

  1995–96

  7.619

  17.164

  24.783

  1996–97

  4.114

  9.680

  13.794

  1997–98

  4.580

  3.500

  8.080

  1998–99

  4.400

  0.800

  5.200

  1999–2000

  5.742

  1.500

  7.242

  2000–01

  6.972

  0

  6.972

  2001–02

  11.763

  0

  11.763

  1 Individual schemes with a gross cost in excess of £2 million (£5 million since 2000–01)

  The revenue funding provided for structural and routine maintenance of non-principal roads and routine maintenance of principal roads in Surrey in that period is set out in the table.

  Structural and routine maintenance

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  42.07

  1996–97

  41.11

  1997–98

  39.93

  1998–99

  40.76

  1999–2000

  41.67

  2000–01

  43.33

  2001–02

  44.56

  Surrey county council may also have chosen to make additional amounts of capital and revenue available for expenditure on roads and road related schemes. Information on expenditure on the trunk road network is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Urban Bus Challenge
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the criteria and timetable for the Urban Bus Challenge; and if he will make a statement. [16050]

  Ms Keeble
  The first Urban Bus Challenge competition was held earlier this year. Criteria were sent to local authorities in June with a closing date for bids of 31 August. The criteria are available on my Department's website. The outcome of the competition was announced on 2 November 2001,Official Report, columns 921–22W. It is envisaged that the timetable for next year's Urban Bus Challenge competition will be similar.

  GNER
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reason he rejected the advice of the SRA to grant a 20 year franchise to GNER. [R] [16032]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA may only award a franchise to a person who has submitted a tender in response to an invitation to tender under section 26 of the Railways Act 390W
  1993 unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs. Such a direction is required if the SRA plans to replace a franchise before its expiry.

  When considering whether to grant a direction, the Secretary of State has to decide whether the benefits offered outweigh the desirability of a franchise being subject to the tendering process under sections 26 to 26C.

  The Secretary of State did not give a direction in relation to the Inter City East Coast franchise. He noted that better terms were more likely to be achieved nearer the expiry of the current franchise when the infrastructure upgrade for the East Coast Main Line would be better defined.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the(a) procedure and (b) timetable for consideration of the bids for Railtrack; and what is the cut-off date for bids to be considered. [15802]

  Mr. Spellar
  These are matters for the Administrator to determine.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what financial guarantees the Administrator of Railtrack plc has sought from the Government concerning new investment projects. [16366]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government's Loan Agreement with the Administrator, copies of which have been placed in the House Library, means that Government will provide sufficient funding to continue on a 'business as usual' basis—including investment expenditure decisions—during the administration period.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory redundancies planned by Railtrack in administration. [16361]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans for redundancies as a result of Administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the financial guarantee to Railtrack in administration represents cash spent; and how much remains as a facility to draw down. [16379]

  Mr. Spellar
  The £800 million loan instalment has been fully drawn down. It represents part of the loan agreement entered into with the Administrator—copies of which have been placed in the House Library—in order to enable Railtrack plc (in administration) to continue trading and to repay financial creditors as they become due. The loan is to be repaid either as or before Railtrack plc moves out of administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the investment projects over £5 million in value awaiting decision by the administrator of Railtrack plc. [16357]

  Mr. Spellar
  All planned investment projects by Railtrack were outlined in its Network Management Statement published in May 2001. Government have committed to provide the Administrator with access to
  391W
  sufficient funding to continue on a 'business as usual' basis—including investment expenditure decisions—during the administration period.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many separate rail investment projects are awaiting decision by the administrator of Railtrack; and what their combined value is. [16358]

  Mr. Spellar
  All planned investment projects by Railtrack were outlined in its Network Management Statement published in May 2001.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which(a) creditors and (b) contractors of Railtrack plc have approached the Government for (i) letters of comfort and (ii) guidance concerning payments for work done for Railtrack. [16367]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. For the Government's intentions with regard to creditors I refer the right hon. Member to the reply 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 what his estimate is of the time Railtrack plc will stay in administration. [16380]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which investment projects have been approved by the administrator since taking over Railtrack plc. [16365]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Administrator. Government have committed to provide the Administrator with access to sufficient funding to continue on a 'business as usual' basis—including investment expenditure decisions—during the administration period.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when bids will close for the(a) assets and (b) liabilities of Railtrack plc in administration. [16370]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he has taken with respect to the plan to cut costs at Railtrack plc drawn up by the board before the company was put into administration. [16371]

  Mr. Spellar
  The running of the company during administration is a matter for the Administrator.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the forecast is of the investment expenditure of Railtrack in administration and its successor for(a) the period from being placed in administration to 31 March 2002 and (b) the 2002–03 financial year. [16362]

  Mr. Spellar
  While Railtrack plc is in railway administration, the day-to-day expenditure decisions are a matter for the Administrator. The Government's Loan Agreement with the Administrator, copies of which have been placed in the House Library, means that Government 392W
  will provide sufficient funding to continue on a 'business as usual' basis during the administration period. Investment decisions in future years will be a matter for the successor company to Railtrack plc.

  Railways (Consultants)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the external(a) consultants and (b) advisers which the Government have used in the last year on railway matters. [16374]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has, over the last year, used the following consultants and advisers on national railway matters:

  AEA Technology Rail

  Allen and Overy

  AON

  Arthur Andersen

  Booz Allen and Hamilton

  Clifford Chance

  CMS Cameron McKenna

  Deloitte and Touche

  Ernst and Young

  Eversheds

  KPMG

  MDS Transmodal

  Mercers Management Consulting

  Mott Parsons Gibb

  NERA

  Oscar Faber

  Peter Davidson Consultancy

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Saunders and Dolleymore

  Saxton Bampfylde Hever

  Schroder Salomon Smith Barney

  SEMA Group UK

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had since 11 September with the European Commission on state aid to airlines to compensate for(a) the four day closure of United States' air space and (b) insurance cover premiums. [15805]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission set out guidelines on emergency aid measures in its Communication on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry, which was endorsed by the EU Transport Council on 16 October. The Government are considering whether to provide compensation to UK airlines for the four days closure of US airspace, and will notify the Commission if any such aid is forthcoming. In relation to insurance premiums, we have informed the Commission of the arrangements made to provide temporary third party war risk insurance cover for UK airlines and ground service providers. We introduced our scheme on 24 September, for 30 days in the first instance. On 22 October HM Treasury announced that the scheme would continue for a further 30 days until midnight on 24 November. A further announcement will be made
  393W
  shortly on the future operation of the scheme. We are also participating in the Commission's Ad Hoc Insurance Group that has been established to discuss a common approach to resolving the present difficulties in the light of the Council Conclusions on state aid agreed on 16 October.

  Evergreen Hedges
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what action the Government proposes to take in response to the final report of the Building Research Establishment and Tree Advice Trust on evergreen hedges; and if he will make a statement; [16413]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the final report of the Building Research Establishment and Tree Advice Trust about evergreen hedges. [16414]

  Ms Keeble
  The Building Research Establishment (BRE) and Tree Advice Trust were commissioned by my Department to develop an objective method for assessing whether high evergreen hedges block too much daylight and sunlight to adjoining properties, and to provide guidance on hedge heights to alleviate these problems.

  We expect to publish the final report of their work shortly and will ensure that copies are then placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  We will also be considering what is the best way of presenting this information to the public, so that people are encouraged to apply the formula to their problem hedge and to use the results to try to settle matters with their neighbours amicably.

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Health and Safety Laboratory intends to publish its annual report and accounts for 2000–01. [17389]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Laboratory has published the 2000–01 annual report and accounts, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Birmingham Northern Relief Road will be opened to the public; and what toll charges will be made for its use. [16823]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Birmingham Northern Relief Road is expected to be open to traffic in January 2004. The level of tolls to be charged for the use of the road is a matter for the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd. I understand that they have yet to decide on the toll levels but expect to do so closer to the opening date.

  Local and Regional Airports (Security)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what additional security measures have been(a) implemented at and (b) recommended to local and regional airports since 11 September. [17126]
  394W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department lays down the security requirements for the operators of public transport aircraft, both passenger-carrying and all-cargo, and the managers of the aerodromes they operate from. Following the attacks of September 11 these requirements have increased and their scope extended to general aviation. To divulge details of them would undermine their effectiveness. DTLR inspectors monitor compliance.

  Dibden Bay
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many representations have been made to his Department(a) in favour of and (b) in opposition to the building of a container port at Dibden Bay. [R] [17097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In response to the advertisements placed by Associated British Ports Ltd. in respect of their proposal, the Secretary of State received 175 representations in favour of the proposal and 6,189 opposed.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action his Department intends to take in respect of the petition to Parliament from residents of the New Forest, East constituency concerning the Dibden Bay Public Inquiry venue. [R] [17098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will respond to the petition in due course.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposal to hold the public inquiry into the application for permission to build a container port at Dibden Bay(a) in premises owned by the applicant company and (b) outside the area which would primarily be affected by the building of such a port. [R] [17095]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the circumstances following the withdrawal of the original venue for the inquiry we considered all the representations made to us about a new venue and accepted the offer from Associated British Ports of the use of the Ferry Terminal Building at Southampton Port. Alternative venues considered were either unsuitable for staging an inquiry of the size and length that the Dibden inquiry is likely to be or would result in too long a delay in getting an inquiry under way.

  We have recognised the concerns of local residents about the choice of venue and have asked the inquiry Secretariat to hold the first week's session in Hythe and to arrange for some further sessions to be held in the local area provided suitable locations can be found.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will require the public inquiry into the application for permission to build a container port at Dibden Bay to be held on premises within the area which would primarily be affected by the building of such a port. [R] [17096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Dibden Bay public inquiry will be held at the Ferry Terminal at Southampton Port. The first week's proceedings will be held at the Appledore Centre, Hythe and the inquiry Secretariat have been asked to arrange some other sessions at venues in the local area, provided suitable venues can be found.

  Gas Explosion (Newton Heath)
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the promptness of the response of the Health and Safety Executive following the gas explosion in Newton Heath, Manchester on Saturday 17 November; and if he will make a statement. [17148]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consignia
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Consignia's profits will be paid to the Government this financial year. [13732]

  Mr. Alexander
  No decision has been taken.

  Nuclear Industry
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much BNFL paid the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary for the police it provided to protect the MOX fuel exported to Japan. [15852]

  Mr. Wilson
  The costs of security arrangements associated with transporting MOX, including the costs associated with the role of the UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, are a commercial matter for the companies involved.

  Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken since 11 September to guard against a terrorist attack on the Hartlepool AGR nuclear power station; and if she will make a statement. [16186]

  Mr. Wilson
  Robust security arrangements were already in place at Hartlepool power station before the events of 11 September. 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. Both regulators are reviewing all relevant precautions in the light of the recent terrorist attacks in the USA. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites.

  Miners' Compensation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the total amount of interest paid to sick miners and their dependants who have experienced delays in the payments of the amounts awarded them under the terms of the respiratory disease scheme; and whether the(a) Department and (b) the appointed claims handlers will be responsible for these interest payments. [16660]
  396W
  Mr. Wilson
  Under the claims handling agreement, signed by the Department and the solicitors acting for the claimants, interest on general damages is payable by the Department from the date of the receipt of the letter of claim. On special damages, interest is payable from either the date the loss occurred, or in some cases the date of receipt of the letter of claim. Loss of earnings are calculated at the appropriate court rate, and other heads of special damages are calculated at a reduced rate, reflecting the fact that these are assessed at present day values. Since interest runs to the date an offer is accepted and forms part of the offer, a separate figure is not recorded by the claims handlers.

  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners from the north Somerset coalfield have(a) applied for and (b) received compensation awards. [16321]

  Mr. Wilson
  In relation to respiratory disease, in the constituency of Somerton and Frome, IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have registered 25 claims. Nine individual payments have been made to date, amounting to £33,139.

  With regard to vibration white finger, there are two claimants in this region, of whom one has received a payment of £3,113.

  Miners' Pension Schemes
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage increases have been awarded annually to pensioner beneficiaries under the(a) mineworkers' pension scheme and (b) British Coal staff superannuation scheme; and what has been their total value annually at constant prices. [16662]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1994 MPS and BCSSS members have received around a 30 per cent. increase by way of valuation surplus bonuses. This is made up of:MPS: 20 per cent. from 1997 and approximately 9 per cent. from 2000
  BCSSS: 6.7 per cent. from 1996, 10.8 per cent. from 1998, and 11 per cent. this year.

  Payments of bonus increases to pensioners have been provided by the trustees and are as follows (excludes the 11 per cent. BCSSS increase for which figures are not yet available).

  £ million

  Year

  MPS1

  BCSSS2

  1997–97

  23

  29

  1997–98

  69

  29

  1998–99

  76

  66

  1999–2000

  82

  78

  2000–01

  119

  76

  Total

  369

  278

  1 Year to end September

  2 Year to end March

  In addition to these bonuses, MPS and BCSSS members have also received annual inflation-linked increases to maintain the real level of their pension.
  397W

  Percentage

  Year

  MPS

  BCSSS

  1995

  3.5

  2.6

  1996

  2.1

  3.1

  1997

  2.9

  2.7

  1998

  3.7

  3.7

  1999

  1.3

  3.0

  2000

  3.3

  1.4

  2001

  1.9

  3.2

  Fuel Cells
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives the Government are providing for the expansion of energy generation from fuel cells; and if she will make a statement. [16741]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department has been supporting fuel cells research and development for many years, through the DTI Sustainable Energy Programme and the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council. Since 1992 the DTI has supported 147 fuel cell projects with a total DTI spend of £11.8 million. The current DTI Programme is spending about £2 million per annum, with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) spending about the same on basic research related to fuel cells.

  The DTI is currently supporting the first UK demonstration of a 200 kW fuel cell combined heat and power unit at Woking borough council. Although there are a number of different fuel cell technologies, significant cost reductions will be necessary before they will be fully commercial for electricity generation.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set for the use of fuel cells. [16742]

  Mr. Wilson
  Fuel cells are not yet fully commercial for electricity generation, and I have not yet set any targets for their use. The Energy Review presently being conducted by the Performance and Innovation Unit is considering the role of new technologies including fuel cells, in conjunction with other energy matters, as part of its review of strategic issues surrounding energy policy. It is due to report to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the end of the year.

  Fuel cells may also be used to replace or supplement the internal combustion engine in vehicles. The Government will shortly be issuing a consultation draft of their "Powering Future Vehicles" strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of hybrid, fuel cell and other low-carbon vehicle technologies.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the NETA in assisting the suppliers of renewable energy; and if she will make a statement. [16725]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 1 November 2001, I issued a consultation document in response to Ofgem's reports "The New Electricity Trading Arrangements—Review of the First Three Months" and "Report to the DTI on the 398W
  Review of the Initial Impact of NETA on Smaller Generators" of 31 August 2001. I have placed copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of the Houses.

  The Government recognise the issues faced by smaller generators, including renewables, under NETA and are committed to ensuring that our renewables targets are not prejudiced. The Government's key proposals are, broadly,

  To ensure imbalance prices are genuinely cost reflective; and

  To ensure that effective consolidation services emerge.

  The Government are also inviting views on other proposals put forward by industry.

  The Government believe that in some circumstances consolidation services are vital in order to establish and foster smaller generation plant, including assisting suppliers of renewable energy. While consolidation services are now starting to emerge in the market, the Government believe action may be necessary to address the lack of consolidation services to date. The Government have proposed establishing a working group of smaller generators, the National Grid Company, BSC (Balancing and Settlement Code) participants, Ofgem, the DTI and DEFRA to look urgently at possible structural or regulatory obstacles to consolidation, including the likely timescale on which competitive consolidation services will emerge. The Government will ask this group to provide an interim report by 24 December 2001, and a final report by 31 January 2001.

  The consultation document is available at www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/. The consultation closes on 1 December 2001.

  Departmental Review
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the review of her Department. [17451]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am announcing today a series of reforms to the structure and operation of my Department to improve the way it serves business, employees and consumers. The DTI has a vital part to play in helping to drive up UK competitiveness and productivity (including resource as well as labour productivity) and I want it to fulfil that role as effectively as possible.

  The changes will clarify my Department's role and strategy to focus sharply on customer needs. They will also simplify the support the Department provides for business and make that support easier to identify and to access. The Department's strategic priorities—reflected in its new structure—will be to promote innovation, spur enterprise and build competitive frameworks, including support for workplace standards and partnership.

  The changes will also include the creation of a new strategy board and other boards involving Ministers, senior officials and non-executive directors; significantly greater involvement of business-people and others in the Department's strategy development and greater interchange between the Department and the private and social enterprise sectors. We will maintain an emphasis on better regulation, particularly for small businesses; deliver more consistent, streamlined advice for consumers; and have clearer roles for the Department's work in the English regions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Round
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in phase II of the research programme to find alternatives to the plastic baton round; what the estimated cost is of phase II; if he will place its findings in the Library; and at what stage he intends to open out to competitive tender or introduce an independent element into the research programme. [7112]

  Jane Kennedy
  Phase II of the research programme has now been completed and I will shortly place a copy of the Steering Group's report in the Library of the House. The report will outline our priorities for further research. To date costings for the research programme are approaching £1. million. Arrangements will be made to ensure close liaison between the Policing Board and the Steering Group leading the research programme.

  Abortion
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many organisations made submissions to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calling for the right to access to abortion to be included in a Bill of Rights; and what assessment he has made of how many people each of those organisations represent; [11987]

  (2) how many individuals made submissions to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calling for the right to access to abortion to be included in a Bill of Rights; [11988]

  (3) how many organisations made submissions to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calling for the protection of the right to life for the unborn child to be included in a Bill of Rights; and what assessment he has made of how many people each of these organisations represents; [11989]

  (4) how many individuals made submissions to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission calling for the protection of the right to life for the unborn to be included in a Bill of Rights. [11990]

  Mr. Browne
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The Chief Commissioner has been asked to write to the hon. Member. A copy of his letter will be placed in the Library.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce the new appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and when he will announce whether or not the existing commissioners are to be re-appointed. [17453]

  Mr. Browne
  The Secretary of State announced today the appointment of four new Commissioners following an open competition:

  Lady (Christine) Eames;

  Dr Christopher McGimpsey;

  Mr. Kevin McLaughlin; and

  Mr. Patrick Yu.

  400W
  The new Commissioners will take up their appointments on 1 December.

  The Secretary of State also confirmed the reappointment of eight of the existing Commissioners, including the Commission's chair, Professor Brice Dickson. The remaining member of the existing Commission, Professor Christine Bell, is currently on maternity leave. A decision on her position has, at her request, been deferred until after she returns to work.

  Departmental Events
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) national and (b) international awareness events his Department has participated in since June 1997 in the form of (i) sponsorship, (ii) departmental attendance, (iii) similar departmental activities and (iv) a message of support. [5038]

  Dr. John Reid
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many churches in the Buckingham constituency have(a) applied for and (b) received awards from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each year since the National Lottery began. [16165]

  Dr. Howells
  Five churches in the Buckingham constituency have sought funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund since the National Lottery began.

  In 1995 three churches applied and one—All Saints. Middle Claydon—was awarded a grant for bell repairs. One church applied in each of the years 1997 and 1998 but in both cases the application was unsuccessful. No subsequent application has been made. Since 1999 the Heritage Lottery Fund's published policy for the Joint Places of Worship scheme has been to give priority to economically and socially disadvantaged areas.

  Ageism
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department has taken to tackle discrimination against older people. [16329]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's equal opportunities policy proscribes discrimination based on age as well as that based on gender, marital status, race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, religion, disability or sexual orientation. A number of DCMS policies are specifically aimed at ensuring older people enjoy equality of access to the nation's cultural and sporting heritage. These include an entitlement to a free television licence for everyone over the age of 75; significantly higher statutory targets for subtitling provision on digital terrestrial commercial television; the training of around 8,000 older people to be coaches, administrators, officials, leaders and mentors to youngsters through the Volunteering in Sport project; the People's Network Initiative, linking all public libraries to the internet and, as part of the UK Online programme,
  401W
  increasing the use of information and communication technology leisure and lifelong learning by elderly people. In addition, DCMS is represented on the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People, which is designed to develop a joined-up approach to older people's issues and co-ordinate Government policy for older people.

  English Tourism Council
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the English Tourism Council spent on marketing when it harmonised the grading standards in 1999. [16383]

  Dr. Howells
  The budget for marketing and promotion of the new quality assurance scheme in the financial year 1999–2000 was £250,000 and this was spent on a variety of activities, including: media and industry launches, promotion to the industry at travel fairs and via videos and presentations, mailings to the travel trade, distribution of consumer leaflets and promotion to the media via fact packs.

  The Government remain firmly committed to the voluntary scheme and have encouraged the ETC to identify some funds for consumer promotion. This is now likely to take place next financial year, when the ETC's baseline budget will have been increased by 20 per cent. and taking measures to improve quality in the tourism industry is one of its core priorities.

  Film Council
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Film Council will be made subject to the(a) rules and (b) methods of accountability of the civil service. [16647]

  Dr. Howells
  The Film Council is already a non-departmental public body, accountable to Parliament and my Department. The Chief Executive of the Film Council is appointed as accounting officer by my Department's Permanent Secretary, and acts in accordance with Treasury requirements to ensure propriety and high standards of financial management. The Chair and Board appointments are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Department's relationship with the Film Council is governed by a financial memorandum which allows the National Audit Office to inspect the Film Council's accounts, and a funding agreement which identifies what the Council must deliver in return for the funding it receives. Expenditure of lottery money is subject to policy and financial directions issued by my Department.

  Press Complaints Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to assess the operation of the Press Complaints Commission. [17202]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government support an effective system of self-regulation for the newspaper industry, with a Code of Practice overseen by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). We recognise that, as with any regulatory system, there is always room for improvement. My Department, therefore, continues to monitor the effectiveness of the industry's self-regulatory system, both in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of 402W
  Practice and the PCC's operations, and my ministerial colleagues and I have no hesitation in suggesting improvements to the industry, as and when appropriate.

  Television Licences (Residential Homes)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to amend the regulations governing the Accommodation for Residential Care Concessionary Television Licence Scheme to preserve the rights of beneficiaries of the concessionary scheme who remain in a sheltered housing complex or residential home provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation when the social mix or the level of warden cover change. [16875]

  Dr. Howells
  Consultations between officials and the BBC about the necessary amendments to the television licence fee regulations are currently under way. We intend to bring forward these amendments as soon as we can but it is important that in doing so we do not create any new anomalies or unnecessary administrative burdens.

  Sports Administration
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the objectives are of(a) the regional Sport England bodies and (b) the regional New Opportunities Fund for Sport bodies; and if she will make a statement. [16870]

  Mr. Caborn
  The role of Sport England's nine regional offices is to deliver, in partnership with a range of statutory, voluntary and commercial agencies concerned with sport and recreation, Sport England's national programmes for the development and promotion of sport.

  The New Opportunities Fund is the body designated in the National Lottery Act 1998 to distribute Lottery funds to initiatives concerned with health, education and the environment. The role of the New Opportunities Fund's regional representatives is to help deliver the overall objectives of the fund. The vision for the new opportunities for PE and the sport in schools programme is laid out in the fund's recently published document "Building for Tomorrow".

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what resources of the NAO are directed to the follow-up of qualifications to(a) agency and (b) departmental accounts; and if he will make a statement. [15246]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  It is the responsibility of the management of the Department or agency whose accounts have been qualified to take the necessary corrective action. The NAO will provide appropriate advice and assistance to support the body in this regard. The nature of the support and the resources directed will depend on the underlying reason for qualification in each case. For example, the Comptroller and Auditor General qualified his audit opinion on the Child Support Agency's Client Funds Account for 2000–01 for the seventh consecutive
  403W
  year in the light of high error rates in maintenance assessments made by the agency. The National Audit Office plans to spend some £120,000 on its audit of the 2001–02 account. The examination will check a sample of maintenance assessments to estimate the effect of any errors on outstanding maintenance balances.

  The National Audit Office will also monitor the agency's progress towards its target of implementing the new assessment system from April 2002. This system of child support was introduced by legislation in 2000 and is aimed at simplifying the rules for maintenance assessments. This is closely linked with modernisation of the Agency's operational processes and the introduction of a new computer system. This is intended to promote increased accuracy in maintenance awards and improved payment compliance. In evaluating progress the National Audit Office will assess the evidence from its own audit work, and a range of other sources including reviews by the internal audit service of the Department for Work and Pensions. The Comptroller and Auditor General will report his findings with the 2001–02 account.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  FCO Advice
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce legislation to ensure that British companies seeking to send workers abroad inform employees of relevant Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice; and if he will make a statement. [16962]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice is already widely accessible to employers as well as the general public by telephone (020 7008 0232/0233) and the FCO website www.fco.gov.uk.

  Employment legislation is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Northern Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government regarding recent statements by the Turkish Prime Minister, and the Foreign Minister, relating to the occupied area of northern Cyprus and EU admission. [15331]

  Peter Hain
  The suggestion that Turkey might "annex" north Cyprus, in the event of Cyprus joining the EU before a settlement, is not new. While it is difficult to predict what Turkey might do if a divided island were to join the EU, we believe that the "annexation" of northern Cyprus would severely compromise Turkey's relations with the EU, and contravene her obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee. However, our aim continues to be a settlement before Cyprus joins the EU, though we stand by the Helsinki Council Conclusions that it is not a precondition for enlargement. To that end we urge all concerned to engage constructively in the current UN process.

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received from residents of the Buckingham constituency(a) supporting and (b) opposing the Treaty of Nice. [16167]

  Peter Hain
  Since January we have received and replied to 3,000 letters on the European Union. The letters have addressed a wide range of different themes related to the EU.

  It is not possible to provide a breakdown by constituency without incurring disproportionate cost. We do not keep records of letters from members of the public by constituency.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the backlog of cases is for each group in(a) Islamabad, (b) Karachi, (c) Lahore, (d) Bombay, (e) New Delhi, (f) Colombo, and (g) Dhaka. [16044]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The statistics requested are as follows. The number of cases awaiting interview at the end of October is:

  Post/settlement queue

  Application number in queue

  Length of queue (weeks)

  Bombay

  Q1

  0

  0

  Q2

  477

  7

  Q3

  108

  7

  Q4

  29

  7

  Colombo1

  129

  13

  Dhaka

  Q1

  533

  14

  Q2

  3,339

  14

  Q3

  44

  16

  Q4

  784

  39

  New Delhi

  Q1

  41

  0

  Q2

  41

  11

  Q3

  152

  14

  Q4

  69

  14

  1 The visa sections in Lahore, Karachi and Colombo have a standard single queue for all settlement applications.

  The three visa issuing posts in Pakistan remain open but are offering a restricted service at present. Islamabad and Karachi continue to accept applications for settlement.

  Post

  Non-settlement number in queue

  Applications length of queue (days)

  Bombay

  16

  0

  Colombo

  0

  3

  Dhaka

  869

  15

  Islamabad

  0

  0

  Karachi

  0

  0

  Lahore

  0

  0

  New Delhi

  0

  0

  Poland
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to facilitate the entry of Poland into the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [15718]

  Peter Hain
  As the Prime Minister said in Warsaw in October last year,"there are no guaranteed places. Reform is the only entry ticket. But, we want Poland, and as many others as are ready, in the EU as soon as possible".

  This support is backed by practical assistance, through a bilateral Action Plan (consisting of projects to help Poland's reform: available on www.britishembassy.pl), and eight British civil servants currently seconded to the Polish government through the EU twinning scheme. We have also discussed with Polish ministers and officials progress on closing the chapters of the acquis communitaire, necessary for accession.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the parliamentary election in Poland on 23 September. [15719]

  Peter Hain
  The Polish elections resulted in a governing coalition comprising the Democratic Left (SLD), Labour Union and Peasants' Party. We look forward to working closely with the new government. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have already met their new opposite numbers from Poland, and I will be meeting the new Europe Minister in the next few days.

  Subcontinent
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for a future meeting between the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistani President as a follow up to their meeting in Agra earlier this year. [16564]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During the Agra Summit, Prime Minister Vajpayee accepted President Musharraf's invitation to visit Pakistan. We understand that dates have not yet been arranged. However we hope that a further meeting will take place soon.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the content of his discussions on(a) nuclear safety, (b) stability in Kashmir and (c) the future make-up of a Government for Afghanistan during his meeting with (i) the Indian Prime Minister and (ii) the Pakistani President. [16565]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has held several meetings recently with Indian and Pakistani interlocutors. The contents of these discussions are confidential under Exemption 1c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. We continue to work with both the Indian and Pakistan Governments on a range of regional and global issues.

  Afghanistan
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to extend the military action in Afghanistan to other countries. [16665]
  406W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our military action is focused on the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

  Al-Qaeda
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of states other than Afghanistan in having assisted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda; and if he will list those states. [16421]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are not speculating about the involvement of anyone other than UBL and al-Qaeda in the 11 September attacks. Al-Qaeda is a network of individuals and resources concerned with terrorism and operating covertly in many countries in Central, South and South-East Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and North America. There is no evidence that any states beyond Afghanistan are supporting the terrorist activities of al-Qaeda.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government are opposed in principle to an EU constitution; and if he will make a statement. [16407]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 976W.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had about the inclusion of a possible EU constitution in the forthcoming Laeken declaration on the future of Europe. [16408]

  Peter Hain
  It was agreed at Nice that there should be a wide and deep debate on the future of Europe before the next IGC in 2004. The Laeken European Council in December will decide on how to take that debate forward.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees of(a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU objective 1 status, (iii) areas with objective 2 status, and (iv) other areas. [16107]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and its agency (Wiston House, Wilton park, Steyning, West Sussex), employs staff in four separate locations. The number of staff in each are as follows, listed in the four categories requested:

  Number

  (i) London

  2,231

  (ii) EU objective 1 status

  0

  (iii) EU objective 2 status

  0

  (iv) Other

  Milton Keynes

  716

  Croydon

  136

  West Sussex

  61

  Chechnya Murders
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has received about the involvement of Osama bin Laden in the deaths of three UK citizens in Chechnya in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [16963]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We first became aware of the allegation that bin Laden/the Taleban ordered the deaths of the four men last year, when it appeared in an official Russian publication called "Chechnya: The White Paper". A similar article appeared in the Russian newspaper "Gazeta" on 24 October 2001. To date, we have been unable to verify the story, although we have been in contact with the Russian authorities and the author of the "Gazeta" article.

  Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to reopen his inquiries concerning the deaths of three UK citizens in Chechnya in 1998; and if he will make a statement. [16964]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British police have no general remit to conduct a criminal investigation into the murder of British nationals overseas. This is a matter for the local law enforcement agencies. We will continue to press the Russian authorities for details of the progress of their investigation.

  The Metropolitan Police Service did carry out certain inquiries in support of the Coroner's Inquest into the men's deaths. But their role was limited to providing enough information to the coroner so that he could reach a verdict as to the cause of death and judge whether it was lawful or otherwise.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department took to ensure that Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice given to Granger Telecom and BT in 1998 on travel to Chechnya was passed onto three UK citizens in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [16965]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO cannot interfere in a company's personnel operations, but we do expect UK employers to take the FCO travel advice into account when planning to send their employees overseas. FCO travel advice was first drawn to the attention of Granger Telecom in July 1998, when we first learned of their activities in Chechnya. Our advice was clear and unambiguous:"We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic…because of the unstable security situation. Visitors have been kidnapped in these areas recently".

  We wrote to Granger Telecom in mid-August 1998 pointing out the dangers of working in Chechnya and handed over a copy of the travel advice during a meeting with them at the FCO on 21 August. We also reminded Granger of our travel advice by phone on 22 and 23 September 1998.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on Zimbabwean farmers and President Mugabe's decree amending the Land Acquisition Act. [16815]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to urge the Zimbabwean Government to honour its commitments, under the Abuja Agreement of 6 September, to implement a land reform programme in a fair, just and sustainable manner in the interest of all the people of Zimbabwe. We hope that the Government will engage constructively with the UNDP in pursuing such a programme, on the basis of the UNDP proposals of December 2000.

  Extradition
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have made extradition requests to the UK in respect of their nationals who are alleged members of Islamic groups who are living here. [11183]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently nine requests outstanding for the extradition of fugitives accused of involvement in Islamic terrorist activity. Six of those requests had been received before the events of 11 September. The requesting jurisdictions in these cases are as follows:

  Requesting jurisdiction

  Number of requests

  United States of America

  5

  France

  2

  Italy

  1

  Algeria

  1

  Save in relation to the request from Algeria, none of the other fugitives involved is a national of those countries. All of them are in extradition custody.

SCOTLAND

  Island Transport
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was expended by the Government in the last three years prior to the introduction of devolution for Scotland on the maintenance of transport links between the Scottish mainland and her offshore islands. [7197]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: Relevant information held by the Scottish Executive is in the table. Elements of this programme expenditure relate to services of benefit to remote mainland areas. It is not practical to disaggregate the recorded expenditure in order to provide figures for support to services linking the islands and the mainland. Footnotes have been provided to give guidance on the figures supplied for each programme.
  409W

  £ million

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  P&O Ferries/tariff Rebate Subside1

  8.674

  11.533

  14.289

  Piers and Harbours Grants2

  2.901

  1.434

  1.613

  Caledonian MacBrayne Ferries3

  13.646

  20.178

  23.450

  Lifeline Air Services4

  0.210

  0.346

  0.365

  Highlands and Islands Airports Limited5

  7.180

  7.000

  6.179

  Skye Bridge6

  0.096

  0.284

  0.732

  1 Spending subsidies scheduled passenger and accompanied car services to Orkney and Shetland. Tariff Rebate Subsidy is paid to eligible shipping operators carrying specified goods. The scheme aims to reduce the cost of imports and exports in the island and seaboard areas of the Highlands and Islands.

  2 Grant payments to local authorities, CalMac and Independent Harbour Trusts schemes to support the development and upgrading of piers and harbours.

  3 Deficit grant, capital grants, loans and repayments to CalMac to maintain affordable sea links to the island communities, to protect fares and levels of service.

  4 Subsidy scheme supports and safeguards lifeline passenger air services between Glasgow and Campbeltown, Tiree and Barra.

  5 Deficit grant, capital grant, loans and repayments to HIAL to deliver safe, affordable, efficient and cost-effective airport services at HIAL's 10 airports across the Highlands and Islands.

  6 Payments under PH contract agreement with Skye Bridge Limited, and associated costs. Figures include payments following introduction of frequent user toll discount scheme from January 1998.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will publish the full details of the agreement between the Government and the Bank of America in relation to the Skye bridge; [6645]

  (2) if the figure quoted in the assignation statement in relation to the A87 Toll Order for the construction of the Skye bridge was index-linked; and if the full cost of the Skye bridge has been met. [6622]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Issues related to the Skye bridge project are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of fair trade goods [15213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 November 20011: My Department takes opportunities to promote fair trade products but has very limited requirements for goods which are subject to fair trade schemes. Departmental procurement seeks best value for money, in the interest of the taxpayer.

  London Allowances
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for her Department; and if she will make a statement. [6806]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Staff of my Department in London, below senior civil service level, receive a London pay supplement. The value of the supplements at 1 April 2001 was £65,000.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will estimate total staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6805]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The total civil service staff costs for my Department in the current financial year are estimated to be £2.1 million in Scotland and £1.1 million in London.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of each civil service grade in her Department is located in each region and nation of the UK, what the average salary is for each grade; and if she will make a statement. [6808]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A breakdown of Scotland Office staff numbers by grade and location, at 1 April 2000, is shown in the tables together with the average salary for each grade.

  Number of staff by grade level and region

  Full-time equivalent

  Government Office Region

  Level

  London

  Scotland

  Total

  SCS

  4

  5

  9

  G6/7

  5

  17

  22

  SEO/HEO

  6

  7

  13

  EO

  4

  1

  5

  AO-AA

  19

  14

  33

  Others

  1

  3

  4

  Total

  39

  47

  86

  Percentage of staff by grade level and region

  Level

  London

  Scotland

  Total

  SCS

  4.7

  5.8

  10.5

  G6/7

  5.8

  19.8

  25.6

  SEO/HEO

  7.0

  8.1

  15.1

  EO

  4.7

  1.2

  5.8

  AO-AA

  22.1

  16.3

  38.4

  Others grades

  1.2

  3.5

  4.7

  Total

  45

  55

  100

  £

  Grade level

  Average salary

  SCS

  65,459

  G6/7

  35,133

  SEO/HEO

  22,440

  EO

  20,319

  AO-AA

  15,719

  Others

  29,761

  Fuel Prices (Rural Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact of the level of fuel prices on the economy of rural Scotland. [7066]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In November 2000, the Scotland Office published a survey, commissioned from independent consultants, of the cost of motoring in Scotland as compared with other parts of Europe. The survey looked at the total cost of motoring in 15 European countries. It
  411W
  concluded that the overall cost of motoring in rural Scotland is similar to the UK's average, and significantly less than some of our European neighbours. Fuel costs have declined since then.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the impact of fuel taxes on the economy of rural Scotland. [7065]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues, including the state of the Scottish economy.

  The Chancellor, in his Budget of 2001, announced a package of measures to encourage cleaner transport, including reductions to the main road fuels. The Budget also included the abolition of VED on agricultural vehicles. The package will benefit up to 20,000 agricultural businesses in Scotland and, taken together, represents the equivalent of a 4p per litre cut in fuel duty to motorists and a 7p per litre duty cut to hauliers.

  These changes have brought significant benefit to the people of Scotland, which I am sure have been especially welcome to rural communities.

  Scotland Week
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations she met during her participation in Scotland Week in Brussels. [16560]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I took part in two Scotland Week events during my visit to Brussels in October, a fashion show at HM Ambassador's residence to promote Harris Tweed, and a seminar on the Future of Europe. At the Harris Tweed promotion event I spoke to a large gathering of people, and met representatives of the following organisations who each contributed towards sponsoring the event: Scotland Europa, Western Isles Enterprise, The Harris Tweed Authority and Western Isles Council.

  Representatives of many organisations, both Scottish and others, were present at the Future of Europe seminar, at which I also gave a speech. I met representatives of those organising the event, Scotland Europa and the Scottish Executive. I also held other meetings in relation to Government duties.

  Proceeds of Crime Bill
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will give an undertaking that the confiscation provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill in so far as they relate to Scotland will not be implemented until the views of the Scottish Parliament have been obtained. [16810]

  Mr. Foulkes
  No. We will continue to liaise closely with Scottish Executive Ministers and officials. It will be for Scottish Ministers to decide whether they wish to obtain further views from the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Home Office regarding putting before the Scottish Parliament the changes proposed in confiscation provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill in so far as they relate to Scotland. [16809]
  412W
  Mr. Foulkes
  None. This is a matter for the Scottish Executive to consider.

HEALTH

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to ensure that every United Kingdom citizen has access to a vaccine against smallpox to protect against possible bio-terrorist attack; and if additional stocks will need to be purchased to achieve this level of coverage. [13144]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no specific threat of a smallpox attack against the United Kingdom. There are strategic supplies of vaccines and antibiotics for use as appropriate to the incident; and we have got substantial stocks of smallpox vaccine which could be rapidly deployed to contain an outbreak.

  The UK policy on future smallpox vaccine manufacture is currently under development. The Department is pursuing other sources of vaccine supply at the Swiss Serum Centre which holds stocks of vaccine left over from the World Health Organisation's eradication programme and is also working closely with the Ministry of Defence in determining the UK's vaccine needs. We are also in discussions with the United States of America and other Governments about stocks of vaccine.

  Hospital Trusts (Rating System)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the usefulness of the star rating system for hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [14042]

  Mr. Hutton
  Performance ratings for acute non-specialist national health service trusts were published on 25 September. This is the first time that hospital trusts have been publicly classified according to their performance, with more freedom and rewards for the best and more help for the poorest. This approach is a decisive break with the past.

  In the trusts that were awarded no stars, action plans are being drawn up and implemented. These will improve the areas of significant under performance and bring them up to the standard the public and patients have the right to expect.

  Overseas Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many doctors since 1 May 1999 have been entitled to participate in induction courses for overseas doctors; and how many have done so; [15326]

  (2) what proportion of overseas doctors working on the wards in UK hospitals have participated in induction courses at the latest available date. [15327]

  Mr. Hutton
  We expect all doctors, whether from abroad or the United Kingdom, to get the induction they need from their national health service employers when they take up post. We do not hold information centrally on the number of doctors who have participated in local induction.
  413W
  In addition to the induction offered by NHS trusts to their employees, the Department is actively promoting good induction practice by funding an induction scheme for doctors from outside the UK. This is run via postgraduate deaneries in association with NHS professionals. Postgraduate deaneries ran a formal pilot of the induction courses in 1999, and we began funding the scheme in 2000. So far approximately 600 foreign doctors have been taken through the overseas doctors induction scheme.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to change the residence requirements for funding of GP training for overseas doctors; and if he will make a statement. [13852]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 November 2001]: We have today changed these requirements. Overseas doctors are now eligible for National Health Service funding for general practitioner training.

  This move will support our drive to increase GP numbers. We know that there are overseas doctors—some currently working in the United Kingdom—who are keen to train for a career in general practice. Out-of-date restrictions have previously excluded such doctors from NHS funding. We have now removed these restrictions and are taking immediate steps to recruit more doctors into GP training.

  Health Funding (Essex)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide new resources for(a) Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals and (b) the Havering Primary Care NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [14801]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barking and Havering Health Authority, which is served by Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust, received an initial £24 million (8.56 per cent.) increase in allocation in 2001–02.

