Sitting of 25 October 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

    Further Education
    Clive Efford (Eltham): If she will make a statement on her plans to widen participation in further education. [6685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): Further education is central to the provision of high-quality academic and vocational opportunities for learning. FE colleges make a great contribution to raising skill levels, improving basic skills, boosting employability and widening access to learning. More than 4 million people learn via FE each year. The Learning and Skills Council is examining the potential for FE to deliver further growth in adult participation.
    Clive Efford: I thank my hon. Friend and take this opportunity to welcome him to the Dispatch Box, the first opportunity I have had to do so.
    My hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern in FE colleges about the comments of Mr. John Harwood on the BBC's "Today" programme last week. Does he agree that if we are to deliver on our targets for participation in further education, Mr. Harwood will need the co-operation of people in further education colleges? Does he accept that his statement conflicts with the findings of the chief inspector of the Further Education Funding Council, who found that, in 1999–2000, 93 per cent. of colleges were satisfactory or above? Does he agree that if we are going to deliver on our programme to improve education, we do not need to repeat in the FE sector the mistakes that were made in Ofsted, where officers made inflammatory and unfounded statements through the media?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The range of people who learn through FE and the raw of courses that they can follow is second to none anywhere in the education system. I have seen some excellent provision. Co-operation will be the key, but we cannot get away from the fact that the variation in quality and performance between courses and colleges is too wide. That is why we place so much importance on the
    394
    standards fund, which we have doubled this year. the new inspection regime, and the Learning and Skills Council working with FE colleges to raise standards.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I too genuinely welcome the Minister to his new post. Does he not recognise that further education colleges feel extremely battered—a combination perhaps of financial pressures, curriculum pressures on staff and worries about falling student numbers? Given the perhaps compressed reports by the chief inspectors following their initial inspections, and the remarks of Mr. John Harwood, which may have been distorted in transit, will the Minister take this opportunity to affirm clearly that the great majority of further education provision is satisfactory or indeed positively good, and provides a foundation on which improvements can be made?
    John Healey: The majority of provision is good, but we want it to be better. I understand the pressure that is felt in the sector, but the sort of resources for which the sector has been crying out for years are starting to go into FE. A total of £527 million extra via the LSC has been earmarked for FE this year. A real-terms increase of 3 per cent. is due next year. The hon. Gentleman has been a strong champion of the FE sector. He may regard those resources as overdue, but he cannot deny that they are going in.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: I welcome my hon. Friend to his position and endorse what has been said about raising the morale of staff whom we expect to deliver higher quality for all people who use further education, but does he agree about the importance of the education maintenance grant in widening access? It is pivotal to getting people from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education. I welcome the long-overdue review of student finance, but if there is money around, please let us not forget further education, an important part of the equation in expanding education post-16.
    John Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments about the education maintenance grant. We are looking carefully at the impact that it has had in the pilot areas. As part of the new spending review, we are reviewing funding and support for adult learners across the board. What is certainly true—it is a point powerfully made—is that achieving our ambition for students in higher education by the end of the decade turns centrally on the ability of further education to play a part.
    Alistair Burt: I too welcome the Minister to his position. We share his aspirations for a vibrant and high-quality further education sector. He will be aware that individual learning accounts were used by further education colleges markedly to widen participation in learning. How does he think yesterday's announcement of the sudden closure of the scheme will affect those aspirations? How long has he known of the problem of fraud and abuse? Is it true that 5,200 complaints were received before any action was taken? How much money is involved? How many people

    395
    have been affected? What form will an inquiry take? All things considered, does he not think that he should be here making a statement?
    John Healey: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position on the Front Bench and look forward to debating with him. He is right to say that individual learning accounts have been widely used by further education colleges, which are among the 1,600 public sector learning providers registered under the ILA scheme, out of a total of 8,500. The scheme exceeded our expectations and expanded beyond its capacity. We hit the target of 1 million ILA accounts one year early. The scheme has helped many individuals to take up new learning, including through further education. However, it recently became clear that the scheme was open to exploitation. Despite the changes that we made to its administration, the problem was not stamped out. We have not taken this step lightly, but my right hon. Friend and I have decided to suspend the operation of the scheme. We feel that it is the right thing to do because it affords protection for individual learners who were paying for their learning through individual learning accounts, as well as protecting public finances.

    Educational Standards
    Mr. Tony Colman: By what means her Department will ensure that educational standards are maintained when the private sector is involved in school management. [6687]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): Lines of accountability will not change. Local authorities, school governors and head teachers will retain their current responsibilities for school improvement, and Ofsted will continue to inspect. External partners will be subject to an agreement setting clear and demanding performance targets.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm again that local education authorities that perform well will continue to be responsible for ensuring school improvement and holding schools accountable?
    Estelle Morris: Yes, absolutely. I am happy to go further than that and say to my hon. Friend that our best local authorities are needed to support our weaker local authorities. I take the pragmatic view that the education of children is too important to waste and we must use whatever source from whatever sector, as long as it is good quality, to raise standards in our schools. Yesterday I was in Leeds, where an external partner is helping to raise standards. Next week I am going to celebrate the connection between Warwickshire and Doncaster. Warwickshire, which is very strong, has helped Doncaster, which is less strong. In both cases, the Ofsted report shows that progress is being made.
    Mr. Damian Green: I assure the Secretary of State at the outset of our exchanges that when the Government genuinely promote excellence, discipline and diversity in schools she will receive support from the Opposition, and when they do not we shall want to know why. In that regard, can she clear up the contradictory
    396
    messages that she sends about using the private sector to drive up standards in some schools? Her White Paper has warm words about this, but her article this month in The Parliamentary Monitor, which presumably is meant to be read by many of her right hon. and hon. Friends, is much less keen on the private sector. Can she tell the House whether she regards the private sector as a last resort, or will she allow it to play a widespread positive role in enhancing standards?
    Estelle Morris: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate his whole team, in case I do not get the chance to do so later.
    We are quite clear that the private sector is not a last resort, but there will be cases when all else has failed and we look to private sector expertise to help us raise standards in schools. For many years now, I have invited pod schools and local authorities voluntarily to seek partnership with the private sector if they think that it is in their interests. There may be cases where individual schools and local authorities seek to do so as a last resort, but in those instances we may call in another public sector partner.
    I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Opposition's willingness to use the private sector. I remind him and his party that this Government freed up the law to enable schools to use whatever sources they need to raise standards. In 18 years, the Conservatives made no move in that direction. We are guided by very simple principles: what works for children is what we want in our schools. However, there is a clear line of public accountability for the expenditure of public money. Whether we spend that money in the private sector or the public sector, the Government will hold to those clear lines of public accountability.
    Mr. Green: The right hon. Lady has not entirely cleared up the contradiction. She said that the private sector was not a last resort and then in the next sentence said that it could be used when all else had failed, which sounds to me like the last resort. So we have to explore that contradiction further. If the right hon. Lady is as keen a,; the last part of her answer suggested, can she explain why, consistently throughout the Government's term of office, Labour local education authorities have blocked the use of this option for improving schools? Indeed, the only place where it has been fully utilised is Conservative Surrey. Does she not agree with me that at a time of teacher shortages, a crisis in school discipline and falling standards in maths among 11-year-olds, a sensible Government would force their party to take any opportunity to help schools in difficulty and not reject one option because of an old-fashioned ideology that still lives on in the Labour party?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman will do better in his post if he learns to read and listen. I clearly put it on record that the private sector can be used as a last resort, but it will not always be used as a last resort. That is as clear as it gets, and if the hon. Gentleman does not understand that answer I fear for the leadership of the Conservative education team.
    Let me take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the performance in maths among 11-year-olds, which is a real success story. I pay tribute to the teachers and classroom

    397
    assistants and all those who have worked in our schools to bring that about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to take an approach that damns teachers when they do well and that fails to acknowledge achievement and progress. I am incredibly proud of our key stage 2 results and I wish that the hon. Gentleman were too.
    It is quite clear that we will use whatever we can to raise standards. The Government have actively promoted partnerships between schools and local authorities. We have learned from local authorities that get it right. In developing our policy in Whitehall, we listened to what happened in Guildford, Liverpool and elsewhere. I will never apologise for that—for the Government learning from what local authorities and schools do well.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to make an appeal. I am trying to get down the Order Paper, so short, sharp questions and answers would be very much appreciated.
    Adam Price: On privatisation, the National Assembly for Wales said in its recent White Paper that it saw real risks in a shift to what it described as
    "untested measures delivered … through the private sector."
    Does the Secretary of State agree?
    Estelle Morris: All I say to that is, "Long live diversity."

    Postgraduate Students
    Brian White: What support her Department gives to postgraduate students. [6688]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): My Department provides financial support for postgraduates through research councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board, bursaries for PGCE teacher training students and awards for disabled postgraduate students.
    Brian White: During the recess I spoke to a number of my constituents who are doing postgraduate research at Cranfield or through the Open university. Apart from commercial sponsorship of the sexy subjects, they consider that there is a real problem in respect of bread and butter research. Postgraduates cannot get access to student loan schemes and, although they are on low wages, they cannot get access to passported benefits. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that her Department will examine and review these issues?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Postgraduate research is immensely important. There has been a 13 per cent. increase in the number of full and part-time students studying at that level and we have increased the funding that is available. By 2003 the grant will be some £9,000, which is a sizeable increase. I take my hon. Friend's comments seriously. It is a matter
    398
    that my Department will continue to monitor and we will make sure that we take whatever action is appropriate at the appropriate time.
    Mr. David Cameron: In terms of postgraduates, will the right hon. Lady explain why the Under-Secretary with responsibility for adult skills has written to all hon. Members about individual learning accounts to explain why the Government have closed down this scheme? The letter seems incredibly unfrank and lacking in any candour. It talks about closing the scheme because it
    "has exceeded the Government's expectations in encouraging very large numbers of people to take new interest in learning"
    but it makes no mention of fraud or of the fact that the police are investigating 279 providers. May we have a bit of frankness and candour rather than spin?
    Estelle Morris: I think that we have been exceptionally candid about this. In the Education and Skills Select Committee yesterday, I made it clear that there were two reasons why we were withdrawing the scheme. First, it had exceeded its capacity early, with 2.5 million people benefiting from ILAs who might not otherwise have done so. Secondly, as I said in a parliamentary answer yesterday and as my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), made clear today, we have received complaints and we are not entirely happy that all the money that has been paid out has gone to top-quality schemes. It is entirely responsible to act as we have done: to give those who have ILAs four to six weeks to draw them down, and then to withdraw the scheme, making it absolutely clear that our commitment to good-quality adult education is cast iron and that we will introduce a further scheme.

    PFI Contracts (Capital Return)
    Jeremy Corbyn: What her estimate is of the rate of return of capital in schools funded wholly or partly by PFI contracts. [6689]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (John Healey): I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer that he received on 16 October, at column 1182W. The rate of return to a private sector contractor in a schools PFI contract is fixed as part of the annual payment made by a local education authority for delivery of the services specified in the contract, and as such is a matter between the local education authority and its private sector partner. All PFI contracts in schools rave to demonstrate better value for money than public sector traditional procurement.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the Minister accept that the traditional form of public sector funding of capital development in education is both cheaper and more accountable than PEIs? The evidence collected by the Treasury Committee on health PFIs, for example, shows that in many of them there is up to an 18 per cent. return on capital. Nothing like that rate of return has ever been paid by traditional funding methods in the public sector.

    399
    Is not it better for education to fund new developments directly through taxation, rather than bringing in the private sector to make money out of it?
    John Healey: No, I do not accept that private sector financing has no part to play. I remind my hon. Friend that PFI contracts can proceed only if the value for money is better than that of public procurement comparators. Payments to private sector contractors must be linked to levels of service. That brings benefits to the public sector in terms of new buildings and guaranteed high levels of maintenance.
    You would not expect me to answer about the health service, Mr. Speaker, but we have no evidence of profiteering in the education sector. If my hon. Friend has, I would like to see it.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: I support the gist of the Minister's answer, but I invite him to go slightly further and explain that the value of PFI contracts comes from the private sector not only building the capital assets but running them. Surrey county council has done that for schools in Surrey. Why do the Government need legislation to force Labour authorities to go down the same road?
    John Healey: Nobody needs legislation to encourage authorities, under whatever political leadership, to apply for PFI schemes: 90 out of 150 local education authorities have shown an interest in applying. Part of the benefit is that the risk over the long term of the contract period is transferred to the private sector. There are also benefits in freeing up head teachers from having to manage buildings and allowing them to concentrate on the curriculum. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in one PFI contract the contractor's pay is directly linked to exam results.

    Class Sizes
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment she has made of the relationship between class size and examination results. [6690]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): My Department and local education authorities have jointly commissioned the university of London's Institute of Education to research the effect of smaller class sizes. The preliminary findings suggest that smaller classes, particularly reception classes, are indeed beneficial.
    Dr. Lewis: That research, if accurate, contradicts the findings of other recent research, which suggests that there is little significant correlation between class sizes and academic performance, and examination results in particular. Given that there is such a contradiction, why will not the Government take up the eminently practical suggestion, made time and again, that when league tables are published showing examination results, the class sizes should be shown alongside, so that people can assess whether there is a correlation?
    Mr. Timms: The evidence is that, in reception classes in particular, smaller class sizes are very beneficial. That of course is why we have focused our work in this area
    400
    on infant classes. The average infant class size is now 25 2, compared with nearly 27 in 1997. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the fall in infant class sizes has been significant, from 27.5 to 25.4. I hope that he will welcome that progress and the resulting improvements. Of course there are many other factors at play, but the evidence to which I have referred shows pretty clearly that the progress we have been able to make in reducing class sizes has made an important contribution to raising standards in those infant classes.
    Junior class sizes are also falling, and secondary class sizes have fallen for the first time in 10 years. All those improvements have made an important contribution to the dramatic rise in standards that this Government have brought about.
    Charlotte Atkins: Are the real improvements in standards in key stages 2 and 1 down to reduced class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds or to the increased number of classroom assistants being employed and the massive investment in early years education? I believe that in 2004 all three-year-olds will have access to a free nursery place.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to those great improvements as further important factors in bringing about the dramatic improvement to which she referred. Let us acknowledge, too, the great importance of the numeracy and literacy strategies delivered so successfully by teachers over the past four years, which have also had a decisive beneficial effect.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The Minister will be interested in the new Tory policy of larger class sizes. That is one for the House to note. Does he accept that, irrespective of class sizes, what drives up standards is good-quality teachers? Will he comment on the fact that his Department has spent £9.2 million on recruiting 111 fast-track teachers, and assure the House that every one of them will go into so-called failing schools so that they can reap the benefit? Given the Secretary of State's comments earlier, does he feel that the £83,000 per teacher given to the private sector to recruit those teachers represents good value for money for the taxpayer?
    Mr. Timms: The Conservative policy is not a new one: class sizes were rising for many years under the previous Government.
    It is true that the quality of teaching is vital to raising standards. The fact that teaching quality has improved is undoubtedly a major part of the explanation for the dramatic improvements in standards. Fast-track teachers will indeed spend some of their time in schools facing challenging circumstances. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the benefits of the energetic approach that we are taking to bring new and able people into the teaching profession, increasing the number of teachers, because we nee d more able teachers to be able to maintain the pace of improvement that we have achieved.
    Paddy Tipping: Considerable progress has been made at key stage 1 in reducing class sizes and improving standards, but does the Minister share my concerns about the large class sizes, sometimes

    401
    approaching 40, not only in Nottinghamshire but throughout the country at key stage 2? Should not our priority now be to get those class sizes down?
    Mr. Timms: We have of course made progress at other key stages, too. Junior class sizes have now fallen for two consecutive years, and we have allocated more than £36 million this year to schools that increased their intake to help meet the infant class size limit and ensure that infants transferring to junior classes continue to bent fit from smaller classes. That will certainly help, but it is important that we keep the matter under review and maintain the pace of progress that we have seen in recent years, so that we can continue the dramatic improvement in standards in junior classes.
    Mr. Graham Brady: In spite of a fall in numeracy levels at age 11 this year, in a written answer the Minister confirmed the targets of 75 per cent. for next year and proposed increased targets of 85 per cent. for literacy and numeracy by 2004. He said:
    "We are confident that these challenging targets can be achieved."— [Official Report, 16 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 1187W.]
    If the Government are so confident, why was the Secretary of State backsliding yesterday by telling the Education and Skills Select Committee that it will not matter if targets are missed, and why are she and her Ministers afraid to put their jobs on the line as her predecessor would?
    Mr. Timms: I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, but I hope that in his future contributions to our debates he will want to celebrate the dramatic improvements in key stage 2 results in our junior schools in numeracy and literacy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaffirmed our commitment yesterday to the targets that have been set and it is important that the hon. Gentleman and others contribute to a celebration of the great progress that has been made.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that smaller class sizes enable teachers to give more individual attention to individual pupils? Does he also agree that if more diagnostic testing was done in the early years to identify the weaknesses that children experience and the help that they need, later results would be better?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. The evidence that the Institute of Education has provided supports the benefits of smaller class sizes in the early years. The work of the early years partnerships is also helping to identify problems early in a child's school life so that appropriate support can be provided. He is right to say that that is important.