  Net present costs of private finance initiatives versus public sector comparator option

  NHS Trust

  PFI (£000)

  Public (£000)

  Savings in net present value terms (£000)

  Difference (Percentage)

  Calderdale Healthcare

  1,341,787

  1,362,155

  20,368

  1.5

  Bromley Hospitals

  1,166,326

  1,179,431

  13,105

  1.11

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals

  193,170

  198,203

  5,033

  2.54

  Greenwich Healthcare

  1,409,522

  1,427,202

  17,680

  1.24

  Worcester Acute Hospital

  1,095,465

  1,098,331

  2,866

  0.26

  South Durham Healthcare

  672,230

  675,190

  2,960

  0.44

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  210,796

  226,995

  16,199

  7.14

  Swindon and Marlborough

  1,313,831

  1,323,329

  9,498

  0.72

  Hereford Hospitals

  689,250

  693,700

  4,450

  0.64

  Dartford and Gravesham1

  938,800

  943,900

  5,000

  0.54

  Norfolk and Norwich

  1,642,278

  1,681,834

  39,556

  2.35

  South Buckinghamshire

  161,685

  169,243

  7,558

  4.47

  North Durham Healthcare

  177,037

  180,910

  3,873

  2.14

  Carlisle Hospitals

  167,045

  172,903

  5,858

  3.39

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  2,124,000

  2,126,000

  2,000

  0.09

  West Middlesex University Hospitals

  1,082,900

  1,088,000

  5,100

  0.47

  University College London Hospitals

  423,300

  435,200

  11,900

  2.73

  Dudley Group of Hospitals

  1,829,382

  1,834,901

  5,519

  0.30

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  240,600

  241,613

  1,013

  0.42

  414W
  The health authority has also received the following in-year allocations:

  £1.1 million to support NHS Plan implementation

  £0.2 million for HIV/AIDS services

  £0.3 million modernisation fund for dentists

  £0.3 million for winter preparations

  £0.4 million for primary care practice based incentive scheme

  £0.3 million to address long waiting times.

  Recent announcements have allocated the following additional funding:
  £50 million nationally to support the development of the emergency care strategy, of which Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust is receiving £0.8 million.
  £50 million nationally to tackle occupancy, cancelled operations and accident and emergency delays of which Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust is receiving £0.5 million.

  Havering Primary Care Trust will take on more responsibility for commissioning services in the future and will be allocated the resources to do so. From 2003–04, subject to legislation, revenue allocations will go directly to PCTs instead of through health authorities.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes in(a) Carlisle, (b) Dartford and Gravesham and (c) South Buckinghamshire; [15256]

  (2) what the anticipated saving is to public funds from the 100 PFI hospital schemes provided for in the NHS plan by 2010; [15247]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the anticipated savings to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2001. [15257]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows a list of all major private finance initiative contracts which have reached financial close since May 1997 listing net present costs of private finance versus public sector comparator option. The projected savings on each scheme over the lifetime of the contracts are in column 4 and are presented in net present value terms.
  415W

  Net present costs of private finance initiatives versus public sector comparator option

  NHS Trust

  PFI (£000)

  Public (£000)

  Savings in net present value terms (£000)

  Difference (Percentage)

  St. George's Hospitals

  565,565

  565,768

  203

  0.04

  King's Healthcare

  2,952,700

  2,959,800

  7,100

  0.24

  West Berkshire Priority Care

  273,245

  282,228

  8,983

  3.18

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services2

  420,800

  431,700

  10,900

  2.52

  Total projected savings

  —

  —

  223,000,000

  —

  1 At financial close in July 1997 the figures for the PSC and PFI were 922,600 and 943,900 respectively, producing a projected saving of £21,300.000. An error in the PSC was uncovered by the NAO during the course of the work for their report on this scheme in 1999. As a result the projected saving was revised downwards to £5.1 million.

  2 Figures only taken as at FBC

  Notes:

  The table does not allow direct comparisons between the difference schemes. Investment appraisal conventions allow different approaches to counting costs. For example, provided the conventions are consistently applied in each appraisal, costs common to both alternatives can be either included or excluded and differences in costs can be scored rather than actual costs.

  The table includes the expected savings on the schemes at Carlisle, Dartford and Gravesham and South Buckinghamshire. Greenwich, North Durham, Calderdale, South Manchester and Norfolk and Norwich all became operational in 2001. No further major schemes are scheduled to open in 2001.

  The 23 major schemes in the table contribute to the target of over 100 new PFI hospital schemes by 2010 in the NHS plan. The target comprises a minimum of 64 major hospital schemes (capital value over £20 million) and a minimum of 36 medium-sized hospital schemes (capital value £10–£20 million), of which 17 have already reached financial close. Information on the projected savings of medium-sized hospital schemes is not held centrally.

  Value for money in PFI is assessed on a case by case basis upon presentation of the full business case (FBC). None of the other 60 major and medium-sized hospital schemes comprising the NHS plan target have yet to reach this stage so it is not possible to anticipate the savings to public funds for these schemes.

  The total projected savings in net present value terms to the national health service and the taxpayer for these first 23 major PFI schemes to reach financial close is £223,000,000.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued to those hospital trusts making strategic outhouse case bids for PFIs; and what scoring criteria will be used to measure(a) value for money, (b) existing social need, (c) existing medical service shortfalls, (d) innovation and (e) other factors; [15863]

  (2) which initial PFI offers to acute trusts made in the last three years were (a) in response to a comprehensive and costed strategic outline case or plan and (b) following a general plan; [15849]

  (3) which acute trusts have indicated an intention to complete a strategic outline cost for a PFI investment in the current year; [15848]

  (4) how many PH offers have been agreed between his Department and acute trusts in each of the last three years. [15850]

  Mr. Hutton
  The most recent guidance for the preparation of strategic outline cases (SOCs) was issued to the national health service last year. The purpose 416W
  of the SOC is to provide Ministers (advised by the Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group (CPAG)) with the necessary information to assess the national priority of major capital investment schemes with a capital value of £20 million or over.

  The guidance states that Ministers have made it clear that the main criterion by which schemes are prioritised is health service need, but that other factors such as deliverability and affordability are also important.

  Under the private finance initiative procurement process, initial offers by bidders are made in response to the invitation to negotiate which an NHS trust sends to bidders selected from those who responded to the Official Journal of the European Community notice. All major schemes which are prioritised on the basis of the SOC then have to prepare an outline business case (OBC) which identifies and develops a fully costed preferred option for the proposed scheme. It is at this OBC stage that the final decision is taken on whether to test for private finance; the assessment will take into account a number of value for money factors. If approved to proceed under the PFI route, the NHS trust will first place a contract notice in OJEC which potential bidders will respond to.

  The decision to develop an SOC must be supported and agreed to by all the key local stakeholders, principally the Department of Health regional office, health authorities and primary care trusts. Local authorities and regional offices of Government/Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will also need to be aware if major construction works are envisaged. Only following such agreement will the Department of Health be formally notified and a decision taken on the best way of taking it forward. No such notifications have been received to date in the current year.

  SOCs for major capital projects are normally accepted in specific rounds by CPAG, which advises Ministers on each scheme's viability. Ministers can consider cases outside of specific prioritisation rounds where there is an urgent need. The eventual treatment of such cases will depend on the progress and priority of those schemes already approved to commence their procurements, and the number of schemes waiting to go to tender, so as to ensure optimal value for money.
  417W
  The following major acute PFI schemes have reached financial close (signed contracts) and started construction in the past three years:

  1999:

  Hereford

  Worcester

  Barnet and Chase Farm

  Swindon and Marlborough

  King's Healthcare

  South Tees

  South Durham

  2000:

  Hull and East Yorkshire

  St George's

  University College London Hospital

  2001:

  West Middlesex

  Dudley.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has estimated the potential cost to the NHS of the Lord Chancellor's decision to reduce the discount rate to 2.5 per cent. for damages in personal injury cases. [15475]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is carrying out a full assessment of the impact of the new discount rate, which is being prepared and will be published in due course.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in(a) rank and (b) alphabetical order of NHS trust in each region the (i) proportion and (ii) number of patients waiting (A) over 12 months and (B) over 18 months or more for in-patient treatment (1) at the latest available date, (2) in March 1997 and (3) in June 1997. [16805]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number and proportion of patients waiting over 12 and 18 months at March 1997, June 1997 and September 2001 have been placed in the Library.

  In line with the NHS plan, in-patient waiting times will fall on a staged basis from 18 months now through to 15,12, nine and down to six months by 2005. As a first step towards this, the maximum waiting time for an in-patient appointment will be 15 months by the end of March 2002.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients there were on in-patient waiting lists waiting over 12 months for the quarter ended(a) March 1997 and (b) September 2001; [16403]

  (2) if he will list the percentage of patients on in-patient waiting lists waiting over 12 months for the quarter ended (a) March 1997 and (b) September 2001. [16402]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  418W

  March 1997

  September 2001

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  30,245

  43,873

  Percentage of total waiting list

  2.67

  4.29

  Note:

  Figures are health authority based and are sourced from the QF01 waiting times return.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the balance in the work programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence between(a) technology appraisals and (b) treatment guidelines. [15968]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The work programme of the National Institute is set by Health Ministers in England and Wales. The Department and National Assembly for Wales have also approved the institute's current business plan.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each technology appraisal undertaken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence the(a) final recommendation and (b) cost effectiveness as measured in terms of QALYs. [15967]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: Details of each completed appraisal can be found on the National Institute's website at www.nice.org.uk. The final appraisal determination contains the estimated cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for those cases where the National Institute of Clinical Excellence has quoted a specific figure. The Institute's judgments are based on a range of factors which include available information on cost per QALY.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to undertake a review of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [15965]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry makes some far-reaching recommendations on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). We are considering how these will affect any review of NICE's work. We expect to make an announcement shortly.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which experts from outside the National Blood Service Appropriate Use of Blood Working Group is consulting. [16347]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The Appropriate Use of Blood Working Group has experts from outside the National Blood Service as members. They are:

  Dr. Paula Bolton-Maggs: Consultant haematologist, Alder Hey Hospital

  Carol Cantwell: Chief biomedical scientist, St. Mary's Hospital, London

  Jan Gordon: Transfusion nurse, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  419W

  Charles McCollum: Professor of surgery, Manchester

  Prof. Paul McMaster: Hepatobiliary and transplant surgeon, Birmingham

  Dr. Dafydd Thomas: Consultant, Morriston Hospital

  John Thompson: Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.

  Blood Use (Overseas Hospitals)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had about the use of blood and blood transfusions for NHS patients who take up treatment in overseas hospitals with Ministers from those countries. [16349]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The Department recognises that commissioning care overseas raises a number of particular issues, including the use of blood and blood transfusions. The three pilot sites currently working to send patients to mainland Europe are discussing these issues with potential providers.

  Relenza
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities in the north-west region have drawn up patient group directions for Relenza; [16290]

  (2) what advice he has given to health authorities on drawing up patient group directions for Relenza and other drugs. [16291]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Health Service Circular 2000/026 containing guidance on Patient Group Directions was issued to the national health service (England) on 9 August 2000. Additional guidance on the supply and administration of Relenza was issued on 21 November 2000.

  NHS (IT Policy)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 423W, on IT policy in the NHS, if he will place a copy of the CISCO E-Compliant Network study in the Library. [16816]

  Ms Blears
  A copy of the report has now been placed in the Library.

  Nursing and Midwifery Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish the representations he has received on the proposal to leave health visitors out of the title of the Nursing and Midwifery Council; [16298]

  (2) what the legislative timetable is for the introduction of the Nursing and Midwifery Council; [16299]

  (3) if he will define the roles of (a) health visitors and (b) community practitioners. [16300]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Nursing and Midwifery Order to establish the new Nursing and Midwifery Council was laid before Parliament on 15 November, together with a report on the consultation. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The Orders will be considered in Standing Committee on 26 November and in the House of Lords 420W
  shortly. The legislation contains a number of safeguards for health visiting. There will be a separate part of the register, protection of the professional title, and equal representation with nurses and midwives on the council. The future role of health visitors will be a matter for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

  Tilt Report
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Tilt report concerning security at special hospitals and the amount of money so far spent on implementation by his Department. [16621]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report of the review of security at the high security hospitals (the Tilt report) was published on 22 May 2000. All the recommendations in the report were accepted by the Government and the implementation process is on-going. Central funding for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is set out in the table:

  £ million

  Current expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  2000–01

  1.0

  3.0

  2001–02

  5.0

  38.0

  £1 million of current expenditure funding was provided in 2000–01 to meet some of the costs of implementation arising in that year. The £5 million for current expenditure for 2001–02 has been provided specifically in response to the recommendation that additional funding should be made available to facilitate the movement out of the hospitals of patients no longer needing high security care. Other current expenditure for 2001–02 arising from Tilt report recommendations has been met by the health authority commissioners of the services out of the overall expenditure allocations available to them. The capital expenditure relates to improvements to the physical security of the high security hospitals, particularly the upgrading of perimeter security that Sir Richard Tilt saw as being necessary in the interests of maintaining public safety.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the occupancy rate of beds is in acute mental health wards in each London hospital in respect of(a) detained patients and (b) voluntary patients. [16624]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 November 2001,Official Report, columns 101–02W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the mapping of local mental health services; and if he will publish the results. [16622]

  Jacqui Smith
  The results of the comprehensive mapping of mental health services conducted in autumn 2000 were made available to local implementation teams (LIT) in January 2001 and have been available on a Durham University website in July 2001. This contains all data supplied by each LIT for the 2000 Mapping. The database will remain available to LITs for their continued use for local planning and monitoring purposes.
  421W
  As part of the comprehensive review process between April and October 2001 the Mapping has been updated to provide a picture of service provision as of 30 September 2001. Reports based on analysis and summary of the data in the form of tables and maps will be available by the end of January 2002.

  The data provided by the Mapping 2001 will be published in the form of an atlas and will also be available to the public on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/servicemapping/index.htm.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to commission the development of a tool kit to support mental health services in promoting mental health for people from ethnic minority communities; and if he will make a statement on(a) the work so far and (b) the cost. [17089]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work on developing the tool kit will be taken forward under the auspices of the National Institute for Mental Health in its 2002–03 work programme.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what age mental health services users are transferred from adolescent to adult services. [16612]

  Jacqui Smith
  This is an area in which local practice varies quite widely at present.

  The National Service Framework for Mental Health specified that local arrangements (including service protocols) should be in place to ensure clarity in the handling of referrals of young people in the borderline ages (for example, 16 to 21 years) to ensure that no young person's mental health needs remain unmet.

  Earlier this year, Ministers announced that child and adolescent mental health services will form part of the planned Children's National Service Framework, alongside maternity and hospital and social services for children. The Children's National Service Framework will be based on key NHS Plan values including the integration of services, partnership working and breaking down professional barriers. The question of unifying transfer ages between services will be fully considered in the context of developing standards and good practice guidance for this new and important service framework.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) medium and (b) low secure beds there are for mental health patients. [16611]

  Jacqui Smith
  Returns indicate that at April 2001, the latest date for which information is currently available, there were 2,231 medium secure beds and 1,353 other secure beds for mental health patients.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual cost is per patient to the NHS of a person with a diagnosis of severe mental illness. [17221]

  Jacqui Smith
  People with severe mental illness may access a range of National Health Service services at various times and in no predictable way and it is not possible from the information held centrally to disaggregate the costs of different services to enable the calculation of an average annual cost to the NHS per severely mentally ill patient.
  422W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are in place, and what changes are planned, to ensure that mental health-related calls to NHS Direct are handled in such a way that those contemplating suicide receive the treatment they need. [17223]

  Jacqui Smith
  NHS Direct nurse advisers use formalised computer based clinical assessment systems to enable them to offer appropriate support and advice to callers who may be contemplating suicide. In addition they receive specific training to assist them in undertaking a risk assessment which includes the assessment of potential deliberate self-harm. Links have been made and protocols are in place to enable nurse advisers to refer callers to local specialist mental health crisis services and to appropriate mental health helplines.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses received(a) hardship loans and (b) NHS hardship grants in each of the last three years, and how many have been made in the current year. [17219]

  Mr. Hutton
  The hardship loans that student nurses in receipt of the means tested national health service bursary are eligible to apply for, are funded by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) through the allocations made to higher education institutions by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. NHS education and training commissioners (work force development confederations) are required to allocate funds for the purpose of providing NHS hardship grants for students experiencing financial difficulties and who have exhausted all other sources of support.

  The Department does not routinely monitor take-up of either form of hardship support. However, evidence from the DfES 1998–99 student income and expenditure survey indicated around 2 per cent. of NHS students claiming access/hardship support. These data are supported by information the Department gathered during 1999, which reported a total of 105 payments of NHS hardship grants (that is to say payments to fewer than 1 per cent. of eligible students).

  NHS-funded Students
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the review of student funding policy in relation to NHS-funded students. [17220]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 3 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Education and Skills announced plans for a fundamental review of DfES student support arrangements. The new arrangements will be introduced from autumn 2003 at the earliest. The Department will be working with DfES to ensure that the needs of health professional students are taken fully into account in the design of the new arrangements, and will consider carefully what implications the changes have for the support which the national health service provides directly through the NHS bursary scheme.

  National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to table amendments to the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill; and if he will make a statement. [16623]

  Mr. Hutton
  At this stage, as with any Bill of this size and complexity, there may be a need for some minor or consequential amendments. The scrutiny of the Bill during its passage may highlight areas where improvements could be made, and where an amendment might therefore be required.

  Patient Priority
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives to clinicians for the purposes of determining the priority of patients to be treated. [14281]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have made it clear that patients must be treated according to their clinical need and priority. In July 1997 an Executive Letter (EL (97) 42) was issued to the national health service about access to secondary care services. It stated that"clinical priority must be the main determinant of when patients are seen as outpatients or admitted as inpatients."

  Since then, additional forms of guidance from the Department on waiting list management and clinical priority have been given to the NHS. "Getting Patients Treated—The Waiting List Action Team Handbook" was issued to all NHS trust chief executives in August 1999 and advises on the order in which patients should be treated.

  Recently, the NHS was instructed to use guidance drawn up by the NHS Modernisation Agency called the "Primary Targeting Lists Approach" to assist them in treating patients within the shorter maximum waiting times targets for 2001–02. The guidance states that patients with greatest clinical priority must be treated first and gives NHS organisations the practical advice to treat patients in the right order within the maximum waiting times targets.

  The guidance can be found at the following websites:

  Name of guidance issued

  Website address

  Executive Letter 1997–42

  www.doh.gov.uk/publications.comh.html

  Getting Patients Treated—The Waiting List Action Team Handbook

  www.doh.gov.uk/wtaction team.htm

  Primary Targeting Lists Approach

  www.modennhs.nhs.uk/npat/documents

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she intends the slaughter provisions in the Animal Welfare Bill to apply to pet animals. [12412]
  424W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 5 November 2001]: The slaughter provisions in the Animal Health Act and Bill with respect to foot and mouth disease do not apply to animals which are not susceptible to this disease such as horses, cats and dogs.

  Existing provisions in the Animal Health Act 1981 make no distinction between foot and mouth disease-susceptible animals kept as pets and those kept for any other reason. The same approach is taken in the new slaughter provisions under the Animal Health Bill.

  Equally, the Bill will not change the current position on exemptions from slaughter, which is that there is specific provision in veterinary instructions for proportionate exceptions at local level based on local veterinary judgment, including where susceptible animals are kept as pets.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will propose amendments to the Animal Health Bill to cover failures by(a) DEFRA officials, (b) army personnel and (c) veterinary surgeons to respect her Department's bio-security rules. [15648]

  Mr. Morley
  No. I am aware of the allegations that biosecurity measures were breached by DEFRA officials and others. All such allegations were treated with the utmost seriousness and were investigated. Most cases were found either to be groundless or to be lacking in sufficient detail to enable a thorough investigation. All staff working for DEFRA already have to follow strict biosecurity guidelines.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has made in implementing the recommendation in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on animal welfare and the WTO. [16085]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have ensured that the issue of animal welfare is firmly on the WTO negotiating agenda and an integral part of the European Union's comprehensive negotiating proposal.

  PCSU Industrial Action
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the dispute between her Department and the Public and Commercial Services Union; and if she will make a statement. [16587]

  Mr. Morley
  The industrial action that is currently taking place by the Public and Commercial Services union in the former MAFF part of DEFRA risks affecting payment arrangements to farmers this winter. We are doing our best to take corrective action, taking account of the needs of our customers, the taxpayer and long term working relations in the Department. Our aim is to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible.

  Public Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government have to fund public transport interchanges at train and bus stations in rural areas. [16585]
  425W
  Alun Michael
  Many local authorities have plans for new and improved public transport interchanges as part of the strategies contained in their local transport plans. Last December, the Government announced a significant increase in local transport capital funding on 14 December 2000,Official Report, columns 200–02, with £8.4 billion being provided over the five years from 2001–02. Innovative bus schemes in rural areas can also seek central government funding from the Rural Bus Challenge Fund. Promoters of interchanges at rail stations may also apply for Rail Passenger Partnership funding.

  Rural Local Authorities
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local authorities in England and Wales she classifies as rural. [16583]

  Alun Michael
  The following list of districts/unitary authorities have been classified as rural by the Countryside Agency for their 1999, 2000 and 2001 State of the Countryside Reports:

  North East

  Durham county: Teesdale, Wear Valley

  Northumberland: Alnwick, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Castle Morpeth, Tynedale

  North West

  Cheshire county: Chester, Congleton, Crewe and Nantwich, Ellesmere Port and Neston, Vale Royal

  Cumbria: Allerdale, Copeland, Eden, South Lakeland

  Lancashire county: Lancaster, Pendle, Ribble Valley, Wyre

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  North Lincolnshire UA

  Craven, Hambleton. Harrogate, Richmondshire, Ryedale. Scarborough, Selby

  East Midlands

  Rutland UA

  Derbyshire county: Derbyshire Dales, High Peak, South Derbyshire

  Leicestershire county: Harborough, Hinckley and Bosworth, Melton, North West Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire: Boston, East Lindsey, North Kesteven, South Holland, South Kesteven, West Lindsey

  Northamptonshire: Daventry, East Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire county: Bassetlaw, Newark and Sherwood, Rushcliffe

  West Midlands

  County of Herefordshire UA

  Shropshire county: Bridgnorth, North Shropshire, Oswestry, Shrewsbury and Atcham, South Shropshire

  Staffordshire county: East Staffordshire, South Staffordshire, Staffordshire Moorlands

  Warwickshire: North Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-Avon

  Worcestershire county: Malvern Hills, Wychavon

  East

  Bedfordshire county: Mid Bedfordshire, South Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire county: East Cambridgeshire, Fenland, Huntingdonshire, South Cambridgeshire

  Essex county: Braintree, Maldon, Tendring, Uttlesford

  426W

  Hertfordshire: East Hertfordshire

  Norfolk: Breckland, Broadland, Kings Lynn and West Norfolk, North Norfolk, South Norfolk

  Suffolk: Babergh, Forest Heath, Mid Suffolk, St. Edmundsbury, Suffolk Coastal, Waveney

  South East

  Isle of Wight UA

  West Berkshire UA (Newbury)

  Buckinghamshire county: Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern. Wycombe

  East Sussex county: Lewes, Rother, Wealden

  Hampshire county: East Hampshire, New Forest, Test Valley, Winchester

  Kent county: Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Shepway, Thanet, Tonbridge and Mailing, Tunbridge Wells

  Oxfordshire: Cherwell, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, West Oxfordshire

  Surrey: Tandridge, Waverley

  West Sussex: Arun, Chichester, Horsham, Mid Sussex

  South West

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly: Caradon, Carrick, Kerner, North Cornwall, Penwith, Restormel, Isles of Scilly

  Devon county: East Devon, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge, West Devon

  Dorset county: East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, West Dorset

  Gloucestershire: Cotswold, Forest of Dean, Stroud, Tewkesbury

  Somerset: Mendip, Sedgemoor, South Somerset, Taunton Deane, West Somerset

  Wiltshire county: Kennet, North Wiltshire, Salisbury, West Wiltshire.

  Rural Employment
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of people between 16 and 60 years old in rural areas in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001 were active in (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) seasonal work. [16586]

  Alun Michael
  The percentage of people aged 16 and over in rural areas in England in full-time and part-time employment was as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1996

  73.11

  28.02

  1997

  73.58

  26.96

  1998

  73.49

  27.31

  1999

  73.44

  27.67

  2000

  72.99

  27.79

  2001

  73.13

  28.16

  Reliable information on seasonal employment is not readily available.

  Farm Birds
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the population of farm birds in rural areas in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16580]

  Alun Michael
  In 1970 the baseline index for 25 farmland bird species was 100.
  427W

  (a) 1996—60.276

  (b) 1997—57.294

  (c) 1998—56.351

  (d) 1999—58.902

  (e) 2000—figures due to be published in December

  (f) 2001—figures not currently available

  Source:

  Quality of Life Counts headline indicators.

  Countryside Visits
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the level of spending by visitors to the countryside in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16589]

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of people who visited the countryside in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c)(d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [15897]

  Alun Michael
  The "United Kingdom Day Visitors Survey" shows the level of spending to be:

  (a) 1996—£6.7 billion

  (b) 1997—no survey carried out

  (c) 1998—£8.4 billion

  (d) 1999—no survey carried out

  (e) 2000—no survey carried out

  (f) 2001—no survey carried out

  The Countryside Agency is working on plans for a further survey in 2002.

  Ozone
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the levels of ozone in rural areas in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16538]

  Alun Michael
  Average number of days per site in rural areas on which pollution levels were above national air quality standards.

  Number

  1996

  41

  1997

  42

  1998

  29

  1999

  48

  2000

  25

  2001

  1—

  1 Information not currently available

  Source:

  Quality of Life Counts headline indicators

  Rural Crime
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of people in rural areas claimed to feel safe from crime in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16541]
  428W
  Alun Michael
  The figures show that more people in rural areas feel safe from crime. The proportion (percentage) of adults in rural areas surveyed in the British Crime Survey not worried about crime by type.

  1996

  2000

  2001

  Burglary

  85

  87

  90

  Mugging

  87

  89

  91

  Physical attack

  95

  88

  91

  Rape

  75

  86

  89

  Insults or pestering

  n/a

  94

  95

  Theft of a car1

  82

  86

  89

  Theft from a car1

  85

  89

  90

  1 Vehicle owners only

  Note:

  Figures are not available for 1997, 1998 and 1999

  Agriculture
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in agriculture in the United Kingdom in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, and (f) 2001; and what proportion were (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) seasonal. [16536]

  Alun Michael
  The latest information available for the United Kingdom is from the June 2000 Agricultural Census. Results for 2001 will be available later this year. The labour questions were changed in 1998 in England and Wales to allow more detailed information on full/part time and paid/unpaid labour to be collected. The available information is shown in the table:

  United Kingdom

  Thousand head

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total workers

  245.7

  242.9

  245.2

  229.6

  204.4

  Salaried managers1

  7.8

  7.8

  12.1

  13.8

  11.1

  Full-time

  n/a

  n/a

  9.9

  10.9

  9.3

  Part-time

  n/a

  n/a

  2.3

  3.0

  1.9

  Regular workers

  156.4

  154.2

  154.6

  143.8

  128.9

  Full-time

  101.8

  100.1

  100.5

  94.1

  83.8

  Part-time

  54.6

  54.1

  54.1

  49.7

  45.2

  Casual/gang

  81.5

  80.9

  78.4

  72.0

  64.4

  1 From 1998 all farmers managing holdings for limited companies were asked to classify themselves as salaried managers.

  Notes:

  1. In 1998 fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions in England and Wales. It appears that this change may have led to the recording of additional labour not previously included in the census returns. The change in questions has also led to a redistribution of labour between the various categories, most notably for salaried managers. Caution is therefore advised when comparing the 1997 and 1998 results.

  2. Figures exclude school children but include trainees employed under an official youth training scheme and paid at Agricultural Wages Board rates or above.

  3. Includes minor holdings.

  4. Totals may not agree with components due to rounding.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) subsidies paid to agriculture, (b) environmental costs of agriculture and (c) contribution of agriculture to GDP in each of the last five years; and what estimate she has made of the projected contribution of agriculture to GDP in each of the next five years expressed as a percentage of total GDP. [12292]
  429W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 November 2001]: Total public expenditure on agriculture in the financial year 2000–01 is estimated to have been £3,182 million1.

  Estimates of the total value of the impact of agriculture on the environment are not currently produced by my Department.

  Two recent academic studies have made estimates of the environmental costs of agriculture:
  Pretty, J., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R., Mason, C., Morison, J., Raven, H., Rayment, M. and van der Bijl, G. (2000), an assessment of the external costs of UK agriculture, "Agricultural Systems", forthcoming.
  Hartridge, O., Pearce, D., "Is UK Agriculture Sustainable? Environmentally Adjusted Economic Accounts for UK Agriculture". Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environmental: University College, London.

  Agriculture's share of national gross value added at basic prices (formerly GDP) in each of the last five years is given in the following table.

  Percentage

  Agriculture's share of national gross value added

  1996

  1.5

  1997

  1.2

  1998

  1.0

  1999

  0.9

  2000

  0.8

  Estimates of the projected contribution of agriculture to GDP in future years are not produced by my Department.

  The decline since 1996 is partly due to the rise in sterling against the Euro (which has affected agriculture more than many other sectors) weak world commodity markets and the effects of BSE. However, it also reflects a long term downward trend which results from underlying trends in demand—because as standards of living rise, consumers spend a smaller share of their family budget on food—and also from underlying trends in technology—which mean that prices for agricultural commodities have tended to rise less quickly than general inflation. These trends can be expected to continue, to some degree, in the future.

  1 Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2000 Table 9.1

  Rural Bus Services
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of rural bus services ran over the weekend in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001. [16540]

  Alun Michael
  The following information is available from the Countryside Agency's rural services survey:

  Percentage of parishes with a bus service

  1997

  2000

  A 6 days a week bus service

  35

  31

  A 7 days a week bus service

  25

  36

  6/7 day service

  60

  67

  Note:

  Data not available for 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2001
  430W

  Percentage of settlements with a bus service

  2000

  A 6 days a week bus service

  27

  A 7 days a week bus service

  24

  6/7 day service

  51

  Note:

  Data not available for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2001

  Source:

  RDC and Countryside Agency

  The data come from the rural services survey series which is undertaken triennially. For 2000 data were collected on both a parish basis (historical administrative boundaries) and settlement basis (areas where people live) where the sample size increased from around 6,000 to 14,000.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds are available from the(a) EU and (b) UK Government to compensate agriculture in Britain for losses caused by the weakness of the euro; and how much has been paid, by categories, in each of the last three periods for which figures are available. [15403]

  Mr. Morley
  Payments of agrimonetary compensation are partially funded by the EU budget and partly from the UK Exchequer. The following table lists the amounts of compensation that became available from 1999 to 2001. Payments are shown against the year in which the compensation became available although payments are made in up to three annual instalments. It was compulsory for member states to pay the EU element of the compensation which became available in 1999. All subsequent compensation payments are optional.

  £ million

  Compensation

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  Available from the EU

  396

  226

  183

  805

  Available from the UK

  132

  226

  183

  541

  Total available

  529

  451

  366

  1,346

  Paid by the EU

  396

  127

  56

  578

  Paid by the UK

  0

  19

  56

  74

  Total Paid

  396

  145

  111

  652

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which countries have used inoculation as a preventive tool in trying to combat foot and mouth disease breakdowns over the last five years; [8545]

  (2) if she will list the countries that inoculate all their animals against foot and mouth disease breakdowns. [8544]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: These questions can be fully answered only at disproportionate cost. However, the website of the Office International des Epizootics www.oie.int/eng/en—index.htm provides a very detailed range of statistics regarding the control measures employed by its member countries.
  431W
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department has identified the origins of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [15625]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The current epidemic has been caused by a specific strain of the foot and mouth virus (PanAsian Strain O) which has occurred in a number of countries around the world. The precise means of the introduction of the virus into Great Britain is unknown and the subject of continuing investigations, but is more likely to have been introduced in illegally imported meat or meat products.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what contingency plans and resources were established within MAFF to deal with foot and mouth disease before the outbreak this year. [15370]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: Prior to the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease, MAFF had contingency plans for dealing with outbreaks of serious animal disease which included detailed operational instructions for use by the state veterinary service. The general contingency plan for foot and mouth was updated and submitted to the European Commission in July 2000. MAFF regularly held local emergency exercises in co-operation with the police, supervised by the divisional veterinary manager. Animal health offices were required to regularly update their local contingency plans.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which office in her Department is responsible for co-ordinating policy on foot and mouth; and how many civil servants are working in this policy area. [15373]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The co-ordination of foot and mouth policy is the responsibility of the DEFRA ministerial team. Day-to-day responsibility for foot and mouth eradication policy lies with Jim Scudamore as chief veterinary officer and director general of animal health and welfare in DEFRA. The CVO is closely supported in this work area by the veterinary director and the director of animal health.

  The directorate general includes veterinary and administrative staff engaged in an extremely wide rang of FMD related duties, and works closely with other teams inside DEFRA, notably the joint co-ordination centre (JCC) which reports to Mark Addison, director general operations and service delivery.

  The number of officials, at all levels, within Jim Scudamore's team in headquarters who work full time in the exotic diseases veterinary team and the foot and mouth division is 47.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what instructions have been issued by her Department to the chairmen of the foot and mouth disease inquiries(a) to concentrate on the handling of future animal disease outbreaks and (b) to exclude the handling of the outbreak from their inquiries and final reports; and if she will make a statement. [16659]
  432W
  Mr. Morley
  On 9 August 2001 the Prime Minister announced two independent inquiries and a policy commission into the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak.

  The "Lessons Learned" inquiry is to make recommendations for the way in which the Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak in the light of the lessons identified from the handling of the 2001 FMD outbreak in Great Britain. The Royal Society has been asked to review scientific questions relating to the transmission, prevention and control of epidemic outbreaks of infectious diseases in livestock in Great Britain. The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food will advise on how to create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector.

  No specific instructions have been issued to the chairmen of the two inquiries and the Policy Commission beyond the terms of reference.

  Appeal Mechanism (Farmers)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will establish an independent appeal system for farmers in disagreement with her Department over the processing, interpretation or assessment of applications for financial support and other statutory services and procedures. [16400]

  Mr. Morley
  A consultation paper was issued in December 2000 on the introduction of an independent appeals procedure for farmers wishing to contest decisions to reduce or withhold payments under IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) subsidy schemes in England. We announced on 15 May that we would work with industry to introduce new arrangements as soon as we can. Since then. DEFRA officials including the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) have been working on the details of the procedure prior to further consultation with the industry. The RPA is also working on parallel procedures for non-IACS schemes. In addition to this new procedure a senior DEFRA official acts as the Department's Impartial Complaints Adjudicator to investigate complaints about standards of service provided by the Department.

  Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of progress in management of fishing effort in the Irish Sea. [15869]

  Mr. Morley
  Management of the Irish Sea focuses on setting TACs in line with scientific advice, enhanced technical conservation measures and, in 2000 and 2001, a prohibition on demersal fishing so as to allow the maximum number of cod to spawn.

  The European Commission is currently preparing a proposal to the Council of Ministers for a Regulation establishing the long-term framework for recovery plans. An element of this proposal is expected to involve a significant reduction in fishing effort.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in her discussions with the Environment Agency on coastal protection, what definition she has used for the phrase, Coastal Squeeze. [15812]

  Mr. Morley
  In the context of coastal defence, the term "coastal squeeze" is taken to refer to the process whereby, in the face of rising sea levels, an area of intertidal habitat, such as saltmarsh, mudflat or saline lagoon is prevented from migrating landwards owing to the presence of a hard boundary such as a sea defence.

  (This description is set out at page 17 of Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance, Volume 5, Environmental Appraisal (FCDPAG5)).

  Flood Defences (Suffolk)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much has been spent on sea and river defences in Suffolk between and including the rivers Blyth and Stour in each of the last 10 years. [15835]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency does not have information readily available on this basis.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to protect Suffolk environmentally sensitive areas from flooding due to bad weather. [15833]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational management of flood and coastal erosion risk in England is a matter for local operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and internal drainage boards. I understand the Norfolk and Suffolk Flood Defence Committee of the EA is currently planning to undertake some 17 work projects or studies with a view to alleviating flood risk in areas that include environmental sites of European importance (Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Ramsar sites) in Suffolk which are at risk of flooding.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the shingle bank that protects the Alde and Ore estuary will be recharged. [15814]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that, subject to the completion of an Appropriate Assessment as required by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, the Environment Agency plan to begin to recharge this shingle bank in April to May 2002. However the Agency have an agreement with English Nature that emergency works can be carried out if these become necessary in the meantime.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual cost is of shingle bank recharge between and including the rivers Blyth and Stour estuaries; and what the cost is of recharging the shingle banks that protect the Alde and Ore estuary. [15813]
  434W
  Mr. Morley
  I understand from the Environment Agency that the average annual costs of shingle recharge/movement on the following areas is:

  £000 per annum

  Slaughden (Alde-Ore Estuary)

  30

  Easton Broad (North of Southwold)

  10

  Dunwich-Walberswick

  15

  Total

  55

  There is not shingle recharge/movement on the River Stour.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the loss of habitat in environmentally sensitive areas of Suffolk as a result of breached sea and river defences in the last 10 years. [15834]

  Mr. Morley
  Operational management of flood and coastal erosion risk in England, including environmentally sensitive areas, is a matter for local operating authorities. I understand that the Environment Agency, the main flood defence operating authority, has not abandoned any sea or river defences in Suffolk in the last 10 years.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, columns 976–77, if she will make a statement on the operation of the pig industry restructuring support scheme, indicating (a) the total taken up, (b) the purposes for which the fund was used, (c) the amount left from the scheme unused and (d) what plans she has to use the unused sum. [17152]

  Mr. Morley
  The Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (PIRS) is a Government funded scheme, introduced as part of the Action Plan for Farming, designed to offer short-term assistance to pig producers. Its aim is to help pig producers reduce breeding capacity, reduce costs, overcome any competitive disadvantage and restore long term viability; PIRS consists of two elements—outgoers and ongoers.

  Partly as a response to the outbreak of FMD, there were two outgoers schemes, both of which are now closed for applications. Under these schemes, a total of 937 bids were accepted, covering 150,000 sow places, at a cost of £16 million. In terms of the number of sow places removed from the herd and of the value for money, outgoers was extremely successful.

  For ongoers, there were a total of 712 applications in the UK and £21.8 million has been offered to the successful applicants—at an average of £31,000 per applicant. 99 per cent. of all applications were successful; a good indication that the scheme was both straightforward and flexible.

  On finance; all but £3 million of the £66 million allocated to PIRS was used to fund pig specific operations and schemes, even though PIRS itself was under subscribed. The unspent £3 million was re-allocated to a business recovery scheme from which pig producers could benefit.

  Rural Task Force
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the conclusions of the Rural Task Force. [16529]

  Alun Michael
  We are currently considering all the conclusions of the Rural Task Force's report. Several of the recommendations have been acted upon, not least through the provision of an additional £24 million to extend the work of the Business Recovery Fund announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 October.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date it was planned for the Rural Task Force to be wound up. [16528]

  Alun Michael
  There has never been a fixed date for the Rural Task Force to be wound up: it will remain in being for as long as there is a need, and for as long as it can make a useful contribution towards kick-starting the rural economy following foot and mouth disease. The Task Force met last week and members made excellent and practical contributions from a variety of perspectives on ways in which the recovery of the rural economy can be assisted.

  Prawn Quotas
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has held with the European Commission regarding prawn quotas. [16285]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The Government requested the Commission, by letter of 20 July 2001, to bring forward a proposal to restore the 10 per cent. cut that the EU made in the Total Allowable Catches for nephrops in the Irish sea, the North sea and west of Scotland in order to protect stocks of cod and hake. It is our contention that these cuts are not needed for reasons related to the state of the nephrops stocks and make no significant contribution to the protection of cod and hake.

  The Commission has not so far seen fit to grant our request, despite having declared last December that it would bring forward proposals if such a case were demonstrated.

  We are continuing to pursue this matter, including through, in the last few days, representation of the case to Commission officials by a delegation of officials from all the Fisheries Departments in the United Kingdom. I have now taken this up myself directly with Commissioner Fischler as a matter of urgency and am currently awaiting his response.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by her Department in each year since 1992. [6901]
  436W
  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340W.

  Movement of Livestock
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the unavailability of Welsh medium forms for use by local authorities in Wales at the commencement of the autumn movement of livestock scheme. [12545]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has provided a standard template for forms to be used in connection with the livestock movement scheme. Local authorities may translate this into Welsh and I understand that a number may have now done so.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the National Beef Association and other farming organisations on her Department's proposal to make permanent the 20-day standstill on cattle and sheep movements on farms; and if she will make a statement. [16034]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department received comments from the National Beef Association and a number of other representative industry associations on the proposals for a 20-day standstill. The Government are reviewing their proposals in the light of responses to the consultation exercise and we are carrying out full veterinary and economic risk assessments. It has been decided to make this issue part of a total approach to future disease control, which will also include biosecurity, animal identification and licensing. In the meantime, current movement licensing controls will continue.