    A-level Results
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: If she will make a statement on this year's A-level results. [6693]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The A-level results published on 16 August 2001 are provisional. A copy of those provisional results has been placed in the Library and final figures for this year's results will be published in November.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My local authority of Sandwell saw a further improvement in A-level results this year, but I was concerned by some of the public comments about a dilution of standards. Will my hon. Friend confirm that no such dilution has taken place, and does he agree that such ill-informed comments are grossly demoralising and insulting to the thousands of hard-working pupils and teachers throughout the country?
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is about lime that we started to celebrate the achievements of our young people and pay tribute to the support of the teachers, governors and parents in our education institutions. A-level results this year demonstrated that pass rates for grades A to E were up by 0.7 per cent., and A to C pass rates increased by 1.1 per cent. on last year. Some of the comments made have been investigated objectively and found to be absolute nonsense. The basis of the suggestions that standards have been undermined are flawed. When our young people do well, we should be positive, support them and draw attention to their achievements, not talk them down and make them feel that they are in a no-win situation. The Government are proud of having raised standards in all areas of education, and we continue to subscribe to that commitment.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister share his knowledge of the A-level results in non-selective and selective schools and compare that with the evidence of the National Federation for Educational Research report, published last week, which—taking social class and other factors into account—showed how well pupils in selective schools were doing at A-level? Will he welcome the fact that the Government's attempts to allow selective schools to be driven out of the system seem to have ground to a halt?
    Mr. Lewis: The Government would expect children selected at 11 to perform well, but we want to pay tribute to the achievement of all children in all schools.
    Caroline Flint (Don Valley): I welcome and celebrate good A-level results, but will my hon. Friend comment on this country's coin [lining obsessive belief that A-levels and GCSEs are the only worthy qualifications for young people to have? We need to consider vocational qualifications, which would be more motivating for many young people, instead of the GCSEs and A-levels for which they get poor grades.
    Mr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. One of the Government's challenges is to create parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications. We start from a low base, but we will review the entire 14 to 19-year-old phase of education for that reason. We want to create an education system that is diverse and plays to the strengths and aspirations of every young person. For some young people, that will mean an

    403
    exclusively academic route and for others it will mean a high status vocational route. For others, it will mean a mixture of the two. The key is an education system that is tailored to the needs of the individual young person. When we publish our proposals on 14 to 19-year-old education in January, we will begin to demonstrate what we mean by that vision.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: My education authority of Poole has the lowest sixth form funding but excellent A-level results are achieved. In order to ensure the improvements that we all desire, will the Minister ensure that when the new funding arrangements start in April, the lowest funded authorities will be considered carefully and brought up to parity with other authorities?
    Mr. Lewis: I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Lady makes, but it is relevant to consider the baseline figure that her local authority chose to spend on those establishments. We have made it clear that the Government are committed to a real-terms guarantee on sixth form funding. When responsibility moves to the Learning and Skills Council, that commitment will be maintained. We are working on the baseline figures for 2000–01 for the start of those new funding arrangements.

    Sixth Form Colleges
    Helen Jackson: What plans she has to establish more sixth form colleges. [6694]
    Sheffield has—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should allow the Minister to answer the question first.
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): That has saved my brilliant answer.
    All young people need access to high-quality education and training in an environment where their needs for pastoral support can be met. Sixth form colleges, sixth form centres in general further education colleges, and school sixth forms provide that. Individual proposals for new sixth form colleges will be considered on their own merits and in the light of local circumstance.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. [Laughter.] But, as I was going to explain, I believe that Sheffield is probably the most socially polarised city in the country. That is underpinned by the yawning gap in post-l6 provision in the city.
    The proposed sixth form campus for Hillsborough will be a state-of-the-art facility, providing top-class A-level provision, enhanced by engineering courses and top-level vocational courses. It will operate wider Sheffield college, but work with the schools in the city. Will my hon. Friend ensure that it fulfils the high hopes and expectations of everyone in the north of Sheffield and Stocksbridge, Chapeltown and High Green, and that the yawning gap in provision starts to reduce?
    Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to give my original answer. Having put energy into preparing it, lots of my officials would be upset had I been unable to give it.
    404
    I understand that there are on-going discussions between the stakeholders in Sheffield about how best to respond to the need that my hon. Friend has correctly identified, particularly in the north of the city. I hope that the decision will lead to a local agreement among the partners and I look forward to receiving proposals from the learning and skills council.
    Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Is the Minister aware of the concern in many sixth forms and among head teachers about the future financing of those institutions following the introduction of the learning and skills council? Will she give a guarantee that the ring-fenced arrangements for financing school sixth forms will not be removed in the event of a small fall in the sixth form roll?
    Margaret Hodge: I am aware of the concerns—change is always difficult. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our promise to maintain real-terms funding for school sixth forms will be kept. I hope that all schools will get their initial allocations in December.
    Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing for post-16 education is quality, and that it is crucial that the resources for that sector are shared throughout it? Likewise, it is important that the level of parochialism governing who provides what is also reduced. If there were a fairer division of resources throughout our constituencies, our 16 to 18-year-olds who plan to go to university would get a better education.
    Margaret Hodge: There is good quality across all providers of post-16 education in all local education authority areas and we wish to build on that. I hope that the reviews of that provision across the country will help stakeholders plan together to ensure that the needs of all individuals within communities are best met.

    Teacher Shortages
    Mr. Richard Allan: What assessment she has made of teaching staff shortages in (a) further and (b) higher education. [6695]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): Both further and higher education report recruitment difficulties arising from competition from other institutions and the wider economy. In further education, there are teaching staff shortages in information technology, engineering, science and construction. In higher education, the main shortage subjects are information and communication technology, business studies and engineering.
    Mr. Allan: I hope that the Minister will agree that British students, including those from both north and south Sheffield, deserve the best possible opportunities to study information technology in further and higher education. On information technology, does she agree that the word "crisis" can be used accurately to describe the shortage of academic staff and, crucially, support staff, whom we simply cannot recruit? What measures will the Government take to increase recruitment and retention in the IT sector in further and higher education?
    Margaret Hodge: There are difficulties, but I would not call it a crisis. We are taking steps to overcome those

    405
    difficulties by working with schools and national training organisations, and by giving additional money to FE and HE to support development and pay for teachers in shortage subjects. All that should help over time, and should prove to be of benefit to all those learners who depend on skilled teachers.
    Mr. Khalid Mahmood: Where staff vacancies are filled by temporary contract-holders, will my hon. Friend ensure that standards in FE are monitored closely by the Department so that the quality of teaching is maintained?
    Margaret Hodge: Standards in FE are being monitored and the new inspection regime involving Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate is closely examining the quality of teaching in the FE sector. The £300 million that we have set aside in our settlement for FE will support the improvement of standards and we will monitor that closely.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gregory Barker. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Gregory Barker: Does the Minister accept that, in respect of her comments on the crisis in education recruitment, the intolerable burden of bureaucracy and directives on teachers in the classroom is as much a factor as teachers' pay?
    Margaret Hodge: I see that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in recognising his name.
    Mr. Barker rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must now answer and the hon. Gentleman must listen.
    Margaret Hodge: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wanted to tell me that he does know his name, but he certainly has some difficulty in recognising the question under debate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to particular shortages in particular subjects, which I acknowledged. We have taken steps to address those problems. To suggest that we are not addressing properly the work load of teachers, or that we are not looking to recruit a sufficient number of teachers to provide high quality-education, is just wrong.