  BSE
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of those cattle tested for BSE are(a) fallen stock, (b) casualty animals and (c) over 30 months old; and what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the results in indicating the present level of BSE in the national herd. [16042]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the cattle tested in active surveillance this year up to 9 November the proportions are as follows:

  Cattle tested for BSE

  Percentage

  Fallen Stock

  40.1

  Casualty Animals

  58.2

  Over 30 months old

  98.6

  The Government's testing programme is continuously adjusted on the basis of scientific advice and to comply with EU legislation. Its recent significant expansion will give us a more accurate picture of the level of BSE infectivity in the national herd.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the number of cattle tested for BSE in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what plans her Department
  437W
  has to increase the number of cattle tested annually for BSE; and what assessment she has made of the level of testing for BSE in (a) France and (b) Germany. [16041]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table lists the number of cattle tested for BSE in each of last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Passive surveillance

  Active surveillance

  1991

  29,237

  —

  1992

  43,591

  —

  1993

  41,642

  —

  1994

  29,151

  —

  1995

  17,382

  —

  1996

  10,274

  —

  1997

  5,346

  —

  1998

  4,055

  —

  1999

  2,853

  3,951

  2000

  1,784

  12,595

  20011

  1,090

  54,253

  1 As at 19 November

  The Government's active surveillance programme has recently been stepped up so that testing of over 350,000 cattle per year will be carried out. These include all fallen stock over 24 months of age, all casualty animals over 24 months of age, all casualty animals over 24 months of age, all cattle born between 1 August 1996 and 31 July 1997 which are slaughtered under the over-thirty-months scheme and a sample of 50,000 other animals over the age of 30 months.Passive surveillance will continue as before though numbers of cattle showing clinical signs suspicious of BSE are in decline.

  The current level of testing in France and Germany, as in the UK, is determined by EU legislation. Unlike the UK, the EU member states are now required to test all cattle over 30 months of age intended for human consumption—only meat from those with negative results is allowed to enter the food chain. The Food Standards Agency considers, however, that the UK's over-thirty-month-rule provides stronger protection.

  Poultry Farms
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on the planning guidance currently issued to local authorities relating to the siting of new generation mobile chicken units on poultry farms. [16040]

  Mr. Morley
  We have had no recent discussions with DTLR on this subject. Guidance on temporary structures used for agriculture, including mobile poultry units, is contained within PPG7, Annexe C, paragraph 11.

  DEFRA contributes to both national and regional planning guidance on a range of aspects. Through Government Offices, DEFRA provides technical advice to local planning authorities. This includes advice on giving farmers flexibility to adapt to changing animal welfare legislation. In doing so, local authorities are enabled to take due account of these aspects when they prepare their local development plans and assess individual planning applications.

  Farm Assurance Schemes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further steps her Department plans to take to promote public awareness of the red tractor symbol and related farm food assurance schemes. [16038]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government support the development of assurance schemes and the red tractor logo. We are grant aiding the development of assured food standards which was set up to act as an umbrella body for assurance schemes and licence the use of the red tractor logo.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) efficiency and (b) promptness of the tasks carried out by the Rural Payments Agency; and if she will make a statement. [15810]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the launch of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) as an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 16 October 2001, the House was informed of the agency's Performance Targets on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1247W. These cover a range of targets that reflect the efficiency and promptness of tasks undertaken by RPA. Copies of its Framework Document, Corporate Plan and Business Plan were placed in the Library of the House on 15 November 2001.

  An Ownership Board was appointed, chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department. Other members include three independents and representatives of the devolved Administrations.

  Within the objective of providing strategic direction and oversight to RPA, one of the four primary roles of the Ownership Board is to monitor regularly on behalf of the Secretary of State, the devolved Administrations and competent authority the performance of RPA against its targets.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13824]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Osama bin Laden
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the extent of support for Osama bin Laden by(a) organised groups and (b) individuals within the United Kingdom. [13677]
  439W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The estimate of support for Osama bin Laden by organised groups and individuals in the United Kingdom is an operational matter for the security service and the police, who attach a high priority to monitoring and countering any possible activities in the country by foreign extremists. Any credible information is fully investigated. An investigation which yields evidence that organisations or individuals are supporting terrorism will result in the appropriate action being taken.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on the extent to which the views and values of Osama bin Laden have been promoted in public within the United Kingdom since 1997. [16410]

  Angela Eagle
  The police and security forces closely monitor the activities of those who seek to promote the views of proscribed organisations. As head of al-Qaeda, an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, the views of Osama bin Laden, or those who advocate support for this organisation, fall into this category. The Metropolitan police are investigating a number of possible breaches of the provisions of the Terrorist Act 2000 as well as allegedly racially-inflammatory comments made after the terrorist attacks in the United States. Osama bin Laden's views have in any case, of course, long been in the public domain, and particularly since the events of 11 September.

  The Government have proposed new laws on incitement to religious hatred which specifically address those who seek to stir up hatred against members of religious groups. No individual or group can be considered exempt from prosecution under these laws.

  Immigration Applications
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of applications received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are sent by recorded delivery; if those sent by recorded delivery are dealt with more expeditiously than those delivered by other means; and if he will make a statement. [17161]

  Angela Eagle
  About 90 per cent. of all immigration applications are posted by registered/recorded delivery.

  Applications sent by registered/recorded delivery are not dealt with more expeditiously than those delivered by ordinary post. New applications are normally considered in order of receipt irrespective of the method of posting.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost is of keeping a person in an immigration detention establishment in England and Wales. [14941]

  Angela Eagle
  The average annual cost of detaining a person in an Immigration Service Detention Centre is currently £27,006.

  Extremist Groups
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the activities and statements of Abu Abdullah of the Mosque of Piety, Leicester; and if he will make a statement; [14974]
  440W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the activities of Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammed; and if he will make a statement:, [14972]

  (3) what assessment he has made of links between Al Massad and bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the Taliban; and if he will make a statement; [14973]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the activities of Omar Al-Bayoumi (aka Abu Imard); and if he will make a statement; [14976]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the activities in the United Kingdom of the Al Massad organisation; and if he will make a statement. [14975]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police and the Security Service monitor closely the activities of all foreign extremists and organisations within the United Kingdom. Any credible information is fully investigated. An investigation which yields evidence that organisations or individuals are supporting terrorism will result in the appropriate action being taken.

  Hirst v. United Kingdom
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will introduce legislation to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v. United Kingdom. [15675]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no plans to introduce new legislation as there is nothing in the judgment to require this. Existing domestic legislation provides a flexible framework within which successive Parole Board reviews can be held so that the period between reviews in each case is decided on its merits, compatibly with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Appropriate guidance has already been issued following the earlier European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Oldham.

  Further training will be provided to ensure that relevant Prison Service staff and Parole Board members are aware that the timing of reviews should be geared to the particular circumstances of each case, subject to the statutory maximum interval of two years which must only be set where this is justified in the individual circumstances.

  Women Prisoners (Mother and Baby Units)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if women received into(a) Holloway and (b) Brock Hill prisons are advised that they may apply for a place in a mother and baby unit. [15671]

  Beverley Hughes
  A process is in place to enable all women, sentenced or unsentenced, who are pregnant or have a child aged under 18 months to make an informed choice about applying for a place in a mother and baby unit.

  Governors in all women's prisons must ensure that the reception process identifies all eligible women and provides them with the prisoners' handbook "All About Mother and Baby Units".

  Governors in all women's prisons must appoint a named liaison officer who is responsible for providing the woman with any information she requires as well as assisting her with the application process.
  441W
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who already had babies and were sentenced or remanded to(a) Holloway and (b) Brock Hill prisons applied for a place in a mother and baby unit. [15670]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available centrally. Computer systems have recently been installed in each of the four mother and baby units and these will record that sort of information and transmit it to a central point. The staff concerned are being trained in its use and some inputting of new cases has begun.

  Appointments
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appointments he has made to public bodies since 7 June; and how many are in his gift. [15482]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Information about numbers of ministerial appointments to public bodies is included in the Cabinet Office's annual report, "Public Bodies". Copies of this are placed in the Library and the report is published on the Cabinet Office's internet website. The next edition of "Public Bodies", which will include number of appointments at 31 March 2001, will be published around the end of the year.

  Between 7 June and 31 October 2001 my Department made 179 appointments to public bodies. The total number of appointments that are the responsibility of my Department is 2,516.

  GHB
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the Drug Advisory Council with regard to the classification of GHB. [16272]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  At its meeting on 8 November, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD recommended that gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB) should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a Class C drug. I have accepted their recommendation in principle, subject to the normal consultation with interested professional bodies.

  Deportation (National Security)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people his Department has sought to have deported from the United Kingdom on national security grounds, broken down by the country to which they are being deported; and if he will indicate the proportion of those successfully deported in the last 12 months. [15872]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been no deportations from the United Kingdom on the ground of national security in the past 12 months. However, 25 individuals have been excluded from entering the United Kingdom on the ground that their presence here would not be conductive to the public good on national security grounds. The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Bill contains provision for suspected terrorists to be arrested and detained indefinitely if they cannot be sent back to their own country or to a safe third country.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention that belief in(a) the teachings of Osama bin Laden, (b) Muslim fundamentalism and (c) the Reverend Moon are religious beliefs for the purposes of Part 5 of the Anti-Terrorism. Crime and Security Bill. [16664]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not necessary in the context of this legislation to define religion or religious beliefs. This is a matter which can be left to the courts to interpret in the wider context of the criminal behaviour being considered. We have therefore not sought to compile a list of `acceptable' religious beliefs to the exclusion of others. It is a matter of deciding, where a criminal offence has been committed against a person or group, whether the perpetrator's hatred of that person or group was a principal or aggravating factor.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the scope of the expression "particular circumstances" in clause 109 7(b) of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. [16418]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Sub-clause (7) of clause 109 of the Anti-terrorism, Security and Crime Bill sets out the circumstances in which the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) enabling power conferred by clause 109 can be used to create a criminal offence with a penalty of more than two years' imprisonment. The expression "particular circumstances" in sub-clause (7)(b) covers the situation where the European Union Justice and Home Affairs obligation makes a distinction between 'aggravated' and `non-aggravated' versions of an offence and, for example, provides for a minimum/maximum sentence for the `aggravated' version of the offence but does not specify a penalty level for the basic offence. Sub-clause (7)(b) will enable implementing regulations in this situation to apply the minimum/maximum sentence provided for the `aggravated' offence to all versions of the offence. The courts will then be able to take the particular circumstances of each case into account when sentencing. This mechanism ensures we can transpose European Union obligations in a way which takes full account of sentencing structures in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will prepare a register of the religious beliefs to which part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill applies. [16417]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government will not be preparing such a register, as the Bill does not seek to define religion or religious belief. In this part of the Bill "religious hatred" means "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief'. This is an inclusive definition, and therefore does not require a list of "acceptable" religious beliefs to be drawn up. The Government do not want to make value judgments about the nature of a particular religion. The Bill reflects the fact that what is to be considered is whether a criminal offence has been committed against a person because of, or aggravated by, the perpetrator's hatred for their religion or belief.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to transport
  443W
  companies concerning proposals in the new anti-terrorism legislation on the collection and retention of passenger and freight information. [16884]

  Beverley Hughes
  No formal guidance has been issued. However, the Home Office will shortly be issuing to carriers and other interested bodies a consultation paper about the types of information about passengers and goods to be collected.

  Criminal Offences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences punishable with imprisonment in excess of two years have been created by statutory instrument in each of the last 10 years. [16223]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Records indicate that of all the existing offences punishable with imprisonment of more than two years, none were created by statutory instrument.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been transferred to NHS mental health facilities on temporary licence since 13 July 2000; and if he will make a statement about his policy. [16610]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information about the number of prisoners transferred to national health service mental health facilities on temporary licence is not collected centrally but we would expect there to be few, if any, such cases. Our objective is to ensure that prisoners who are so severely mentally disordered that they require in-patient treatment in hospital are diagnosed, assessed and transferred as quickly as possible. Some 750 prisoners a year are transferred from prison to hospital by direction of the Home Secretary under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983. It is the usual practice for such transfers to take place with an escort of either prison or hospital staff.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter of 14 May from the hon. Member for Aylesbury to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate about his constituent Mr. D. M., reference M1002217. [16817]

  Angela Eagle
  My officials wrote to the hon. Member on 20 November. I am sorry he did not receive an earlier response.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's 10-year strategy for tackling the misuse of drugs. [17084]

  (2) what progress is being made towards the targets for reducing the use of class A drugs set out in the 10-year plan for tackling the misuse of drugs; and if he will make a statement. [17086]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We are currently reviewing progress against all the Drugs Strategy targets as part of the work for the 2002 Spending Review, to ensure that 444W
  we still have the right balance and focus. We know we need to focus even more on Class A drugs. That is why the Home Secretary announced to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 October 2001 that he would be seeking advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on their assessment reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C.

  Addressing substance misuse among young people is a key priority in delivering the Strategy. We are developing our policy and approach in a number of areas such as in improving the planning and co-ordination of the delivery of services for young people through "Young People's Substance Misuse Plans". We will also be introducing an innovative public awareness campaign on drugs aimed at young people. We have also introduced a range of measures across the whole Strategy. For example, we have provided £1 million as a starter fund for a pilot project to help police target regional drug traffickers with a view to a national roll-out of the scheme; we have agreed a further roll-out of drug testing programmes; and a series of measures, in partnership with the Department of Health, to minimise the harm drug cause.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the planned timetable is for the implementation of smart cards for asylum seekers. [16052]

  Angela Eagle
  The target dates for the Application Registration Card (ARC) project are: Cards issued to new applicants at Croydon by the end of January 2002; Card issue is to commence at remote sites by the end of March 2002.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of asylum seekers who have remained in the United Kingdom after their claims have been rejected in each of the last five years. [17087]

  Angela Eagle
  There is no official estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers who remain in the United Kingdom for the period requested. No Government have ever been able to give reliable estimates of this nature.

  However, we are currently in the process of commissioning a study that will consider the methods available for generating such an estimate.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) scope and (b) nature of advice and help for asylum seekers that will operate at (a) induction centres and (b) accommodation centres. [17081]

  Angela Eagle
  With regard to legal advice and assistance, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 29 October 2001,Official Report, column 642, and to a reply given by me on 5 November 2001, Official Report, column 80W.

  We have also given a commitment to provide education and health facilities at accommodation centres, though the full range of services is yet to be settled. Details will be in the White Paper.
  445W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure the provision of legal advice for asylum seekers at induction centres. [17083]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to replies given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 642, and by myself on 5 November 2001, Official Report, column 80W. Full details of the plans will be included in the forthcoming White Paper on asylum and immigration. It is envisaged that this will be issued in January 2002.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long asylum seekers will remain at(a) induction centres and (b) accommodation centres. [17082]

  Angela Eagle
  Asylum seekers will remain in induction centres for a few days while a number of the present National Asylum Support Services (NASS) functions, as well as initial asylum processes, are undertaken.

  Asylum seekers will remain at accommodation centres for the duration of the asylum process. We expect accommodation centres to result in faster processing of asylum cases.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Scottish Devolution
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is regarding consultations prior to the publication of proposals involving the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive by(a) primary legislation and (b) Order in Council. [13829]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 748W.

  Call Centre Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of the improved telephone call centre services referred to on page five of his Department's report 2000. [14094]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Over the last year and a half we have introduced a new telephone-based service for our employer customers—Employer Direct. Eleven Employer Direct sites are now operational throughout the UK. The sites will be gradually linked together to enable employers anywhere in Great Britain to use a single telephone number for notifying their vacancies to Jobcentres, providing instantaneous display on our Jobpoints and Employment Service managed internet sites. We expect the service to be completed and formally launched towards the end of the financial year.

  Employer Direct is part of the overall investment in modernisation and service improvement by the Employment Service. The different elements are all interdependent and it is not therefore possible to separate the cost of Employer Direct. The modernization
  446W
  programme is being delivered under an eight-year contract, the first phase of which is costing £470 millions over the first five years.

  ONE Pilot Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost of the launch of the ONE service in pilot areas. [14096]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The total cost of the development, implementation and live running of the 12 ONE pilots to the end of March 2000 was £31,116,755.

  New Deal (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on(a) the number of participants in the New Deal for Young People from the Buckingham constituency in the last 12 months, (b) the destinations of people leaving the scheme and (c) the cost involved. [14217]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information as is available is in the tables. Estimates of the cost of the programme are not available at constituency level.

  New deal for young people

  Month

  Participants in the Buckingham constituency

  August 2000

  10

  September 2000

  9

  October 2000

  10

  November 2000

  9

  December 2000

  12

  January 2001

  15

  February 2001

  13

  March 2001

  14

  April 2001

  14

  May 2001

  12

  June 2001

  11

  July 2001

  10

  August 2001

  6

  Note:

  Figures are for the end of the month, and are the latest available.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Destination on leaving the new deal for young people

  Number of clients

  Unsubsidised employment

  44

  Other benefits

  5

  Other known destinations

  14

  Not known

  32

  Total leavers

  95

  Note:

  Figures are cumulative to the end of August 2001.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Disabled People
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many disabled people have found regular consistent employment under the Government's New Deal for Disabled People since its inception, broken
  447W
  down by nation and region in the UK; and what percentage the Scottish number represents of the total number of disabled people in Scotland. [16779]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We believe that disabled people should be provided with the same opportunities as everyone else to find out about moving into work and to help themselves to become, and remain, more independent. Since July we have been establishing a national network of job brokers to provide support and services to people on incapacity benefits who want to work.

  During the first pilot phase of the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP), up to June 2001, 8,242 people in the pilot areas were helped into work, 978 of whom were in Scotland.

  As at May 2001, there were 356,800 people of working age claiming one or more key sickness or disability benefits in Scotland. They will all have the opportunity to benefit from the wide range of innovative approaches delivered through NDDP job brokers that are helping people on benefits move into work.

  Pensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensions were paid to(a) married couples, (b) single males and (c) single females; and what was the cost of their payment (i) in each of the last 10 years and (ii) in 1980. [16822]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Year

  Males (millions)

  Females (millions)

  Total cost (£ billions)

  1980–81

  3.2

  5.9

  25.6

  1991–92

  3.6

  6.7

  32.1

  1992–93

  3.6

  6.7

  32.5

  1993–94

  3.6

  6.7

  33.5

  1994–95

  3.7

  6.8

  33.6

  1995–96

  3.8

  6.8

  34.1

  1996–97

  3.9

  6.9

  35.3

  1997–98

  3.9

  6.9

  36.0

  1998–99

  4.0

  6.9

  37.1

  1999–2000

  4.1

  7.0

  38.5

  2000–01

  4.1

  7.0

  38.8

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 'Total Cost' are approximate

  2. All figures in 2001–02 price terms

  Source:

  Pension Strategy Computer System

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking in conjunction with the Department of Health to improve employment prospects for those who have an acquired brain injury. [16821]

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent meetings he has had with the Department of Health regarding the provision of rehabilitation services for people with acquired brain injury. [17258]
  448W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Departmental officials consulted the Department of Health as part of a process to produce an improved framework for brain injury rehabilitation services for the Employment Service's Work Preparation programme. Following consultations with providers of brain injury Work Preparation services and officials in the Department of Health, the delivery of these services will incorporate changes which should result in significant benefits for those who use them. The improvements include:Being clearer about the scope of Work Preparation delivered by the Employment Service, compared with other forms of rehabilitation, some of which are contracted with the Department of Health.
  Greater individualisation of provision based on comprehensive assessments of clients' needs.

  The Employment Service has also taken into account views on the average length of the Work Preparation programme and lengthened this as a result. By introducing the national framework, the Employment Service will now deliver consistent brain injury Work Preparation programmes throughout Great Britain, which are clear in their scope. We expect these new arrangements to improve employment prospects for those who have acquired brain injury.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit fraud have been detected and how many successful prosecutions have been brought in each year since 1997. [7676]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are working in partnership with local authorities to drive up standards across the board and tackle fraud and error. Over half of local authorities have begun to operate the verification framework, making thorough checks on all housing benefit claimants before payments are made.

  Information is not available separately for housing benefit and council tax benefit. The number of fraudulent cases and prosecutions reported by local authorities is in the table:

  Year

  Number of cases where fraud was established and a weekly benefit saving was claimed1

  Number of successful prosecutions1

  1997–98

  220,000

  700

  1998–99

  160,000

  800

  1999–2000

  120,000

  860

  2000–01

  100,000

  1,100

  1 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.

  Note:

  The figures have been rounded to two significant figures.

  SchlumbergerSema
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the duration is of the contracts for the supply of medical services by SchlumbergerSema; and if he will make a statement. [18142]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Government are committed to giving speedy and efficient support for people with disabilities and those who are unable to work. It also wants to help people to work wherever possible. The creation of Jobcentre Plus to bring together help with benefits and employment and the national extension of the New Deal for Disabled People are some of the improvements the Government are making to achieve that. It is also important that the processes to assess people's entitlement to benefit and capability for work are timely and effective.

  The contracts signed on 20 February 1998, provided for the supply of medical services to support benefit administration for a period of five years, from 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2003 with the option of an extension up to a further two years.

  SEMA were taken over by Schlumberger in Spring 2001. New managers have been installed and we have been working with them to improve both current performance and service delivery in the future.

  Performance in key areas has improved. In particular there has been a significant increase in the number of incapacity benefit examinations performed and the percentage of medical reports which fail to meet the required standards is now well within the target set in the Government response to the Social Security Select Committee report.

  For the future, the company is committed to an improvement plan increasing the number of doctors used on this contract, introducing evidence based medicine (the application of accepted protocols) on an IT platform, and taking part in pilot schemes to reduce the numbers of people failing to attend for examination and the gathering of better quality medical evidence.

  The Government believe that an extension to the contract offers the best opportunity to make the service improvements we all want to see and are seeking to agree detailed conditions which is expected to be finalised shortly. The agreement to extend the contract would be subject to confirmation by 31 May 2002.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Further Education
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has for increasing funding to further education colleges; and if she will make a statement. [14639]

  John Healey
  The Government plan to continue their substantial investment in further education. This year total further education funding via the Learning and Skills Council is up by £527 million compared with 2000–01, a 12 per cent. real terms increase. This brings the planned total to £4,029 million.
  450W
  Next year we plan a further 3 per cent. in real terms rise. These are resources to meet our ambitious aims for the learning and skills agenda and confirms the importance of FE in delivering it.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the quality of teaching in further education. [14640]

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the quality of teaching in further education. [14651]

  John Healey
  Since the Learning and Skills Act 2000, Ofsted and Adult Learning Inspectorate (ALI) inspect Further Education colleges under the common inspection framework. Each inspection includes an assessment of teaching quality. The first five college inspections under the new regime were published in the summer, when 16 per cent. of lessons observed were judged to be less than satisfactory. These are the only inspections published to date and might well not be representative.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to increase participation in further education. [14665]

  John Healey
  This year we have allocated the Learning and Skills Council an additional £527 million to fund increased participation in further education and raise standards and achievement, a 12 per cent. increase in real terms. Colleges are central to our plans to develop a coherent phase of education for 14 to 19-year-olds. For adult learners, colleges contribute to raising skill levels, improving basic skills, boosting employability and widening access. We have asked the Learning and Skills Council to examine the potential for FE to deliver further growth in adult participation in future.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received on the recruitment of further education lecturers in England; how many vacancies exist in further education colleges in England; and if she will make a statement. [17294]

  John Healey
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have received recent official representations on this matter. We have both met with the Association of Colleges recently and my right hon. Friend spoke at the Association's Conference earlier this week. My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning met with the Association for College Management earlier this month and is due to meet with the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education in December.

  The Department does not collect information on vacancies centrally, as further education colleges are independent corporations. However, I understand from a recent survey by the Association of Colleges that there are 3,000 teaching vacancies in general further education colleges.

  Work is under way to ensure that the further education sector benefits from similar recruitment initiatives to those already proposed for schools, such as "Golden Hellos" and the write off of student loans.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what preparations remain to be completed prior to the introduction of citizenship as a curriculum subject. [14642]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Detailed guidance for Citizenship for 11–14 year olds has been circulated to all secondary schools; a new website including an on-line training package for teachers was launched in October; nine regional training events for teachers took place this spring. The first cohort of Citizenship PGCE students started their courses in September; and OFSTED inspection guidance for secondary schools will be published next year.

  Guidance for 14–16 year olds will also be published in summer 2002. This will be followed soon after by guidance for primary schools. Guidance on assessment in primary schools will be published in summer 2002. Awarding bodies are also developing specifications for the new GCSE (short course) in Citizenship Studies for teaching to start in September 2002.

  We will, of course, monitor any additional support schools may need following the introduction of Citizenship next September.

  Research Assessment Exercise
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review the working of the research assessment exercise. [14643]

  Margaret Hodge
  The distribution of funds to support research in universities and colleges is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK funding councils.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will reinstate individual learning accounts. [14644]

  John Healey
  Individual learning accounts (ILAs) in England will not be reinstated in their present form. However, the Government remain committed to support those who find a lack of money a barrier to returning to education, learning or training. We are developing future plans which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received on the ending of individual learning accounts. [14656]

  John Healey
  Following the announcement of the withdrawal of the individual learning accounts programme in England, we have received representations from hon. Members, individual learning account holders and individual learning account registered learning providers.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to introduce a new scheme to replace individual learning accounts; when she plans to introduce it; and if she will make a statement. [17298]
  452W
  John Healey
  Individual learning accounts (ILAs) will not be reinstated in their present form. We are developing future plans which build on the successful elements of the ILA programme. I hope to announce more details on the process for developing a further scheme in due course.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had about the area cost adjustment. [14645]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend has discussions about various aspects of the current and future funding formula for local education authorities from time to time.

  Higher Education (Participation)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to increase participation in higher education. [14646]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our programmes to raise standards in schools and colleges will have a major impact on increasing participation. Our new Aim Higher advertising campaign, together with the Excellence Challenge programme, will encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter HE. We are also encouraging Higher Education Institutions to introduce a range of measures to enable more people to participate in higher education including part-time learning and access programmes for mature students.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent action she has taken to increase teacher recruitment. [14647]

  Mr. Timms
  Better rewards, status and working conditions have already helped to deliver more teachers in maintained schools in England than at any time since 1984. We have pledged to secure at least a further 10,000 by 2006. In addition, training bursaries and Golden Hellos have reversed an eight-year decline in recruitment to initial teacher training. This year, numbers of trainees have risen for the second year in a row, to their highest level since 1994/95.

  Nursery Places (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the number of nursery places available in Lancashire. [14648]

  Mr. Timms
  Already all four year olds in Lancashire are able to access a free part-time nursery education place. In the near future, we will be announcing to all local authorities in England, details of the specific funding we will be making available, to increase the number of free nursery education places available for three year olds in their areas.

  Pupil Attainment (Secondary Education)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to improve the attainment of pupils in the early years of secondary education. [14649]
  453W
  Mr. Timms
  Our plans to transform secondary education include a major programme to help schools improve the attainment of all 11 to 14-year-olds. The key stage 3 strategy sets high expectations and challenging targets. It aims to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom by investing in teachers' professional development. Expenditure on the strategy will be £489 million to 2003–04.

  GCSE Results
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the latest set of GCSE results. [14652]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The statistics published by the Department on 20 November show that 50.0 per cent. of 15-year-olds gained at least five top grades this year. We have, therefore, met the Government's target—for 50 per cent. of 15-year-olds to achieve five GCSE grades A*-C by 2002—a year early. This is a result of pupils working hard, and of the first class support they receive from teachers. There are many new policies to tackle underachievement in schools and these are feeding through now into more candidates achieving better GCSEs.

  Maintenance Grants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will restore maintenance grants to attract students to universities from less well-off backgrounds. [14653]

  Margaret Hodge
  Options for attracting students from lower income families into higher education are being considered as part of the student support review my right hon. Friend announced in October. As part of the Excellence Challenge programme, funding has already been set aside for up to 25,000 Opportunity Bursaries worth £2,000 each for students from less well-off backgrounds over the next three years. In 2001–02 we have also improved grant provision for lone parents and students with dependants with a new child care grant of 85 per cent. of the actual costs during term time and the short vacations and a travel, books and equipment grant. This is in addition to increasing significantly disabled students allowances and hardship grants during the last four years.

  Competitive Team Sports
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to increase competitive team sports in schools. [14654]

  Mr. Timms
  Competitive games are a compulsory part of the National Curriculum for Physical Education for pupils aged between five and 14, and are one of the options for pupils aged 14 to 16. The Government's White Paper "School—Achieving Success" includes a pledge that all children will receive two hours of physical education and school sport a week, within and outside the curriculum. We are currently consulting on how best this can be delivered. We have established over 370 school sports co-ordinators to assist families of primary and secondary schools to deliver after-school competitive sports.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has given to learning and skills councils on the financial support of post-16 education in schools. [14655]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have guaranteed that school sixth form funding will be maintained in real terms, uprated for inflation, provided that numbers do not fall.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the operating costs of the Learning and Skills Council in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [17296]

  Margaret Hodge
  The original budgets for the administration costs of the Learning and Skills Council were set some time ago as £188 million for 2001–2 and £193 million for 2002–3. While the council may wish us to consider an increase in their budget we will ensure that annual administration costs will remain at least £50 million lower than the relevant administration costs of its predecessor bodies.

  Class Sizes (Key Stage 1)
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress she has made with implementing the Government's class size policy for key stage 1. [14657]

  Mr. Timms
  On 15 November we announced that 99.5 per cent. of infants are now in classes of 30 or fewer. This is excellent news and means that, apart from permitted exceptions, now just 0.1 per cent. of the 63,000 infant classes have extra children.

  Teaching Vacancies
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent meetings she has had with the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers to discuss the number of teacher vacancies in secondary schools. [14658]

  Mr. Timms
  I last met representatives of NASUWT on 31 October 2001. A range of issues was discussed, including the terms of teachers' employment, but the number of teacher vacancies was not specifically raised by NASUWT.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in secondary schools; and if she will make a statement. [14650]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January 2001, local education authorities recorded 2,586 vacancies in secondary schools.

  Education and Business Links
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to provide closer links between further and higher education establishments and business. [14659]
  455W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Government recognise the importance of enhancing links between further and higher education institutions and business. We are investing £100 million over the next three years to create a national network of Centres of Vocational Excellence in Further Education. Centres will enable colleges to develop their links with employer networks and to focus specialist vocational provision on meeting the skills needs of employers at local, regional, national and sectoral level. In doing so they will secure active employer/college engagement to underpin, develop and strengthen innovative and flexible approaches to meeting current and future skills. We are also making available £25 million towards establishing New Technology Institutes (NT1s) in each region from autumn 2002. NT1s, involving colleges, universities and the private sector, will increase the supply of people with skills in information and communications technology and provide support to local businesses on new technology and innovative business practices. A core feature of the new Foundation Degree, which is being introduced from this autumn, is that employers are actively involved in the design and subsequent review of programmes along with higher and further education institutions, national training organisations and other professional bodies. The Higher Education Innovation Fund provides funding to help higher education institutions make organisational and structural arrangements to enhance their interaction with business. Almost £80 million has been allocated to a wide range of institutions for the most recent round of projects, which will take place over the next three years.

  Excellence in Cities
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of changes in standards of achievement in excellence in cities areas. [14660]

  Mr. Timms
  There are strong indications that the extra support for city schools—not least learning mentors, learning support units and enhanced opportunities for gifted and talented children—is making an impact on children's attainment, on inclusion, and on allowing teachers in those schools to concentrate on teaching. This year's performance tables show that, overall, the 750 secondary schools in Excellence in Cities areas, where the programme has been in place for at least a year, continue to show faster than average improvements in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE/GNVQ results at A*-C.

  Teaching Expertise
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps her Department is taking to ensure that teachers in secondary schools do not teach a subject in which they have no expertise. [14661]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for head teachers.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps are being taken to reduce the disparity in funding per pupil between local education authorities. [14662]
  456W
  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. We do not want there to be disparities in the formula which are not justified by the education needs of children.

  In the meantime we are continuing to make significant increases in funding overall. In 2002–03 Education Standard Spending will increase by over £1.3 billion or 6 per cent.; direct grants to schools will increase by 2.75 per cent.; and Standards Fund grant will increase by £85.6 million.

  Advanced Skills Teachers
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the work of advanced skills teachers. [14663]

  Mr. Timms
  The Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) route is designed to recognise and reward excellent teachers who wish to remain in the classroom rather than go into management. ASTs have an important role in helping to raise standards. They typically spend 80 per cent. of their time teaching in the usual way and 20 per cent. helping teachers in neighbouring schools. This can involve a wide range of activities such as coaching individual teachers or advising them on their professional development, giving demonstration lessons or holding workshops on particular aspects of teaching such as classroom management. Some have led specific projects within their own school or LEA, for example on provision for the gifted and talented children or techniques to overcome low achievement by boys. Many ASTs have produced or updated schemes of work and developed new teaching materials to help less experienced colleagues.

  Education Authority Funding
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to improve funding of the lowest-funded education authorities. [14664]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently working up proposals for a reformed system of school and LEA funding for introduction in 2003–04. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up to date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country. We do not want there to be disparities in the formula which are not justified by the education needs of children.

  In the meantime we have been making significant increases in funding overall. Since 1997 Swindon's Education Standard Spending Assessment (ESS) has increased by an average of over 6 per cent. each year. On top of that Swindon's Standards Fund grant has increased from under £1 million in 1997 to over £4 million this year. Also we have introduced the School Standards Grant, which goes straight to schools: this year Swindon's schools have received £2.4 million. In 2002–03 ESS overall will increase by over £1.3 billion or 6 per cent.; direct grants to schools will increase by 2.75 per cent.; and Standards Fund grant will increase by £85.6 million.

  Learning Support Units
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning support units have been established in schools; and if she will make a statement. [14631]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are approximately 1,090 learning support units in schools in England. We plan to increase this total further as independent evaluation of LSUs shows that they improve behaviour and cut exclusions. Phase 3 of Excellence in Cities and the Excellence Cluster programme should provide another 140 LSUs and up to 50 more are being set up this term outside the Excellence in Cities programme.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by her Department in each year since 1992. [6909]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For the number of special advisers employed, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340W.

  For the number of press officers employed, we are unable to provide information dating back to 1992 without incurring disproportionate costs but information from 1996–97 to 1998–99 is available from appendix 10 of the Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Public Administration entitled the Government Information and Communication Service, published on 29 July 1998. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmpubadm/770/77002. htm. Information for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 for full-time and part-time press officers is in the table.

  Grade

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  AIO1

  2

  3

  2

  IO1

  11

  6

  10

  SIO1

  9

  13

  9

  S102

  1

  1

  I

  G71

  3

  3

  4

  G72

  —

  1

  1

  SCSI-91

  2

  2

  2

  Contract staff

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  28

  29

  329

  1 Full-time

  2 Part-time

  3 The staffing figures for 2001–02 include the transfer of G7x1, SIOx 1 and 10x3 to the Department for Work and Pensions as part of the machinery of government changes following the general election.

  Departmental Co-ordination
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms and procedures are in place to ensure there is effective co-ordination between her Department and the National Assembly for Wales. [14472]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Skills is working with the Assembly to finalise a concordat, which we hope to publish shortly. This records how we already co-operate and builds on the principles set out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the 458W
  UK Government and the Devolved Administrations. The concordat gives assurance to both parties that working relationships will continue to be conducted in an agreed and helpful manner.

  A recent example of effective co-ordination was the publication by the National Assembly for Wales of its paving document for Wales, "The Learning Country", alongside the White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success" published by Department for Education and Skills this autumn.

  Trailblazer Sector Skills Councils
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will place in the Library a list of organisations invited to submit expressions of interest in becoming Trailblazer sector skills councils. [16946]

  John Healey
  I wrote to all Chairs and Chief Executives of National Training Organisations (NTOs) and to Trade Associations on 2 November inviting expressions of interest in becoming a trailblazer Sector Skills Council. Lists of organisations to which the letter was sent have been placed in the Library.

  Advertising
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department has spent in real terms on advertising campaigns to promote training and education policy in each of the last 15 years. [16098]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The Department's spend on advertising, for each of the last 15 years, is set out in the tables. Within the totals for the Employment Department and Department for Education and Employment there was advertising to promote employment and employability policies, as well as training and education policy. It is not possible to disaggregate this without disproportionate cost.

  Prior to 1991–92 the Employment Department agencies (Manpower Services Commission, Training Commission and Training Agency) spent their own publicity budgets. From 1991–92 these were held centrally by the Employment Department. However, because of the way the information is held in our records the figures for the former Employment Department from 1992–93 to 1995–96 do not include expenditure by agencies. The Department for Education and Department for Education and Employment figures also do not include expenditure by agencies and NDPBs.

  Real term expenditure is calculated using 1999–2000 base year prices.

  Employment Department

  £ million

  Year

  Employment department1

  Employment department agencies

  Expenditure of Employment department and its agencies

  Real terms total

  1986–87

  12.3

  22.8

  35.1

  59.83

  1987–88

  4.1

  24.3

  28.5

  46.13

  1988–89

  4.4

  18.1

  22.5

  34.11

  1989–90

  1.8

  14.8

  16.6

  23.48

  1990–91

  7.1

  9.9

  17.0

  22.3

  1 Excluding agencies

  459W

  Employment Department

  £ million

  Year

  Original figures

  Real terms

  1991–92

  9.2

  11.37

  1992–93

  3.2

  3.83

  1993–94

  7.3

  8.51

  1994–95

  6.5

  7.47

  1995–96

  7.7

  8.6

  Department for Education

  Year

  Original figures

  Real terms

  1986–87

  0.8

  1.36

  1987–88

  0.4

  0.65

  1988–89

  0.7

  1.06

  1989–90

  0.3

  0.42

  1990–91

  2.4

  3.15

  1991–92

  2.6

  3.21

  1992–93

  0.7

  0.84

  1993–94

  1.4

  1.63

  1994–95

  0.1

  0.11

  1995–96

  0.6

  0.67

  Department for Education and Employment

  Year

  Original figures

  Real terms

  1996–97

  7.5

  8.12

  1997–98

  10.0

  10.53

  1998–99

  15.7

  16.07

  1999–2000

  11.9

  11.9

  2000–01

  29.0

  28.43

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities—as at 20 November 2001

  LEA

  Name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  Medway

  Chatham Grammar School for Boys

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Medway

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Medway

  Rainham School for Girls

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Medway

  Thomas Aveling School (The)

  Technology

  Foundation

  2001

  Somerset

  Bucklers Mead Community School

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Somerset

  Court Fields Community School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Somerset

  Crispin School

  Technology

  Community

  1999

  Somerset

  Heathfield Community School

  Arts

  Community

  1997

  Somerset

  Kings of Wessex Community School (The)

  Technology

  Voluntary Controlled

  2001

  Somerset

  Kingsmead Community School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Somerset

  Ladymead Community School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Somerset

  Whitstone Community School

  Technology

  Community

  2000

  Islington, LB of

  Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Islington, LB of

  Mount Carmel RC Girls' School

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  2000

  Plymouth, city of

  Eggbuckland Community College

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Plymouth, city of

  Estover Community College

  Arts

  Community

  1999

  Plymouth, city of

  Hele's School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Plymouth, city of

  Lipson Community College

  Arts

  Community

  1999

  Plymouth, city of

  Parkside Comprehensive School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Plymouth, city of

  Tamarside Community College

  Technology

  Community

  2000

  Wiltshire

  George Ward School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Wiltshire

  John Bentley School (The)

  Language

  Foundation

  2000

  Wiltshire

  Kingdown Community School

  Sports

  Community

  2000

  Wiltshire

  Matravers School

  Arts

  Foundation

  2001

  Wiltshire

  St. Augustine's Catholic College

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  1998

  Wiltshire

  St. Edmunds Girl's School

  Sports

  Voluntary Controlled

  2000

  Wiltshire

  St. John's School and Community College

  Technology

  Foundation

  1998

  Wiltshire

  St. Laurence School

  Arts

  Voluntary Controlled

  2000

  Wiltshire

  Wyverm College (prey Highbury School)

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Isle of Wight

  Carisbrooke High School

  Sports

  Community

  2001

  Isle of Wight

  Ryde High School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  Bethnal Green High School

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Key Skills
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the addendum to key skills guidance issued in September by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ease the assessment burdens associated with key skills was changed. [16195]

  Mr. Timms
  Following publication of the final draft of the addendum on the QCA website, the generally favourable feedback also suggested that there was a potential contradiction in one short paragraph. This dealt with the collection of evidence for the Application of Number key skills qualification, at one level only (level 2). The QCA therefore removed that paragraph and is discussing with awarding bodies the best way to ensure that this causes minimum disruption.