    ConneXions Service
    Valerie Davey: If she will make a statement on the Connexions service for young people. [6696]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): ConneXions is already helping young people in 15 areas of the country. It will be available across England by 2003. Early surveys of young people helped by personal advisers show that they feel ConneXions has made a real difference to their prospects.
    Valerie Davey: Previous organisations that have set out to help this age group have only been good in part; that is to say, it depended on which part of the country young
    406
    people lived in. Can the Minister assure the House that, as ConneXions is extended through the country, the quality of the advisers, who are key to improving opportunities for young people, will be maintained at the highest standard?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The success of ConneXions will depend ultimately on the quality and training of the front-line staff. That is why we have introduced the diploma specifically for ConneXions advisers and why, in all the guidance and support we give to partnerships as they roll out, we emphasise the importance of high-quality training. We will build on the expertise and the specialisms that some of the advisers will bring from their existing professions, whether those are social work, youth work or the careers service. We will build on that expertise and develop those skills to ensure that young people have access to a new and high-quality range of support that makes a difference to their participation and attainment within the education system.

    Specialist Schools
    David Taylor: What impact she expects the expansion of the specialist school scheme to have on the standards of those schools that remain outside the scheme. [6700]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): Specialist schools represent resources for other secondary schools and, through sharing equipment and expertise and drawing on the community element of the additional funding they receive, they will help to enhance standards of teaching and learning in the schools with which they work. Over time we want all those schools that wish to and are ready to become specialist schools.
    David Taylor: This month's Ofsted report on specialist schools found that half of the non-sports colleges were not fulfilling the requirement to share resources, good practice and expertise with local schools. Does not that give sustenance to those who consider that specialist schools create a two-tier system that is divisive, incoherent and unfair? By 2006, 50 per cent. of secondary schools will be non-specialist, with lower status, fewer resources and poorer prospects. Will my hon. Friend say how on earth they will be able to drive up standards in the way that he hopes?
    Mr. Timms: I commend the Ofsted report to my hon. Friend. It states:
    "The majority of specialist schools are meeting the aims of the programme in large measure, making good use of the advantages that it brings."
    The report explains how schools are extending opportunities and introducing imaginative strategies to raise standards. It explains how attainment is improving faster and how those schools are taking pride in their status. It is a very positive assessment of the benefits of the specialist schools programme.
    However, the Government want more secondary schools to benefit from specialist status. My hon. Friend made the point that nearly half of secondary schools will have done so by 2005, but other schools will be able to work towards achieving specialists status. The Department will set a clear

    407
    direction and provide support to help them achieve that ambition. The specialist school programme is a powerful lever for raising standards across the whole secondary system, and I encourage my hon. Friend to work with schools in his constituency to move in that direction.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Youth Justice Pledge
    Linda Gilroy: What assessment she has made of the success of the efforts of the CPS in implementing the youth justice pledge. [6719]
    Ms Oona King: What progress has been made towards the Government's target of bringing persistent young offenders before court more speedily. [6721]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): The Crown Prosecution Service has cut down the time taken in prosecuting persistent young offenders. It has done that by recruiting more lawyers and case workers, by tracking and chasing up cases through its own system, and by working closely with the police and the courts.
    Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. She will know that Devon was one of the first areas to cut significantly the amount of time taken to bring young offenders to court. Will she join me in congratulating the staff in Plymouth and across Devon who have achieved that? Will she also thank them on behalf of my constituents, whose communities it is hoped will have fewer hardened criminals in future as a result of the Government's determination to deal with young offenders?
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks about the CPS in Devon and Cornwall. I spoke this week to the chief Crown prosecutor in that area, Andrew Cresswell, about the situation in the county, and the service has made a great deal of progress. In 1997, it took 109 days to bring a young offender to justice in Devon and Cornwall. That has been reduced substantially, as my hon. Friend has said, to somewhere between 59 and 60 days. However, there is no complacency about what is still a major problem. We must get young offenders before the courts quickly, to ensure that they take matters seriously. It is demoralising for police, magistrates and victims if justice is not done swiftly.
    Ms Oona King: I welcome the Government's efforts and their success in reducing the overall amount of time that it takes to get young offender; before the court, but will my right hon. and learned Friend say what will be done about the problem in London? My constituents want me to impress on the Government very strongly how much plague and misery has been heaped on Tower
    408
    Hamlets, for example, because it is taking too long to get young offenders before the courts. What measures will she take to deal with that?
    The Solicitor-General: I understand very well the issues that my hon. Friend raises. They are very much the same in my own constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. I was talking recently to a magistrate, who described how demoralising it was to find that an offence could sometimes be more than a year old by the time that it came to court. We must sort that out.
    There have been particular problems in London, although the London prosecuting service has made substantial progress. The average time has been cut from 175 days to 92, but more work remains to be done. More resources have been put in, and there has been a substantial and justifiable pay increase for lawyers, case workers and others in the London service.
    We know what a problem youth crime is. We want the young people themselves to understand that society takes the matter seriously. There is no let-up on the problem.
    Mr. John Burnett: Surely the success in implementing the youth justice pledge depends on the CPS having adequate resources, personnel and morale to cope with the task. On morale, will the Solicitor-General give the House her views on the Denman report, which was published during the summer recess? What is her opinion of the impact of that report on the CPS? Which of the recommendations in that report will the Government implement?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of morale in ensuring that we have an effective prosecution system. The Denman report found that there was not equality of opportunity for ethnic minority staff in the CPS, and that there was institutional racism. The report has been accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Attorney-General, and by me. Sylvia Denman made various recommendations to ensure equality in the service, that targets are set and positive action is taken to achieve them, and that grievances are dealt with promptly, and steps are being taken to put them into effect. It is important for any public sector employer to be an equal opportunity employer, but that is especially important in the criminal justice system. If the CPS is to command the confidence of the multicultural communities that it serves, it must abide by fairness. We will continue to keep a very close eye on the matter.

    Victims of Crime
    Andrew Mackinlay: When she expects to introduce legislation to allow courts to take account of the views of the victims of crime. [6720]
    The Solicitor-General: The courts do now take into account the views of the victims of a crime of the effect of the crime on them. Victim personal statements have been introduced in a scheme that started on 1 October. The personal statement will stay with the case file throughout the prosecution, and will be taken into account in sentencing. A practice direct ion was issued by the Lord Chief Justice to that effect.

    409
    It is important that victims are clear that the effect of the crime on them is very much in the minds of judges when sentencing
    Andrew Mackinlay: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will she introduce legislation at an early opportunity that will place a duty on the police and the CPS to ensure that victims are kept abreast of the progress being made in regard to the crime perpetrated against them? I know that that is good practice, but the approach is not adopted consistently by the police or the CPS across the country. It is time for the problem to be addressed. People have a right to know whether progress is being made and, if not, why not.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that victims of crime know what is happening with their cases, and that they are not just left in the dark. It is especially important that victims are told and given an explanation if charges are to be downgraded In-dropped. We have introduced a new scheme, which is being rolled out now, under which different ways are being piloted to ensure the very best of communication with victims throughout the prosecution process. I am glad that my hon. Friend is concerned about victims and know that he will remain so, but we should see how the new schemes—the victim personal statements and the new ways of communicating, with victims—work out. By changing custom and practice, we may not need legislation. However, if that does not work, we should legislate.
    Mr. William Cash (Stone): Will the Solicitor-General tell the House what has happened to the enforceable Bell of Rights announced a few months ago by the present Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary? It was intended to provide for victims of crime, and was going to establish an ombudsman to deal with matters relating to complaints about the CPS and the probation service. What has happened to that proposed legislation?
    The Solicitor-General: First, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment and welcome him to his position on the Front Bench? I genuinely look forward to working with him on the many issues that are ray responsibility that do not have party political or, I hope, European implications.
    As for the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised, it is very important that all the bits of the machinery are working together. He made particular mention of complaints. The CPS does issue a complaints leaflet, and—without the service knowing—I have personally telephoned the complaints line to see whether the telephone was answered and whether there was someone there ready to help with complaints. I am sure that more can be done.
    410
    The hon. Gentleman raised some other matters, and I shall look into them in detail.
    Mr. Cash rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot have two bites today.