  Specialist Schools and Colleges
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) name, (b) character, (c) date of designation, (d) agreed targets for each year within the period of designation and (e) unmet targets to date are of each designated specialist school or college in (i) Medway, (ii) Somerset, (iii) Islington, (iv) Plymouth, (v) Wiltshire, (vi) Isle of Wight, (vii) Tower Hamlets, (viii) Redbridge, (ix) Waltham Forest and (x) Ealing. [16735]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: The information on the names of specialist schools, their character and the year in which they were designated as specialist schools in each of the named authorities is given in the following table. Information on the targets agreed with each school and targets which have not been met could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  461W

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities—as at 20 November 2001

  LEA

  Name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  Central Foundation Girl's School

  Arts

  Voluntary Controlled

  2001

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  Sir John Cass's Foundation Redcoat School (The)

  Language

  Voluntary Aided

  2000

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  St. Paul's Way Community School

  Arts

  Community

  1998

  Redbridge

  King Solomon High School

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  1995

  Redbridge

  Loxford School of Science and Technology

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Redbridge

  Seven Kings High School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Redbridge

  Valentines High School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Redbridge

  Woodbridge High School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  Connaught School for Girls

  Language

  Community

  2001

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  Highams Park School

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  1997

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  Holy Family College (The)

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  2000

  Ealing, LB of

  Brentside High School

  Arts

  Foundation

  2001

  Ealing, LB of

  Cardinal Wiseman RC High School

  Technology

  Voluntary Aided

  1995

  Ealing, LB of

  Compton High School and Sports College (The)

  Sports

  Community

  2000

  Ealing, LB of

  Featherstone High School

  Sports

  Community

  1999

  Ealing, LB of

  Greenford High School

  Language

  Foundation

  2001

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) name, (b) character, (c) date of designation, (d) agreed targets for each year within the period of designation and (e) unmet targets to date are of each designated specialist school and college in (i) Kent, (ii) Barnet, (iii) Hampshire, (iv) Bromley, (v) Brent, (vi) Gloucestershire, (vii) West Sussex, (viii) Buckinghamshire, (ix) South Gloucestershire, (x) Devon, (xi) Surrey and (xii) Torbay. [16736]

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities As at 20 November 2001

  LEA—Name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  Kent:

  Angley School

  Sports

  Foundation

  2000

  Chaucer Technology School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1996

  Cornwallis School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Dartford Grammar School

  Language

  Foundation

  1995

  Dartford West High School for Girls

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Hartsdown School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Hayesbrook School (The)

  Sports

  Foundation

  2001

  Hillview School for Girls

  Arts

  Foundation

  2001

  Holmesdale Community School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Hugh Christie Technology College

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Saint George's C of E School

  Language

  Voluntary aided

  1999

  Sandwich Technology School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1996

  Weald of Kent Grammar School

  Language

  Community

  1999

  London Borough of Barnet:

  Hendon School

  Language

  Foundation

  1995

  Mill Hill County High School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Whitefield School

  Sports

  Community

  1999

  Hampshire:

  Applemore Technology School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Bohunt School

  Language

  Foundation

  1996

  Mountbatten School (The)

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Romsey School (The)

  Language

  Community

  2000

  Thornden School

  Arts

  Community

  2000

  Wildern School

  Arts

  Community

  2001

  Wyvern Community School (The)

  Technology

  Community

  2000

  London Borough of Bromley:

  Bullers Wood School

  Language

  Foundation

  1996

  Charles Darwin School

  Arts

  Foundation

  2001

  Kemnal Technology College

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Langley Park School for Girls

  Technology

  Foundation

  1996

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  462W
  Mr. Timms
  The information on the names of specialist schools, their character and the year in which they were designated as specialist schools in each of the named authorities is given in the table. Information on the targets agreed with each school and targets which have not been met could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  463W 464W

  Specialist schools in specified local education authorities As at 20 November 2001

  LEA—Name

  Specialism

  Character

  Designated September

  London Borough of Brent:

  Claremont High School

  Arts

  Foundation

  2001

  Convent of J & M High

  Language

  Voluntary aided

  1996

  John Kelly Boys Community School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  John Kelly Girls Community School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Gloucestershire:

  Archway School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Balcarras School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1998

  Central Tech College (Saintbridge)

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Chipping Campden School

  Technology

  Foundation

  2000

  Chosen Hill School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1997

  Cirencester Deer Park School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1995

  Cleeve School

  Technology

  Community

  1997

  Dene Magna Community School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1999

  Katharine Lady Berkeleys

  Language

  Voluntary aided

  1996

  Pate's Grammar School

  Language

  Voluntary aided

  2001

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Language

  Community

  2000

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School

  Sports

  Voluntary aided

  1999

  Tewkesbury School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1999

  West Sussex:

  Angmering School

  Sports

  Community

  2000

  Bishop Luffa School

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  1997

  Davison C of E School for Girls

  Technology

  Voluntary controlled

  1998

  Hazelwick School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Imberhorne School

  Language

  Community

  1997

  Millais School

  Language

  Community

  1996

  Steyning Grammar School

  Technology

  Voluntary controlled

  1997

  Weald School, The

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Buckinghamshire:

  Aylesbury Grammar School

  Technology

  Voluntary controlled

  1997

  Aylesbury High School

  Language

  Community

  2001

  Beaconsfield High School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1997

  Dr. Challoner's High School

  Sports

  Community

  2001

  John Hampden Grammar School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Princes Risborough School

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  Royal Grammar School (The)

  Language

  Foundation

  1996

  Sir William Ramsey School

  Arts

  Community

  2000

  Wye Valley School (The)

  Sports

  Community

  1998

  South Gloucestershire:

  Downend Comprehensive School

  Technology

  Community

  1999

  Ridings High School

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Sir Bernard Lovell School

  Language

  Community

  1996

  Devon:

  Ivybridge Community College

  Sports

  Community

  1997

  Knowles Hill School

  Technology

  Foundation

  2000

  Queen Elizabeth's Community College

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  South Dartmoor Community College

  Sports

  Community

  1997

  Tavistock College

  Language

  Community

  1996

  West Exe Technology College

  Technology

  Community

  1996

  Surrey:

  All Hallows Catholic School

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  1995

  Ashcombe School

  Language

  Community

  1998

  Collingwood College

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  George Abbot School

  Arts

  Community

  2001

  Glyn Technology School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1994

  Heathside School

  Technology

  Foundation

  1995

  Magna Carta School (The)

  Technology

  Community

  2001

  St. John Baptist Catholic Comprehensive School

  Language

  Voluntary aided

  1997

  St. Paul Roman Catholic College

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  1996

  St. Peter's Catholic Comprehensive School

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  2000

  Tomlinscote School

  Language

  Community

  1996

  Warwick School (The)

  Technology

  Community

  1998

  Torbay:

  Torquay Boys' Grammar

  Language

  Foundation

  1996

  Teacher Training
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to train teachers to challenge stereotypes in the classroom; and if she will make a statement. [16863]

  Mr. Timms
  I have asked the Teacher Training Agency to consult on a revised set of requirements for initial teacher training, which include the need for trainees to demonstrate the ability to work in an inclusive way, respond to the needs of all children whatever their background, and challenge stereotypes. The revised requirements are due to take effect from September 2002.

  Out-of-School Provision
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of youth provision outside school hours; and if she will make a statement. [16874]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government have recognised that out-of-school hours provision has a key role to play in developing young people and raising their attainment. A number of initiatives are now in place. Since autumn 2000, a number of assessments have been made of this provision.

  In June 2001 we published the report of the "Study Support National Evaluation and Development Programme"—which showed that participation in voluntary out of school hours learning has a positive effect on the academic attainment, attitudes and school attendance of secondary school pupils.

  A number of pilot projects have been funded through the Department's Partners for Study Support grant scheme, for example, Cleveland Arts and Stockton Adult Education Service will work in partnership with a primary and secondary school to produce a digital film including live footage, animation, digital special effects, a sound track, creative writing and interviews by residents of the Billingham area. Middlesbrough Evening Gazette and East Cleveland Education Action Zone will work in partnership with schools to give 35 gifted and talented children in years six and nine the opportunity to experience the world of work and the opportunity to produce a real newspaper. Middlesbrough LEA are also a partner LEA with the University of the First Age National Project.

  A second evaluation of the "Playing for Success" (PfS) out of school hours study support initiative published in September 2001 has found significant gains in literacy, numeracy and information and communications technology skills among children taking part. Thirty eight of the top football clubs, including Middlesbrough FC, have so far built PfS centres within their stadiums and other sports are beginning to take part.

  The pilot summer activities for 16-year-olds programme was evaluated in autumn 2000. The evaluation provided clear indicators of what worked well and what did not, and these findings have been fed into the design of the second phase pilots. The second phase pilots are currently being evaluated. Middlesbrough ran a small-scale pilot in 2000—a small group of year 11 leavers were taken on a one week
  466W
  residential in the Lake District where they took part in a variety of adventure activities. Middlesbrough were also involved in the Tees Valley summer activities pilot in 2001.

  The National Youth Agency carries out an annual audit of England's Local Authority Youth Services on behalf of the Department for Education and Skills, and in July 2001 published a report "England's Local Authority Youth Services—The Basic Facts 1999–2000". In October 2001, following the "Transforming Youth Work" consultation on the future of the Youth Service, we announced a new vision for the Service. Full guidance on the role of the Youth Service and its relationship with the Connexions Service is to be published by the end of the year, with a draft specification for a new look youth service to be issued in the new year, and in January we will help new Connexions partnerships by publishing case studies of successful Youth Service links with Connexions.

  Female School Students
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she has taken to encourage female school students to study subjects likely to lead to high earning power. [16967]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All pupils are required to study the National Curriculum from 5 to 16, which together with other elements of the broader school curriculum, prepares pupils of both genders for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Teachers and other staff in schools offer information and advice on future options as part of their role under the Education Act 1996 to prepare pupils for adult life. The primary role of giving advice and guidance to young people considering learning options from 14 to 19 and beyond, including their implications for employment, falls to Connexions and careers services.

  The Connexions service works with young people between 13 and 19 in and out of schools and subsumes the role of the Careers service. Both the Connexions and Careers services provide support to young people by working to overcome any barriers to full achievement and provide comprehensive and impartial information, advice and guidance on learning and career options from age 14. Their staff are required to maintain a full and up-to-date appreciation of how to provide services in ways which challenge stereotyping and promote equality of opportunity, and which engender this awareness in their clients.

  An Equal Opportunities Commission Research Report "Gender Equality and the Careers Service" was published in 1999. It gave case studies of good practice and made recommendations for the enhancement of the work of Careers services in this field.

  Young People (Communication Skills)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the material produced by the(a) Children's Society's, Ask Us project and (b) Triangle and National Society for Protection of Cruelty to Children Two Way Street project concerning young people's communications skills and involvement in policy making. [16968]
  467W
  Mr. Denham
  The materials from these projects are an important contribution to our work to support Government Departments in implementing the principles in "Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People". As "Learning to Listen" makes clear, Government Departments have made a commitment to provide more opportunities for all children and young people to get involved in the design and delivery of policies and services relevant to them. Making sure disabled and other children in need are effectively involved in this work is a key priority. The Ask Us and Two Way Street materials are being included in the resource index which will accompany the "Learning to Listen" guidance (which will shortly be available over the internet at www.cypu.gov.uk).

  Yesterday I launched consultation on the Government's new strategy for children and young people, in our consultation document: "Building a Strategy for Children and Young People". I would welcome input from the projects in the consultation.

  Both the "Building a Strategy" and the "Learning to Listen" documents are available in the Library.

  Teaching Reforms
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to continue funding the reforms to the teaching profession after the initial two year period. [17133]

  Mr. Timms
  The special grant for threshold pay is already putting over £400 million per annum into the salaries of nearly 200,000 teachers. A new special grant will provide £250 million more for performance pay progression over the next two financial years. Special grants are for fixed periods. But the Government have always accepted that a new pay structure providing additional rewards for effective teachers means a substantial and permanent increase in the cost of teachers' pay. So our financial planning will continue to take account of that.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Interests
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Ministers in his Department have submitted lists of interests to the Permanent Secretary, pursuant to paragraph 115 of the Ministerial Code. [16867]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  All Ministers in this Department have complied with the requirements of paragraph 115 of the Ministerial Code.

  Civil Service
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to relax regulations prohibiting members of the senior civil service from holding public office. [16881]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to relax the restrictions relating to the involvement of members of the senior civil service in political activities. The rules are set out in the Civil Service Management Code and specify that members of the Senior Civil Service are not allowed to take part in national political activities. They may take 468W
  part in national political activities. They may take part in local political activities with the permission of their Department or agency. Civil servants are prohibited from election to Parliament by way of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

  Business Co-ordination Unit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many small and medium-sized enterprises, by region, have been assisted in meeting Government Ministers through the work of the Business Co-ordination Unit; what percentage of those meetings resulted from invitations originally refused by ministerial offices; and what information he has collated on meetings between each departmental Minister and SMEs in the last 12 months. [14884]

  Mrs. Roche
  1. Over the last 12 months the BCU has arranged 211 ministerial visits. A "visit" can be a bilateral, larger meeting, discussion group, seminar or conference involving SMEs. The number of SMEs attending these events can vary in number from one (for bilateral) to 500 (for conferences).

  2. The BCU does not keep records specifically on the number of SMEs it has arranged ministerial meetings with. The following information has been estimated based on the original invitation paperwork received from the event organisers.

  Regions

  Number of visits

  Number of SMEs attended

  Number of visits from declined invitations

  Number of SMEs from declined invitations

  London

  49

  1,683

  15

  910

  East Midlands

  37

  914

  8

  466

  East

  9

  53

  1

  10

  South West

  16

  139

  2

  30

  South East

  32

  1,020

  5

  820

  North West

  12

  493

  2

  120

  North East

  5

  600

  5

  350

  West Midlands

  33

  622

  6

  285

  Yorkshire and Humber

  16

  434

  5

  270

  Wales

  1

  20

  0

  0

  Scotland

  1

  20

  0

  0

  Total

  211

  5,998

  49 (23%)

  3,261 (54%)

  3. The majority of declined invitations tend to be for large conferences, which explains why 23 per cent. of declined invitations represents over 54 per cent. of SMEs met.

  4. The BCU does not collate or retain information exchanged at meetings between Ministers and SMEs; any relevant points made by SMEs are immediately relayed back to the appropriate Department for further consideration.

TREASURY

  NIRS2
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place legal advice on the position of the NIRS2 contract in the Library. [16723]
  469W
  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be inappropriate to place the legal advice in the Library in accordance with Exclusion 4 (Information covered by legal professional privilege) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the average loss to save as you earn schemes invested in Railtrack by employees of Railtrack since October. [16026]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is an internal company scheme.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Local Government, Transport and the Regions regarding the bid for Railtrack from WestLB. [17742]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have discussions with colleagues in other Departments on a range of subjects on a regular basis.

  EU Fraud and Waste
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response the Government have made to the EU Court of Auditors' report of 12 November on fraud and waste. [16814]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government are carefully considering the Court of Auditors' Annual Report and Statement of Assurance for the financial year 2000 and will send its detailed comments to the Commission by 20 December as part of the normal follow-up procedure, ensuring that both Houses receive an advance copy. The Government will also contribute fully to Council discussions leading to the recommendation on whether to give discharge to the Commission for the year 2000 budget at the March 2002 ECOFIN meeting.

  Share Dealings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with EU Finance Ministers in relation to the impact of respective national taxes on share dealings on the development of the single market in financial services. [15919]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor discusses a wide range of issues with other European Finance Ministers, but he has had no recent discussions with them on the issue of national taxes on share dealings, which are of course a matter for national Governments.

  Aggregates Levy
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the time scale needed by the mining and quarrying industry, after the aggregates levy legislation is enacted, to put in place the necessary financial and information systems to operate the levy; [16302]

  (2) if he will postpone implementation of the aggregates tax to take account of significant problems caused to (a) the quarry industry and (b) the rural economy. [16303]
  470W
  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregates levy was pre-announced by two years in order to give business time to adjust. The primary legislation was enacted in the Finance Act 2000. A full Regulatory Impact Assessment has been published by HM Customs and Excise and is available from their website.

  The aggregates levy will come into effect on 1 April 2002.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what areas of the aggregates levy legislation remain to be prepared; and when the process will be completed. [16301]

  Mr. Boateng
  Secondary legislation is still to be laid but will be implemented ahead of the introduction of the aggregates levy.

  Psychiatric Illness
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will receive the results of the repeat psychiatric morbidity survey conducted in 2000; and if he will publish the report. [17093]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 22 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the results of the repeat psychiatric morbidity survey conducted in 2000 (17093).
  A First Release of data from the survey entitled "Psychiatric morbidity among adults, 2000" was published by the Office for National Statistics on 9 July 2001 and is available on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk).
  The main report of the survey will be published on December 18th, 2001 and will be obtainable from The Stationery Office. A copy will also be placed in the House of Commons library. This will provide an overview of the main survey findings. A summary report will also be published and will be made available on the National Statistics website together with the Technical Report of the survey. A series of shorter reports focusing in more detail on a range of topics has also been commissioned by the Department of Health for publication over the next year.

  Suicide Statistics
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proportion of young men who commit suicide who are black or from ethnic minorities. [17088]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Oliver Heald, dated 22 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to answer your question on what assessment has been made of the proportion of young men who commit suicide who are black or from ethnic minorities (17088)
  Ethnicity is not recorded at death registration. Information collected at death registration relates to country of birth. However, country of birth would not detect the generations who are black or from ethnic minorities that were born in the UK, or those members of the white ethnic group that were born in other countries. Therefore suicide figures for ethnic groups are not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full-time, (ii) part-time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6941]

  The Prime Minister
  For information about special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave to him on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 340W.

  Information about the number of press officers working in the Number 10 Press Office from 1998 onwards is given in the table.

  Number of press officers

  19981

  8

  19991

  8

  20001

  9

  20011

  8

  1 31 March

  Information requested for the earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what recommendations he has made with regard to the timetable on which the rights of access in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will come fully into force; and if he will place a copy of these recommendations in the Library. [14834]

  The Prime Minister
  Paragraph 16 of the Ministerial Code makes clear that the internal process through which a decision has been made should not be disclosed. Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information applies.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Prime Minister what the composition and terms of reference are of the new Cabinet Committee on the preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. [18143]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to chair a new Cabinet Committee on sustainable development in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002. The composition and terms of reference of the new committee are:

  Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (MISC18) Composition

  The Deputy Prime Minister (Chair)

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  Secretary of State for International Development

  Secretary of State Trade and Industry

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

  Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  472W
  Invited to attend

  Minister of the Environment, Northern Ireland Executive

  Minister of the Environment, Scottish Executive

  Minister of the Environment, Welsh Assembly

  Terms of Reference

  "To develop, co-ordinate and deliver the Government's strategy for the World Summit on sustainable development in September 2002".

  Government Information
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to bring forward prospects to increase the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration with respect to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [16869]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister what consultations he had prior to revising the Ministerial Code in July. [16868]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministerial Code is my guidance to my Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs in order to uphold the highest standards. I decide the content of the Ministerial Code.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in meeting the public service agreement target of reducing in real terms the unit cost of an asylum appeal. [14994]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The public service agreement target is to reduce in real terms the unit cost of asylum appeal by an average of 3 per cent. per annum. This year's target figure, which excludes accommodation and overheads, is £1,025. Performance against target is properly reported upon at the year end, but current performance indicates that this target will be achieved.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on(a) the criteria for assessment of and (b) progress towards meeting the public service agreement target of an improvement in the proportion of training which contributes to improvements in job performance. [14985]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Staff training is regularly evaluated in all parts of LCD—including the Court Service. This includes an assessment by individuals and managers of how the training contributed to job performance. There are no general criteria for this assessment. The individual and manager consider whether the training met the training objectives for that individual, which vary from case to case.

  In 2000–01, evaluation showed that training contributed to an improvement in performance in 92 per cent. of trainees in LCD and 99 per cent. of trainees in the Court Service. The difference between the two figures is not regarded as significant, and probably arises

  473W
  from variations in the training events attended, some of which are necessarily more general and therefore less amenable to very specific training objectives.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the reduction of sickness absence in(a) the Public Trust Office and (b) the Court Service. [14988]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The average number of working days' sick absence per member of staff for this financial year (April 2001 to September 2001) in:(a) the Public Guardianship Office, is 9.2 days against a PSA target of 10.2 days; and (b) the Court Service, is 11.4 days against the PSA target of 8.1 days.

  Although the figure is higher than the target for the Court Service, it masks a reduction in the actual number of days of sick absence per month from 9,211 days in April to 7,625 days in September.

  A great deal of work has been undertaken in the Court Service to raise awareness of the targets and of the need to manage attendance in accordance with the best practice policies. It will however take time for this increased activity to improve attendance to have an impact on the average figures

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on performance in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 against the Public Service Agreement target of maintaining the average unit cost per court case constraint in real terms in Northern Ireland. [14916]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Northern Ireland Court Service's average unit costs, as defined by the terms set out in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review, have increased as a consequence of the implementation of an extensive modernisation programme in line with the Government modernisation agenda and the one-off costs associated with the Omagh inquest. This unit of measurement for measuring the Northern Ireland Court Service's performance was not carried forward into the SR2000 period.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the extension of the work of the Special Investigations Unit to criminal cases. [14989]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since June 1999 the work of the Special Investigations Unit has included investigations into the financial circumstances of individuals applying for or receiving publicly funded representation in criminal proceedings.

  Since April of this year, the higher criminal courts have been able to order the defendant to pay back some or all of the costs of their defence at the end of a case, usually following conviction. SIU is responsible for carrying out means assessments to inform the making of such orders when the court refers them to the Commission.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target of halving the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders. [14995]
  474W
  Mr. Wills
  This PSA target reflects the Government's Youth Justice Pledge. In 1996, dealing with a persistent young offender took an average of 142 days but figures published by my Department show that by June 2001 this had been cut to 70 days. This breakthrough was achieved through effective joint working by all the criminal justice agencies. We have now met or exceeded our target in three consecutive months: in July 2000 the figure was 71 days and in August this year the figure was 66 days.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target of increasing the proportion of(a) victims, (b) witnesses and (c) jurors who regard their experience in the criminal justice system as acceptable. [14997]

  Mr. Wills
  The 2000 British Crime Survey showed that 58 per cent. of victims were satisfied with their experience in the criminal justice system. The results of the 2001 British Crime Survey are awaited. The Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000, which was the first national survey of witnesses, showed that 75 per cent. of witnesses were very or fairly satisfied with the treatment they received. A similar survey next year will show whether the proportion of satisfied witnesses has increased. The first juror satisfaction survey, conducted in January 2000, showed that 95 per cent. of jurors were satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment by the courts. A differently constituted survey, carried out in February 2001, showed that 82 per cent. of jurors were satisfied or very satisfied. The original survey will be re-run in early 2002 to allow an accurate assessment of performance against the PSA target.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the public service agreements which apply to magistrates courts. [15035]

  Mr. Wills
  The public service agreements and service delivery agreements for Magistrates Courts Committees are set out. Other statutory performance targets and ministerial expectations supplement the PSA targets:To reduce the average waiting time for witnesses in the magistrates courts to one hour or less by March 2002 and the unnecessary attendance of witnesses in the magistrates courts by 10 per cent. over the SR2000 period
  To improve the standard by which the CJS meets the rights of defendants by achieving by 2004 100 per cent. of targets in a basket of measures as defined in the CJS Business Plan
  To reduce the time taken from first listing in the magistrates courts to sentence or other disposal for all offenders by March 2004
  To deal with 80 per cent. of youth court cases within their time targets
  Halving from 142 to 71 days by March 2002 the time taken from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders and maintaining that level thereafter
  To reduce courtroom over capacity by 10 per cent. by March 2002
  In order to improve compliance with monetary orders and the speed and effectiveness of the arrangements for bringing offenders who fail to comply with community sentences back before the courts, the lead responsibility for the execution of

  475W
  warrants transferred from the police to the magistrates courts in April 2001. Baseline data are being collected during the first year of operation and targets will be set for April 2002.
  All MCCs to produce annual reports for 2000–01 by 1 September 2001
  100 per cent. of magistrates courts have a charter in place that meets specified standards by March 2002
  All MCCs to apply in full the (regulated) performance standards covering the management assurance programme (MAP) and services to disabled court users.

  LCD and magistrates courts will also contribute towards the Criminal Justice System PSAs:
  to secure a minimum 5 percentage point improvement in the level of satisfaction of users of the justice system by 2004, including that of victim and witnesses with their treatment in the criminal justice system, and
  to improve the level of confidence in the criminal justice system by 31 March 2004, including improving that of ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target for the proportion of(a) witnesses and (b) victims giving evidence on the day that they are called in magistrates courts. [15005]

  Mr. Wills
  In support of the Public Service Agreement (as part of the common targets for Criminal Justice System agencies) the LCD Service Delivery Agreement targets are to reduce the average waiting time for witnesses in the magistrates courts to one hour or less by March 2002 and reduce the unnecessary attendance of witnesses in the magistrates courts by 10 per cent. over the SR2000 period. In the survey conducted in June 2001 in magistrates courts in England and Wales the average waiting time was one hour 22 minutes and the proportion of witnesses expected to attend who attended but did not give evidence was 51 per cent. Figures concerning victims are not recorded separately.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target of increasing the(a) number and (b) proportion of young offenders fast tracked. [14996]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's Departmental Report (the Government's Expenditure Plans 2000–01 to 2001–02) Cm 4606, presented to Parliament in April 2000 referred to an Output Performance Analysis Measure of increasing the number and proportion of young offenders fast tracked. That was in support of the Public Service Agreement target of halving the arrest to sentence time for PYOs from 142 to 71 days. That target reflected the Government's Youth Justice Pledge. Figures published by my Department show that we have now met or exceeded the target of 71 days in three consecutive months: June 2001 (70 days), July 2001 (71 days) and August 2001 (66 days).

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the baseline for the Public Service Agreement target of reducing in real terms the unit cost of cases in the Crown court. [15002]

  Mr. Wills
  The unit cost of cases in the Crown court was originally measured under the cash accounting system. The Court Service has recently moved to accruals 476W
  accounting, and a new baseline has been set as a result. Performance against this figure will be reported as part of the 2001–02 accounts production process.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the(a) baseline for and (b) redress for the failure to achieve the Public Service Agreement target in 1999–2000 of reducing the unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts. [14945]

  Mr. Wills
  The target in 1999–2000 was £118 per item of county court originating process, and the figure achieved was £137 (16 per cent. greater than target). By way of context, the unit cost measure of performance was withdrawn as a Court Service PSA target after 1999–2000 because of its limitations as a measure of efficiency, mainly because the organisation's costs are fixed and the main driver of the unit cost figure is the relatively volatile level of demand for the service.

  The reason for the under achievement is that in 1999–2000 the Court Service successfully implemented a radically different way of delivering civil justice. An assessment was made of the likely full impact on its costs and the behaviour of court users. In the event the costs of the Court Service were 6 per cent. higher than anticipated but the main cause of the increased unit cost was a 10 per cent. reduction in the level of activity. This was mainly due to court users and their advisers adjusting their activities to meet the new procedures, given the limited value of the unit cost measure, and the unique circumstances, it was accepted in the Department's review of the Court Service's performance during 1999–2000 that there had been a technical rather than substantive failure in this area.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the reason for the non-specification in the 2001 departmental report of performance indicators for the Public Service Agreement target for the percentage of non-publicly funded expenditure spent on court service headquarters and corporate services group in the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters. [14984]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This target is associated with the two preceding it in the departmental report. Like them it proved to be ambiguous and has been replaced by a series of targets which can more readily capture the Department's efficiency and value for money programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what further resources were(a) sought and (b) obtained to enable the achievement of the Public Service Agreement target on the commencement of Crown Court cases. [14998]

  Mr. Wills
  As part of the SR2000 settlement, a criminal justice unallocated reserve of £525 million was established to cover the three years of the spending review. Total funding of £10 million was sought and obtained to increase Crown Court sittings in 2001–02 from 93,000 to 100,000 days.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the cost of publicly funded criminal defence services by March 2002. [14999]
  477W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is on track to achieve stability in the cost of legally aided criminal defence services through a number of measures which will aim to control cost:

  (a) From 2 October 2000, firms were required to have a criminal category franchise in order to undertake Legal Services Commission funded criminal defence work in areas funded by the Commission ie magistrates' court work, advice and assistance and duty solicitor (criminal) work;

  (b) all magistrates' court work, advice and assistance and duty solicitor (criminal) work has been contracted since the CDS was introduced on 2 April 2001;

  (c) from 2 April 2001 only franchised firms have been able to undertake work for the CDS in the Crown court;

  (d) from April 2001 the Commission has had the authority to require Very High Cost Criminal Cases (VHCCCs) meeting the relevant criteria ie cases predicted to last more than 25 days if they proceeded to trial, or to have total defence costs of more than £150,000, to proceed by way of an Individual Case Contract (ICC) only. The intention was that by April 2002, all new very high cost cases would proceed by way of an ICC with the Commission. The LSC set up a Criminal Higher Cost Cases (CHCC) unit, with the aim of taking on some VHCCCs this year and all VHCCCs from 1 April next year. To date, 57 VHCCCs have been signed. The Commission has decided, having consulted the Department, that not all cases should be brought within the scheme from that date. The new contract arrangements aim to deliver significant benefits in ensuring that these cases are managed effectively and that the cost of them is controlled. However, implementing the regime for all cases from April would bring forward a significant amount of expenditure and it is necessary to manage this over a longer period of time by phasing the full introduction of the new arrangements. Phasing the introduction in this way will also give the Commission and the profession more time to further develop the new approach and apply the lessons already learned;

  (e) the Crown court graduated fee scheme was extended on 29 October 2001 to cover trials up to 25 days;

  (f) since 29 October 2001, both prosecution and defence advocates have been paid within the same fee structure for all Crown court trials lasting up to 25 days. Rates for an extended and unified scheme for cracked trials and guilty pleas will be introduced when the results of additional modelling and research are available;

  (g) the new regulations which came into force on 1 September 2001, control more tightly the circumstances where Queen's Counsel or more than one advocate might be allowed for the defence in Crown court cases. There has been a reduction in the use of Queen's Counsel (whether alone or with a junior) of some 50 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the reduction of courtroom over-capacity by March 2002. [15003]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Good progress is being made towards achieving the Public Service Agreement target. We are reducing over-capacity by a combination of measures. These include using surplus capacity for coroners courts, asylum and other tribunal work; reducing the number of buildings in the same city/town by facilitating joint usage of courtrooms across the estate (Crown, county and magistrates); and disposing of those courts surplus to requirements.
  478W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the failure to achieve the Public Service Agreement target for the average cost of an act of advice and assistance in criminal cases. [15001]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As of 31 December 2000 actual achievement was £74 against a published target of £71. The main reason why the target was not achieved was because solicitors were spending, on average, more time advising their clients than in previous years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Public Service Agreement targets for 2001 to 2004 support the Government's objectives in relation to family law. [15115]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has as its fifth strategic objective:"To improve the lives of children and help build and sustain strong families through providing a legal and procedural framework to sustain family relationships, and, when they do break down, to resolve disputes with the least distress to those affected, especially the most vulnerable".

  This objective is supported by Public Service Agreement target 8:
  "To increase continued contact between children and the non-resident parent after a family breakdown, where this is in the best interests of the child".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the use of(a) BACS to achieve value for money in the payment of invoices and (b) electronic commerce. [14990]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In October 2001 the Department achieved 57 per cent. of expenditure payments by BACS. This performance excludes any payments which have been made locally by the Courts. The use of BACS continues to be monitored by the Department on a monthly basis.

  The Department monitors the percentage volume of low level transactions with a view to achieving the e-commerce target. For the last two quarters the Department achieved the following performance:

  January to March 2001: 24.8 per cent.

  April to June 2001: 35.6 per cent.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the proportion of ministerial and other departmental correspondence answered within the target deadline. [14986]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department is making good progress against its PSA targets on correspondence. For the first six months of the target period (April to October 2001) the Department exceeded its target of replying to 80 per cent. of public correspondence within 15 working days, achieving a figure of 85 per cent. For ministerial correspondence over the same period, 77 per cent. of responses were made within the 20 working day target, with on-going efforts being made to meet the 85 per cent. PSA target by the end of the period.
  479W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the series of targets which have replaced the Public Service Agreement target of(a) three per cent. annual efficiency gains and (h) a reduction in support costs as a proportion of running costs. [14993]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The full range of the Department's current Public Service Agreement targets and Service Delivery Agreement targets is published on the Department's website. A large number of the targets are relevant to the improvement of Departmental efficiency. In particular, Service Delivery Agreement targets 46–53 demonstrate our commitment to improving value for money.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target of contracting for civil and family legal services solely with quality-assured providers setting out the(a) costs and (b) savings entailed. [15007]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  From 1 April 2001, all legal help and representation in publicly funded civil and family work has been placed under contract with quality assured providers. On 1 November 2001, there were 4,972 contracts with solicitors' firms and 381 contracts with not-for-profit organisations. As of 31 December 2000, the average cost per civil bill adjusted for changes in case mix decreased from a published target of £2,151 to an actual achievement of £2,069.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the failure to achieve the Public Service Agreement target for the average cost of the duty solicitor scheme per person assisted. [15000]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As of 31 December 2000 actual achievement was £150 against a published target of £142. Achievement of the target was mainly affected by the Narey reforms to speed up disposal of cases in the magistrates courts. These reforms have resulted in an increase in cases dealt with under the Court Duty Solicitor Scheme instead of a full legal aid order.

  The average cost of "Narey" representation was higher than the historical average for duty solicitor work.

  Energy Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the savings were in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 from energy efficiency in her Department. [14922]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest figures for 1998–99 were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in response to a question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 12 December 2000. Those for 1999–2000 will be included in Part 2 of the Third Annual Report on Greening Government due to be published on 27 November. The figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Mediation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on 480W
  the (a) cost and (b) savings in 2000–01 of the pilot scheme at Leeds combined court offering mediation to all parties in defended cases. [15032]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The pilot scheme based at Leeds combined court was managed in a way that was cost neutral for the Court Service. The evaluation of the scheme, undertaken by Leeds Metropolitan university, found that most parties that responded to the survey thought that the mediation had saved them money on the total potential costs of resolving the dispute. However, take-up of the scheme was low, with only 15 mediation appointments taking place between 1 July 2000 and 31 August 2001.

  Criminal Justice Strategy Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost is in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of the Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees. [15034]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total cost of the 42 Area Criminal Justice Strategy Committees in the financial year 2000–01 was approximately £366,000. This comprises the salary costs of the National Co-ordinator, nine full-time equivalent Area Co-ordinator posts and their travel expenses. In addition, six Regional Conferences were held during the year for members of the Area Committees.

  In the current financial year, the cost is approximately £1.4 million which includes the salaries and expenses mentioned, local conferences arranged by the Area Committees, and £1 million which was earmarked for the Area Committees from the Criminal Justice Reserve for projects aimed at improving joined-up working among the local criminal justice agencies.

  Circuits for Part 51 Work
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional resources, referred to on page 10 of the departmental report 2001, have been directed to the circuits for Part 51 work. [14982]

  Mr. Wills
  An additional £1 million was allocated to the circuits during the 2000–01 financial year to deal with Part 51 work.

  Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was in 2000–01 of absence through sickness in her Department. [15030]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The salary cost of sickness absence in the Lord Chancellor's Department (including the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office) for 2000–01 is estimated as £8,757,000. This is based on the average number of working days lost through sick absence per person per annum, as a percentage of total working days per annum, multiplied by the total salary bill.

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will publish the unqualified audit opinion that was obtained on her Department's 1999–2000 resource accounts. [14923]
  481W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's 1999–2000 resource accounts received a qualified audit opinion. The Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons is reproduced in the Lord Chancellor's Department Resource Accounts 1999–2000, which was published in March 2001 by the Stationery Office (Cm 5056).

  "Criminal Justice Working Together"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what savings have been achieved in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 as a result of her Department's response to the National Audit Office report, "Criminal Justice Working Together". [14926]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Audit Office report made a number of recommendations on joint working which we welcomed. My Department, in co-operation with the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service, is pursuing a programme to implement those recommendations and others to improve joint working in the Criminal Justice process. Information is not specifically collected on savings arising from the individual recommendations in the NAO report.

  Capital Grants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much her Department gave in capital grants to the private sector in(a) 1998–99 (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02; and if he will specify the purposes for which they were made. [14927]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department did not make any capital grants to the private sector in any of those years.

  Unallocated Reserve
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the initiatives funded from the unallocated reserve established for that purpose. [14991]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No reserve has been specifically created for initiatives in my Department. For 2001–02, my Department received £39.49 million from the Criminal Justice System Reserve to cover a number of 482W
  criminal justice initiatives including increased workload and improving timeliness in the courts, better service to victims and witnesses and improving fine enforcement. In addition a further £1 million has been allocated for service to victims in 2002–03.

  Allocations from the Reserve require the joint agreement of the Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General prior to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury releasing the money from the Reserve. Further allocations for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are being considered.

  Cost Recovery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards his Department's objective of achieving full cost recovery in the civil courts. [14928]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor announced in another place on 19 November 1998' that charging for civil court fees should not prevent access to justice; that protection should be provided for litigants of modest means; but litigants should not expect the taxpayer to pay for court services if they could afford to do so themselves. My Department is currently working on a major programme to establish the right balance between those principals in order to achieve its objective of full cost recovery in the civil courts.

  1 Written answer in response to a question [HL 3925] from Lord Burlison.

  Dispute Resolution Methods
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many copies of her Department's information booklet on dispute resolution methods were issued in 2000–01; and what the cost was of its publication. [15033]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  During the period 2000–01 the booklets were supplied on a demand-led basis, when requested by local courts and advice agencies and some individuals. Although no detailed record of the numbers supplied in this period was kept, the information that is held shows that the total number for the year would have been in excess of 10,000. The booklets were produced using my Department's internal printing services. We estimate the cost of producing 10,000 copies of the booklet was £2,650.00.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Oxford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Phonics
Baroness Brigstockeasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the recent Ofsted paper on the teaching of phonics, what further action they will take to secure the proper teaching of phonics in primary schools and teacher training colleges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, Ofsted reported last month that the amount of phonics teaching had increased substantially since the implementation of the national literacy strategy in 1998. We have made excellent progress, but there is still much more to do. We are continuing to provide a comprehensive programme of training and support to teachers and to teacher trainers on phonics, which is critical to children's early literacy.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I agree that a start has been made, but I hope that she agrees that many of the comments in the Ofsted report are still worrying. Does she have any plans for improving the teaching of phonics, which are acknowledged to help enormously with the learning of reading and writing, particularly for year 3—the eight and nine year-olds—where the inspectors found so many lessons to be less than satisfactory?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some excellent points. It is worth pointing out that in five out of six schools the teaching of phonics in years 1 and 2 was considered by Ofsted to be satisfactory, which I interpret to mean fine. The teaching of phonics is also good in the majority of reception classes. The noble Baroness pointed out that the teaching of phonics in years 3 and 4 is not so obvious. In a sense, that does not surprise us, because if a good grounding has been made, we do not expect every lesson to put the same emphasis on phonics as was the case when the children were younger. However, we have trained all reception and year I teachers in phonics and we continue to give teacher trainers professional development in phonics. We have endeavoured to spend good resources this year to ensure that that happens. Last year, we trained 38,000 primary teachers in phonics teaching.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, given the tribute that the excellent Ofsted report, mentioned by the noble
1236
Baroness, paid to the role of phonics in the overall success of the national literacy strategy, which has raised the achievement of many thousands of children of all ages in primary schools, will the Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers and classroom assistants who are working in such effective partnership to raise standards across the country?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that, as my noble friend has said, the whole House will wish to congratulate teachers on the excellent work that they do and to pay full recognition to the role of classroom assistants, who play a fantastic part in the development of children's education. We have seen significant progress in reading, writing and spelling over the past four years. The number of seven year-olds achieving the expected level in reading has gone up from 80 to 84 per cent. In spelling, the figures have gone up from 62 to 75 per cent.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are as many factions in the teaching of reading as there are among the Northern Alliance? Does she also agree that different children learn to read in different ways? While it may be good to start off with a good grounding in phonics in the first two years in primary school, it is important for teachers to be aware of and trained in other methods of teaching reading so that they may respond to individual needs.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have no information about the factions in the Northern Alliance, but I understand the noble Baroness's point, which is a good one. That is why we put the emphasis on phonics teaching in reception and year 1, but we recognise that by years 3 and 4 teachers are diversifying their strategies. We believe that phonics provide a good grounding. The proof is in the results of those schools that put an emphasis on phonics in the early years. However, we have fantastic teachers and we recognise that they develop strategies that are appropriate to their classes and to individual children as they get older.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister define phonics for us and tell us how they are used? I do not know exactly what she is talking about.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that I have the time to answer that question properly, but phonics are essentially about groups of sounds that are put together. My guess is that the noble Baroness was taught phonics, because the method has been used over the years, though it was felt to have been lost along the way in the teaching of children. It is about groups of sound coming together so that children recognise the sound and attempt to turn that into writing. It is a simple and basic way of exploring a language, but it is very important for small children, who get confidence in language as a result.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the important thing is that the classes are

1237
taught by a fully qualified teacher who knows the children, and preferably not a supply teacher? Will she assure us that however many classroom assistants the Government employ, classes of that age will always be supervised by a fully qualified teacher, who is in a position to make a judgment between the different reading schemes available?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is very important that teachers teach. The purpose of classroom assistants is to support them in that role and to do some of the work that teachers unnecessarily do or feel that they have to do because they do not have enough support. Classroom assistants can work with groups of children under the supervision of a qualified teacher. That is applicable to all years. It is important that we enjoy a range of adults coming into our schools to support teachers. We must free teachers to teach.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that some of us never lost our support for the teaching of phonics? There was a movement in education that lasted throughout the 1960s and 1970s which decided that creativity was more important than phonics. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that a great deal of damage was done to young people at that time. It is all very well to be creative, but unless children understand the fundamentals of reading and writing, creativity has no home.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important to get a balance in education. We want children to be creative and to explore and express themselves, but the noble Baroness is right about the basics—hence the national literacy strategy.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, have the improvements among children whose first language is not English mirrored those among English-speaking children since the introduction of the literacy strategy?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give exact figures. I understand that the pattern is varied, but with good teaching and good support, children for whom English is a second language are doing very well. However, that is not universal. As noble Lords are fully aware, there is more to do.

Foot and Mouth
3.8 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their decision not to give evidence to the Devon foot and mouth inquiry was influenced by the number of permanent staff at their Exeter office who have been suspended since August 2001.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there is no connection whatsoever.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is there a connection between trying to avoid answering questions on animal welfare, trying to avoid justifying the abuse of the Official Secrets Act with which farmers were threatened if they discussed their compensation payments, and trying to make sure that there is a barrier against the possibility of any public inquiry, which would see the Prime Minister being cross-examined for his sorry role in this whole disgusting saga?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said the other day, I really am getting fed up with this. There is no doubt that I and my predecessors at this Dispatch Box have frequently answered every question that has been put to us on foot and mouth. We have done so in depth, in writing and orally. The same applies to my colleagues and their predecessors in another place. We are continuing to supply information to everyone who asks for it. We were dealing with an extremely fraught situation at the beginning of the disease in particular and there were problems of communication, which we have acknowledged. We have set up an independent inquiry which will be open and will look into all the facts. The noble Earl is welcome to contribute to that, but any further imputation in the House that the Government are trying to cover something up deserves the contempt of this House.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I have a letter in my hand dated 18th November 2001, purporting—I cannot believe that it really comes from DEFRA—to be from a lady called Hazel Harris of the Newcastle Disease Emergency Control Centre. That letter is being sent out to farmers who are in the early stages of the cull. It asks them to produce a day-by-day diary of what happens during the cleaning and disinfection period. Farmers are being asked fraudulently to produce a log in order that the United Kingdom Government may claim back from the European Union up to 60 per cent of the costs incurred as a result of foot and mouth disease. Is it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to perpetrate a fraud on EU funds?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am extremely surprised by that question from the noble Countess. Obviously I have not had sight of that letter. However, an EU audit investigation is examining, and rightly so, payments made in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak because the EU is required to repay the UK Government some of the money which went towards compensation. In order for the investigation to ensure that compensation was paid properly, it requires some facts. No doubt the letter is designed to ensure that it receives those facts. The EU Commission is carrying out a proper audit, which normally this House seeks and demands. I do not believe that there is anything improper in this whatsoever.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that he is not the only person to become slightly irritated by the quality of some of the comments made in your Lordships' House on this issue? Does he agree

1239
that, at times, it felt as though the public inquiry was going on during the outbreak and not after it? So far as I know, no former Minister has refused to give evidence to any inquiry; and, if one is not invited, it is rather difficult so to do.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House recognises the contribution made by my noble friend to the understanding of the epidemic during those extremely difficult early months. I underline the point that the imputation that previous Ministers and officials who dealt with this matter are in any way likely to refuse the inquiry's request to give information is both a calumny on them and an absurdity. We are all looking for the truth. We are all looking for ways in which we can deal with such a situation better in the future and at how we can learn the lessons of the outbreak. The continual regurgitation of rumours and innuendoes, which, I regret to say, some Members of this House go in for, does not help that quest for the truth.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I regret that I must return to this issue. I want the Minister to explain why the reason given at the beginning for there being no public inquiry was that such an inquiry would take a long time. Yesterday, the noble Lord said that the independent inquiries will not report until the middle of next year. Therefore, the time from the inquiries being set up to their being due to report appears to be at least nine months. If that is so, I believe that the Minister would accept that there was enough time for there to have been a strictly time-limited public inquiry. Such an inquiry would have quelled all the innuendoes because it would have dispelled the rumours and extracted all the facts. Was the length of time an inquiry would have taken the only reason why we are not having one?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are having open and independent inquiries—one conducted by Dr Anderson and one by the Royal Society. I believe that the noble Baroness misremembers. The reason for not starting an inquiry while the disease was continuing was so as not to divert from fighting the disease people whose evidence would be vital. That has remained the case until very recently. We always said that the inquiries would not start until the end of the disease was in sight. It is hoped that we are now close to that point. Therefore, Dr Anderson will begin his inquiry, which is likely to last for about six months.
A full public inquiry of the kind demanded by various sides of this House would almost certainly last three or four times as long. Noble Lords will recall that the Phillips inquiry into BSE, which, in a sense, involved far fewer cases, lasted for nearly four years. It is important that we learn the lessons thoroughly and that we learn them fast and at least expense. That is why we have chosen—I consider it to be a defensible position—not to go down the road of a quasi-judicial public inquiry. This inquiry is designed to get at the truth, and rapidly.
Baroness By ford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further. I believe that we could save his
1240
irritation if the Government would give way and hold a public inquiry. Then the rumours would go away. I return to my noble friend's Question. It dealt with the dismissal of staff, but I do not believe that the Minister answered it adequately. Perhaps he can tell the House how many of the 18 members of staff who were suspended in August are still at work and how many have been dismissed; how far the inquiries have gone; how many of those 18 members of staff were dealing directly with foot and mouth disease; and how many of the total number staff at the Exeter office were doing so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall decline to give that information. If the noble Baroness had any notion of personnel relations, she would not ask it; nor would the noble Earl. We are talking about members of staff who have been suspended pending inquiries. Were I to give details of those staff and of their disposition during the course of this epidemic, those inquiries would be severely prejudiced. I do not believe that it is the job of Ministers to do that to members of their staff.
To answer one of the noble Baroness's points—and only one—those inquiries are still continuing. Therefore, at this point there have been no dismissals. The staff will remain suspended until the inquiries are completed. I should prefer that we did not have to debate such issues on the Floor of this House. I certainly do not believe that it is the job of Ministers to do so and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have spent quite a long period of time on that Question.

Higher Education Staff: Equal Opportunities
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress made by universities towards combating the discrimination against women and ethnic minorities in pay and promotions revealed by the Bett report.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the higher education funding councils and representative bodies have established an Equality Challenge Unit to promote equal opportunities among higher education staff. Over the three years to 2003–04 the Government have made available a total of £330 million in England to support the human resource strategies drawn up by each higher education institution, including measures to promote equal opportunities.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, she did not answer the Question that I asked. As she will be aware, the Bett report came out two years ago in 1999 and was based on data up to 1997. The most recent data available, which take us up to the end of the academic year 1999–2000, indicate that the gap between average male and average female pay has increased by 1 per cent. In some institutions—for example, St George's Hospital Medical School and the London Business School—the gap is greater than 33 per cent. Does the Minister consider that, 40 years on from the Equal Pay Act, such differentials are reasonable? Does she believe that universities have done enough in the past two years to put their houses in order?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am from the school of encouragement to all organisations which wish to develop strategies. Over the past 40 years I should like to have seen many organisations exercise greater equal opportunity policies. Noble Lords may know of some. Therefore, I recognise what the noble Baroness says and I recognise her frustration in saying it. However, I believe that we must look at the position that universities are prepared to be in now and at the way forward. Universities appear to have decided to tackle some serious issues in relation to equal opportunities. The Government are very happy to support them in doing so.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I express my pleasure at the noble Baroness's appreciation of the work of the Equality Challenge Unit, which is certainly addressing these issues. I declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. I also remind the Minister that estimates based on the Bett report indicate that by 2005 the cost of modernising pay structures will be approximately £480 million a year. Does the Minister agree that extra public investment is necessary to enable the higher education sector fully to address these vital human resource issues?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, these are, indeed, vital human resource issues. It will be for the Comprehensive Spending Review to determine whether extra public investment will be made available. I am very happy—although I am sure that it will not be necessary—to bring this matter to the attention of my honourable friend Margaret Hodge, who is the Minister responsible. Of the additional moneys that have been made available, it is my understanding that 28 per cent of funds have been allocated to recruitment and retention, 23 per cent to staff development and 12 per cent to equal opportunities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that each time the Bett report comes up, the Government have said from the Front Bench that it is a matter for further and higher education? It is a matter for those sectors only because the money comes from the Government and their capacity to respond to the report comes from the Government. On the
1242
situation last year, we were told that the matter would be dealt with in the Comprehensive Spending Review, but it was not. What confidence do we have that it will be dealt with in this year's Comprehensive Spending Review?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness is right to suggest that I would eventually have said that the Bett report is for higher education institutions and not for the Government. However, she raised an important point. This matter is about the relationship between higher education and government. In the course of the review of student tuition, the Government are keen to examine that. There are many representatives from the higher education sector who can bring far more knowledge and understanding to this debate than I can. I recognise that that is a fundamental part of the matter. The Government are committed to equal opportunities and want higher education institutions to pursue those policies.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for the discrimination that was exposed by the Bett report— and by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—was because too much personnel management in the university sector was unprofessional and, to put it bluntly, based on the old-boy network? Is she now confident that universities have put their houses in order and that high quality, professional personnel management is now the norm?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know whether I can say that with great confidence—but only because I do not have the relevant information with me. I am sure that many universities have moved forward, but the noble Baroness could doubtless find examples in which that is not the case. We point out that in terms of equal opportunities there is often a correlation with leadership. We need to examine the fact that none of the vice-chancellors or principals in HE is from an ethnic minority background, that seven heads of the 37 HE colleges are women and that seven of the 71 vice-chancellors are women. In a sense, equal opportunities start from the top.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I must declare an interest—I chaired the Hansard Society commission on equal opportunities some 10 years ago, in which we paid particular attention to the inadequacies of universities on the equal opportunities front. Does the Minister agree that the governing bodies of universities have an important role to play in ensuring that full equal opportunities policies, in relation to pay and opportunities, are carried forward?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to agree with the noble Baroness, who—I am sure that all noble Lords will agree—has done a huge amount with regard to equal opportunities. It has been a privilege to know her.

1243
I agree that the matter that the noble Baroness raised is to some extent a subject for the governing bodies of, in this case, universities; similar considerations apply to other organisations. As I said, the effort starts, in a sense, at the top in that the commitment needs to be there. I am sure that noble Lords are keen to see universities move ahead with regard to the progression of women. Issues involving inequality of pay arise because women are simply not getting into senior management positions.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, does the Minister agree that another important report—the Bett report—has once again failed the black community? Does she agree that it is important to have some mechanism to ensure that race is included in discussions on equal opportunities? Anecdotal evidence is not enough; we need empirical data.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the latest information that I have is that 10 per cent of HE staff did not give information to the relevant higher education statistical organisation and that, of the rest, 95.31 per cent were white, 0.31 were black Caribbean, 0.27 were black African, 0.17 were classified as black other and 1 per cent were Indian. Those are very low figures and my noble friend makes an important point.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are ready for the next Question.

Gibraltar
3.24 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have drawn from the meeting to discuss Gibraltar between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister on 20th November.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, following their meeting in Barcelona on 20th November, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister issued a joint press communiqué. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Government will pursue dialogue with Spain under the Brussels Process, which is aimed at building a secure, stable and prosperous future and a modern sustainable status for Gibraltar.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the Government provide the welcome for Mr Caruana to play a full part in all discussions on the future of Gibraltar? Will they also give an assurance that no changes of any kind will be made without the full agreement of the people of Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if the noble Lord has not yet had an opportunity to examine the communiqué, I point out what it says on his first point. It states: "We"—that is, both governments—
"agreed that the Government of Gibraltar had a very important contribution to make to our discussions. Gibraltar's voice should be heard. We reiterated the invitation which we issued to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar"—
that is, Mr Caruana—
"when we met in London on 26th July to attend future Brussels Process Ministerial meetings".
Mr Caruana has been invited, and that invitation was made clear again in the communiqué. I remind the noble Lord that, as I hope I made clear in my Answer, these discussions are taking place under the Brussels Process. The noble Lord will know that the Brussels Process makes direct reference to the 1969 constitutional position, which is that there will be no changes in sovereignty issues without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is right for the talks to take place and for the restrictions that Spain has imposed on Gibraltar to be lifted. If a referendum takes place, will it be binding on the British and Spanish governments? If it is not binding on the Spanish Government, will we defend the interests of the citizens of Gibraltar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I go back to the question of the auspices under which these discussions are taking place; that is, the Brussels Process. The UK and Spanish governments are committed to that. I remind my noble friend that the Brussels Process said that the British Government will fully maintain their commitment to honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. That preamble states that we will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The British Government are unequivocally committed in that regard and the Spanish Government are committed to a process that recognises the United Kingdom's position.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the long-term interests of the people of Gibraltar, of the substantial British population who live in Spain and of Britain and Spain as a whole are served by a settlement that is agreed by all parties?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, indeed I do. There are several important issues to be discussed in this context—not solely the sovereignty issue, although I accept that that will inevitably excite most attention. Other important issues include the economy, culture, tourism, aviation, military matters and the environment. In their own ways, all of those issues have caused much difficulty for the people in Gibraltar and they need to be resolved.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Government allow the people of Gibraltar—1 have

1245
read the communiqué— an independent voice in the discussions and not simply present them with a done deal at the end for their opinion? If Spain intends to be rather more neighbourly to Gibraltar, as some reports suggest, will the Minister confirm that Spain will recognise the international dialling code of Gibraltar rather than insist on all telephone calls being rerouted through Spain?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, he will know, having read the communiqué, that issues about the telephone system are still under discussion. He will know that more telephone lines—a further 70,000—are under discussion, which would be a welcome addition. That is a continuing discussion which we hope will be resolved.
On the question of Mr Caruana's participation, the issue, as I understand it, is that Mr Caruana has not so far felt able to accept the invitation because he has argued that he wants nothing to be agreed without his explicit agreement on each individual item. As I understand it, however, Mr Caruana said that he does not want a veto. I hope that that difficulty can be sorted out. We need Mr Caruana in these discussions. He has a very important contribution to make. It is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar that he does so.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the architects of the Brussels Process, which was built upon the foundations laid by the noble Lords, Lord Owen, Lord Carrington and Lord Pym. Does the Minister welcome the resumption of negotiations? Does she agree that the presence of Mr Caruana, for the reasons that she has stated, would make an enormously useful contribution to successful progress? Does she also agree that it is important that the Spaniards understand, as increasingly they do, that they must play their part in persuading the people of Gibraltar that a settlement along the lines sought is to be greatly desired from every point of view?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that the Spanish Government have an enormously important part to play in this matter. It is important to raise the level of confidence of the people of Gibraltar in relation to Spain's commitment to the process. I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that we are building on the foundations laid by a Labour government in 1969 and by his government, a Conservative government, in 1984. When launching the discussions we have drawn on both the convention and the Brussels Process.

Business of the House: Human Reproductive Cloning Bill
3.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
1246
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on the same day.) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill to be taken through all its stages that day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Office of Communications Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Office of Communications]:.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out "staff— and insert "executive".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 to 73, 76, 77, 80 to 83, 85, 87 and 88. I apologise for that mouthful. I also apologise for my voice and for the voice of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We have both succumbed to the same dreaded lurgy. We shall be playing for sympathy this afternoon and shall speak quite briefly to ensure that we can continue to speak until the end of this Report stage.
In Committee I indicated that we would be prepared to reconsider the terms "staff member" and "non-staff member" used in the Bill. The series of amendments tabled by the Government changes the terminology throughout the Bill from "staff member" to "executive member" and from "non-staff member" to "non-executive member".
As I said in Committee, the use of the term "director" was not considered appropriate for a body such as Ofcom, where the organisation is embodied by its membership. Therefore, we have retained the use of the term "member", but we have distinguished between those members who are employees of Ofcom and those who are not by using the more familiar terms "executive member" and "non-executive member" respectively. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this change to the Bill. It is flattering, even embarrassing, that my gentle probing of the matter in Committee has prompted such largesse. I make it a full pack of cards, excluding jokers—52 amendments. I am most grateful and I hope that the noble Baroness shakes off her lurgy as soon as possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 6:
Page 1, line 12, leave out "staff" and insert "executive"
Page 1. line 18, leave out "staff" and insert "executive"

1247
Page 2, line 1 leave out -staff' and insert "executive"
Page 2, line 5, leave out "staff" and insert "executive"
Page 2, line 7. leave out -staff" and insert "executive".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 2 [Initial function of OFCOM]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 32, leave out "both".
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 17, 18, 26 and 28 standing in my name. This group is not quite such a formidable battery of amendments as the previous group, but the objective behind it is simple. That objective is to keep our options open in relation to the communications Bill on whether the BBC should be regulated by Ofcom wholly or merely in part.
The practical effect of the amendments is that they place a duty upon the BBC to prepare plans for the regulatory functions of the Board of Governors to be brought wholly within Ofcom. They also put a duty on Ofcom to co-operate with the BBC for the same purpose. Without these amendments there is no mention of the BBC in this paving Bill.
Clause 2(1) gives Ofcom the function to do just about anything that it considers appropriate for implementing or modifying proposals covering regulation. But the definition in Clause 5 of "existing regulator" makes no mention of the regulatory function of the BBC governors.
I want to make it clear from the start that I do not want to abolish the BBC Board of Governors—far from it. It has and, in the future, it will continue to have a valuable role to play if Parliament decides that BBC regulation should come wholly within Ofcom. The amendments do not change the status of the BBC Board of Governors. They do not threaten the independence of the BBC.
Whether it is right to bring the BBC fully within Ofcom, of course, cannot be decided today. That will be determined when we debate the provisions of the communications Bill itself. However, Parliament's opportunity to make that decision will be impaired unless we take steps, in this Bill, to ensure that the BBC is ready to join up fully to Ofcom.
If the BBC is left out of the loop now, I believe that, when we deal with the communications Bill, it will be too late to bring the BBC fully within Ofcom if that is Parliament's wish. Ofcom's working culture will be established in its transitionary phase without the benefit of full BBC input.
The Government have tried to rebut my arguments by adopting what appear to be two rather contradictory positions. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the provisions of Clause 2(3)(a) allowed the Secretary of State to bring the BBC within Ofcom at some later unspecified date if she so wished. But that is not an adequate answer to this problem. It creates an uncertainty that I believe is
1248
unacceptable. When will the Government decide to bring the BBC fully within the fold? This year, next year, sometime, perhaps never?
We do not know when the draft Bill will be published, let alone the real communications Bill. The transitional Ofcom may well be into maturity by the time Parliament has the opportunity to consider the BBC's position in the communications Bill The indications given so far by the Government are that they will not even consider that until charter review, if then.
The second, slightly different position was explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee. The Minister argued that my amendment should not be pursued because the Government have already made a clear statement in the White Paper as to why they would not allow the BBC to be fully within Ofcom. So, in essence, it appeared that I was wasting my time because by the time we get to the communications Bill the Government will already have made up their mind on behalf of Parliament on this matter.
I remain convinced that the shadow Ofcom, this paving Ofcom, should not be set up in such a way that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for Parliament to bring the BBC wholly within Ofcom in two or three years' time or whenever the communications Bill is implemented. The culture of Ofcom will have been set without the full input of the BBC and the problem will be even worse if we are forced to wait until charter review to make that change. The debate needs to start now.
It is illogical to establish a single converged regulator and then to exclude from its remit services that represent a major part of broadcast radio and television. The Government have often said that their aim is to create a single regulator for the communications sector. But in reality, as the Bill stands, there will continue to be two broadcasting regulators—Ofcom and the BBC Board of Governors. The National Consumer Council points out that,
"retaining two disconnected streams of regulation is not in the consumer interest".
That could lead to messy turf wars between Ofcom and the BBC governors which would lead to chaos and confusion.
I was interested to note that support for bringing the BBC's regulation wholly within Ofcom recently came from an unexpected source. In a Question to the Government in another place on 5th November the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right honourable Chris Smith, tried to encourage the Government to look favourably at this issue. I welcome his conversion.
At Second Reading some noble Lords argued that the BBC is different from other broadcasters and therefore should be left alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, put the matter in a nutshell when she said that,
"the BBC is different … from … [other] broadcasters because its sole role is public service [broadcasting]".—[Official Report, 15/10/01; col. 442.]

1249
I recognise that there is a difference from other broadcasters in the constitution and remit of the BBC. Therefore, I have always treated it differently in my amendments. But the BBC does not always act differently. Therein lies a problem of its own creation. Its determination to chase ratings often makes it look too much like other broadcasters to members of the public.
An illuminating example is some good broadcasting carried out by the BBC last Christmas. I thoroughly enjoyed it. BBC radio decided to broadcast non-stop a Harry Potter book. Before it could do that, it had to buy the company—Cover to Cover—which owned the rights to the audio tapes. That was a good example of successful, aggressive commercialism. But it makes one wonder how the BBC differentiates itself from other commercial broadcasters.
Some noble Lords have questioned whether or not Ofcom is competent to take over all the regulatory functions from the BBC governors. One asks: why not? Surely, Ofcom must have the necessary expertise to take the decisions required, bearing in mind the different needs and status of different service providers. If it does not have that competence, it will not be competent to regulate other public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4 and those outside public service broadcasting altogether.
Either the Secretary of State has confidence in Ofcom or she does not. If she does not, why is she going to the trouble of bringing forward this piece of legislation? If she does have confidence in Ofcom to do the job properly, surely the suspicion must be that she wants to control the political direction of the BBC to a greater level than would be achievable via an independent regulatory body.
I shall briefly run through the technical effect of each amendment. Amendments No. 7, 8 and 9 seek to amend Clause 2 so that the BBC is named as one of the organisations with which Ofcom shall cooperate. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 seek to amend Clause 3 to impose a duty on the BBC to co-operate with Ofcom to develop proposals for the transfer of the BBC governors' regulatory functions to Ofcom. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 should be described as consequential.
My amendments offer a simple, fair and practical way to ensure that this paving Bill does not leave the BBC behind—half in and half out of Ofcom. It will ensure that Parliament can make its decisions about the BBC in the communications Bill unfettered. It is a matter of keeping our options open. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we have a certain amount of sympathy with some of the sentiments behind the amendment, but we cannot support it. We cannot support it because it takes us far too far down the road. The Bill is not the right place to make decisions of this kind. I do not seek to criticise the Bill. It is called a paving Bill. That is an anomaly in itself as it is not a real paving Bill. The Bill sets out a structure.
1250
The noble Baroness seeks to put the BBC and the Government in a position in which neither of them wants to be nor should be. When we are further down the road after the normal periods of consultation—they will be long periods of consultation—we may change our view.
On these Benches our view is that the BBC is in a particular position. One may express irritation at the BBC as one does at many large and unwieldy institutions. But, nevertheless, it is the template of quality broadcasting in this country. It is different from the commercial broadcasters. Its regulation is and always has been different in character. That difference is likely to continue for some length of time. To what measure will become clear after consultation.
Having said that, although we sympathise with what is, in essence, a sensible suggestion that the BBC should make preparations, that should not be on the face of the Bill. If the BBC has any sense it will be making preparations. We shall be in the middle of the discussions to find out whether or not there is merit in the BBC becoming part of this larger regulatory body.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, before the Minister replies, she may find it helpful to accept Amendment No. 27 standing in my name. The amendment is policy neutral. Unlike the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, it does not commit the BBC to doing things at this stage. It simply lists the BBC Board of Governors as one of the regulators. It does not take the Government any further than they have said they will go at the moment. On the other hand, if the Government change their mind, as T believe they will, and bring the BBC more fully under Ofcom, it will make the change less apparent in that a step will have already been taken.
I use the word "apparent" advisedly. In previous debates the Minister and my noble friend Lord McIntosh have pointed out that the White Paper provides for the BBC to be "fully under Ofcom" as regards tier one, "virtually fully under Ofcom" as regards tier two with the single and, in my view, wholly inappropriate exception of impartiality. The idea that the Secretary of State of a government should be the backstop in deciding whether the BBC is impartial strikes me as ludicrous. Anyway, it is broadly under Ofcom. Even under Clause 3, Ofcom will comment on the public service statements of all the public service broadcasters, including the BBC.
It would do a great deal to remove the misapprehension that the BBC somehow lies wholly outwith Ofcom if the Minister were able to accept my amendment which simply lists the BBC as one of the regulators in the Bill.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I declare an interest, as I did on the previous occasion when we debated the Bill, as chairman of HTV. The immediate answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is that the Bill deals with the setting up of an organisation that is preparing the way to be a regulator of commercial

1251
activities. There is a serious danger that if it does not expect to regulate the BBC that that structure will initially be prepared in an inadequate way.
Like my noble friend, I am not in any way attempting to abolish the BBC Board of Governors. I am conscious of the fact that to alter the existing arrangements and to change the BBC Charter before the year 2006 would be in any case an impossible task. I am one of those who has no great desire to see the new body interfere with the content of programmes. I am a believer in light regulation. We must maintain certain basic standards as the ITC has done successfully in the commercial sector. But I am horrified at the thought that there may be a "contents" board, encouraged by a number of Members of Parliament, in contact with correspondents and constituents, wanting to manage programmes. I am not dealing with those matters. My concern is primarily about the BBC's involvement in commercial activities.
We have seen elsewhere that regulators can take actions which often have devastating consequences for the organisations they regulate. We hear much talk about level playing fields. In the sense that the playing fields are not bumpy, regulators achieve that. But they seem often to tip up the playing field so that those on it have to climb steeply uphill and struggle to survive. That may be all right when dealing with only one organisation. However, if two commercial organisations are operating on parallel playing fields, one walking along a level surface and the other having to put on climbing boots, one is likely to create a massively unfair situation. I note the remarks in the useful paper prepared by the Consumers' Association—my noble friend referred to it—about the lack of transparency in the present arrangements for the governance of the BBC. The paper refers to the unaccountable and opaque way in which the BBC is governed. It expresses concern that that is particularly unfortunate when the BBC is involved in commercial activities and the development of digital services.
The issue has also been examined by ITN. Many noble Lords will have read the useful article by Stewart Purvis in the Parliamentary Monitor, who makes clear his concern about the problems associated with accountability and transparency in the BBC's commercial and publicly funded operations. We have seen a remarkable expansion of the BBC's activities across a range of new digital services. From two TV channels and five radio stations, the BBC is now present on almost every conceivable media platform and is about to launch a series of new publicly funded digital services. It is true that the process under which these new digital TV and radio services were examined was considerably more transparent than in the past but there is much that is less than clear. We need an organisation which will open up the issue so that there is clarity.
On the basis of public funding, the BBC's power to compete with the independent sector is enormous. It does so in a range of ways which may or may not be fair. It can produce resources into programming—in bidding for sporting activities, for example—which in
1252
these times it may be difficult for others to match. But in setting up commercial operations there needs to be fair and open regulation. If publicly funded services are combined with commercial services in a way that is not completely open, we face the charge that we are creating unfair competition.
We hear that the BBC is to merge the BBC World Service and BBC World. It maintains that those are kept completely separate. We need an organisation such as Ofcom to look at the structures to ensure that they are kept completely independent and open.
In this increasingly complex and competitive world, we cannot allow a situation in which a publicly funded body can compete unfairly with the commercial world and use its public sector funding to undercut or even destroy other services. In the past it has been argued that it is the job of the BBC to fill gaps which the private sector is unable to fill. That may be fine. But when the public sector destroys services by its competition and creates a gap into which it then steps, that is not fine. Ofcom should be preparing a structure and organisation so that when the promised legislation is implemented it is enabled to grasp those matters with a sense of urgency. These are not future threats; they exist at present. Those competitive operations are already under way. Ofcom must be in position to act quickly. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I begin with my customary declaration of interest in any matter relating to the BBC. I have a daughter who is an executive of the BBC. I shall move later an amendment relating to the problems of ITV. I make my declaration of interest that I am a pensioner of the former Independent Broadcasting Authority which regulates these matters in commercial broadcasting.
We discussed these issues thoroughly in Committee. I noted a change of emphasis in the views of the Conservative Front Bench. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a seductive speech proposing an innocent looking half-way house. However, she was at great pains to say that she did not wish to abolish the governors of the BBC. By curious coincidence, this was echoed immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. If the Official Opposition do not seek to abolish the governors of the BBC but to do what the amendment provides, they propose to turn the governors of the BBC into what in the past they have occasionally been criticised as being; distinguished men and women who accept being a governor of the BBC as almost the equivalent of appearing in the New Year Honours List rather than undertaking a serious public working responsibility.
My view about preserving the BBC, at least for the time being, is not uncritical. I share some of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the transparency of some of the BBC's commercial activities. I also read with interest the proposal that the BBC World Service should now be combined in an integrated information service with BBC Worldwide and with the BBC's general news services which we all greatly admire. That produces considerable difficulties about transparency and Chinese walls. In this case,

1253
services will be funded from three separate quarters: from the licence fee we all pay; from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office vote; and from the commercial revenue that the BBC may earn. A high degree of transparency is required. I have raised the matter before. It is important that the BBC should make progress in producing transparency beyond doubt. We are living in very troubled times internationally, but there are not that many institutions in which the rest of the world regards the United Kingdom as playing a leading role. The BBC is such an institution, even with its warts and all, as I have said on many occasions, and I am cautious about disturbing it unduly.
The Government made a strong and sensible case in arguing how Ofcom will regulate the BBC in important and significant ways. To go to the heart of the BBC and turn the Board of Governors into a decorative institution is extremely dangerous. The BBC has been through many different changes in its long life. Ofcom is an entirely new institution. Indeed, it is an extraordinary new regulatory institution in many ways and one of the most massive forms of regulatory mechanism that has been produced by government in recent years. I carefully avoided the alliteration of saying that it was a monstrous mechanism, but it is a massive regulatory body, which will have a painful and difficult settling-in period.
We shall have some interesting debates on the main Bill, and Ofcom will have a considerable and long settling-in period. There are strong arguments for integration over wide areas in telecommunications, but we should give Ofcom time to settle. We should examine the role of the BBC very carefully when the charter comes up for renewal. It is my profound hope that the Government will resist this amendment as robustly as they resisted the proposals suggested at earlier stages of our consideration.
4 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the BBC is regulated by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. It is worth reminding your Lordships that it was regulated because the Annan commission found that the BBC behaved in a cavalier fashion towards complaints about infringement of privacy and unfairness. As a result, a statutory body was set up to deal with those issues, so the position was not as good as has been described by noble Lords. The Annan commission thought that the governors had failed in their duty.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, speaks with greater knowledge, but I am a former chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the predecessor of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The paving Bill will remove a regulation that was imposed on the BBC a couple of decades ago. I hope that when the Minister replies she will assure us that the little regulation that was imposed on the BBC by the Broadcasting Standards Commission will not be abolished. That would negate the long study of the Annan commission.
1254
I remember from my time on the Broadcasting Complaints Commission that complainants felt that the tribunal set up by the BBC did not give adequate hearings to complaints. I shall discuss this in a later amendment, so I shall not burden your Lordships now, but attention should be given to the position of the BBC.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I first declare an interest as I chair a government consultancy of which the chairman of the BBC is the major shareholder. I hasten to add that what I say are in no way his views.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I do not support it. The position expressed by the former Secretary of State in another place may have been misunderstood. In the context in which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned him, it sounded as if he had come out as a supporter of full Ofcom regulation of the BBC. But that is not what I understand from his words which I read carefully. He wants a back-stop role for Ofcom in relation to regulation of the BBC, and I have much sympathy with that position.
Whatever view one takes of the ultimate correct responsibility of Ofcom, relative to the BBC, we are a long way short of the time when we need to make up our minds. I have sat through the debates on this Bill and note that the understanding in this House of the exact position of the BBC under the Government's proposals has moved forward greatly. When we debated the proposals with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, back in February, there was a feeling that Ofcom should have no role relative to the BBC. I even thought that myself for a while until I was put right by reading the document produced by the noble Baroness's department.
We have moved forward in understanding, but not far enough in analysis. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that when dealing with an institution of such importance and with such a world-wide reputation one does not want to rush changes through without careful thought.
I believe that the right way forward is to continue to debate the matter. It should not be referred to in this Bill. The big Ofcom Bill—as one might call it—should enable the Government to take power to alter the role of Ofcom relative to the BBC, but it need not specify what those powers should be. In the meantime, the BBC should bring forward proposals, in particular proposals that will strengthen the independence of the governors. The way in which the governors are served by employees of the BBC who may go on to other roles within the BBC is problematic. That was the conclusion of the Davies panel on the future of the BBC licensing fee, of which I was proud to be a member.
Debates on the BBC's proposals and the final Bill with full powers should be followed by discussions on charter renewal, which is when we shall have the true debate on whether to move further towards ensuring the accountability of the BBC. That debate must take

1255
place and the matter must be resolved. If it means that there is a consensus in favour of full Ofcom regulation, that will be perfectly all right. But I stress that when dealing with an institution of such importance, we must not rush it. We must get it right, and the procedure that I have suggested would be a way of getting it right.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as I am chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. I have enormous respect for the BBC as an institution. It has done a tremendous job and has set an example to the rest of the world as to what broadcasting should be.
Having said that, I sympathise with the thrust of the amendments. I should not have spoken had we not been taken into a debate that will be more appropriate when we come to the full Ofcom Bill. We are merely testing the water rather than, I hope, pushing it all the way.
It is important that Ofcom is open and transparent so that everyone can see what the decisions are. Some will be commercially confidential but others should be open and transparent. I fear that the history of the BBC shows that the governors have not been open and transparent. I have certainly never known what goes on. I have friends who are governors who have hinted at what happens occasionally, but there is no openness or transparency. That is because of the conflict of the role of BBC governors. They seem to act partly as non-executive directors with responsibility for the good management of the BBC—if I am wrong, I am sure that I shall be interrupted—and, on the other hand, they are supposed to protect the interests of the public on the issues that we have been discussing. I do not believe that the same group of people can do both. It is unreasonable to expect that they could. That is why I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats have not said that the full Bill should provide for the BBC to be totally under Ofcom.
Perhaps I may say a word about public service broadcasting, without going through the tortuous process of trying to define it. Wherever there is intervention in a free market, as with ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and so on, one seeks to impose certain standards which represent public service broadcasting. It is not only the BBC that does it. The BBC has done it for longer and may believe that it does a little more of it, but we have accepted the concept of public service broadcasting and the use of the regulatory system to intervene in what would otherwise be a free market. It is, surely, that which makes clear that this is not just for the BBC but goes across the board. That is why there is an argument that similar standards should be applied. I happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, but he tempts me. Has he never sat in front of a television screen with his zapper and looked at the variety of channels that can be viewed on cable or satellite? Some channels are publicly regulated but not even by the greatest act of imagination can
1256
they be called public service broadcasting. The BBC is still the fount of standards in that regard, and I believe that we should be rather careful about that.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the BBC produces world-class programmes and represents the best in the concept of public service broadcasting. But if some day the noble Lord cares to join me in front of a television set I can show him material broadcast by the BBC which is absolute rubbish and is as bad as an thing that can be seen anywhere. This is not a matter of my own prejudices. The chairman of the BBC spoke to some of us a few weeks ago and said that the BBC was not just for the likes of politicians who view life in a certain way. Many people in this country are also entitled to high standards and to view programmes which are different from those that we would choose. We are a bit skewed in that we watch "Newsnight", listen to Radio 4 and so on. That does not necessarily mean that we represent overall public taste. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that there arc times when the BBC produces rubbish. I shall be content to discuss that with him later and reach agreement on it.
That is a digression from where we should be at the moment. All I say is that public service broadcasting as a concept goes across the board at least to all the terrestrial channels, if not further; it is not simply the prerogative of the BBC. Unfortunately, if the governors have the sole regulatory responsibilities for those aspects that do not fall under Ofcom, that will also lead to the BBC becoming involved in arguments with the Government. In the end, it is likely that for the BBC the Secretary of State may be the regulator of last resort. That is not a happy position for the BBC to be in. I hope that in arguing for the independence of the BBC—a view that we all share—when the day comes I can persuade the noble Lord that it may be right to move amendments to the main Bill to bring the BBC fully under Ofcom.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in responding to the debate I shall not comment on the technical effects of the individual amendments in this group which have been clearly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I do not believe that the amendments relating to the BBC and Ofcom tabled at Committee stage were significantly different from those tabled today. I explained then that although I understood the reasons for debating the relationship between the BBC and Ofcom this was not the right time for such debate, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, rightly said. Other noble Lords have conceded that point, including the noble Baroness herself.
The communications Bill will provide a very much more appropriate opportunity to debate fully the exact relationship. The paving Bill is there to set up Ofcom and its initial functions—no more and no less— but it will allow Ofcom and the BBC to make preparations to implement the new regulatory regime, whatever Parliament may decide. I should reinforce the point made by the noble Viscount that there is nothing here to prevent the BBC from making the preparations that it needs to make for the new regime.

1257
I do not want to be drawn into an extensive debate about the BBC; for example, about the quality of its programmes in public service broadcasting. I do not rise to the bait dangled by my noble friend Lord Dubs, except to say that I accept entirely that Ofcom should be open and transparent in how it operates.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to the commercial activities of the BBC in which it has been involved for many years. That was so when I was chairman of the General Advisory Council a long time ago. As I said in Committee, the BBC will continue to be subject to economic regulation in future, principally by Ofcom instead of by the OFT. Like other broadcasters, it will be subject to the normal competition rules. That is a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, touched. The commercial broadcasting of the BBC is already fully regulated by the Independent Television Commission.
In Committee I set out in detail the relationship as envisaged by the Government between the BBC and Ofcom. That was outlined in the White Paper. There will be a new three-tier structure of regulation which will generally be deregulatory and will apply to all broadcasters. The BBC will be subject largely 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 third tier is about the content of broadcasting. The aim is to give other public service broadcasters a freedom similar to that already enjoyed by the BBC.
I shall not respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will deal with that in responding to the debate on the next amendment. As stated in the White Paper, equally the BBC governors must demonstrate that they are regulating the BBC effectively. Although the governors have a regulatory role in relation to the BBC, I do not agree that this means that they must be mentioned in the Bill. I must disappoint my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to accept his amendment for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Let us suppose for a moment that the BBC was fully subject to regulation by Ofcom. What would that imply by way of preparing for transferring powers and staff? The existing regulators will need to transfer every piece of their property to Ofcom. However, that does not apply to the BBC.
The BBC is a broadcaster and the governors act only as regulators for the BBC alone. Unlike regulators such as the ITC, the BBC's functions will not all be subsumed into Ofcom. Almost all the things that it does now will continue. The BBC will still need a board and staff to service it. There would be no property to transfer because the board would still need a room in which to meet. Most importantly, the BBC would also still need staff to deal with such matters as complaints.
1258
Clearly, it would be unacceptable for the BBC to abrogate entirely responsibility for considering matters such as complaints.
It is difficult to see what can be transferred to Ofcom other than the regulatory powers themselves, which I believe all noble Lords agree—my noble friend Lord Lipsey put it very well—are not for debate at this time in relation to this Bill. We are jumping the gun in attempting to consider those questions.
Ofcom has the power to prepare for the transfer of powers. The power of the BBC to co-operate with Ofcom is sufficient for what is proposed but, as I explained previously, it is our intention to bring forward draft amendments to the agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC when the main Bill is published. At that point, plenty of time will be made available for noble Lords to consider all those issues.
Finally, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Government do have confidence in Ofcom. This legislation is being brought forward so that we can get on with the job of setting up the organisation and working with the existing regulators. In the light of those words, I hope very much that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and who have given us the benefit of their great experience in these matters. Perhaps I may begin by remarking that when the Minister thought that I might have confessed that I thought that my amendments were not appropriate to the Bill, the concession I made was that amendments would not have been appropriate to make a transfer of regulatory powers under the Bill. My amendments certainly do not seek to do that.
Of course I am disappointed by the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, but I hope that I shall not be disappointed by him in the future. He pointed out that he felt that it was not the right time or place to table my amendments. I have to disagree with him on that point. To that end, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his response when he said that if Ofcom does not expect fully to regulate the BBC now, it simply will not organise itself in such a way that it will be able to undertake those tasks effectively.
In courtesy, at this point I should refer briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. I deliberately did not refer to it in the course of my opening remarks in order to give the Minister an opportunity to respond before I added any comment of my own. I certainly support the objective behind the noble Lord's amendment. I did not choose the same route because I felt that in so doing I would be sending a signal that I was seeking to try to wind up the Board of Governors of the BBC. I felt that if I put the board on the same basis as the definition in the clause, it might appear that I expected to see the board

1259
come to an end once the communications Bill makes the transfer of regulations. That is certainly not the case as regards the BBC Board of Governors.
I believe that Ofcom will be at the forefront of developing regulatory policy across the entire media sector. For that reason, given that the BBC is one of our national champions, it simply cannot afford to sit outside Ofcom; that is, affected by its decisions but without having a chance to take part fully in that process. I think that Ofcom needs to work with the BBC from now on, and that that should be made clear to the organisation. The Minister has attempted, most charmingly, to reassure me on this point, but I fear that her words will simply have reassured the BBC that in the future no change will be made to the Government's position as a result of the conclusions of the White Paper. Thus there really is no incentive for the BBC to work towards a position where it could be fully regulated by Ofcom, if that proves to be Parliament's wish in the main Bill.
I remain convinced that unless the amendments I have tabled are put on to the face of the Bill, Parliament's ability to act freely and in an unimpaired way in the communications Bill will be a problem. I do not believe that I am jumping the gun with my amendment. I simply do not want us to shoot Ofcom in the foot. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 144.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Biffen.L.

Hooper, B.

Blackwell, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cox, B.

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northesk, E.

Dundee, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Eraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hanham, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Haslam, L.

Rotherwick, L.

1260

St John of Fawsley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Vivian, L.

Selsdon, L.

Wakeham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Warnock, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ahmed, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Alderdice, L.

Chancellor)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alli, L.

Jones, L.

Andrews, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Levy, L.

Bach, L.

Lipsey, L.

Barker, B.

Lockwood, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L

Bhatia, L.

[Teller]

Billingham, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L

Blackstone, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Maddock, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bragg, L.

Methuen, L.

Brett, L.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Brookman, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Burlison, L.

Morgan, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Morris of Manchester. L

Carter, L.[Teller]

Moser, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Murray of Epping Forest. L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Nicol, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Northbourne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northover, B.

Crawley, B.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pendry, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falkland, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Filkin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gale, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rooker, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Roper, L.

Golding, B.

Russell, E.

Goldsmith, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goudie, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sharman, L.

Greaves, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sheldon, L.

Grocott, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Habgood, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harrison, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayman, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Taverne, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thomas of Gresford. L.

1261

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Weatherill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Whitty, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Walmsley, B.