    Domestic Violence
    Julie Morgan: What plans she has for the CPS to work in partnership with other agencies to combat domestic violence. [6722]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service has just reviewed its guidance to prosecutors to give effect to its full commitment to working with the police, the courts, the voluntary sector and local government to combat domestic violence. The CPS has consulted widely with the public and voluntary sector at both national and local level as part of this review. The responses have shaped the changed guidance that is to be launched next month on behalf of the CPS by Cherie Booth, QC.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) for her work as chair of her local domestic violence forum. She has always been a champion in these issues and has made a real difference at local level.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her reply. How have the agencies involved in the Cardiff domestic violence forum been consulted about the new guidelines on domestic violence? As well as the CPS, which plays a full and active role in the forum, other agencies include the police, the health service, local authority services, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, women's aid, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the court services. Multi-agency work is difficult and delicate, and it is important for all those agencies to be involved.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend asks how and whom we consulted. I think that most of the organisations that she lists were involved in the consultation. Because of her expertise and long-standing commitment on this issue, I have raised with her what the guidance would include.
    It is important to recognise that the guidance, which is designed to guide Crown prosecutors in their decision making, is not written on tablets of stone. It will be published next month and, after further discussion, people may want to propose changes about certain issues. The CPS is accountable and answerable, and it will take such proposals into account. Because this will be on the internet, we will be able to make those changes quickly.
    Previously, the guidance has been secret. The CPS is coming out into the open; it is more accountable and transparent. It is not making decisions according to secret guidance; instead it publishes them and is prepared to discuss with partners at local and national level whether the guidance is right.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
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 29 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill.
TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER—Motion to approve the first report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Remaining stages of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill.
THURSDAY 1 NOVEMBER—Debate on coalition against international terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 2 NOVEMBER—Private Members Bills. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]
Motion to approve the special educational needs code of practice.
TUESDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 7 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the International Development Bill [Lords]
THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Export Control Bill.
FRIDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Debate on drugs strategy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also welcome notice that I hope by the end of next week to be in a position to table a resolution to set up the Liaison Committee.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us notice of the business. When might we expect the Chancellor's autumn statement? The sooner the House is made aware of that, the better.
What on earth is going on in terms of Ministers failing to come to the House to give statements on important matters, so that the House cannot question them? There are a number of examples, the foremost of which has arisen today, regarding the scandalous news from the Audit Commission about accident and emergency units. It is one thing for Ministers to go on the radio in the morning, as is their habit, but why, even if that were to happen first—which it should not—cannot Ministers come to the House of Commons to answer questions, not from the Humphrys and Naughties of this world, but from Members of Parliament?
412
The same applies to the letter that we have all had today from the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for adult skills, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), about something called the individual learning ac count programme. The hon. Gentleman says that
"some people are being pressed to sign up for low value, poor quality learning"—
that is presumably what the programme has been about—
"and I have decided to act quickly to protect the interests of individual learners and proper use of public funds."
I do not know what the hon. Gentleman was hinting at there, but it sounds ominous. Why can we not have a statement on that? Instead, a letter has been sent to Members of Parliament saying,
"Estelle Morris has this afternoon answered a written question in the House."
Are we supposed to be satisfied with that? Giving a written answer or appearing on the radio appears to be the way in which the Government regularly sneak out these announcements,
I read in a newspaper today that an announcement about terminal 5 may be about to be sneaked out under the cover of our ground troops going into Afghanistan. We have been through this so many times in the recent past. I want a guarantee from the Leader of the House that we will have a proper statement on terminal 5 before anyone else hears about it in any other way so that the many people directly affected by the issue can be properly represented in this House by their Members of Parliament asking questions of a Minister following a statement.
Will the Leader please set an example? Will he give us a lead? Will he give a guarantee that we will not only be the first to hear about these matters but that we will have the opportunity properly to question Ministers about them?
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I can give a guarantee that there will be an oral statement in the House on terminal 5. No decision has yet been taken, but when it is, it will be announced in the House by means of an oral statement. The right hon. Gentleman knows the rules—no Minister will speak to the press or anyone else until there has been an oral statement in the House. I am grateful for the opportunity to make the right hon. Gentleman happy. He asked for a guarantee arid he has got one. What he wants will happen and I would appreciate his welcome for that.
As for the autumn statement, it will be made in the autumn, which is, in terms of the House, liberally interpreted, although I anticipate that it will be before we rise for the next recess.
On accident and emergency departments, it is worth remembering that the figures announced today by the Audit Commission are 18 months old. In the past 12 months, the period for very long stays has halved. Today we have made it clear that we are not satisfied with the position. We want to do better—that is why we are investing in another 600 nurses for training in accident and emergency departments. It will take us time to reach our target of a maximum wait of four hours in accident and emergency departments. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will get there a lot faster than the 18 years it took the previous Government to ruin the national health service.

413
On the individual learning account, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not present for Education and Skills questions, when the subject was raised orally. I welcome the fact that he has drawn attention to it because we are in difficulty entirely because we have wildly exceeded our target. We set a target of 1 million, and 2.5 million people have come forward to take advantage of the new ILA.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that we have exceeded our target. We have more than doubled the figures we were aiming at. I shall try to ensure that we have more statements so that, when we exceed our targets, the House is fully aware of that fact and the right hon. Gentleman can welcome it.
Andrew Bennett: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, which will be debated tomorrow, and press him to consider reforming the way in which private Members' Bills are dealt with? The Bill has widespread support from conservation groups, and wide cross-party support in the House, yet after a lot of work has gone into its preparation it is now rumoured that the Government Whips may intend to sabotage it because the wind power lobby has managed to nobble someone. Would it not be better to have a proper Second Reading tomorrow, get the Bill into Committee and have the small details properly scrutinised, rather than having Government Whips sabotaging private Members' Bills?
Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend has evidence of sabotage by the Whips, I shall be very pleased if he shares it with me. [Laughter.] I honestly do not see what is hilarious about that. If my hon. Friend has evidence for a serious allegation I will, of course, pursue it. I do not see anything particularly hilarious in the Leader of the House wishing to pursue such a serious allegation. [Interruption.] It would assist my hon. Friend if Opposition Members took the matter as seriously as he does.
The Government will, of course, express a view in the debate tomorrow; a Minister will take part, as is normally the case with private Members' business. A number t concerns must be addressed if the Bill is to become an Act. They are wide ranging, and cover access to wrecks, the development of water sports and a range of economic interests such as wind farms. access to ports, and shipping. The House can consider all those issues tomorrow, and come to a considered and balanced view.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, may share my delight, amazement and surprise that the Leader of the House has been able to promise us that no statement will be made to the House that has already been pre-empted by a media appearance. Has the right hon. Gentleman checked that out with Mr. Jim Naughtie and Mr. John Humphrys—because I suspect that he has now cancelled the "Today" programme for the foreseeable future?
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the statement made on the radio this morning by the Secretary of State for Health about the Audit Commission report was far from full, and was certainly not subjected to the sort of inquisition that he would have received in the House had he decided to make a statement here? The Secretary of State referred to bed blocking, which he said had been dealt with in a statement earlier
414
this month. That statement, too, was made outside the House, a few days before we resumed after the summer recess.
May we have a statement by the Secretary of State for Health no later than Monday? Clearly there are wide concerns about accident and emergency departments, which are not improving as fast as has been suggested either here this afternoon or on the radio this morning. The announcement about bed blocking that was made just before the House resumed does not deal with some of the problems, so can we be assured that we will get that statement?
When does the Leader of the House expect to introduce, and in what form, the legislation to deal with media moguls? He may have noticed that there was a serious escalation this morning in the hostilities between The Mirror and The Sun. Will he—having served in the Foreign Office so long—use his best endeavours to try to prevent hostilities being resumed on that front? Does he believe that his intervention through the new legislation will deal with that problem as well?
Mr. Cook: It does not lie within my power to cancel the "Today" programme—and it would probably be unwise to disclose what I would do with that power if I had it.
On the question of statements to the House, the House has to retain some perspective. In the past week we have had three major statements from Ministers, and I am sure that next week we will also have major statements, and we will continue to make sure that major developments in policy come before the House. At the same time, the House has other business, and we have to ensure that we achieve a balance. The hon. Gentleman would be among the first to complain if the net result were to reduce significantly the time available for the scrutiny of legislation in the House.
As for the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would take a braver man than me to try to end hostilities between The Sun and The Mirror.
Joan Ryan: Will my right hon. Friend make available dedicated time within oral questions—I suggest 10 minutes—during which Members could question the Minister for Women, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? If a Member wishes to put a question at present, that has to be done within DTI questions. Responsibility for women is a big, important area, and if we wish to put a question on trade and industry we cannot also put one to my right hon. Friend on her duties as Minister for Women. There is an issue of accountability here, so will the Leader of the House consider making time available, in much the same way as we have just seen for questions to the Solicitor-General?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a point that has been raised by a number of Members, and we are considering the issue. It is not entirely straightforward because, of course, the effect would be to diminish the rest of the time during which the Secretary of State is accountable. We shall certainly consider the idea, and I hope that we will be able to reach a satisfactory solution.
Peter Bottomley: The Leader of the House will probably welcome the fact that my question