Privy Seat)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) In fulfilment of the function relating to relevant proposals about regulation set out in subsection (1), OFCOM shall have regard to the need to establish an independent communications ombudsman service for investigating complaints by members of the public about invasion of their privacy or unfair treatment by any body or individual which it is proposed will be regulated by OFCOM."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by apologising for bringing forward this amendment at a late stage. When your Lordships reached this stage of the Bill in Committee, I had a medical appointment, and nowadays one does not surrender a medical appointment even to speak in your Lordships' House.
It may seem to many noble Lords a narrow point, but complaints regarding unfairness and infringement of privacy arouse a great deal of passion and can have considerable effects on the individuals or companies concerned. Such complaints were considered by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, of which I was the chairman for four years, and subsequently from 1996 by the Broadcasting Standards Council.
In hearing complaints, both the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council acted in a quasi-judicial capacity—a very important point to note—and were therefore subject to judicial review. Broadcasters and complainants often regarded their appearance before those bodies as an alternative or even a prelude to legal remedies in the courts, such as, for example, a libel action. During my time—
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, I apologise to the House. I have not properly called Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, during my time as chairman of the commission, we were the subject of three or four judicial reviews and in one case were taken to the Court of Appeal. Complainants, and more particularly broadcasters, often appeared before us represented by very distinguished and rather frightening lawyers of some distinction and skill. Mere former schoolmasters at times found that quite worrying.
1262
The point that I make is that the members of the body considering those cases needed skills that would stand up to a judicial review or to a challenge in the Court of Appeal. They had to take care in asking questions and even more care in the writing of a judgment following consideration of a case. In addition, it was enormously time consuming. For example, when we considered a case involving Shell in Nigeria, the piles of papers would almost have filled the bench in front of me. Therefore, the members who considered that case had to be prepared to devote a great deal of time to the task in hand. Because its decisions were subject to judicial review, the body had essentially to be regarded as independent. If its independence was in any way doubted, its judgment could be overturned by the courts.
As your Lordships will realise, Ofcom will have a wide variety of functions, such as, for example, the award and withdrawal of licences. If it awarded a licence to a broadcaster and then had to decide whether or not to uphold a complaint regarding unfairness or infringement of privacy, there could theoretically be a conflict in relation to its independence, which lawyers representing a complainant would question in the courts if the judgment went against that complainant.
My amendment proposes for the Ofcom organisation what I would describe as an ombudsman type of role. I do not specify the details—I shall leave it to the Government to define them—but, however they are defined, the body or individuals must be independent of the functions of the whole of Ofcom. The body's independence must be clear and the walls surrounding it must be very obvious. The ombudsmen must have dedication to the task in hand, and have the time and experience to so conduct cases that their judgments will be upheld without any measure of doubt.
That is the essence of my amendment. I hope that the Minister will show sympathy towards the ideas behind the amendment as important issues are involved. I realise that this is a paving Bill, but this is a crucial issue—particularly for the individuals and companies involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance that, within Ofcom, the functions performed by the old Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission will be, to some extent, guaranteed and even, as I said previously, be applied to the BBC. It is not the most glamorous issue, but to the individuals or groups concerned it is important. The matter of natural justice is also concerned in this. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, there is merit in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I say that because it is not necessarily a good idea for a regulatory body, with the punitive powers of removal of licences and matters of that kind, itself to handle complaints against the particular behaviour of particular licence holders and to decide whether redress should be provided.

1263
As my noble friend the Minister and many of your Lordships will know, there has been a recent precedent in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. In that Act, Part 16—which all noble Lords will remember is hugely long—and Schedule 17 provide for the establishment by the Financial Services and Markets Authority of a body corporate, which has to be independent, to administer the resolution of disputes with the minimum of formality by an independent panel of ombudsmen. There is a statutory reference in the Act to the need for securing the independence of the body corporate, and it in turn is meant to uphold the independence of the individual ombudsmen who will hear a particular complaint.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the creation of ombudsmen to settle disputes of various kinds in the public sector and, more recently, in the private sector. It started in the public sector with the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and in the private sector during the 1980s, when it seemed that almost every year, if not every month, an industry—pensions, insurance, banking and so on—determined to set up, albeit on a voluntary basis in some cases, an ombudsman to determine disputes.
The scheme's merit of avoiding lawyers, its informality and cheapness has been well acknowledged across many fields, and it would be odd if one did not at least contemplate such a scheme in the field of communications. With the statutory precedents so well known to my noble friend the Minister, this is something on which he may ponder and find merit. I rather doubt that it is appropriate for the amendment to be incorporated into this paving Bill, but I have no doubt that it deserves consideration in the future.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. To my mind, it seeks to give substance to the point on which I have troubled your Lordships previously.
The amendment focuses very clearly on the need to make express provision for a visible independent and objective agency to consider citizens' complaints about unfairness or infringement of privacy. However, I wish to make two points about the way in which the noble Lord has formulated his proposals.
The amendment calls for the investigation of complaints, which the noble Lord has described very well. So far so good. But we need to be clear what that should involve. Three matters strike me as important. First, the need for a hearing where there is a substantial complaint. I declare an interest as a previous chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, where we dealt with both fairness and privacy and taste and decency complaints. Over time, we managed to refine the way in which such complaints were dealt with so that they did not take days and days to resolve. The need for a hearing where there is a substantial complaint certainly remains.
1264
Secondly, following the hearing, the complainant should receive a ruling on each complaint, and the adjudication should be published, whether it goes one way or the other. Thirdly, there is a need for the body to have sufficient power to do the job properly—for example, to make programme makers answerable and, in appropriate cases, to require the broadcast of its decision on the appropriate channel.
The second point on which I should like to focus—I do not think there is any difference between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—concerns the phrase "ombudsman service". The phrase recognises the need that the service should be more than a one man or one woman agency. If the service is to command confidence, ideally it should be comprised of a small group of people of varying expertise and experience; it should not be drawn solely from those with experience in the broadcasting industry.
Turning away from the wording, perhaps I may suggest two ways in which the amendment could be enlarged. First, it does not address the issue of taste and decency complaints when a "satisfactory answer", to use the words of the White Paper, has not been forthcoming from the broadcaster concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, may have a somewhat less positive view on these kinds of citizens' complaints than I, but many people share my view that there will continue to be a need for those kinds of complaints—as well as fairness and privacy complaints—to be resolved by just such a visibly independent body. Could not this role also be taken on by the ombudsmen service proposed in the amendment?
Secondly, there is a need for research. In order to do the job properly, an ombudsmen service would certainly need a budget for the kind of independent research which is now undertaken—and very effectively used and made publicly available—by the Broadcasting Standards Commission. It is no exaggeration to say that the BSC, with its need to keep constantly in touch with citizens' and viewers' concerns and attitudes, simply could not have been an authoritative voice when dealing with complaints or drawing up statutory codes of guidance for broadcasters without this absolutely vital resource.
No doubt the Minister will, once again, be inclined to give a "dusty" answer to some of the ideas suggested. However, I make no apology for reminding the Minister of the importance of these issues. We are bound to return to them when the main Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches find a great deal that is attractive in the amendment, and in the way in which it was presented. I recall going with a number of my noble friends—in response to an invitation by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who just spoke so authoritatively on the subject—to spend the morning (and to have an excellent lunch, I might add) viewing various clips of film and to judge various complaints made by viewers and listeners.
We all came away with the impression that many of the complaints relating to bad language, to explicit sex or anything approaching it, and even to violence,

1265
required subjective judgment. However, we were taken away from our natural disposition to be against any kind of censorship when we saw examples of intrusions into people's privacy. We were struck by the fact that television producers can overstep the bounds of what is acceptable, either by mischievous design—which unfortunately happens from time to time—or, through pure pressure of work, by cutting corners. Whichever it is, it can result in extreme distress for individuals or for a number of people, and can involve a whole family when modern technologies are used to take pictures of people entering houses when they are not aware of the presence of a camera; and there are more grave examples.
On questions of content, any regulatory body will be concerned about changes in standards, about shifting fashions and so on. In terms of what is considered decent or indecent on television, standards have changed markedly, particularly in the past few years. A regulatory body will have to take account, still further, as we move towards what is clearly pornography, of what is acceptable and what is not.
Again, subjective judgments are involved. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, used the key word "objective". In terms of what is suggested in the amendment, we must have objective standards. I do not know whether an ombudsman and his staff are the right people to do such work. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will give us the Government's view. I imagine that this is merely a probing amendment and I look forward to some enlightenment from the Minister. By and large, we are sympathetic to the philosophy behind the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is a good case for setting up an independent procedure for dealing with complaints, whether about fairness and privacy or about standards. That is indisputable.
However, if I understand the amendment correctly, it is clearly not for the Bill that is before the House, but for the forthcoming communications Bill. So it must be a probing amendment. The amendment refers to an "independent communications ombudsman service". Presumably that can only mean a service that is independent of Ofcom. The suggestion is that the functions which three of the existing regulators presently have—namely, the Radio Authority, the ITC and the BSC—should stay in the main independent of Ofcom. So in a sense this drives a coach and horses through the whole concept of Ofcom.
I understand that it is on the way to being accepted that Ofcom should have within its structure a content committee consisting in the main of lay persons who would carry on these functions in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The committee would examine these matters and apply the mind of lay people, either in its quasi-judicial sense of dealing with fairness and privacy or in the slightly less quasi-judicial sense of dealing with standards. If that principle is embedded in
1266
the new Ofcom, it would achieve all the aims that the noble Lord has put forward in his amendment, without setting up a separate body.
The problem with separate bodies is that citizens and consumers will be confused as to where to take a complaint. We need absolute clarity as to what are the tasks of the new Ofcom, so that those with complaints know where to go. I fear that the amendment introduces a confusion factor that will not be helpful. I hope the noble Lord will accept that point. I hope that he will accept also that, provided that the new Ofcom has a content committee with lay members, we shall be achieving what he wants to achieve through a different, less clear structure.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare an interest, as I did yesterday in the debate on the financial services, as chairman of the building societies' ombudsman council. I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the role of ombudsmen in that industry.
I support my noble friend Lord Pilkington in bringing this matter forward at this particular juncture in the legislative proceedings. I appreciate that the Government may say, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has, that this is a matter for the subsequent Bill. I am aware that Sam Rayburn—Speaker of the House of Representatives when Lyndon Johnson, his great Texan ally, was president—said that the three wisest words in the English language were, "Wait a minute". However, it is a British characteristic always to think of reasons for delaying doing something. Therefore, it is worth occasionally examining whether delay is sensible.
The issue raised by my noble friend seems to me to be entirely free-standing. It seems capable of being considered on its own merits. Yesterday, I said that, as and when the financial ombudsman service comes into force on 1st December, it will be extremely important for ombudsmen to remain ombudsmen and not become regulators. In the context of remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the fact that the ombudsman service was set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act—it was not a free-standing issue—it is sensible to examine the matter independently and make it less likely that regulation will creep in to the ombudsman role. If conventional wisdom regards this as a probing amendment—my noble friend is the best judge, since none of us can know what is in the minds of others—then so be it. But I would remark gently that a paving Bill is sometimes no bad place to have a paving argument.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to consider this matter. I very much hope that he will table amendments to the main communications Bill next year to give effect to the objective behind his amendment. However, I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Brooke. A paving Bill is no mean place for a paving argument.
My noble friend's amendment allows us to return to the heart of so many of the debates that we had in Committee. The paving Bill is not quite the

1267
"inoffensive skeleton" that the Government present to us. It sets up a body which as yet has no regulatory powers; and we all accept that. So there is currently no work that an ombudsman may do. But we simply do not know how long the stage one embryonic Ofcom will operate before it develops into stage two, when the chairman and chief executive will be appointed, and into stage three, when powers are transferred to it under the main communications Bill. This is an organic structure beginning from day one when the Bill leaves another place.
I appreciate, like my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the Minister may give a rather dusty answer and say that the amendment is more suited to the communications Bill than to this one. However, I wonder whether that is the case. There is a sound argument for my noble friend bringing forward the amendment at this stage and I support it.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall indeed give a dusty answer. Having given dusty answers so often during our proceedings, I reread Meredith's Modern Love, whence the phrase "dusty answer" came. I found that the phrase was preceded by the line:
"That fatal knife, deep questioning, which probes to endless dole".
I suspect that we are suffering from that fatal knife, deep questioning.
The amendment would effectively require Ofcom to establish an independent communications ombudsman service. I have emphasised that the Government want to safeguard the interests of citizens and consumers. That includes those who are portrayed in the communications media, where their individual rights may be in question.
The White Paper made it clear that:
"OFCOM will also consider complaints of unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy in licensed broadcast services, where no other legal remedy is being pursued."
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that the White Paper also covers the need for independent research, to which she referred, and for regulation on grounds of taste and decency.
The amendment is intended to ensure the continuation of an important aspect of the work carried out by the Broadcasting Standards Commission: its role in ensuring that those appearing on electronic media have a proper opportunity to have any complaint of unfair treatment or the unwarranted infringement of their privacy considered by an independent body that can come to an adjudication. That is a valuable function in our society; it has a beneficial effect in encouraging broadcasters generally to behave responsibly when portraying individual members of the public. That has been the role of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, both of which have been represented in the debate.
1268
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, the main assurance that he seeks. We propose to bring that function within Ofcom, which will reduce the risk of overlap and confusion about the responsibilities of different regulators, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. It will also ensure—this will be important to the noble Lord in the light of what he said about his experiences—that the greater resources combined under Ofcom can be used to defend its decisions. That will give greater confidence to members of the public unfairly attacked by broadcasters that its decisions can, if necessary, be properly defended in the courts.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised the issue of conflict of interest, suggesting that it could arise between the regulatory and licensing functions of Ofcom and those that we are now discussing. I agree, that is possible, so in the main communications Bill we shall have to structure Ofcom to guard against such a conflict of interest.
We now come to the dusty answer. The Bill creates a small, focused body without regulatory functions. It will be for the main communications Bill to elaborate the eventual regulatory and other functions of Ofcom, including its role in considering independently of broadcasters any complaints of individual unfairness or unwarranted infringement of privacy, as proposed in the White Paper. That could be done by a content board, as proposed by the Towers Perrin report. It could be done in various ways, but we should not prejudge them now.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that we are discussing not delay but doing things in their proper place. This is a skeleton Bill which will set up a body without regulatory functions. It is appropriate for the main Bill, which will cover all the regulatory aspects, to provide for that as well. However, we have the greatest sympathy for the arguments put forward, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. This is a probing amendment, I shall not be taking noble Lords through the Lobby tonight. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate.
I should like to underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie: it is possible to have an independent ombudsman within an overall organisation. We do not have to go the way that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggests and keep the existing regulators.
The Minister said, "where no other legal remedy is being pursued". There may be trouble about that. When the Broadcasting Complaints Commission was set up, it was decided that it could not say that: one cannot deprive a citizen of the right to go to court. If we try to protect Ofcom against people subsequently seeking legal remedies, we may have trouble with the courts and human rights. We must be careful about the wording.

1269
It is crucial that there is independence and no conflict of interest. Therefore, officials must not be involved. There must be either an independent ombudsman—a lawyer-type role—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggests, lay people, although they must be prepared. I do not know what was the streamlining to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, referred, but a good deal of work may be involved. Such work certainly governed a large amount of my time.
I agree with the Minister that there will be more resources, which such organisations certainly need. I am grateful for the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert
"( ) In fulfilment of the function set out in subsection (1), OFCOM shall have regard to the need (subject to subsection (2))—

(a) to ensure fair and effective competition in the provision of services provided within the communications industry and those connected with them; and

(b) to ensure needs of consumers are protected with regard to both economic consideration and access to communications services."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I proposed an identical amendment in Committee, which I withdrew so that I could give proper consideration to the Minister's response. On reading it, I must say that I agree with his description of it as a dusty answer. It is an answer that he has given to previous amendments today. With the greatest respect, a dusty answer is not what is needed to a serious, constructive proposal.
The Bill will set up an all-powerful regulator, if I interpret the White Paper correctly. But this so-called paving Bill requires Ofcom to create its own organisation and to prepare to start functioning only once the definitive Act comes into force. No one suggests that all that it will do is rent an office and buy a few desks and paper clips. It will organise taking over the functions of the existing five regulators. It will have to consider how far those functions are consistent with each other, and how far and in what way any inconsistencies are to be ironed out. It will have to consider how the existing regulators' powers are inadequate for the bewildering rate of change in the technology and hardware, and how the communications industry functions.
The existing regulators and the new Ofcom will not simply sit around waiting for the new definitive Bill. Ofcom will want to hit the ground running once it is commanded to start operating by the Minister. Even if the Government do not intend it or want it to do such preparatory spade work, if Ofcom is to be worth its salt, that is exactly what will happen.
With the best will in the world, and with the cooperation of all parties, the definitive Bill will not be passed until well into next year. Even that assumes that
1270
the definitive Bill is ready, which it probably is not. Ofcom's new staff, and the staff who will be moved to it from existing regulators, will not simply sit around for months planning their holiday rotas.
As I mentioned in Committee, the amendment touches on one major aspect of the new regulator's duties: telecommunications, which received only 78 mentions in the White Paper, compared to 592 references to broadcasting. It is in the area of telecommunications—which is now rapidly becoming another form of pure broadcasting reception—that the public will need the most protection by the regulator. There are constant complaints about the confusing array of charging tariffs; complaints about the lack of transparency about rates of charges, even by the same carrier; complaints about allegedly excessive charges for connection from and to overseas and to other mobile telephones; and, as we have come to expect in other industries, complaints that British users get charged more than our European neighbours for precisely the same purposes.
The amendment, especially paragraph (a), makes it clear right from day one—indeed, even from before day one, from the date of Ofcom's conception—where Ofcom's duty lies. The amendment sets out one of the criteria by which Ofcom will be required to act and gives it something to think about while it waits to become operational, although we do not know when that will be. There is no harm in telling it, even prematurely—I am sure the Minister will use those words when he responds to the amendment—one of the key definitions of its duties. The Government can tell it the same again in the definitive Bill, if they wish. In the mail order industry, with which I used to be involved, there was, and still is, a definition of the ideal leaflet, which comprises three parts: tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them; and then tell them what you have told them. I want to see that Ofcom knows from the first day that this Bill becomes an Act exactly where it stands on this vital subject which in my opinion is item number one on its agenda in its most important function; that is, protecting the public.
If, despite the Minister's sympathy for the objective of this moderate, constructive and definitely not over-prescriptive amendment, the Government's response will be to continue to reject it, I believe that that is an entirely wrong message to send out, not only to the new regulator but also, and perhaps even more especially, to those who will be regulated. They will feel that a free-for-all—a continued free-for-all, if only for the time being—is still in order. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I wish to make one brief point. During the debate on the BBC the Minister, and, indeed, several other noble Lords, kept talking about there being plenty of time. Here we are dealing with another aspect of the activities of Ofcom. I do not believe that there is plenty of time even in the broadcasting area because the rate of change is so fast and already competition is having a destructive effect. By the time decisions are taken some commercial activities will have been destroyed unfairly.

1271
The bewildering rate of change to which my noble friend referred is even greater in this area. Recently I have attended a number of meetings with the Bill team and consultative bodies, organisations such as EURIM, PITCOM and others which are considering these issues. They are all desperately concerned about the rate of change and about the need for action and for decisions. I hope that the response on this occasion will indicate that there will be plenty of time available.
I understand that this is a paving Bill and I understand the inhibitions under which we are working. Indeed, I devoted a large part of my first speech in Committee to criticising the fact that we were proceeding down this road in this way. I suggested that there was a better way of doing it and that the real preparation work could have been proceeded with if my suggestion were followed. At least a message must go out that there is not plenty of time available and that those who are preparing to take over whatever may be given them when finally a Bill is passed through this House should be ready to proceed very fast indeed.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when we discussed this amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed wholehearted support for what she called the great "mission statement" we had set for Ofcom to make the UK home to the most dynamic and competitive communications and media market in the world and to ensure universal access to a choice of diverse, high quality services with proper safeguards to protect the interests of citizens and consumers. Let me return the compliment. We, of course, are in sympathy with the terms of the amendment. However, this is a paving Bill.
There is no question about having plenty of time; this Bill aims to save time and to ensure that when Parliament properly considers all the issues involved in the regulation of communications—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would say that we have done so now; certainly I would not say that—its decisions will be able to be put into effect immediately as the skeleton structure of Ofcom will be in place ready to spring into action.
The objectives were set out in the White Paper. They have achieved fairly universal support, with some obvious exceptions. Ofcom will do its preparatory work while Parliament and others comment on the objectives and transform them into legislation. Meanwhile, surely the right thing to do is not to add elements to a definition, however much we may be in sympathy with them. That applies to Amendment No. 11 of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and to Amendment No. 12 of the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. Let us stick to the regulation of communications, which is clear enough, relates to the White Paper and will relate to the communications Bill, but let us not start to put pre-judgments of this kind into this paving Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. I also thank the Minister
1272
for trying to return a compliment I paid earlier in Committee. Apart from that, I am not sure whether his response today was either more or less dusty than on the previous occasion we discussed the matter. However, I am aware that he has worked hard and he is clearly having trouble with his throat. I do not wish to prolong his agony. In view of his kind comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) In fulfilment of the functions set out in subsection (1), OFCOM shall have regard to the need to promote the interests of citizens and consumers with regard to communications."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh was kind enough to acknowledge in Committee that the Government wanted to safeguard the interests of both citizens and consumers in this Bill and the "grown-up" one which will follow. He said:
"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".—[Official Report, 6/11/01; col. 187.]
I return to the issue in the hope of persuading the Minister to make flesh of those shared ambitions by laying a specific duty on Ofcom to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in all that it does and to make that duty as explicit on the face of the Bill as it was in the White Paper. The White Paper said that the interests of citizens and consumers are at the heart of the regulatory framework. That is right, but I invite your Lordships to join in helping to make that crystal clear in the duties we lay upon Ofcom in this paving Bill. We can debate the details in the Bill which will follow.
I wish to mention three reasons why I believe the amendment is necessary and why it is much easier for the Minister to accept it than to dismiss it with a dusty answer. First, it recognises that broadcasting is not mainly about knobs and buttons, as I said in Committee. It is not principally or only about delivery. It is an industry like many others. It makes clear that broadcasting has a vital role in communications in our democracy to inform, educate and involve the citizen. Broadcasting is a two-way street of communication in our democratic process because in unique ways it offers citizens the opportunity to debate and discuss and get involved in their own and wider communities.
Viewers and listeners are not just consumers of broadcast media but also all-round citizens with a need for information, knowledge, education, skills and understanding. In the aftermath of the appalling events of September, that need is probably greater. As responsible and active citizens our ability to access and use information is a matter of the strongest and most overriding self-interest and national interest.
Secondly, the amendment puts a proper duty upon Ofcom to protect and promote the interests of people with disabilities to ensure that they are neither left behind in the digital revolution nor neglected those providing telecommunications services or by

1273
broadcasters. The new regulatory framework must ensure equal access and equally affordable access to digital communication services and equipment for people with disabilities.
The Government must constantly remember, now and when we come to the main Bill, that increased competition must also increase choice and access for people with different abilities, those on low incomes and older people. The White Paper refers to Ofcom giving "due weight" to those needs, which is a long way short of guaranteeing that access barriers will be tackled and overcome, as the Royal National Institute for the Blind argues in its helpful brief.
Finally, the White Paper rightly stresses that,
"the democratic importance of public service broadcasting is as great as the economic justification".
If that welcome aim is to be met, the regulatory framework needs from the start to put the separate interests of citizens and consumers at its heart. Otherwise, as Public Voice—a voluntary sector network set up to protect and promote public service broadcasting—argues, the regulatory system will be driven by the market alone, which will mean that the proper interests of citizens and consumers will take second place at best. I am sure that no one in your Lordships' House wants that to happen.
I am grateful for the support of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer and the National Consumer Council on the amendment. The best way in which I can help the Minister to a speedy recovery from his throat trouble is to recommend that he may find it right and helpful to his medical condition simply to say, "Yes, I accept". I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, that, during the debate on Amendment No. 11, in his lecture on not prejudging anything, the Minister pre-judged the noble Lord's amendment before it had been moved. That seems a bit hard. I hope that we shall now get a slightly fuller response and not simply be told that the Minister has already answered the points during the debate on Amendment No. 11.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we on these Benches are pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has brought this amendment forward so that we can have a little more discussion on it. The noble Lord has spoken very well about what he believes to be in the interests of the consumer and the citizen, so I shall restrict my remarks to a few points.
We are delighted that the White Paper referred to a light touch. I agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that Ofcom should not end up involved in content. I say that simply because one of the real problems for many listeners and viewers—and in many cases both—is that if they have any complaints about the BBC, ITV or any commercial broadcasters, they often do not know where to take them. We in this House know, because we are interested in the paving Bill and in the communications Bill, when it comes.
1274
It would be helpful if one of the duties of Ofcom could be to highlight the route for the ordinary listener or viewer—or both—to know where any complaint can be dealt with and, if it is not dealt with suitably, what they can then do. Although existing consumer panels—or whatever they are called—normally reply very quickly, the consumers often get no more than a brush-off. It would be nice to know whether there was anything further that those consumers could do.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I have already spoken on the subject and the Minister and the noble Baroness know my views. I hope that the Minister can go one step further and be even more obliging than he has been.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my basic reaction to the amendment can be said very briefly: I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, said. He made a long speech and it was clearly complicated, so I suppose that I ought to protect myself by saying that I shall read it carefully, but in principle I agree with everything that he said. The only thing that I do not agree on is whether the amendment should go into the Bill. He knew that I was going to say that.
There is a particular reason for my disagreement. I spoke about the importance of distinguishing between the interests of citizens and consumers. The amendment does not do that, so it could give rise to the false assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, and others think that the interests of citizens and those of consumers are unitary, not potentially divided. However, I shall not make much of that point.
My main point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who said that it is important that those in need should know where to go. That is the commitment that is made in this paving Bill. The one decision that is taken in advance of the communications Bill is that there shall be a single regulator. Let us leave it to the communications Bill to go into the necessary detail and leave it to Parliament to cover the huge range of issues that are very properly raised by the amendment.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this short debate and express the fond hope that the Minister has not imperilled his recovery by the length and detail of his response.
It is nice to know that there is such agreement around the Chamber for the second day running—there was wide support yesterday for siting the English national football stadium in Birmingham. My noble friend has accepted the spirit of the amendment. I do not want to put any improper duty on him, but all that remains is for him to see that, if not the words, then at least the spirit of what we are after in the amendment is properly and fully reflected in the main Bill. In that fond hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to work with the Office of Fair Trading to develop proposals for the exercise of concurrent powers under the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41) "
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the passage of the Competition Act 1998 there was considerable discussion about the merits of concurrent powers being granted to sector regulators. In the end, concurrent powers were granted, in spite of widespread concern that that should not lead to "forum shopping" or the fragmentation of the overall regime for the enforcement of competition law.
We believe that for competition policy to be enforced by multiple bodies, one of them must be primus inter pares. That logic is followed in the Competition Act, which reserves certain key policy-making functions to the OFT alone. The aim of this probing amendment is to secure a commitment to establishing Ofcom as a viable competition in its own right in its own field.
However, we propose that the professional expertise and experience of the Director-General of Fair Trading should be recognised and utilised wherever practical. For example, in the early days of Ofcom, the expertise of the DGFT could assist in the selection of candidates for posts in the parts of Ofcom dealing with competition.
Apart from availing themselves of the DGFT's knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of particular candidates in an intimate circle of specialised professionals, Ofcom will be able to be aware of any incompatibility between the DGFT and the senior managers discharging competition powers within Ofcom.
I stress that that would not give the DGFT power of veto over appointments. The amendment simply calls for consultation. I imagine that Ofcom, with a choice of candidates from five regulators, will welcome the opportunity of having its cards marked by a knowledgeable outsider.
However, the consultation process called for goes further. There will be input available from the DGFT of his own recent experience in reorganising the Office of Fair Trading following the Competition Act.
The White Paper proposed that Ofcom should have concurrent Competition Act powers with the OFT. At present, although Oftel has such powers, the other four regulators being merged into Ofcom do not. A major task of the new Ofcom, as it complies with the Bill to prepare itself to assume the duties that Parliament will lay on it, will be to make effective plans to exercise its powers in areas where the other four regulators have no experience. The advice and support of the OFT will he invaluable in this area.
However, there is one very important reason why Ofcom should be obliged to work with, or at least to consult with, the OFT. One of the recognised dangers of granting concurrent Competition Act powers to sectoral regulators is that they may apply the Act within their sector in a different way from the OFT and
1276
other regulated sectors of the economy. More than that, in the present case, Ofcom may drift into applying the Act in different ways between the converging, but not necessarily homogeneous, industries over which it presides.
The involvement of the OFT in a consultative capacity is essential if Ofcom is to be set up properly to exercise its Competition Act powers from the very inception of its operations. Consultation with the OFT will also prevent multiple and inconsistent ways in which the Competition Act is enforced. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lord, I intervene briefly to say that the objective of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is highly desirable. However, I doubt whether it is necessary to have an amendment of this sort. Although she is quite right to say that only one of the regulators that are to be absorbed in Ofcom has experience of exercising powers under the Competition Act—namely, Oftel—they have had a concordat voluntarily agreed with the OFT, as indeed have other non-communications regulators, such as Ofgem. I imagine that that would almost certainly take place and would be wholly desirable; otherwise, the two types of regulator—the general and the specialised ones—would get out of kilter. There would be different approaches to the enforcement of the Competition Act, which would be wholly undesirable. Therefore, I support the objectives that are mentioned but I doubt the need for the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We set out in the White Paper on communications, and I reiterated in Committee, that Ofcom will have concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading under the Competition Act 1998. I can reassure the noble Baroness. Lady Miller, that that is not a new or unusual arrangement. Oftel already has those concurrent powers, as do regulators in other sectors. She referred to the relationship between sectoral regulators and the Office of Fair Trading. However, under this Bill Ofcom will have no regulatory powers until they are conferred on it by the main communications Bill.
I am sure that in due course Ofcom, as a regulator, will work closely with the OFT to ensure a mutual understanding of how such concurrent powers will be exercised, and, indeed, will do so before that. The arrangements will undoubtedly be brought within the scope of the relevant regulations made under the Competition Act.
The informal Concurrency Working Party, which brings together regulators that have concurrent powers, has been instrumental in producing joint guidelines from the OFT and the regulators. We have no reason to expect those arrangements to work less well in respect of Ofcom. In any event, Clause 2 requires Ofcom to do such things as it considers appropriate for facilitating the implementation of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications. I believe that that requirement quite adequately covers the development of the relationship

1277
with the OFT which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, wants and which Ofcom in due course considers necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for explaining to me that he was sure that my amendment was not necessary. I certainly hope that he is right; as his experience is greater than mine, I am sure that he is. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert "; and
(c) any proposals by the Secretary of State for the conferring on OFCOM of functions relating to restrictions on the holding of licences in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises matters that were not discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. Therefore, perhaps even at this stage, I might be allowed to say a word or two about the background to it.
While we are paving the way for the "big bang" of the real communications Bill later next year, the world of commercially-funded television broadcasting has been facing the worst recession in advertising revenue since records began. The events of 11th September have made a bad situation worse. ITV, in particular, is suffering from the fact that at present we have a paving Bill rather than the main Bill, which originally, I believe, it had been hoped to bring in at the time of the gracious Speech.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to look at ways and means of introducing more flexibility into varying the financial terms of ITV licences to deal with the unpredictable external changes of the type that, for example, the regulator of Ofwat is able to propose. I have the impression—I hope that it is not inaccurate—that the Government are ready to consider that proposal for the main Bill in due course. I hope I can be assured that at least that is so.
My amendment, which had to be drawn rather narrowly within the limits of the purposes of the Bill, deals specifically with the second area for urgent change necessary to give ITV the financial vitality to fulfil its public service responsibilities. I refer to the need for a change in ownership rules which at present prevent consolidation within ITV. Last year's White Paper gave a rather more than cautious green light to this issue. I gather that there may be another White Paper shortly which will carry the matter further and deal with the wider issues of cross-media and competition aspects.
The amendment seeks to allow government to send a clear signal to the City and to financial circles generally that there will be no bar on plurality grounds to ITV consolidation once the main communications Bill goes through. It could also have the practical
1278
benefit of giving paving Ofcom the task, together with the OFT—rather along the lines proposed by the noble Baroness in her recent amendment—of preparing the groundwork for the inevitable competition issues which ITV consolidation would raise for the United Kingdom advertising markets and, perhaps in particular, for the London advertising market within the United Kingdom. The OFT and Competition Commission would then have much of the necessary basic material to consider any merger proposal quickly after the communications Bill comes on to the statute book.
In my view, and from my considerable experience of the world of commercial television broadcasting, the present position is disturbing and distorting the ecology of the broadcasting landscape. The ITV and BBC, in their separate and competitive ways, provide the very heartlands of public service television in this country. Given the costs of the digital revolution that is now being undertaken, the capacity of that heartland to preserve the values of public service broadcasting is now under considerable threat from the dominating pressures of satellite and cable.
A financially viable ITV system is as essential to the survival of public service broadcasting as is an efficient and dynamic BBC. Therefore, I hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, further consideration can be given as to whether there are ways and means of expediting the process by which ITV can remain a pillar of public service broadcasting. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, moved his amendment. We rightly spend a tremendous amount of time in this House debating the BBC and rather less—given the kinds of people who we are—debating ITV, although it has important public service obligations. I fear for ITV at the moment because it is squeezed between intense competition from channels that are not subject to those public service obligations and a serious crisis in advertising revenue. That crisis developed not just because of present economic circumstances but because of the developing difficulties associated with a channel that has to deliver the kinds of audiences at the kinds of prices that advertisers want to buy. It is therefore vital to preserve the public service capacity of ITV. There is a shift in the balance of advantage between consolidating and not consolidating the ITV companies. Of course one wants maximum diversity and competition but, in the new circumstances, the arguments are tilting towards consolidation. It is good that we in this House should recognise that by debating the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I reiterate the interest that I declared earlier today. I am chairman of HTV, although those responsibilities are due to come to an end in about three months. I can therefore speak from personal experience of the pressures that are currently felt in the industry. I am the chairman of a company that, to meet its public service obligation—I was delighted that the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Lipsey, referred explicitly to that

1279
obligation—has to produce more broadcasting hours than any other licence holder. That is because of our dual responsibility for Wales and the west of England. Those are heavy burdens at a time when advertising revenue is collapsing.
I return to an observation that I made in relation to an earlier amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was one of those who said, when considering the BBC, that there is plenty of time and that we must not hurry things. I fully agree with him that on this occasion there is not plenty of time and that the situation is serious. I agree with every word that he said in moving the amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I, too, endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. This is a matter of urgency. We are not debating the matter; we are simply hoping that the Government will take the power unto themselves to do something once the paving Bill has been passed. The proposal is highly desirable.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have previously argued the case for the BBC. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, censured me for not acknowledging the public service role of ITV. I share the concern that has been expressed on all sides of the House. It is not just sweet words that we require from the Minister, although I know that she is very capable of giving them. It is no use having sweet words while the patient bleeds to death. There is a real danger in this context. ITV was working on the assumption that the main Bill would already have been before us and that it would contain powers of consolidation.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is not in his place, he will undoubtedly read Hansard. He has promised me a pot of tea while he explains to me the full dimensions of ITV's public service commitment. I shall certainly take him up on the offer. I have always appreciated the fact that, by accident or design, we have in ITV a marvellous addition to our public service broadcasting.
I still think of myself as a child of "Granada-land" and I fully appreciate the regional commitment of our ITV companies. I hope that in consolidation we will retain that amazing richness that ITV brought to broadcasting through the regional network. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to Wales and the West Country. We have all seen the benefit of the ITV network in the regions. However, it now needs consolidation, so that we have strength in our broadcasting ecology. I do not want a level playing field. This is where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I want a playing field that allows a strong BBC to retain its public service contribution. I do not want ITV to go. It is as important a part of the commercial competitive side of broadcasting and of public service. I hope that the Minister will give more than sweet words; I hope that she will convey a sense of urgency.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I do not think that anything that I said earlier differs from the argument
1280
of the noble Lord. I, too, want a strong BBC with a public service obligation. I want ITV to be able to survive with its public service obligation as well, and I want it to do so on a level playing field.
Lord McNally: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomson has united the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and myself. We now only have to persuade the Minister!
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that we, too, support the amendment. I shall do my best not to repeat arguments already used.
Since the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1990 the whole world of broadcasting has been overtaken by major events: first, by the rapid and continuing expansion of satellite broadcasting, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, mentioned; and, secondly, by the advent of digital broadcasting, which is intended to displace analogue broadcasting within a relatively short period. That change to digital is actively encouraged by the Government not because they want everybody to enjoy better sound and sharper television pictures but—probably—because they want to sell the analogue bands to commercial users, such as mobile phone operators and taxi firms.
The situation has changed since 1990 because, despite Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act—that provision, along with the Fair Trading Act, was intended to restrict the amount of media ownership getting into one set of hands and to restrict cross-media ownership—neither of those objectives any longer obtains. One merely has to look at the newspaper empire of Mr Rupert Murdoch, combined with his interest in Sky broadcasting, and at other television broadcasters around the world to appreciate what I mean. I make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way criticising Mr Murdoch or his organisation. He has done only what he is allowed to do as a vigorous and forceful businessman. He has done nothing that he is not entitled to do. However, it is not good for the market or for the public interest that commercial television broadcasting should be dominated by one powerful organisation. I make that point because other noble Lords have not raised it.
The independent television companies have contributed to the fact that they have fallen behind with regard to digital broadcasting. The reception of digital signals via an existing aerial as distinct from one of Mr Murdoch's dishes does not represent effective competition. That is another problem.
On the grounds that "Unity is strength"—noble Lords opposite will fully understand that aphorism—the time has now come to allow television companies to merge if it suits their commercial interests. The way in which Mr Murdoch has created his empire positively demands that he should face viable competition that has the funds and resources to match his own with regard to bidding for the right to broadcast sporting events, to acquire the rights to films and so on. That would be good for him.

1281
I anticipate that the Minister will tell us that it is not appropriate to amend Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act in relation to this Bill. I notice that the Minister nods her head. I agree with her, really. The amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, pointed out, does not overturn Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act; it merely requires Ofcom to consider, as part of its preparation for its duties under the substantive Act when that becomes law, the implications of relaxing the rules. That way, it would not have to start from scratch perhaps several years from now.
Such advance preparation is anticipated and it is provided for by the wording of the subsection that we are considering which says:
"references to relevant proposals about the regulation of communications are references to the following proposals (whether or not Parliament has given any approval on which the implementation of the proposals depends)".
I ask your Lordships to note the phrase,
"whether or not Parliament has given any approval".
In other words, Ofcom is being given authority to make preparation for activities that, at the early stages of Ofcom's existence, will not yet have been authorised by Parliament. They are presumably activities that it is anticipated will be included in the substantive Act. The Bill, as it stands, gives authority for two types of activity. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, would merely add a third. We are glad to support that proposition.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that my words will be sweet enough for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, although they will be quite sweet. The amendment raises an important issue, but I am afraid that it is not one for discussion at the Report stage of this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, rightly predicted that that was what I would say.
Media ownership is a matter that will be addressed by the main communications Bill, so I can give the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, an assurance that that will be addressed.
Noble Lords may be aware that my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport recently announced that we would consult on the issue of cross-media ownership. She made reference to a White Paper. In fact, it will not be a White Paper, but a consultation paper which will be published shortly. It will set out our principles and will outline some possible options for reform. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot make any commitments today, nor can I reveal any of the details of the paper before it is published, but they will not have to wait long.
Some noble Lords have suggested that certain ownership rules should be formed immediately. I believe that lay behind some contributions. We understand the importance to business of getting ahead with the changes. I have much sympathy with the predicament in which ITV finds itself. I certainly support what has been said about its importance, including the importance of its public service role.
1282
However, we must get this matter right so that the legislation stands the test of time in what is likely to be a rapidly changing marketplace and one that will continue to change.
We need to bring forward all our proposals on media ownership in a single, coherent package in the communications Bill. It is not practical, nor is it desirable, to deal with the issue in an ad hoc or piecemeal fashion. We are anxious to get this area of policy right so that the legislation will stand the test of time. The changes that we make have to aid the long-term development of a competitive market, while maintaining pluralism and diversity, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We aim to publish proposals in the draft Bill next year. There will be a further period of consultation before any of the rules are finalised.
I conclude by explaining that under Clause 2 Ofcom will be able to facilitate the implementation of any proposals that provide it with functions relating to,
"broadcasting, radio and television services or other activities connected with the communications industry".
Those functions will clearly include functions relating to the regulation of media ownership rules as set out in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act, which do not need to be specified separately.
This amendment will have no practical effect. In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I can remind her that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, prejudges nothing. It would simply confer the power on the Secretary of State, presumably after the consultation that is about to be initiated, to confer on Ofcom the power to do something about the matter. Otherwise, we are talking of a delay of something like two years. My concern is not the financial health of ITV, but the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting, which may well be non-existent and may well be totally dependent on satellite for the delivery of the new system to which we all aspire.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand the point made by my noble friend, but I believe that everything that I have said, in relation to the need for proper consultation and the time to get this matter right, stands.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for the point that he has made more pungently than I did. Terrestrial, commercial television broadcasting is seriously at risk because of the digital challenge that it faces. The matter is one of great urgency. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in response to my amendment.
At one stage I had a slight hope that the House may arrive at that rare position of total unanimity, but I understand what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government. I did not expect that this matter could be

1283
incorporated into the Bill at this stage, but I was anxious to underline the urgent matter of the survival of public service terrestrial broadcasting in this country as we understand it. I hope that the debate has brought that point home to the Minister.
I understand that the Minister was seeking to be as helpful as she could be in the circumstances and I welcome the positive assurance that she has given me about the consultation paper that will soon be published and about the main Bill containing a provision for dealing with the ownership issue. I impress upon the Government the need for the greatest possible urgency and the need for the maximum amount of preparation in advance of being able to achieve that under the new Bill when it comes before us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Borrowings under subsection (6) shall not exceed £6 million until legislative effect has been given to the proposals about the regulation of communications referred to in subsection (3)."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is substantially the same as one that I proposed at the previous stage, but which I withdrew so that I could consider the Minister's reply. The difference between this amendment and the previous one is that we now propose that the figure should be £6 million instead of £5 million. The difference is a mere £1 million, which is less than the cost of chartering Concorde for two return trips to the United States of America.
At the previous stage of the Bill, I reminded your Lordships that paragraph 24 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill said:
"The Government envisages that the extra costs of establishing OFCOM will be of the order of £5 million spread over the period of transition".
As I acknowledged in the debate in Committee, the words, "of the order of" are fairly elastic. As co-operative and as constructive as I always try to be, I told the Minister that I was open to an offer of a slightly higher figure to allow for unforeseen contingencies. In his reply the Minister said that,
"those who have read the report"—
the Towers Perrin report—
"will agree that it does not give us a basis for saying that £5 million is a magic figure and that the sum will not be £5.1 million or £5.5 million".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1281.]
The £5 million was not my magic figure; it was not Tower Perrin's magic figure; but it was the Government's magic figure that was in the White Paper. It was not I who plucked the figure of £5 million out of the air, but seemingly, it was the Government. If the figure of £5 million was not a reasonably based
1284
estimate, why did the Government insert that figure in the Explanatory Notes? For what purpose did they do that? The Minister went on to say:
"we need that degree of flexibility in the legislation, rather than the rigid figure that would be provided by Amendment No. 23".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1281.]
It is not Amendment No. 23 today but was on the previous occasion. But it was not my rigid figure; it was the Government's. It was I who offered an opportunity to the Government to be flexible about the figure, but they have not responded by suggesting some additional contingency margin. So it has been up to me in this amendment to propose that margin and that flexibility to increase the Government's own figure by 20 per cent; in other words, by £1 million.
I accept that there is an extension to Parkinson's Law, which says that,
"expenditure increases to absorb the allocated budget".
There is a risk that if we increase the figure from £5 million to £6 million, that is exactly what will be spent. However, the important point is that there must be some cap on expenditure on setting up Ofcom. That body, for the moment, only has the task of preparing for the functions that Parliament may or may not assign to it in a Bill which will be presented to it at some indeterminate time—hopefully, a short time—in the future; a Bill whose contents even the Government are not yet exactly sure of. Otherwise, we would be considering it already rather than having two bites at the cherry.
I repeat that we must have a cap on the amount of seed money that can be spent in advance of the substantive legislation. In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill the Government put a figure on that cap. At the previous stage the Government tried to retreat from that figure, leaving us not with a revised figure but without one at all. The amendment, by seeking to add a generous margin to the Government's estimate, insists that they put the taxpayers' money where the Government's mouth is, or was when the White Paper was written.
Lastly, all the kind and suggestive amendments put forward to give extra jobs for Ofcom to plan for have been turned down on the basis that we cannot burden Ofcom at this stage. Ofcom will just have to get ready to do that. Since it is doing so few things, why can it not stick to at least a figure that is no more than 20 per cent more than the figure arrived at by the Government? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I rise simply to observe that from my experience of having been chairman of a non-departmental public body, one thing is absolutely certain; that is, whether or not it is in the Bill, the Government will impose a limit of expenditure on the organisation. Therefore, what we are really talking about now is openness and transparency.
The Government tell us that they believe in openness and transparency. So all they have to do is tell us what the limit will be, rather than hide it now and tell the chairman of Ofcom when he is appointed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in Committee I offered to write to the noble Baroness. I am afraid that I did not. That may be one reason why the amendment is in the form that it is today.
It may be convenient if I explain the background to our plans for financing Ofcom before it is able to raise revenue from the communications sector. There is an element of misunderstanding here. The amendment places a limit on borrowing from the Secretary of State. It is better not to set out a limit in primary legislation. There is too much uncertainty about how long the preparatory stage will last and what practical steps Ofcom will need to take to prepare to receive the regulatory functions.
I am certain, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that there is a confusion between the additional cost over and above the cost to the existing regulators of establishing Ofcom, which is the £5 million referred to in the Explanatory Notes, and the money it will need to borrow to implement its plans, which is the figure in the amendment. During this preparatory stage, almost all the money will come from the Secretary of State. It is possible that existing regulators may give money to Ofcom. If that happens it will be on a relatively small scale.
We want the transition to the new regulatory regime to be as smooth as possible. Ofcom will only be able to take decisions on the practical steps when it is in place next summer. It will be necessary for Ofcom to commission new IT systems, to take on buildings and possibly to give up existing buildings and a host of similar measures. We have not estimated what the costs of such activity may be or how much of it will need to be financed before the transfer of functions takes place.
There will also be the pay, accommodation and other costs for the Ofcom board and its small skeleton staff. We cannot be certain when—this is the most important point—the new main Bill will receive Royal Assent or how soon after that that the regulatory functions will be transferred.
I have described the costs falling on Ofcom. Most—perhaps all—of which will require a loan. But this is a different coverage from the £6 million figure. That covers, as I said, the extra costs of establishing Ofcom. Some of those costs have already been incurred by the two departments and the existing regulators; for example, on the Towers Perrin report. There will be further costs for head-hunters and consultancy before Ofcom is able to undertake any expenditure. So the £5 million figure in the amendment in Committee, and the more generous £6 million figure before us today, are not really relevant to Ofcom's borrowing requirement.
I turn to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, added extra force—the question of financial controls. The Secretary of State will be best placed to decide how much to lend Ofcom. She certainly will not want to lend any more than she has to. But the National Audit Office will also be responsible. It will be able to look at the loan. The Bill provides for the National Audit Office also to look at Ofcom's finances.
1286
In addition, in Committee we undertook to make regular reports to Parliament on progress with Ofcom. I am sure that these reports should and will cover expenditure. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Well, my Lords, that was a very interesting and full reply. I am disappointed that the Minister was not able to give me a guesstimate of what the figure might be. I need to read carefully what he said so the noble Lord can be somewhat relaxed. I confess I was tempted to divide the House and test its feeling. The noble Lord made some very interesting points. He said that Ofcom may need more money because it may be a long time before the substantive Bill comes before Parliament. We shall be able to talk about that interesting matter later. In view of the response from the Minister, I shall do what he says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"MANAGEM ENT OF OFCOM
OFCOM shall. in managing their affairs, have regard—

(a) to such general guidance concerning the management of the affairs of public bodies as OFCOM consider appropriate; and

(b) subject to any such guidance and only to the extent that they may reasonably be regarded as applicable in relation to a statutory corporation. to generally accepted principles of good corporate governance."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 29, 74 to 75 and 86. We had some discussion in Committee about the desirability of Ofcom complying with generally accepted principles of good governance. I indicated that the Government were sympathetic to this suggestion. Amendment No. 16 places such a requirement on Ofcom.
I should emphasise that when we refer to good governance we are thinking of the commercial principles of good corporate governance, in so far as they are relevant to a statutory corporation such as Ofcom but also, and perhaps more importantly, of guidance on the conduct of public bodies, again in so far as it is relevant to Ofcom. In fact, the guidance on the management of public bodies is more likely to be relevant to Ofcom. Hence it takes precedence in the proposed amendment.
In Committee, we had a number of discussions about the appropriate method of recording and monitoring the interests of members of Ofcom. I shall not be bringing forward a specific amendment in relation to that as it is sufficiently covered by the new clause. The guidance on the running of public bodies, to which Ofcom will have to have regard, requires such bodies both to keep a register of the relevant interests of Members and to make them publicly available. I would certainly expect Ofcom to ensure that it complies with this requirement. I hope that that will

1287
ensure that the concerns which have been expressed on the issue are fully met. Amendments Nos. 25 and 29 are purely consequential amendments.
We indicated in Committee that we would be willing to consider a requirement that Ofcom should publish its regulations and procedures. Amendment No. 74 requires Ofcom to do that under paragraph 15 of the schedule. We believe that this provides a more precise requirement and will meet the concerns expressed.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 75 and 86 relate to record keeping and transparency and again follow on from our discussions in Committee. Amendment No. 75 requires Ofcom to record decisions whether made by Ofcom, its committees or its employees acting with delegated authority. By applying the provisions of the Public Records Act to Ofcom, Amendment No. 86 places obligations on Ofcom in respect of maintenance and safekeeping of records. We believe that the Public Records Act is the right vehicle to use to place an obligation of this kind on Ofcom.
On a related matter, noble Lords will recall that in Committee there was discussion of whether it was appropriate to apply the negative resolution procedure to decisions made by the Secretary of State to vary the size of Ofcom. I promised then to write to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and ask it to reconsider its previous advice that the negative procedure was acceptable. I am pleased to be able to confirm today that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has considered the issues raised and has stated that it does not wish to change its recommendation. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords that appropriate procedures are being followed and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said in Committee the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee can be taken as definitive. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I welcome the amendments moved today in response to concerns
I expressed in Committee. I acknowledge that they meet fully the precise concerns identified by the Minister.
I thank the noble Baroness for writing to me in advance of Report stage with an explanation of why the Government have chosen this route for the amendments. I am grateful to her today for putting on the record her commitment with regard to the Register of Financial Interests. That indeed troubled me.
The Minister referred to the order-making power about which I tabled an amendment in Committee and which she referred back to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That committee was so swift—it discussed the matter yesterday—that I was able to receive a letter on the Front Bench today. I was, therefore, aware of the decision. I have already been able to indicate to the chairman of the committee that I fully accept its decision and have no intention of returning to the matter at Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Functions of existing regulators]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSALS

(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any bill containing provisions relating to the implementation of any relevant proposals within the meaning of section 2(3) is—

(a) published in draft; and

(b) subject to consultation.

(2) The period for consultation shall be such as to allow scrutiny of any draft bill by a joint committee of both flouses of Parliament."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have banged on about the case for a Joint Committee of both Houses until the House has been driven to distraction. Were the Minister a less patient person she, too, would have been driven to distraction. Instead she has listened with close attention and has promised to consider the matter. I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we now hear what the noble Baroness is able to tell us.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my noble friend has made clear his view that we should allow for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and I have expressed a good deal of sympathy for that approach. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for pressing us so hard on this issue.
I am delighted to be able to tell him that the Government are confident that time can be found, if Parliament wishes, for a Joint Committee to undertake this task. Nearer the time we shall invite Parliament to establish such a committee. I hope that on the basis of that assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as it is Report stage, perhaps I may speak next so that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is able to respond fully to the Minister.
I thank the noble Baroness for listening to the requests made in Committee from all sides of the House that the procedure of a Joint Committee on pre-legislative scrutiny should take place. I appreciate that the Government had to go through certain administrative procedures behind the scenes before they are able to give as near an assurance as any government are able to give on these matters. I welcome the noble Baroness's words today.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, makes his final comment, perhaps I may say that the House should not underestimate the importance of the Minister's remarks. This is a real, positive step towards good governance. It is an immensely complicated Bill involving a wide range of outside interests. If we had tried to carry it through without the pre-legislative consultation, we should have been seeking in all manner of ways to get points of view across to the House.
We have a real opportunity to invite those outside interests to make their contribution transparently under the scrutiny of Members. It is a really good day

1289
for Parliament when the Government concede such an approach on a major and complicated Bill. Let us hope that this example is followed in many more Bills to come.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks which were more fulsome than many Members of this House might have expected. I thank, too, the many noble Lords who supported the cause, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who have put their names to the amendment.
It is right to say that this does not involve only Members of this House. We are talking about a Joint Committee. Both opposition parties in the Commons wrote to the Minister asking for such a committee; and the All-Party Media Group backed it. Nevertheless, governments have been known to resist such forces in the past. I hope that it will not be felt to be sycophantic if I welcome greatly the announcement that the Government have made.
As is evident, it is goods news for the communications industry and all the interests involved. It is the way to hammer things out. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said this is a very good day for Parliament. This is precisely the kind of Bill which deserves such examination in this forum—pre-scrutiny which can be truly effective because it seeks the best possible results rather than scoring any political points. The Government deserve great credit for agreeing to it. I had thought that we were knocking at a semi-open door. The Minister has opened it wide and we all cheerfully crowd through. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Winding up of OFCOM on abandonment etc. of proposals]:
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 24, after "abandonment" insert "or modification"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23.
Amendment No. 20 is a small drafting amendment. I believe that it is worth bringing it before the House because by adding two words to line 24 on page 4 of the Bill we can eliminate no fewer than three lines of the Bill.
Clause 4(1) states:
"If, in consequence of—

(a) the abandonment of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications, or

(b) the modification of any such proposals,
it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary … he may by order provide for the winding up and dissolution of OFCOM".

Precisely the same result can be achieved both in legal effect and in clarity of expression by simply adding the words "or modification" after "abandonment" and removing subsection (1)(b). Subsection (1) would thus become four lines rather
1290
than seven. We should not make a clause any longer than is necessary. Amendment No. 21 is consequential. My Amendment No. 23 is unnecessary if Amendment No. 22, which has been tabled by the Government, takes effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23. His expertise in these matters and his eye for detail are remarkable. We are happy to accept Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 as we agree that there is little need to separate the reference to "abandonment" or "modification" of relevant proposals, as the Bill currently does.
However, there is some difficulty in accepting consequential Amendment No. 23 to Clause 4, as this could leave some doubt as to what the Secretary of State would be under a duty to act in consequence of. In order to be entirely clear about what is being referred to, we propose Amendment No. 22 to replace the wording,
"If, in consequence of anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (I)"
at the start of Clause 4(2), with,
"If in consequence of the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications".
As a result of that change, Amendment No. 24 is also needed to make a minor alteration in Clause 4(2) to the reference to subsection (1).
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is prepared to agree that we should accept Amendment No. 20 and Amendment No. 21, which I hope he will move, and that he should not move Amendment No. 23 but instead agree with our Amendments Nos. 22 and 24.
Amendment No. 84 is a technical, tidying-up amendment to remove superfluous wording that has no effect and should therefore be removed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux)The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 30, leave out from first "of' to first "it" in line 31 and insert "the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about the regulation of communications"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 4, line 33, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (1)"
Page 5, line 21, leave out "or 2" and insert ", 2 or (Management 4 OFCOM)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
"(e) the Board of Governors of the BBC;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 is not moved. It was referred to by myself and the Minister in the debate on Amendment No. 7. In the light of the Minister's reply, it would clearly waste the time of the House to move the amendment tonight. I invite the Minister to look at the clauses in the paving Bill that refer to the phrase "existing regulator". She will find that only one of them refers to a transfer of property. The idea that no property is involved is not a sufficient answer to my amendment. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 3, leave out "and 2" and insert ", 2 and ( Management of OFCOM)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gordon of Strathblanehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 5. 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 eight 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: My Lords, in light of the Minister's helpful remarks in the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I should like to study them in detail. I think, although I am not certain, that they meet my objections. I do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this Act shall come into force until a bill, draft or otherwise, to give effect to the proposals referred to in section 2(3) is introduced into either House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I take the same action as that of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Schedule [Further provision about OFCOM]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 4, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7. line 7, at end insert
"( ) Before appointing a person as a non-staff member of OFCOM, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the appointments panel has taken into account the views of the chairman before making their recommendations as to the appointments to be made."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. I tabled it to give the Government the opportunity to respond to what I thought was a constructive suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in Committee, at col. 166 on 6th November, on the procedure for appointing non-staff members to Ofcom.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the chair of a body such as Ofcom was not usually involved in the Nolan process of selecting members of the board. He suggested that the independent Nolan-type panel should be given the opportunity to have the chair of Ofcom present when making decisions on appointments so that they could ask questions about the detailed requirements of the post rather than having to rely on a written summary and a prepared briefing.
Now that the Minister has had the opportunity to consider that idea, I wonder whether she can put on the record the Government's view. Do they agree that that could be a useful procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I stick by what I said previously. It represents what would be good practice and I hope that the Government seek to extend it across a range of appointments as a way of making the process more efficient. However, I do not think that it is appropriate for the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay said, the amendment concerns the involvement of the chairman of Ofcom in the appointment of non-executive directors. As I said in Committee, the appointment of non-executive members of Ofcom—I am now using the words "non-executive" instead of "non-staff"—will be in line with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The guidance says that departments may seek the views of the chairman of the body concerned on issues such as selection criteria and the balance of the board. Although the guidance says "may", it is an example of when it would be foolish to ignore it.
The chairman will be involved in drawing up the role specifications for a particular board vacancy in putting forward names of potential candidates and

1293
considering names suggested by other sources. The aim of the guidance is to keep chairs fully in touch throughout the appointments process and that will be the case for appointments of non-executive members to Ofcom. There is no need to set that out in the Bill.
On the issue of whether the chair should be present, which my noble friend Lord Dubs raised in Committee, that is a BBC procedure that predates the Nolan proposals. We do not propose to introduce it in this case.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for putting on record a further explanation. I made it clear that this was a probing amendment. There are some questions of good practice to which we may return. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that this is one kind of good practice that the organisation would be rather foolish to ignore. I am very interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that perhaps this is the kind of good practice that should be practised—for want of a better expression—more widely. I shall look at it in further detail, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 9, leave out -non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 10, at end insert
"( ) Before appointing a person to be the chairman, the Secretary of State shall also satisfy himself that the person will have no employment or other commitments or responsibilities as are likely to affect prejudicially his ability to devote sufficient time to the undertaking of his functions as the chairman and as a member of OFCOM."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41 which is grouped with it. Both are probing amendments which in a sense are tidying-up questions on matters of good practice which I hope will not need to be taken further if we are given an explanation by the Government. Both amendments deal with the Government's expectations with regard to the role of the members and chairman of Ofcom.
I tabled Amendment No. 35 in response to remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee in relation to an amendment which examined the reasons why the Secretary of State should, or could, allow a member of Ofcom to remain in post, even though he or she was incapacitated or unfit to carry out functions as a member of the board. On 6th November the Minister argued at col. 163 of the Official Report that the Secretary of State should retain discretion as to whether or not to remove unfit persons on the basis that they may be only temporarily unfit. The Minister gave as an example the scenario
1294
where an Ofcom member may have taken a temporary job which was in conflict with his or her remaining a member of Ofcom.
The Minister argued that the Secretary of State should be able to leave that person in office while he or she took a temporary break from the work of Ofcom. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider further the implications of this for the effective operation of Ofcom? After all, at the moment the Bill provides for a maximum of six members of Ofcom: one of them will be chairman and another chief executive. Even if the size of the board is increased by secondary legislation the Government have made it clear that they intend the board should be as small as possible.
There is no doubt that absences from meetings of the board will compromise the operation of Ofcom. Some absences are unavoidable and will not be the choice of the board member, for example, because of his or her illness. But it is altogether another matter if the board member has accepted an appointment to Ofcom knowing full well what the work and its responsibilities entail and subsequently decides to take on another job which he or she knows will prevent that member from doing his or her duty as an Ofcom board member. If that occurred it would not appear to be responsible action by that individual. Certainly, it would be odd if the Government gave anyone the green light to do that.
The Nolan procedures are both welcome and proper, but we should recognise that it takes a considerable time to make appointments. Once made, the successful appointees must be under no illusion that they should take their role seriously and are not able to opt in and out of the work as it may be convenient to their business careers. Can the Minister explain to the House the Government's further thoughts on these matters? For example, will the Secretary of State take a different view if the temporary job is taken by the chairman rather than one of the members; if it is for six months rather than six days—in other words, whether the length of time matters—or if this is the second or subsequent occasion that a member has decided to opt out of his or her Ofcom work?
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 41 which I tabled as a consequence of the comment by the Minister in Committee that,
"the chairman is likely to be part-time".—[Official Report, 29/10/01; col. 1228.]
We have already been told that the appointment of chairman will be made next year. One hopes and assumes, therefore, that the Government have already made great strides in preparing a job description for that post. Can the Government confirm that? If so, will the Government be able to publish it before the Bill leaves this House?
The proposal to have a part-time chairman raises three questions which I should be grateful if the Minister could address tonight. What will be his or her responsibilities? How part-time is "part-time"? How can the work of four existing heads of regulators and the Secretary of State's duties in relation to radio

1295
communications be carried out adequately by one part-time chairman at Ofcom? The Minister may say that one cannot be aware of all this until later, but since she is already on record as saying that the chairman is likely to be part-time one assumes that these matters have been taken into consideration.
The Minister also said, again at col. 1228, that,
"The chief executive will be a full-time appointee and an expert in matters of regulation".
Does that mean that the Government anticipate that the chairman could be inexperienced in such matters? I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, towards the end of her remarks on Amendment No. 41 the noble Baroness wondered how the roles of full-time chairmen of five bodies merged into one could possibly be carried out by someone who was only part-time. But, surely, this paving Bill is concerned with the Ofcom that is to be created by the Bill which has a temporary role and the other regulators continue in existence. By Amendment No. 41 the noble Baroness forces the Government from the very beginning to appoint someone who is full time when that may or may not be necessary. I do not know.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, following the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I am very supportive of my noble friend particularly in relation to Amendment No. 41. In no sense am I the spiritual heir of Professor Parkinson, but it is my experience that when Ministers ask individuals to take on jobs which are not necessarily full-time almost always they underestimate the amount of time that those people need to put in to discharge the tasks. Although the Government may be reluctant to see a particular number of hours placed on the face of the Bill, my noble friend introduces an extraordinarily valuable precaution and in that respect I am very supportive of it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 represents good practice which I am sure takes place anyway. Therefore, there is no point in putting it on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 41 raises a point of principle. Here I differ from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. To have a chairman of a body work full-time and, therefore, as long as the chief executive, is not totally satisfactory. There may be a conflict of roles and I am not sure that that is a desirable direction in which to proceed. In the end, it may be necessary to have a chairman who is virtually full time, but at this stage to suggest that that is the only way to proceed because five bodies are to be merged weakens the very delicate balance that one seeks to achieve between the chairman and chief executive of an organisation. The more the chairman works full-time the more difficult it is to place the two roles in the right relationship one to the other. I hope that the Government not only reject the amendment but do their best not to have a chairman for as long as five days a week.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that in Committee we said we expected the chairman of
1296
Ofcom to carry out his functions on a part-time basis. We want the chairman and other non-executive members to bring a range of experience relevant to the responsibilities of Ofcom and to keep that body in touch with the outside world. It is not inconceivable that the chairman could have other calls on his or her time, but that does not mean that he could have commitments or interests which affect prejudicially his ability to devote sufficient time to the undertaking, or that they should be of such a nature as would bring them into conflict with his role as chairman. There is nothing wrong with a part-time appointment. The chairmen of the BBC and ITC are part-time appointments. But clearly it is important that there should not be any conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State will ensure that that is the case.
Similarly, if the noble Baroness is worried about the prospect that the chairman might take a leave of absence which could damage the position. the Secretary of State would consider the matter and certainly would not allow a leave of absence that would render the post unoccupied when it needed to be occupied—if I may put it that way. The Bill provides flexibility in this area. If a short period of absence would not be damaging and other members could provide cover for the post, of course that would be acceptable. Otherwise, we would expect the chairman to resign.
All this will be covered by the job description. Although it is not yet ready, we aim to make it available before the Bill leaves Parliament. I hope that that will be helpful. As regards the onerous tasks of the job, I should point out that the chairman will have to assist him the experience of the board, as well as the support of a full-time chief executive and adequate staff. Provision has been made to increase the size of the board if that is considered necessary.
I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances. the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who contributed to our brief debate on these matters. I was intrigued by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He went to the heart of the issue by saying that we appear to be recruiting a person to become the chair of a body which has a limited range of operation, but which later may well evolve into a far more demanding role. However, the person recruited will need the skills of a chameleon to change the way in which he or she operates. That I believe will be a challenge for the Government in terms of advertising the post as well as a challenge for the candidate who seeks to meet the requirements.
I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville for his support. He was quite right to point out that whoever is appointed may well find, as so often happens, that no matter what is set out in the job description as regards the amount of time needed to carry out the tasks, the postholder finds that he or she has to do a great deal more work than has been provided for in the job description.

1297
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a proper point as regards taking care not to muddle the roles of the chairman and the chief executive. I certainly would not wish to do so and that was not my intention in tabling the amendments.
I am grateful to the Minister for making two points. First, he believes that the Bill already provides sufficient flexibility in these matters. I hope that is the case and I wait to see whether his assurances are borne out in reality. Secondly, I welcome in particular the fact that he has been able to put on the record the Government's intention to make available the job description for the chairman before the Bill leaves Parliament. I wonder if, by that comment, the noble Lord means that it will be published before the Bill leaves another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 7, line 13, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 7, line 14. leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 7. line 27. at end insert—
"( ) Before appointing members of OFCOM the Secretary of State shall ensure that at all times, where possible, at least two members of OFCOM are qualified lawyers or economists and who have appropriate experience and knowledge of competition law and practice.
( ) A lawyer will he qualified for these purposes only if

(a) he has a seven year general qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41),

(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, or

(c) he is—

(i) a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland of at least seven years' standing. Or

(ii) a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least seven years' standing."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this probing amendment seeks to drive home the critically important point that Ofcom should be, above all else, an effective competition authority. In particular, it is clear that the Government intend that Ofcom should inherit the concurrent powers under the Competition Act 1998 which at present are held by Oftel. But it also seems likely that concurrent powers will be extended to cover the full, "converged" area of Ofcom's operations, including broadcasting, where at present competition cases are handled by the OFT, not the ITC. Ofcom may therefore end up handling some of the most strategically important competition cases within the United Kingdom, not only in telecoms but also in broadcasting.
In our view it is entirely appropriate to ask the Government to make explicit that they will appoint to the core of Ofcom a number of persons with experience and expertise in that particular area. That does not simply mean appointing those who have general experience either in telecoms or broadcasting circles, but rather people who are expert in the specific field of competition law, in particular as it is applied to telecoms and broadcasting.
As was recognised in the Competition Act, the provisions of the Bill indicate a role for qualified competition lawyers and economists. Indeed, much of the wording of the amendment is lifted directly from the Competition Act—specifically paragraph 26 of Schedule 7—which deals with the qualification of persons for the panel of tribunal chairmen. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to make a brief intervention. The amendment is interesting in terms of what it reveals about the views of the Conservative Front Bench. The amendment seeks qualified lawyers, but any old economist will do. Noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench decided not to define, or perhaps could not define, what was meant by suitable economists. A certain weakness lies in the amendment, quite apart from the basic principle being addressed. On second thoughts, I know why the qualifications of the economists were not specified. It could not be done because it was far too difficult. Members on the Conservative Front Bench have left it well alone, thereby exposing a weakness.
More seriously, to define in terms of specialist qualifications what will be required of the members of the Ofcom board is, I believe, to misunderstand the nature of what the Ofcom board ought to be. The legal skills prescribed here strike me as the kind of skills that the board of Ofcom ought to have at its disposal; namely, it describes the kind of advice that should be provided by members of the Ofcom staff. Such expertise should not necessarily be prescribed as skills to be held by individual members of the board. The normal and healthy tradition of government Ministers taking advice from expert civil servants, which acknowledges that the individuals themselves do not have the same level of technical expertise as staff in their departments, serves very well. The same would hold good for Ofcom and similar bodies.
We need individuals for the Ofcom board who prove themselves able to master the technical and skilled advice that they are given, rather than those who are so qualified. After all, many other qualifications could also be listed. I cite, for example, knowledge of broadcasting and of the Internet. Those skills are not listed in the amendment. In fact, the amendment exposes some weaknesses of approach, even though it is only a probing amendment, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Perhaps it has exposed more weaknesses in her thinking than she may have wanted to reveal.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dubs I, too, oppose the amendment. I do so for three reasons. The first is rather similar to the points made

1299
by my noble friend. Here we are appointing a regulatory body. We are not, apropos the last remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, appointing a tribunal. Ofcom will be a regulatory body whose members—as distinct from the staff of that body, who no doubt will need to hold this or that qualification—will need to reach decisions. It would be wholly wrong in principle to insist on particular professional qualifications for some, even if not for all, the members of the board.
My second reason for opposing the amendment is that Ofcom will be a body which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, stated will start with a minimum membership of three people and a maximum of six. Out of those three to six members, it is being suggested that two should hold very specific qualifications.
The third reason for opposing the amendment is, as I have said, that the qualifications required are extremely specific. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench would have some difficulty in locating such experts when fishing for suitable candidates in what will be a small pool of those who are not only lawyers of a certain standing, but who also have experience and knowledge of a discrete area of law—competition law—which most lawyers would not even admit is a separate topic. It forms part of the larger subject of commercial law. It would be extremely difficult to track down suitable candidates to take on those roles. Thus I believe that there are several reasons for opposing the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have been absorbed by and have understood the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Borrie. In particular I admire the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In that context, I think that he has forgotten the episode of the television production, "Yes, Minister", in which my noble friend Lady Thatcher appeared in person on a proposition that economics should be abolished. In those circumstances, my noble friend has been extraordinarily prudent, in terms of the theology of our party, not to ascribe specific qualifications to economists.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last thing I want to do is to offend lawyers or economists, since we are surrounded by them in this House. I was once a university Fellow in Economics at an American university, and I must be the only person to get a second-class degree with three gamma minuses, one of which was in the theory of economics. I also remind the House that one can become a Fellow of the Royal Economic Society and place it after your name simply by subscribing to its journal; not many people know that.
We have always said that, so long as it can operate effectively, we want the board of Ofcom to be as small and flexible as possible. It will need the right mix of experience and skills to cover the range of Ofcom's responsibilities. In the initial preparatory stage, the board will consist of between three and six members. Particular skills and experience, perhaps involving
1300
change of management or human resources issues, may be of greater relevance to the board in the early stages. We may need to enlarge the board when Ofcom starts to take on its regulatory functions. It may be necessary to have members with direct experience of competition law and practice, but Ofcom may also find that it needs board experience covering other areas of its responsibilities. The needs of the board may change; other types of experience and skills could be required. We cannot make that sort of provision in advance. I am glad that the noble Baroness. Lady Miller, has recognised that this is and should be a probing amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for riding to the rescue and giving such a happy and friendly example to your Lordships to demonstrate that the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, are quite irrelevant With regard to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested that I had no idea how to describe the an economist, I have now learned a good deal from the Minister.
This is a probing amendment. One advantage of a probing amendment is that one can ask questions and find out that one is right or completely wrong in what one says. Having previously received few compliments from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and agreement having been expressed with some of the things that I have done, I believe that I can stand up quite bravely and say that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 39 and 40:
Page 7, line 30, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 7, line 32, leave out -non-staff- and insert "non-executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 77:
Page 7, line 35, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 7, line 37, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 11, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 14, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 18, leave out "non-staff- and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 24, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 27, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 28, leave out "a staff" and insert "an executive"
Page 8, line 30, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 31, leave out "staff' and insert "executive"
Page 8, line 32, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 8, line 34, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 3, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 10, leave out "staff' and insert "executive"
Page 9, line 12, leave out "staff' and insert "executive"
Page 9, line 13, leave out "staff" and insert "executive"

1301
Page 9, line 15, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive
Page 9, line 17, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 18, leave out "staff- and insert "executive"
Page 9. linssse 24, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 25, leave out "a staff" and insert "an executive"
Page 9, line 28, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 30, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 9, line 32, leave out "a staff" and insert "an executive"
Page 9. line 35, leave out "a staff' and insert "an executive"
Page 9, line 38, leave out "a staff" and insert "an executive"
Page 9, line 39, leave out "a staff" and insert "an executive"
Page 9. line 41, leave out "staff" and insert "executive"
Page 9. line 45, leave out "staff' and insert "executive"
Page 10, line 9, leave out "a staff member or a non-staff" and insert "an executive member or a non-executive"
Page 12, line 24, leave out -non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 12, line 26, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 12, line 28. at end insert—
"(3A) Ofcom shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, any arrangements which they make under this paragraph."
Page 12. line 29, at end insert—
"15A Ofcom shall make arrangements for the keeping of proper records

(a) of their proceedings;

(b) of the proceedings of any committee established by them;

(c) of the proceedings at any meeting of the chairman and other non-executive members of Ofcom; and

(d) of anything done by an employee or member of Ofcom under paragraph 17(a)."

Page 12, line 33, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 12. line 42, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, as Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 have been marshalled incorrectly, I have to call Amendment No. 79 before calling Amendment No. 78.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert

"( ) In the case of a resolution made under sub-paragraph (3)(a), Ofcom shall publish within 30 days a statement of the interest and the reasons why it was appropriate to disregard it."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House and to save time, I shall refer to the government amendment that we had thought was Amendment No. 78 at the same time as I speak to Amendment No. 79.
I welcome government Amendment No. 78. It fully meets a concern that I expressed in Committee. The reason that I have tabled Amendment No. 79 is to probe one remaining matter about which I am concerned regarding the way in which financial interests shall be declared by members of the Ofcom board and of Ofcom's committees. We are at the tail end of this Report stage, and I am very aware that my
1302
Amendment No. 79 is a tail-end amendment, too. It is a minor matter about which I hope the Government can give an assurance.
Part of my Amendment No. 79 is met by the government's Amendment No. 78. I tabled mine before they tabled theirs. Since it is a probing amendment, I felt that it was not worth taking up your Lordships' time by withdrawing my amendment and retabling something else.
The Government have made some significant improvements to the Bill today with regard to the declaration of financial interests. But, even with the benefit of those amendments and I hope the benefit of the government's Amendment No. 78 when we come to it, the public will not know why the board or committee felt it appropriate to disregard the declaration of interest and then allow the person involved to remain for the decision-making process from which they could possibly obtain financial benefit.
Amendment No. 79 seeks to correct that omission by providing transparency. My amendment would ensure that if someone declared a financial interest and was then allowed to take part in the decision-making process, Ofcom would simply have to publish a statement of the financial interest and the reasons why all the other members agreed to disregard it. It would be given 30 days within which to publish such a statement.
The government's Amendment No. 78 has also given rise to another question which I shall address now in the interests of saving time later. The new clause tabled by the Minister, to which we spoke earlier, gives us the reassurance that the public will be able to gain access to a record of the financial interests of the members of the board. But does that also give them the right to have access to a record of the financial interests of the members of Ofcom's committees, who, of course, need not be members of the board?
If the new clause does not provide that right with regard to committee members' interests, we could find ourselves faced with a position in which a member of a committee who was not a board member was able to benefit financially from a decision taken by the committee that he or she had attended, but the public would have no way of discovering that he or she had participated in that decision in which he or she had a financial interest. It would therefore seem appropriate to extend the provisions of my Amendment No. 79 to the proceedings of committees.
This is a probing amendment at this stage. It may be that the Government can give me some assurance that this problem is covered in another part of the Bill.I should be grateful if the Minister would address that matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we agreed in Committee to consider the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to ensure that serious conflicts of interest do not arise in relation to the committees that Ofcom will be able to establish and, in particular,

1303
whether unanimity should be required in the proceedings of its committees before a declaration of interest by a member of one of those committees could be disregarded.
I believe that the noble Baroness accepts that the highest standards should apply to decisions taken by the members of Ofcom itself. As the members of Ofcom will be acting collectively, we consider that unanimity in meetings of Ofcom and between its members would be appropriate before a declaration of a direct or indirect interest should be disregarded.
As I mentioned in Committee, the Secretary of State must satisfy herself before appointing the chairman and other non-executive members that they do not have financial or other interests which would affect them prejudicially in carrying out their functions as members of Ofcom. However, a member of Ofcom having any form of direct or indirect interest in a matter falling to be considered at a meeting will have to declare that interest. It will be for the other members of Ofcom to decide unanimously whether or not the nature of the interest declared was such that it should disqualify the person concerned.
We will expect the committees established by Ofcom to operate to the highest standards. However, in the case of those committees that are purely advisory in nature, many of their members will be chosen because of their experience or because they represent particular interests. We believe that it would be inappropriate to require unanimity to disregard a declaration of interest on those advisory committees, especially as a single dissenting voice could prevent anyone declaring an entirely legitimate interest from participating in discussions in which their experience would be of value. Therefore, in connection with committees of a purely advisory nature, I hope the noble Baroness will agree that a degree of flexibility should be provided to allow Ofcom to authorise the procedure under which declarations should be dealt with.
With regard to those executive committees established by Ofcom to carry out functions on its behalf, we accept that a higher level of propriety should be expected than might be applied just to advisory committees. Again, as it is likely that many members of executive committees will be chosen for their skills, their experience or to represent particular interests, we do not believe it appropriate that a single voice should be able to prevent participation by those declaring legitimate interests.
Amendment No. 78 therefore proposes that a two-thirds majority of those present and eligible to vote should be in favour of allowing a person declaring an interest to continue to participate in a meeting, subject to the number in favour being above that required for a quorum of the committee. It would again be for the members of the committee in question to decide whether any interest declared was of such a nature that the person should be debarred from participating further in the matter under consideration.
Turning to Amendment No. 79, I can appreciate the purpose which lies behind it. As I have said, we expect Ofcom and its committees to operate to the highest
1304
standards and they should be as open and transparent in their proceedings as possible. We have accepted changes to the Bill to ensure that Ofcom should follow the principles of good governance applicable to it. While I do not believe that it should be necessary to place the matters covered by the amendment on the face of the Bill, Ofcom should certainly follow its spirit. We would therefore expect Ofcom to be as open as possible about the reasons why declarations of interests made at its meetings were disregarded.
Turning to the noble Baroness's more specific question, as publication of interests is a matter of good governance, there is nothing in the Bill in regard to either the board or committee members. I would expect the same practice of good governance to be applied to both.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept Amendment No. 78 as an improvement and will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 79.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords. I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. I certainly welcome government Amendment No. 78. It is a curious situation where the Marshalled List is wrong and my later amendment is dealt with first.
The Minister raised an interesting point with regard to the difference in the treatment of executive as opposed to advisory committees. That is something I shall wish to consider further in case there are any other implications. I welcome the response of the Minister to my amendment and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 79.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
"(3A) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in granting authorisations for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b), to secure that a resolution for those purposes does not allow a person to take part in a discussion or decision at a meeting of a committee established by virtue of paragraph 14(1)(a) unless at least the following requirements are met—

(a) the number of other members of the committee in favour of the resolution is not less than two thirds of those who are both present and entitled to vote on the resolution; and

(b) the number of other members of the committee in favour of the resolution is not less than its quorum."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 86:
Page 13, line 5, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 13, line 12, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"
Page 13, line 17, leave out "non-staff' and insert "non-executive"
Page 13, line 19, leave out "the other non-staff" and insert "other non-executive"
Page 13, line 42, leave out "Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph,"
Page 14, line 2, leave out "non-staff" and insert "non-executive"