415
about the need for a debate on pedestrian-friendly vehicle fronts—an issue that will come up in Coreper—has been tabled for written answer. However, as this is specific to the House, I ask him now whether we can have the opportunity to debate whether the House of Commons Commission is inadvertently breaking any of the guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments by the way in which it is handling the possible replacement of the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin?
Mr. Cook: I would be fairly confident that we were not, because we received full advice before proceeding as we are doing. I stress to the House that—contrary to what I have seen in the press—Mrs. Filkin has not been sacked or dismissed. She has been given an undertaking that should she decide to apply for the next contract, she will be placed on the shortlist. As a Commission, we have taken the decision that it would be right to proceed by open competition. I hope that all those in the House who have argued for greater openness and transparency would want us to use an open and transparent system, rather than make a closed reappointment.
Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome the undertaking by the Leader of the House that there will be a full statement if and when a decision is taken on terminal 5. May I urge him to lean on his right hon. and hon. Friends not to hurry with that decision, because there are changed circumstances, both in the market for aviation and in the security implications, of which cognisance was not taken at the time of the inquiry? I urge him to persuade his colleagues to reflect: long and hard before granting permission for terminal 5. The decision will raise a number of issues about the disproportionate clout and influence of the big battalions in this country, such as BAA and British Airways, to influence key decisions in their interests, in contrast to the little influence of the ordinary simple objector.
Mr. Cook: I am sure that the factors to which my hon. Friend has referred will be taken into account by my colleagues in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. He is right to say that such issues raise questions about decisions that may have been taken before 11 September. However, I am sure that my colleagues will have adequate time to reflect on that, which will be reflected in the statement made when they reach their decision. I stress to the House that no decision has yet been reached.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the article in this month's issue of The Parliamentary Monitor entitled, "Labour Blows Cold on Scots' Reduction", questioning the implementation of the boundary commission's proposals for Scotland? Does he share my concern at the blatant gerrymandering in the print and broadcast media by his colleagues at the Treasury and the Scotland Office? Given his personal interest in the matter, will he arrange for an early ministerial statement on how
416
and when the Government will complete the changes in constituency boundaries that will be required by the Scotland Act 1998?
Mr. Cook: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything he reads in the papers. The fact is that the boundary commission for Scotland has commenced its review of boundaries, and has indicated that it intends to report early in 2002. The result will be subject to the usual process of appeal, discussion and consultation, and we will make all speed thereafter. There is no decision, no suggestion, no idea and no intention of preventing the boundary commission from proceeding. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in a position to know, because, as a Scottish Member of Parliament who has a personal interest in the matter, I take a close interest.
Mr. Derek Foster: May we have an early debate on regional government? That would give us an opportunity to consider the implications of a statement made recently by the Deputy Prime Minister of Ins determination that there should be a referendum during this Parliament, at least in the north-east, and perhaps for other regions that required it.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister is working on a White Paper on regional government and I anticipate that it will be published in the near future. At that time, the House will of course want to ensure that it, too, has an opportunity to participate in the national debate that we expect the White Paper to spark.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am tempted to ask for an early debate on what constitutes autumn.
Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to make an announcement on what the new Railtrack will be—namely, a company limited by guarantee—in a written answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on a day when that Department answered both oral questions and an Opposition-day debate on such subjects?
Mr. Cook: It merely confirms how active my right hon. Friend was on that day. The answer stated that my right hon. Friend proposed setting up a company limited by guarantee and I have heard him say that at least half a dozen times at the Dispatch Box. Of course it is important that Ministers should make major statements to the House and it is also important that the House should have adequate opportunity—as it did twice on that day—to put questions and comments to the Secretary of State, but the House is becoming a bit precious when it suggests Government business cannot be done through written answers and that the technical details of strategic statements should not be followed through by written answers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask my right lit in. Friend a question of which I gave his office notice this morning? May we have an assurance next week that no weapons, such as land mines, that would be banned by convention for use by British forces are being used by the US or the British in the campaign from British bases, in particular Diego Garcia? May we have a statement on

417
the use of Gator anti-personnel weapons systems and cluster bombs? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Halo Trust and others who have undertaken brave, long, hard and sustained work over years in Afghanistan to clear existing mines are extremely concerned about the amount of unexploded ordnance raining down?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks: no weapons will be used by British forces, or approved for use from British territory, that break any of the international conventions to which we are a party. No land mines have been dropped during the present military campaign, and those cluster bombs that have been used against military targets—one against an al-Qaeda training camp and four against Taliban military installations—were all designed to explode on impact and not for delayed action.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement today that tie intends at an early date to table a motion to set up the Liaison Committee—a most important Committee of the House. It is essential that it begins its work as quickly as possible.
My question relates to the statement yesterday by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Although the conscience of the House is very much on the campaign against international terrorism, does the Leader of the House agree that it would be appropriate to hold a full debate in the House on the implications of the Secretary of State's statement. Northern Ireland is an important part of the United Kingdom and many people think that the decommissioning statement by the IRA is merely about a transfer of weapons from the IRA to Continuity IRA and the Real IRA. There are severe implications for the security of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Cook: The rules drawn up by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, supervised by General de Chastelain, are quite explicit: the weapons have to be put beyond future use. The commission has stated that it has seen that happen in the case of ammunition, weapons and explosive. There is no question of any of that material being handed over to any terrorist organisation. To that extent, I want the House to appreciate that there has been real destruction of weapons under the rules provided by the decommissioning body.
As to a debate in the House, I appreciate that there is considerable interest in the matter both in the House and in the country at large. I am sure that the House will have adequate opportunities to explore it. After all, there was an historic statement on the issue this week and I am sure that the whole House welcomes the progress that the Government and our friends are making in moving forward the peace process in Northern Ireland.
Jeremy Corbyn: May I refer the Leader of the House back to the subject of next Thursday's debate—international terrorism? He will fully understand that millions of people in this country are deeply uneasy about the continued bombing of Afghanistan and his confirmation of the reported use of cluster bombs by United States forces in that country? Does he agree that many people in this country find it incomprehensible that British military forces should be involved, and that we should endorse an American-led
418
operation, with no vote in the British Parliament? Does he not think that, in the interests of democracy, the Government should table a substantive, amendable and debatable motion so that Members of Parliament are required to take a position on whether they think Britain should be involved in this military action against Afghanistan?
Mr. Cook: I have sat through many of the debates that we have held on this matter. We should recall that the Government have ensured that the House has had adequate opportunity to debate the international coalition against terrorism. There were three recalls and a further debate will be held next week. There have been plenty of such opportunities for the House to debate and explore the issue and to question Ministers.
In the course of those debates—to much of which I listened—I was impressed by the degree of support throughout the House for the action being taken by the Government. It is unreasonable for my hon. Friend to pretend that the House has not had an opportunity to express a view, or that the House has not made its will clear during those debates. It is of course open to the small number of Members of Parliament who disagree with that action to express their view, and my hon. Friend has done so, but he cannot deny that the clear will of the House is to support the action.
Pete Wishart: Given the likely and necessary changes to the Government's legislative programme in the light of the events of 11 September, does the Leader of the House think that a Bill to ban tobacco advertising is likely or unlikely? If it is on the unlikely end of the spectrum, what would be his view and that of the Government if the Scottish Parliament were to introduce such legislation so that the practice could at least be banned in Scotland?
Mr. Cook: The Scottish Executive and the Government share the same view: it would not make practical sense to try to ban advertising in one part of Britain and not in another. We share the view that our policy is to take forward a tobacco ban and that it should take place at the same time throughout the whole United Kingdom. That is what we shall seek to do at an appropriate time.
David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite his reply, disquiet remains about the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is not to be reappointed as a matter of course? Indeed, frankly, it is unlikely that in the circumstances she would be reappointed if she applied. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a feeling—perhaps not shared by everyone—on both sides of the House that the commissioner has carried out her duties in an impartial, conscientious manner? Indeed, it is because she was so conscientious that she was told, in effect—in the words used in an earlier exchange—that she should not continue her present duties. That was a deplorable decision and I hope that it can be reconsidered.
Mr. Cook: I put it to my hon. Friend that there is no provision for the commissioner, as he suggests, to be reappointed—I think I use his words advisedly—"as a matter of course". Ms Filkin was appointed on a fixed-term contract—[Interruption.] No, she was