1305
Page 14, line 39, at end insert—
"Public records
21A In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (c. 51) (administrative and departmental records of certain bodies to be public records), in the Table, in Part 2, at the appropriate place there shall be inserted—
'Office of Communications.'"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 87 and 88:
Page 15, line 7, leave out ""non-staff" and insert ""non-executive"
Page 15, line 8, leave out "a staff- and insert "an executive"
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Dentists Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 2001
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as part of the Government's modernisation programme for the NHS, we seek to modernise and make more robust the system of professional self-regulation of the healthcare professions. The order before your Lordships' House today is an important first step towards that aim.
Many of the processes and rules of professional regulatory bodies are bound by primary legislation which pre-dates the modern era of openness and responsiveness. The Government have addressed this by taking powers in the Health Act 1999 to modernise this legislation more rapidly and easily than was previously possible.
Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 enables amendments to be made to primary legislation dealing with the regulation of healthcare and associated professions by Order in Council. The order before your Lordships House today concerns dentistry, and I should like to pay tribute to the role of the General Dental Council. Under the presidency of Professor Nairn Wilson and his predecessor, Dame Margaret Seward, the council has pursued a policy of modernisation since at least 1995. This order will place dentistry among the first professions to make life-long learning a mandatory requirement. But it is just the first part of a programme of reform, and work has already begun on a second order which will cover the fitness to practice of dentists.
The first issue addressed by the order is the composition of the council. The current situation is unsatisfactory because the council is too large to be a fully effective decision-making body and the lay representation too small to ensure a fair balance of patient and consumer interest.
Articles 3 and 4 of the order empower the GDC to reconstitute its council. The exact composition will be the subject of an Order in Council which requires the approval of the Privy Council. The GDC's current thinking is to have a council of between 25 and 30 members, of whom one-third would be lay people and the remainder dentists and professionals complementary to dentistry.
Article 5 of the order provides for the rationalisation of the GDC's committee structure. This provides for the creation of an additional continuing professional development committee and the abolition of the education committee. There has been a misunderstanding in the profession about the education committee proposal. This is a technical amendment. The GDC will continue to have such a committee, with strong representation from the educational institutions to advise on its duty to set educational standards and accredit training institutions, but it will no longer be a statutory committee.
The abolition is proposed because, in contrast to the council's other statutory committees, the education committee has no statutory powers; it cannot suspend or erase a dentist. Removing the committee from primary legislation would therefore give the GDC more flexibility should the composition of the GDC committee responsible for education need to be altered.
Finally, I wish to turn to the other main objective feature of the order, which is about life-long learning for dentists. Continuing professional development programmes are the means by which dentists ensure that their practice is up to date with developments in medical and dental science.
Article 8 of the order empowers the registrar of the GDC to erase from the dental register the name of a dentist who has not met the council's re-certification requirements. However, the GDC recognises that these requirements have to be easily understood by dentists and any sanctions applied fairly. Article 8 also provides for the GDC to make rules on the operation of the re-certification scheme, including the conditions which dentists who have been erased would have to meet to secure restoration to the register.
To provide further assurance that the scheme is fair to dentists, the order provides a right of appeal to a newly-constituted continuing professional development committee for dentists who have been notified that they are to be erased for non-compliance with the council's re-certification scheme. A further right of appeal will then be available to the Privy Council.
Article 9 empowers the GDC to make rules on the procedures to be followed by the CPD committee and the rules of evidence that the committee would have to observe.
I believe that the proposals before the House today are sensible and very much underpin the modernisation of regulation within the profession of dentistry. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his clear and helpful explanation of the order, which we welcome.
The contents of the order have been the subject of extensive consultation and I understand that the British Dental Association supports it fully. It seems to me that the order is deserving of a wider welcome, given that its general thrust is to make the General Dental Council more responsive to the concerns of patients and to ensure that the quality agenda in healthcare applies as much to dentists as it does to doctors and other health professionals. That is surely the right direction in which the profession should be moving.
When the Health Act 1999 was debated in this House, we realised the good sense of being able to amend the regulatory arrangements for the health professions by statutory instrument. The advantage of doing so is that of speed. Previously, the only way of making changes of this kind was by primary legislation. It was for that reason that the previous Conservative government found themselves unable to respond to the requests put forward by the General Dental Council in 1996.
This order, which provides for a professional majority on the General Dental Council, preserves the important principle of professional self-regulation. However, that fact and the unamendable nature of statutory instruments create an obligation to ensure that the profession itself is content with the arrangements proposed. We know that that is the case so far as concerns dentists; but it is a point that applies more generally to all the relevant professions, and one to which we shall return as we debate subsequent orders under the 1999 Act.
However, given that the main advantages of the order-making power in the 1999 Act are speed and flexibility, I must ask the Minister why it has taken nearly two and a half years from the passing of the Act to the laying of this order. The dentistry profession has understandably been keen to move forward with these changes as rapidly as possible. Discussions about them began in the summer of 1999. Even allowing for the need to consult, I do not understand why we could not have been debating this order a year ago.
I say that not to be awkward, but to flag up my anxiety that the other measures, which I know the General Dental Council is keen to see approved by Parliament, may not see the light of day for some time to come. I hope I am wrong about that, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister that progress on the questions of the performance review scheme for poorly performing dentists, misconduct procedures, regulation of the professions allied to dentistry and of dental bodies corporate, and other issues, will be expedited as rapidly as possible.
It is a pity that it has not proved feasible to incorporate all these measures into a single order. But since it has not, I hope that the Government will accept
1308
the case for maximum speed in introducing the remainder of the reform programme, consistent with the need to secure a wide professional consensus.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his clear exposition. I welcome the order. It is worth noting that this is the first use of the powers in the Health Act over which we laboured two years ago. I am sure that this is a useful precedent. I hope that the orders that come before this House in the future are as uncontentious. I suspect that that will not be the case, but we certainly welcome the order before us today.
I have listened with care to the Minister's remarks and I have read the fairly extended discussion on this matter in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place. There has been a fair working over of the issues set out in the order. Generally in the profession the order is supported on all sides. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the aims of the order must be supported by us all in terms of not only a smaller and more effective governing body but also in terms of an increase in lay representation, which is clearly going in the right direction. The compulsory professional development of dentists as a precondition for registration is important. On these Benches, we always like the phrase "life long learning". That must surely be a step in the right direction.
We look forward to the forthcoming orders which will reform procedures further. I refer, for example, to the introduction of new complaints systems and the regulation of the professions complementary to dentistry. But will the Minister say what is the time-scale for the orders? It seems that the fitness to practise order is being drafted at present. But the precise nature of the orders is important.
I understand from the debate that took place in another place that only this order is subject to the affirmative resolution. The next set of orders will be subject to the negative procedure. The Minister in another place said that they were orders of the Privy Council. I am not aware of exactly why there should be a difference. If there is a difference, and the negative procedure is used, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is important: in circumstances where we do not have the opportunity to question the Minister directly on the orders, consultation is of great importance. That is a minatory note. These orders need airing. We need to have a discussion and make sure that all parties are able to contribute.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am grateful to Minister for the way in which he has explained the order, identified the issues and confirmed the fact that it is the first in a series to modernise the regulation of dentistry. I declare an interest as a practising dentist. I, and the profession, welcome the proposed legislation which will formalise the GDC's current initiative for continuing professional development—life long learning.
This will be phased in from 1st January 2002. The dental profession is solidly behind the GDC initiative. Some 13,000 have already registered voluntarily under

1309
the scheme. That bodes well for the future of dentistry. Compulsory continuing professional development, as a condition of registration, will help to maintain and improve standards in the dental profession, and to enhance public confidence.
The GDC is to be congratulated on having assembled a steering group in 1999, gathering together representatives of all the major stakeholders in the profession in order to take forward the council's proposals with a solid consensus. The proposed changes in the composition of the GDC will make it more manageable and more able to operate responsively and in a strategic way. The proportion of lay members will be tripled. The increase in the membership and participation of the professionals complementary to dentistry is appropriate to pave the way for proposed future registration of nurses and technicians who will join the hygienists and therapists.
The greater separation of the GDC's investigative and prosecuting function from the actual hearing and determination of cases is a crucially important one. The current lack of separation between the prosecution and hearings roles of the council undermines the appearance of fairness. The council's proposals are to create three distinct functions which will fall within the ambit of "fitness for registration". They are: health, conduct and performance.
While declaring my interest as a former chairman of Dental Protection Ltd, I think that the third category is a very positive step. It gives the council a valuable third option, which would allow an under-performing dentist to be assisted with a clear and structured personal development plan in order to allow that dentist to be a safe and useful member of the profession again; as opposed to the present situation, where the dentist is either subjected to severe disciplinary penalties, including suspension and erasure from the register, or where on occasions a decision is postponed, allowing the dentist further opportunity—perhaps a year later—to demonstrate that he or she is fit to practise safely. During this time the dentist tends to be left to his or her own devices.
Under the new arrangements, a performance committee would have a much wider range of constructive options available to it; but only the conduct committee itself would have the power to suspend or erase, or to impose conditional registration. This would appear to be a considerable improvement on the present situation.
Finally, I recognise that this is only the first in a series of orders to which the Government are committed. Subsequent orders covering poor performance, patients at risk, registration of the entire dental team, the introduction of a new complaints system—separated from the GDC to enable patients to seek independent resolution of disputes—and measures to improve the regulation of dental corporate bodies will be introduced early next year.
1310
The modernisation has started. I hope that it can be completed very soon. I welcome the order.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I, too, welcome the order. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, a practising dentist, has given it his complete support. To justify my brief contribution, perhaps I should say that a long time ago I was involved in the NHS for a number of years. I was much concerned about the adequacy of lay representation within the NHS machinery.
The order is a short order of seven pages, but to describe it as such does not reflect its importance to the dental profession and patients in the United Kingdom. I am especially pleased that it paves the way for a strong lay element in the composition of the General Dental Council, and that it will ensure that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will have representation and a voice on the council.
The order is therefore a significant improvement on the present position. It is a major milestone in the dental profession's history. It contains some model provisions that could be adopted by other professions within the NHS. I greatly appreciate all the work by the General Dental Council and the departmental team. A great deal of effort has gone into the preparation of the order.
I end with two questions for the Minister. First, when will the retraining scheme come into effect? Secondly—here I end where I began—the order does not contain a job description for a lay member. I did not expect it to do so, but can the Minister confirm that it is not intended that a member of the medical or nursing profession will be deemed to be a lay member for the purpose of the order?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful for the comments that have been made. I welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the order. He was right to say that it is broadly supported among the dental profession—and especially by the BDA, which has played an important role in enabling the profession to discuss the proposals. I agree that the GDC will emerge from the order as a more responsive organisation that will be even more committed to ensuring a quality agenda among the dental profession.
I have always been an admirer of the dental profession in this country. Its standards are high compared to those of many other countries. It is much to the profession's credit that it supports the proposals. I have no doubt that the public will be the winner in receiving an even further increased quality of care.
Noble Lords have assumed that this is the first order to be laid under the Health Act 1999. In fact, it is the second. About a year ago, we laid an order providing for immediate changes to the General Medical Council. I can promise many more orders as we go through the health professions one by one. What I cannot do—I express my regret to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones—is to

1311
give a precise timetable at the moment. I will endeavour to keep noble Lords informed of the progress of the various orders that must be laid.
I have noted the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about professional support for the changes. There has been extensive debate with all of the professions during the past 12 to 24 months, which has been lively. That has helped to inform the process. Each of the orders that will come before your Lordships will ensure professional confidence in the arrangements, but, at the end of the day, the public interest must be paramount.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, chided me for delay in bringing the order before your Lordships' House. I must tell him that I am aware of the General Dental Council's anxiety that the orders be brought to fruition as soon as possible. When I met the GDC several times, it was clear about that message.
On timing, in May 2000, the GDC sent the department proposals for a Section 60 order along the lines of the order before us. We could not respond immediately, because we had to revise the agreement by which NHS dentists are compensated for loss of earnings through undertaking continuing professional development. We had to take account of the extra CPD required under the GDC's re-certification scheme. Agreement with the profession was not reached until November last year. We published the draft order for consultation on 27th April. That was then delayed by the election, and there was no time to arrange a debate before the summer recess. We laid the order as soon as practicable after Parliament returned in October. I accept that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right to press us on speed. I am as committed as he is to ensuring that we deal with the orders as soon as possible.
I was asked about future orders. The orders relating to the GMC, the nursing and midwives council and the Health Professions Council will all be affirmative orders to be debated in your Lordships' House as we are doing today. The orders that will not be affirmative are those that concern the actual membership. Today we are conferring the ability for changes in membership to be made. That will be subject to another order, which will not be an affirmative order.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the other place, an honourable friend of the Minister responded to a question from the honourable Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about how future orders will come before the House. I assume that that Minister was also talking about the orders on complaints and professions complementary to dentistry. She said:
"They will be subject to negative resolution because they will be orders of the Privy Council."—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/01; col. 11.]
Is the Minister saying that that refers only to the composition of the council?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, when my honourable friend said that, she was referring to what we may call the subsidiary orders contained in the dental order before your Lordships' House. The
1312
substantive issues relating to dentistry that will be addressed in the second order will be debated in your Lordships' House under the Section 60 provision. As I said, the orders dealing with the other professions will be dealt with in a similar way.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. He is a distinguished dentist in his own right, and I welcome and agree with his comments about the fairness of the regulatory procedures. He asked what matters were to be contained in a further order. Taken together, the orders place dentistry in a good position. It will be leading the way in regulation. I am convinced that, together with the change to the GDC and the discussions taking place between the department and the dentistry profession, the orders lay an excellent foundation for the future.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies spoke about his experience of NHS dentistry. I agree with him about the need to increase the number of lay members on the GDC and other regulatory bodies. I can confirm that the order's principle of increasing lay membership will be followed through with the other regulatory bodies.
On the question of when re-certification will commence, provided that the order is passed by your Lordships' House, and provided that the GDC can make its rules by 31st December, re-certification will be mandatory from 1st January 2002. My noble friend then asked how one defines a lay person, and whether it could include a doctor or a nurse. Yes, it could be a doctor or a nurse or, indeed, a Member of your Lordships' House. The definition of "lay" essentially is someone other than a person who could be appointed as a professional member of the GDC. It is right that the lay category should be as broad as possible. However, I also believe it is important that the people appointed to the GDC as lay members can reflect the lay person's view. Of course, great care will be taken to ensure that a high calibre of member is appointed.
I believe that I have responded to all the points that were made. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2001
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have great pleasure in presenting to your Lordships significant changes to the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations.
I should first like to provide some background to the Government's consideration of family friendly policies such as parental leave more generally. At the end of last year a Green Paper on work and parents

1313
was published which set out the Government's commitment to helping working parents achieve a better balance between the needs of their work and their home lives. It put forward a range of options to help improve choice for parents and enhance competitiveness and productivity for business.
The consultation, which asked for the views of both employers and employees on which options they wanted the Government to pursue, finished on 7th March this year. Over 600 formal responses were received by the end of the consultation process. In addition, members of the ministerial group and officials from the review team met almost 300 individuals face to face. They spoke to employers or their representatives, working parents and those representing unions or family groups. Further focus group work was also commissioned with expectant mothers and with small employers across Britain.
What we learnt from this comprehensive consultation was that working parents and employers clearly want more support—support for parents to fulfil their potential as both parents and employees and support for business, particularly small business, to take on board changes in legislation. At the core of the Government's decision-making are two principal elements, therefore—ensuring more choice for parents, together with appropriately light touch regulation for business.
In March this year the Government announced a series of new measures to offer more support to working parents around the time of a child's birth. These measures concerning maternity, paternity and adoption leave had all received strong support during the Green Paper consultation and will largely be taken forward through the Employment Bill which the Government introduced on 7th November.
I turn now to the specific subject of today's debate and the announcement we made in April this year to make changes to the regulations that govern parental leave. At the moment, only parents of children born on or after 15th December 1999, the date on which the right was first introduced, qualify for the right. Similarly, parents of disabled children are at present only entitled to the same amount of leave as other parents of 13 weeks.
When the Government introduced parental leave for the first time at the end of 1999, it was a totally new concept in the UK. We had no experience of how it would work in practice and, although we had, of course, consulted business on its possible effects, we could not be sure what, if any, difficulties it might create for businesses. The Government therefore felt at that time that it was important to introduce the right with a "light-touch" approach to give employers time to understand it and its implications.
The Government believe the parental leave right has worked well since its introduction and, accordingly, that the time is now right to increase the amount of leave to parents of disabled children and to extend the right to parental leave to all parents with children under five. During the Green Paper consultation
1314
exercise, parents and employers were almost universally positive in their support of extending the amount of parental leave for parents of disabled children. This will help to give parents of children with disabilities greater flexibility to strike the balance between working and caring for their child's additional needs. The question of extending entitlement to parental leave to parents of children who were under five at the time the right was first introduced was the subject of a specific consultation following the publication of the Green Paper.
The consultation period closed on 8th August, by the end of which 46 formal responses were received, almost equally split between parents, employers, and their various representative bodies. None of these responses opposed the changes, with the majority supporting the proposals, and the Government are therefore proceeding with them. The Government published their responses to the consultation on 18th October.
The changes to the regulations will mean that parents of disabled children can take 18 weeks' leave up to their child's 18th birthday—an increase of five weeks. Different provisions already exist for parents of disabled children whereby they are able to use their leave over a longer period than other parents—up to their child's 18th birthday. By increasing the amount of time these parents can take off to 18 weeks they can, if they so wish, take one working week off per year in parental leave up to their child's 18th birthday. This will give parents of children with disabilities greater flexibility to strike the balance between working and caring for their child's additional needs, and this move has been strongly supported by business and parents and disability groups.
In addition, the Government believe that the time is now right to increase the number of parents who are able to exercise the right to parental leave. The changes to the regulations will ensure that parents of all children who were under five when the right to parental leave was first introduced will now benefit from it.
One effect of the extension of the right is that transitional arrangements will be needed to cover parents of children who have since reached, or will soon reach, the age of five. The Government's aim is to ensure that these parents are not disadvantaged in comparison with the position if the original right had extended to them in 1999 but as far as possible to preserve the existing requirements of the regulations apart from that.
Under the statutory fallback scheme, which forms part of the original regulations, parents are limited to take a maximum of four weeks' parental leave in any one year. On this basis, it will take just over three years for these parents to take their full entitlement of 13 weeks' leave. The same applies to parents of children who were placed with them for adoption in the five years before the right was first introduced. The amended regulations will therefore give all such parents and adopted parents until 31st March 2005 to exercise their right, and parents of disabled children

1315
will have until their child's 18th birthday to take their 18 weeks' entitlement as provided in current legislation.
We intend, subject to approval here, that the amended regulations will come into force on 10th January 2002. These amendments make sound, sensible and necessary improvements to the law. I therefore very much commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I also thank him for the positive history he gave of the consultation process. While we on this side of the House certainly accept the amended regulations, as did the other place, the history of how that arose is not as positive as that of the consultation. I shall try to relate the relevant events as that puts the matter in a proper perspective.
These regulations make three changes to the Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999. Three is a significant number, as the explanatory note provided to your Lordships merely refers to two of them; namely, the retrospective inclusion of certain older children in paragraph 5(2) and increase of the length of leave in the case of disabled children under paragraph 4(b).
However, there is a further important and substantial amendment to the regulations; that is, the provision that employment by a previous employer qualifies an employee for leave from his new employer. I shall turn to the merits of that shortly, but for the moment I should like to be told the reason for the omission of that important provision from the explanatory notes. It seems rather extraordinary that the notes mention two of the provisions but not the third. This is not the first occasion that the DTI has been economical with the facts in the course of these new draft regulations passing through Parliament.
In April, the department issued a press release announcing the extensions to employees' rights covered by the regulations. That press release omitted to mention that the change to the qualifying age was brought about not by the Government suddenly discovering an anomaly in the original regulations or by a spontaneous desire to improve the benefits, but by an action by the TUC for a judicial review of the Government's interpretation of one aspect of the EC directive, which is the source of the original regulations.
The Government resisted the action and resisted it being decided by our own High Court. Instead, it was referred to the European Court of Justice and listed for hearing on 3rd May 2001—a date that your Lordships will recall had some significance, at least for the Government, because it was just a month before the general election.
1316
One week before the hearing date, the Government gave in. Not only that, in the new regulations they have, as is typical of them, gold-plated the directive in a way that I shall describe shortly.
I am sure that the Minister will assure us that that sudden change of heart by the Government had nothing to do with the TUC's possible contribution to the funding of the Labour Party's election campaign. I am sure that the real explanation is that the DTI suddenly realised that the legal advice that it had received previously was hopelessly wrong.
On 1st December 1999, the Minister for Employment and the Regions told the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place:
"All our legal advice tells us that our provision is in accordance with the directive".—[Official Report, Commons Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 1/12/99; col. 15.]
What a pity that, instead of listening to their own advisers, the Government did not listen to the advice of the highly skilled expert on employment law who had been retained by the TUC—Ms Cherie Booth QC—who proved to be right where the Government's lawyers proved to be wrong. What a pity that the Government did not follow the example of the Irish Government, who caved in as soon as the error was pointed out to them.
Last month, my honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked the Minister in the other place how much this legal fiasco had cost the taxpayer, including, no doubt, the substantial fees justifiably charged by Ms Booth. Answer came there none. At first the Minister claimed:
"The subject is still under negotiation. No settlement has yet been made".
Could the costs still have been under negotiation six months after the settlement of the action? I compliment the lawyers involved for their remarkable forbearance about getting paid for their work.
When pressed by my honourable friend to undertake to write to him when the matter was settled and to say how much money was paid to the TUC, the Minister replied:
"No, I will not".—[Official Report, Commons Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 7/11/01; col. 20.]
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the same question. I shall not be satisfied with the answer that the Minister in the other place gave, vaguely hinting at "an element of confidentiality". The payment of public money to a litigant with close political links to the Government is a matter of legitimate public concern and interest.
Only last week, I heard the parliamentary ombudsman complaining on the radio about the Government's refusal to comply with one of his rulings. He said that where public money is involved, the public have a right to know how it is being spent. The Government have had adequate time to consider the implications of my honourable friend's legitimate inquiry in the other place and to agree to answer it. If the Minister cannot now give me the information and will not undertake to provide it to me when it becomes

1317
available, I shall return to the matter at a later date. I hope that he will display the characteristic openness that he has always shown me over the Dispatch Box and will co-operate, making it unnecessary for me to consider the issue again later.
I have given the history of the situation because the Minister gave a long history of the consultation and I thought it proper to say something to put the whole matter into perspective. I shall now deal with the substance of the three prongs of the proposed new regulation. First, they will enable a person's employment with a previous employer to qualify him for benefits from his new employer. Secondly, there is a provision retrospectively providing for the start-up date for a child's parents to qualify for maternity and parental leave for children born on or after 19th December 1994. That produces the anomaly that the parents of children who are currently six, seven, eight, nine or 10 are entitled to leave, whereas the parents of those who are born on or after 15th December 1999 will be restricted to the original five years. If I am wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will tell me.
That bizarre situation arises because the Government botched up the original regulations, fought a pointless action with the TUC when the matter was drawn to their attention and in the end had to find some way to placate the TUC—by gold-plating the directive.
Finally, the least controversial—or the most uncontroversial—aspect is to extend the length of leave to 18 weeks in the case of disabled children. The problems faced by parents of a newborn disabled child do not bear thinking about. In the compassionate society that I believe that we all live in, there has to be room for employers to assist such employees. The vast majority of employers, even small employers, would show great consideration to their employees without the need for the regulation, but I agree that, to cope with the recalcitrant minority, this extension of the regulations is reasonable and necessary.
I have referred to the plight of small businesses, on whom the burden of the regulations and similar legislation impinges. They are the least able to cope when an employee takes time off for parental leave. A small firm with just three or four employees cannot simply spread the work among the other few employees. On the other hand, the Government's new legislation that any employee is entitled to full rights, including on holiday pay, redundancy and unreasonable dismissal, militates against such firms taking on temporary staff. The cost to industry of the burdens imposed by the Government in the previous Parliament is £15.9 billion.
In response to a question from my honourable friend, the Minister in the other place tried to persuade the Committee that the cost was a mere 50p per employee per annum. Only this week, he wrote to my honourable friend admitting that he had inadvertently misled the Committee. He said that the figure of 50p per employee per annum,
1318
"is the cost of the bureaucracy associated with this legislation",
but he did not offer any new estimate of the cost. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to do so. There is no such thing as a free regulation. In the end, someone has to pay.
As I said at the start, we shall of course accept the regulations—we would not dream of opposing them. They have already been democratically accepted in the other place. We only hope that they will not have an adverse effect on small businesses. I note the Minister's comments that the consultation showed that they probably would not.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in supporting the regulations. I have two brief points to make. First, I hope that the Minister accepts our contention that the method of consultation used for these and many other employment regulations seems to produce answers that are well accepted by employers and employee groups. The Government should be commended on their conduct of such consultation exercises. When all the legislation was brought in there was a lot of criticism that far too much was being left to statutory instruments. The Minister and his predecessor said that one of the objectives was to have extensive consultation. It is important that such regulations are brought in after serious consultation. The Government should be commended on how they are conducting that.
Having said that—having given the olive branch with one hand, perhaps I may take it away with the other—I believe that the noble Baroness had a point. Having listened to it, and as we are nearing the end of our proceedings this week, perhaps I may say that, had the noble Lord, Lord Healey, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, been in their places, they might have considered that perhaps an opportunity had been missed to savage the Minister with a live sheep.
Nevertheless, the point is well made. Why was the TUC forced into the position of taking a case for judicial review against the Government on something that should have been dear to their hearts? I know that in the nine minutes that the noble Baroness spoke, the point became rather lost. However, I should like to hear from the Minister a simple explanation as to how the Government, with their well intentions, got into the position of being sued by the TUC.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, although I empathise fully with the cares and worries of the new parent—I have four children, one of whom is disabled—I believe that it is vital for the future to remember that the purpose of employing someone is to get a job done.
If one is a very small employer—I am talking about employing not two or three people but one secretary—it is absolutely disastrous when that employee moves away. No one else is available to train a temporary or semi-temporary replacement. The employer has to do

1319
it; there is no one else. A very heavy cost is involved. I believe that every time I change secretary, I probably lose about a fortnight's worth of work—perhaps a little more—over a one to three-month period. After a while, such an employer cannot cope with a number of changes.
I believe that people are losing track of what this issue involves. We are losing a sense of reality. We should protect employees, in particular, against unreasonableness and we should protect those in large companies, where people feel that they do not have a voice. However, if this type of legislation continues, I do not know what the very small employer, employing one person who perhaps carries out two different jobs, will do in the future.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the important points that have been raised. I believe that the noble Baroness has been listening to rather too many of the lurid stories that were put forward in the other place about the sequence of events. She cannot accuse us of gold-plating and then say that we did not fully comply with the directive.
The situation is that the TUC's challenge to the regulations came before the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in a Divisional Court. He considered that the intention of the directive was not clear. Accordingly, he referred the matter to the European Court. Therefore, clearly there is room for disagreement at a very high level as to whether or not we had complied fully. The Government still believe that we complied perfectly properly.
So far as concerns the costs of the TUC's legal challenge, as a Minister said in the other place, they are under discussion. Therefore, I cannot give them now. I believe that it is quite usual for negotiations about legal fees to drag on. However, in the spirit of openness on which the noble Baroness commended me, I should be very happy to write to her when the matter is settled.
So far as concerns the Explanatory Notes, the point is covered. Perhaps I may read out the relevant part:
"A new regulation 13(1A) enables these parents to rely on a period of service with a previous employer in order to satisfy the one-year qualifying service requirement to which the right to take parental leave is subject".
I believe that that covers the particular point that the noble Baroness raised.
My final point concerns the costs. I believe that the noble Baroness explained the figures herself. Two quite different sets of costs are involved, which it pleases some people continuously to confuse. There is the cost of paying more to people in terms of increased wages or salary bills. According to the Government's own regulatory impact assessment, that figure is £5 million a year; that is, approximately 1 per cent of the annual wages and salary bill for the economy as a whole, or just under £4 per employee per week.
I believe that Members of this House, including Members on the other side, have a clear decision to make on that issue. They can say, "We do not want
1320
these particular regulations. We believe that they should be withdrawn and that people should not have these benefits". A straightforward decision can be taken as to whether or not one wants the regulations to be put in place. They may say, "We do not think that the minimum wage is a good thing, although there seems to be some disagreement as to whether that is the case. We think that it should be reduced". Then they can claim legitimately that they would remove that burden from industry.
My honourable friend in the other place referred to the cost of bureaucracy; that is, the procedures that must take place. That cost is 50p a year for each employee and it covers the introduction of the national minimum wage, paid holidays, parental leave, time off for family emergencies, fair treatment of part-time workers and improved maternity provisions.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, mentioned the problems that may arise if people avail themselves of these rights. Of course, there is a provision which allows people to put off the effects of the legislation for six months if difficult cases arise. It appears that the noble Earl has a great deal of experience of secretaries coming and going. Perhaps he should ask himself whether, because they have experience of his work, it is better to keep his secretaries by occasionally giving them parental leave than continually to have them leave their employment. Perhaps they consider that, because they do not receive reasonable leave when they need it as parents, it is very difficult for them to do the job.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, none of my secretaries has left because of parental leave problems. I simply point out that in the future I shall be very careful about employing anyone who might possibly qualify for such leave. Having experienced changes of staff, I know that it is very expensive in terms of training and other overheads. I am not an arm of the DHSS, and I believe that it would be nice if the Government started to remember that. I know that I should have responded to consultation. However, I did not even know that it was taking place because this is not the type of debate in which I normally take part.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I absolutely accept that the noble Earl has this relationship with his secretaries. I believe that he would cut himself off from a very good source of people if he said that anyone who might become a parent would not be suitable for employment by him.
I believe that I have dealt with all the points raised. The changes proposed will help parents to balance the conflict between their work and family commitments. I hope that noble Lords will support the Government today in increasing support for working parents in a way which accommodates the needs of business.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that he had dealt with all the points, but he has not dealt with my fundamental question How did this Labour Government get into litigation with the TUC?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that it is clear that if we believe we are correctly fulfilling the directive and we believe that that is right, then we shall do so regardless of whether the TUC or any other body thinks differently. We are concerned with doing what is right for both working families and business in a way that is flexible and sensible and in a way that both parties can agree. If other parties—for example, the TUC or the CBI—think differently, that does not necessarily deflect us from what we consider to be right. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2001
7.58 p.m.
Lord Grocott Lord Grocott rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order will enable the United Kingdom to accept and implement the agreement on privileges and immunities of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which was signed by our Ambassador in The Hague and presented to Parliament in April this year (Cmnd. 5099).
The draft order confers privileges and immunities on the organisation, representatives of its members, its officials and experts, as provided for in the OPCW agreement. Those privileges and immunities are comparable to those accorded to similar international organisations and are no more than the Government are internationally obliged to confer under the OPCW agreement.
The United Kingdom is a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; that title is normally shortened to the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC. It entered into force on 29th April 1997 under the Conservative government. It established the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons—OPCW—which is located in The Hague. The CWC is the first multilateral arms control agreement that aims to ban an entire category of weapons of mass destruction in a verifiable manner, and 143 states have now ratified it. Since coming into force, the OPCW has established a rigorous worldwide regime of verification and monitoring. More than 900 inspections have so far taken place in some 49 countries.
The OPCW agreement provides, among other things, for immunity from civil and criminal process for representatives of states, officials and experts. Such matters impinge on the devolved responsibilities of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not on those of Wales. The devolved Administrations are responsible for observing and implementing those international obligations of the UK that relate to their devolved
1322
responsibilities. Scotland and Northern Ireland have been consulted and are content that the proposed Order in Council under the International Organisations Act 1968 should extend to them.
I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights that are contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Grocott.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches have no difficulty in welcoming the order. It is perhaps unfortunate that an order on biological weapons that was ratified by all the major parties is not also on the books in the foreseeable future. We very much welcome the order.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. It will come as no surprise that we on these Benches support it. As the Minister said, the previous Conservative government helped to negotiate the convention and signed and ratified it. Currently, when the potential threat of the terrorist use of chemical weapons is so real, it is all the more important to support the work of the organisation. The order assists with that purpose and is therefore very welcome.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is nice to have a note of such universal agreement. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, whom I welcome to his new responsibilities—he has moved from DfID to defence, and I am sure that he will bring the same expertise to this subject as he did to the previous subject.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Uncertificated Securities Regulations 2001
8.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations that were laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. This may be a farewell symphony.
The regulations set out the legislative structure for CREST, which transfers securities electronically without using certificates. The legal framework for CREST is currently provided by the Uncertificated Securities Regulations 1995. This new instrument would re-enact those regulations but with modifications. We had hoped that the changes could have been introduced by amending the Companies Act 1985, but it soon became obvious just how many changes were needed in both primary and secondary legislation. We did not think that that was helpful so

1323
we decided to revoke the 1995 regulations and to reenact them in the modified form that is before the House.
The regulations will improve CREST by bringing in two new reforms: first, the electronic transfer of title, which is known as ETT; and, secondly, delivery versus payment in central bank money, which is called DvP in central bank money. The main advantage of those changes will be that legal transfer of ownership of securities and fully secure payment occur together at the same time. That will bring the UK financial infrastructure to the forefront of international best practice.
There is strong support from the City to implement ETT and DvP because settlement is an important source of revenue and a determinant of the location of financial activity. Because issuers and investors nowadays have greater choice over where they do business, it is essential that the UK remains attractive to them. ETT and DvP will not only bring direct benefits but also be an important factor in maintaining the UK's competitive position.
In view of that widespread support and the highly technical nature of much of the legislation, I do not propose to detain the House with a lengthy explanation of the regulations. However, there are a couple of points that deserve a slightly fuller explanation, the first of which is the electronic transfer of title. When someone transfers an uncertificated security the operator—currently CREST—debits or credits accounts in the system. Notification of the change is sent down a secure network to the company registrar, who updates the register where legal title to the securities and membership of the company is recorded.
The draft regulations define a new concept—the "operator register" of uncertificated shares. In IT and data terms, the registers would be largely the same as the current CREST set of share accounts but would have the legal status of a register, so a change in the register would represent a change in legal ownership. That is the electronic transfer of title. The draft regulations would impose on CRESTCo certain responsibilities concerning keeping the operator register and set out in statute the relationship between CREST and companies and other issuers. They would also make changes for gilts and corporate bonds that are similar to those for shares.
The other main change involves payment for the security. Payment in CREST is made via a number of settlement banks. When the securities are delivered through CREST, the buyer's bank agrees to pay the seller's bank; final payments between the banks are made across accounts at the Bank of England at the end of the day. The buyer's bank guarantees the payment to the seller's bank. However, the seller's bank is exposed to the risk that the buyer's bank becomes insolvent during the day between delivery of the securities and the end-of-day transfers.
That system has served CREST well but it involves settlement in so-called commercial bank money. There is a better international standard—"delivery versus
1324
payment in central bank money". That removes the risk of the settlement banks being exposed to each other during the day; instead, they settle their payments to each other immediately on a gross basis. That process requires a higher level of liquidity: each bank must have more cash in its account at the Bank of England if it has to settle each of its customers' payments immediately than is currently the case. At present, payments are settled (on a net basis) only at the end of the day. The Bank of England has made arrangements to provide a higher level of liquidity for the buyer's bank to pay the seller's bank.
The Bank of England needs some collateral to support that liquidity. To provide that, the buyer's bank will "repo" the shares being purchased to the Bank of England, temporarily obtaining sufficient central bank money to enable the seller's bank to be paid. For DvP in central bank money, that repo needs to be automatic and the regulations have been modified to allow CREST and the Bank to set up such a facility.
During a debate in Committee in the other place, Howard Flight made a constructive and helpful contribution on some detailed legal points. A definitive answer was given in Ruth Kelly's letter to the Committee of 15th November, which was placed in the House of Commons Library. It may interest the House if I refer briefly to two aspects of that letter—they address significant points.
Howard Flight asked about what would happen if the operator's approval were withdrawn. First, there would have to be a consultation period of at least two months. The operator—and others—could make representations. The possible implications of a withdrawal would be assessed and decisions would be taken about what needed to be done as a result. If approval were then withdrawn, there would have to be at least three months' more notice. To make sure that the change took place in an orderly way, the regulations allow transitional provisions to be put in place.
Mr Flight also asked about the issuer's liability if the operator makes a mistake. Broadly, the draft regulations state that the issuer cannot be held liable unless he caused the problem. The regulations provide for no-fault liability on the operator in some circumstances but put a cap on that of £50,000 per instance. That £50,000 maximum broadly reflects the size of retail transfers.
I apologise for detaining the House with a somewhat complicated explanation. That is, however, inevitable given the nature of the subject and the importance of getting the details right. The regulations will enhance the competitiveness of the UK financial markets and will be greatly welcomed in the City. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committed.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the characteristically clear

1325
explanation that he has given and, in particular, for the additional information about the follow up to the questions posed by Howard Flight in another place.
This is a technical matter, but none the less, an important one as it affects the transfer of billions of pounds worth of shares every day which affect all of us, whether we are direct investors, pension fund members, or whatever. The public focus tends to be on the Stock Exchange, with lads in red braces, in front of flashing TV screens. However, the settlement procedures may be behind the scenes and appear unglamorous, but nevertheless they are vital to the economy and represent a substantial element of dealing in securities. I shall return to that subject later.
I welcome the regulations because they move the London settlement platform forward. They will bring it up to date, as the Minister has told the House, allowing electronic transfer of title and reducing the risks in the financial settlement of share bargains. I hope that the Minister will not feel that I am ungenerous if I say that I believe that he deserves two cheers and a third cheer will depend upon the replies that he may give to questions that I want to raise tonight.
I have two specific points. The first contains the structure. As I understand the matter, under Regulation 4, applications are made to the Treasury to become an operator and under Regulation 11 the Treasury has the power to delegate the oversight of a scheme to the FSA. I presume that that power will be exercised and I also presume that only one operator, CRESTco, is currently envisaged.
Does the Minister believe that there is likely to be more than one operator, one of whom may be based outside the United Kingdom? If one presumes that there is only one, the regulator will have one "regulatee"—one person to regulate. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the relationships between the two may change. The line between the regulator and an operator may become blurred. There could be a wash-over from the other sections of the financial service industry for which the FSA has responsibility. There are also concerns that there could, under certain circumstances, be conflicts of interest in regulatory duty.
I do not seek to criticise the FSA, but I ask the Minister whether the Government believe that any organisation, however well funded, managed and directed, can take on the increasingly diverse regulatory burden that currently is being laid upon the FSA. No doubt the Minister will recall the debate last night on the resolution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, during which there was reference to the resources of the FSA and its capacity to discharge them. Can the Minister tell the House whether he is satisfied that this particular approach—the delegation under Regulation 11, assuming it will happen—is in fact the right way to proceed?
My second concern is about shareholder democracy. The ability to hold to account is as vital in a company as it is in a legislature. In recent years there has been
1326
concern that shareholders have become more distanced from the companies in which they invest. That is partially because of dematerialisation and partially because of the effects of PEPs and ISAs, as individuals who hold shares in those do not receive interim and annual reports. Therefore, I seek reassurance from the Minister that, in the Government's view, these regulations do not pose further practical problems for shareholder participation. In a debate in another place, to which the Minister has already referred, Howard Flight raised this issue. Reading the transcript of those proceedings, I did not find the reply of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury wholly convincing.
I also want to raise a strategic issue. These regulations are not the end of the issue, but merely the beginning of the new world. If we are to bring about in Europe the efficiencies of the capital markets that have so benefited the United States of America, there is much more to do. The purchase and sale of shares has three stages: the exchange, which is the price agreement; the settlement, which is the payment; and the registration of title, which is the transfer of ownership. Very properly, the Minister drew attention to those in his opening remarks.
In the United States of America the approach has been to deal with those matters horizontally; that is to say, to create stand-alone organisations, competing with one another in each of those separate functions. In this country, in the City, we are attempting to follow that horizontal approach. Our fellow EU members are not all convinced of the rightness of that approach. They prefer to use the vertical model, combining exchange, settlement and registration in one organisation. Moreover, they combine those in one organisation with each country having its own separate organisation. That leads to duplication and inefficiency; it lacks transparency; and can lead to cross-subsidy.
It is no coincidence that the Deutsche BÖrse, the leading German exchange, is believed to make more out of its settlement activities than out of its trading. It also requires that its bargains are settled within the German settlement system, whereas under the horizontal model, these bargains could be settled wherever they are cheapest, easiest and most convenient to those involved.
The cost inefficiencies of that are huge. They are believed to approach 10 billion euros per annum—£7 billion per annum. That is a cost to the users of markets; it is a cost to the companies who have to operate with higher costs of capital than their competitors in the United States. The elimination of those barriers would be a major step forward for the creation of a pan-European capital market.
As I have said, I welcome these regulations because they strengthen the position of London and they move forward the horizontal model for securities, trading and settlement. But in doing so I ask for the Minister's reassurance on three points. First, are the Government aware of the strategic challenges? Secondly, do they support the horizontal model? Thirdly, will they take all possible measures to remove non-tariff barriers

1327
inherent in the vertical approach. If the Minister can give me assurance on those three points, I shall be pleased to give him my third cheer.
Lord Newby: My Lords, on these Benches we take account of the fact that the City institutions and stakeholders who have operated the system strongly support these regulations. Therefore, we are happy to support them. The Minister deserves at least one cheer for struggling through his speech with such a bad cold.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining these regulations to the House and for fleshing out some of the detail of the letter of the Economic Secretary.
CRESTco is a key component of the London financial market. Following the excellent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, yesterday, none of us can be unaware of the importance and significance of the City to the UK economy. Therefore, getting CRESTco and these regulations right is essential.
I am content to let the much greater expertise and knowledge of my noble friend Lord Hodgson serve as scrutiny of some of the wider issues of the measure before us. Indeed, I look forward to the answers from the Minister to the points raised by my noble friend. For my part, I recognise the accuracy of the observation that broadly the regulations are uncontroversial and have the confidence of the City of London. In those terms, we too support them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their welcome 2.6 per cent cheers. I shall deal with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in turn. First, it is paragraph 11 and not paragraph 12 which deals with Treasury functions. It is the intention that the Treasury functions should be delegated to the Financial Services Authority.
There is only one operator, CREST, at the moment. But we must and would consider applications from other organisations to add to or replace the CREST system—although in view of the history of that system
1328
and the enormous amounts of money that were expended on setting it up, I am not sure how attractive that would be. If the noble Lord is worried about the burden on the SFA, I can assure him that the burden of controlling one operator, or even two or three, compared with the many thousands of organisations which will be regulated by the SFA as from the end of this month—next week—is minimal. We do not foresee any particular problem.
Nor do we see any problem about the situation becoming too "cosy", as the noble Lord suggests. Again, the SFA regulates a large number of bodies and there have not been any accusations of the kind of relationship that worries him.
I do not see any problem with shareholder democracy. There is no difference between the proposed system and what happens now. The regulations do not alter the relationship between the shareholders and the company. They simply make it easier and safer to transfer shares.
There is no restriction—Howard Flight asked this question—on information to shareholders. Regulation 24(c) does not prevent someone from finding out if he or she is a shareholder. It is possible for other parties to inspect the regularly reconciled records of the operator register. In those circumstances, there is no threat to what the noble Lord calls "shareholder democracy".
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, told the House about the difference between the proposed UK system and the German or the European systems. He asked me whether we were aware of the challenge. Indeed, we are aware of it. We believe that these regulations strengthen us in our support—this is the answer to his second question of the horizontal approach. We favour whatever approach the market finds best. The market favours the horizontal model. So the UK follows that rule. I can assure the noble Lord that we take this situation very seriously. We recognise its importance for the future of business in Europe.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  Armed Conflict
  Armed Conflict
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Asylum Seekers: Voucher Scheme
  Barnett Formula: European Funding
  Barnett Formula: European Funding
  Parental Responsibility
  Parental Responsibility
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Oil Prices and Security Arrangements
  Oil Prices and Security Arrangements
  Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines
  Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines
  Ofcom: Information Service Activities
  Ofcom: Information Service Activities
  Respiratory Disease Compensation Scheme Contracts
  Respiratory Disease Compensation Scheme Contracts
  10GHz and 40GHz Radio Spectrum
  10GHz and 40GHz Radio Spectrum
  Miners: Respiratory Disease Claims
  Miners: Respiratory Disease Claims
  Refrigerators and Freezers: Disposal
  Refrigerators and Freezers: Disposal
  Bushmeat
  Bushmeat
  British Bird Population: Effects of Slug Pellets
  British Bird Population: Effects of Slug Pellets
  Tourism: Regulation
  Tourism: Regulation
  Football Dispute
  Football Dispute
  Community Care Grants
  Community Care Grants
  Sustainable Development: Cabinet Committee
  Sustainable Development: Cabinet Committee