419
appointed on a fixed-term contract. Moreover, that fixed-term contract was for precisely the same period—the same term of office—as was held by her predecessor. No commitment was given that she would be, as my hon. Friend put it "reappointed as a matter of course". I deprecate my hon. Friend's comment that she was told that she cannot be appointed. That is most certainly not the case and I hope that Ms Filkin will not believe that. She will be considered on merit, along with other candidates, and if she is the best candidate she will be appointed.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I draw attention to early-day motion 248.
[That this House notes with dismay the unethical behaviour of Jo Moore, a ministerial special adviser, in seeking to exploit the terrorist atrocities in America to `bury' news stories damaging to the Government; agrees with Charlie Whelan, the former aide to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that her action was `sickening'; and calls on the Right honourable Member for North Tyneside to remove her from his staff forthwith.]
That motion, signed by many hon. Members, concerns the exploitation of terrorist atrocities by new Labour spin doctors.
I had intended to ask for a debate on the motion, but as we have recently held such a debate in Opposition time, may I ask instead for a statement from the Secretary of State for Health or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on the availability of counselling services for civil servants receiving e-mails from obnoxious special advisers, and for Labour Back-Bench Members following interviews with the Government Chief Whip?
Mr. Cook: That is the least persuasive bid for a statement that I have heard all afternoon.
Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that last week Michelin announced its closure in Burnley, losing about 450 jobs. Since then, we seem to have had redundancies every day in the aerospace industries or other industries dependent on aerospace. My right hon. Friend will recognise that the situation in the industry has changed greatly since 11 September. Does he feel that it is time to hold a debate on the Government's approach to manufacturing, which I know the Government believe to be a crucial part of the national economy as well as of the local economy in places such as Burnley?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue—the fact that the impact of 11 September on the aviation industry and on the aerospace industry has been substantial. No one in the Government—
Mr. Forth: Tough.
Mr. Cook: No, I would never dream of treating redundancies in that way. Redundancies are a serious matter, in whoever's constituency they arise. The Government will certainly continue the work that we are doing to try to restore faith and confidence in and business for the aviation industry. That is why today the Minister
420
responsible for aviation—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson)—is visiting four of the major airports in order to restore the confidence of the travelling public in their security arrangements. In restoring that confidence lies the best hope of a way forward for the aerospace industry.
In the meantime, through our regional development agencies—which the Conservatives opposed—and through the Government offices we are doing all that we can to cope with the impact of redundancies on local communities.
Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall last week giving sympathetic consideration to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for a debate on fanning and the countryside? Will he now regard that as a matter of urgency, given the continuing and deepening crisis in agriculture and in the rural economy and, coupled with that, the conduct of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
The Department increasingly appears to have turned its back on agriculture, refuses to answer letters from hon. Members and does not answer parliamentary questions. I tabled a written question for a named-day response on 15 October that, two weeks later, is still not answered despite being a crucial matter for people in my constituency. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly that the Department is increasingly losing any confidence that may have resided in it among people who live in rural areas and those who represent them in this place?
Mr. Cook: I shall take up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about parliamentary answers and see whether we can get an answer to his specific question On the issue of the debate, I would be surprised if, sometime in the near future, we did not hold a debate involving that Department. He will understand that I have many conflicting demands to balance, but I know that the Department is keen to have a debate on the countryside.
Charlotte Atkins: What action is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised before it goes to the House of Lords?
Mr. Forth: He's doing the opposite.
Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am doing the opposite. I was surprised, given his commitment to scrutiny, that his memorandum to his leader suggested that they should ensure that Bills left this place imperfectly scrutinised, in order to discredit the Government.
I will ensure that there is adequate time for the scrutiny of Bills in the House. I hope that the Opposition will take that opportunity. If they choose instead to conspire to leave Bills imperfectly scrutinised, it is not us but themselves whom they will discredit.
Mr. Charles Hendry: May I press the Leader of the House further for a debate on the crisis in

421
our care homes? He rather brushed aside the issue when it was raised a few minutes ago. Will he ensure that that debate not only takes account of the inadequacy of the ministerial press release about the funding for care homes, but considers the catastrophic effects that there would he if the Government's proposed changes to the way in which care homes are managed come into effect next spring, which would make the situation even worse?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of having brushed aside a question on care homes; indeed, I am not aware of having been asked a question on care homes this afternoon. However, I fully understand the importance of the role that they play; I said as much last week. Only this month the Government have taken action to ensure that everyone is entitled to free nursing care. We shall certainly do all that we can to ensure that care homes can play a full part. We need them to play a full part, to ensure that hospitals can focus on those acute cases that require hospital intervention.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I raise with my right hon. Friend a matter that requires urgent parliamentary attention? It concerns the role of some, if not all, landlords, especially across northern cities where there are areas of very low demand for property. Those landlords, by failing to take any responsibility for their properties and the tenants whom they move in, are having a very serious impact on the quality of life and, of course, on the asset value of the properties of other owners in the area.
The Government have consulted on the need for a licensing system for private landlords. May I urge my right hon. Friend to tell the House that we can move forward on that licensing, which would have the impact of allowing local authorities to take away access to housing benefit for those landlords who will not act as good citizens?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to the Government. That is why we have issued a consultation document on the selective licensing of private landlords. It was issued as recently as this week and it will obviously be some time before we are able to give a considered response, but we hope that it will enable us to deal with some of the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Leader of the House said that the Government would shortly introduce legislation to deal with matters of terrorism and extradition. Will he ensure that it encompasses a situation where British nationals leave these shores to participate in military action against this country and our allies, and the consequential action that will be needed if they then seek to re-enter this country?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady raises an issue that I wrestled with in the Foreign Office in a previous role in relation to a previous conflict. The legal issues involved are extremely difficult, but I understand the point that she raises and I am sure that my colleagues at the Home Office will consider it.
John Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate, or at least a statement, on the
422
treatment of deaf and hard of hearing people in the national health service? I have particular concerns about the availability of digital hearing aids, which constitute a major technical advance but the availability of which is very patchy. There are long waiting lists in my area, among others, and I have many constituents who are waiting desperately for a digital hearing aid.
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a statement, but I will draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that he receives a response from the Department.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Leader of the House further consider granting an emergency debate on British Airways' decision to withdraw its Belfast-London Heathrow service? A debate on that matter would enable us all to consider the options, and especially the slots vacated by British Airways and the possibility that one of several other carriers might use them. Thousands of people from Northern Ireland, who work and live in London, expect a good service, and they are already concerned about arrangements to enable them to get home to their families over the Christmas period.
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the great importance of the matter to Northern Ireland, and to those in Britain who wish to visit and travel to Northern Ireland. There is a wider debate about what happens to slots that are vacated in the present difficult times for the aviation industry. That issue, in its generality, is receiving close attention from my colleagues, which is why the aviation Minister is today on a tour of four airports in Britain. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention so that he may consider this point.
Mr. David Chaytor: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the publication on 12 September of the long-awaited Government Green Paper on the management of radioactive waste? Given the enormous costs involved in the management of our existing stockpiles of radioactive waste, which now exceed £85 billion according to an answer given last week by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, given the increasing concern about terrorist access to fissile material, and given that the Green Paper calls for a wide-ranging public debate on the very complicated issues involved in the management of that waste, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that subject in the very near future?
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise a debate, but some of those issues will be reflected in the forthcoming emergency legislation, which is likely to provide increased scope for the actions by Atomic Energy Authority police. I am sure that some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised could be ventilated in the course of debate.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Independent reported this morning that the news about terminal 5 will be announced
"at the very moment when Britain appears to be about to join a land war against the Taliban".

423
How on earth is that statement compatible with the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave earlier? Will he now give a firm guarantee, which he failed to give to the shadow Leader of the House, that an announcement on terminal 5 will be made to the House before any news of it is released to my former colleagues in the media?
Mr. Cook: Of course that statement will be made to the House. Indeed, I said precisely that to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the decision and the announcement should be delayed until a time that he regards as appropriate. The longer that it is delayed, the more probable it is that any decision will be leaked by one means or another—not necessarily by ministerial action, as it is not only Ministers who will be privy to such a decision. Frankly, it is in the interests of the House that that statement comes as soon as possible after the decision is taken. We have to recognise that we cannot put on hold all the important decisions that need to be taken for the running of Britain because we are engaged in a very important struggle against international terrorism.
Joan Ruddock: Further to my right hon. Friend's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on the reorganisation of Department of Trade and Industry questions, will he look at the official record for the Session 1997–98? He will find that the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and I regularly answered questions about women during Social Security questions. We had the time, but it was not for the convenience of the House and it interrupted the good flow of questions and debate. I strongly recommend that my right hon. Friend considers allocating a separate 10-minute slot. Perhaps he could tell us when he might report on that matter.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her advice and I will certainly take it into account when making my decision.
Mr. John Burnett: I appreciate that not every hon. Member considers Solicitor-General's questions the most riveting event that takes place. Nevertheless, with 10 minutes we get through only two or three questions. Will the Leader of the House restore Solicitor-General's questions to its former glory of a quarter of an hour?
I also wish to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Rome (Mr. Heath). We not only have outrageous delays from DEFRA on parliamentary answers; there are also delays with correspondence from Ministers to Members. It is just not good enough and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make the appropriate point to the Minister concerned. We must have swifter replies to Members' questions from DEFRA.
Mr. Cook: I shall certainly ensure that DEFRA is aware of the comments that have been made. In saying that, I in no way necessarily endorse the criticisms of the Department.
424
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm and interest in Solicitor-General's questions. He makes a modest bid for five minutes more. It sounds modest when it is an add-on to those questions, but I am not sure that it will necessarily appear quite so modest when it is taken out of someone else's time.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are consulting on the Budd report on gambling. It could have a far-reaching impact on many constituencies, and on mine in particular because several hundred people are employed making penny fall machines, of which he may be aware from his visits to the seaside. Some of the recommendations threaten the sale of those machines.
I have been trying to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject—so far without success, but I will continue. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a debate on the report in Government time, possibly in Westminster Hall one afternoon?
Mr. Cook: One of the regrets of no longer visiting the Winter Gardens is missing out on the opportunity to play the penny fall machines. The allocation of Adjournment debates goes beyond my remit, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's observations will have been heard by those who have control over them.
Tony Baldry (Banbury): May we have a debate on the ploy whereby Cabinet Ministers who do not want to answer oral questions simply shuffle them off to be written answers given by colleagues? The Cabinet Office guide to ministerial responsibilities clearly states that the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility on behalf of the Prime Minister for negotiations on climate change. Indeed, as recently as 24 September the Deputy Prime Minister opened the international panel on climate change conference here in London—yet when I successfully tabled an oral question on the subject to him, he simply shuffled it off to be answered as a written question by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the Deputy Prime Minister have responsibility for climate change negotiations? If he does, should he not be accountable to the House for those responsibilities?
Mr. Cook: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for our contribution towards meeting our targets on climate change. The Minister for the Environment is fully engaged in that process and is perfectly competent to answer questions. I know from the work that I used to do at the Foreign Office of the excellent work done by the Deputy Prime Minister and the high respect in which he is held throughout the world for it. He should be held in the same high respect in the country on whose behalf he speaks.
Julie Morgan: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the services provided by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service? As I understand it, the director of operations left two months after the new service was set up earlier this year and the chief executive is away sick. A judicial review recently ruled that CAFCASS acted unlawfully in the way it gave contracts to the children's guardians. I also understand that a large number of managers have left throughout the country.

425
As someone who managed a guardian ad litem team, I am aware of the very important work that children's guardians do in helping to advise courts about the future of vulnerable children. I would be grateful if he could find time for that important issue to be discussed.
Mr. Cook: I cannot promise a debate, but I read with interest the early-day motion on the subject, which expresses views similar to those of my hon. Friend. I will be happy to draw it to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the hope that it will alert it to the widespread and understandable concern among hon. Members about the impact of the service in their constituencies.
Mr. Mark Prisk: Flooding is of particular pertinence in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. In Bishop's Stortford and the surrounding villages there has been a severe crisis this week. My worry and that of other hon. Members is that we hear comments by Ministers on the issue and occasionally, if we are lucky, get letters from them, but we do not have statements in the House. It is important, particularly at this point in the autumn, to know exactly where the Government stand. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an early statement on the issue?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman cannot complain that sufficient attempts have not been made to show where the Government stand. We have increased investment in flood defences and greatly increased the number of residential properties covered by flood warnings. We will continue to give that matter priority. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), is active on that matter today.
I think that I have received seven demands for statements—possibly more, but certainly not less—and unless the Chamber is to become a place for the receipt of statements it will be impossible to meet all those requirements. The House must recognise that it is important that strategic and major policy announcements are made on the Floor of the Chamber, but if everything is announced here, we will do nothing else.
Paul Flynn: Has not manufacturing industry been traditionally denied its fair share of attention by the House, in spite of the fact that it still contributes 20 per cent. to the English economy and 27 per cent. to the Welsh economy? The events of 11 September have resulted in a serious crisis in the steel and aluminium industries, which is likely to have grave repercussions in my constituency. May we have a debate on manufacturing industry?
Mr. Cook: I share my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of manufacturing industry and its significance for the whole economy. That is why we are pleased that manufacturing exports have increased by 25 per cent. since 1997. I assure him that the Government remain fully committed to building on that success.
Mr. Mark Hoban: Following on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), may I urge the
426
Leader of the House to seek from the Chancellor a firm date for the autumn statement, given the £5 billion black hole in the Chancellor's spending plans found by the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Home Secretary's announcement on the "Today" programme on Monday that things look bleak on the spending front?
Mr. Cook: In fairness to the IFS, the hon. Gentleman would wish me to tell the House that, of course, we are dealing with figures that can only possibly arise in 2003, and even then we would dispute them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will, of course, make an autumn statement during this parliamentary term.
Mr. Prisk: When?
Mr. Cook: I cannot recall us having an autumn statement before November, and we are not yet into November.
Mr. Forth: No?
Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute that fact and to hold a debate on it, I cannot promise that a ministerial statement will be made, but I do not think that we are into November. When the appropriate times comes, there will be a statement.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Leader of the House may remember that on 5 July hon. Members voted to allow survivors' benefits to be payable to unmarried couples, whether straight or gay. Indeed, he and his Front-Bench colleagues voted for that measure, and I expressed my gratitude to them the last time that we spoke about the issue. However, is he aware that the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) sought to extend those benefits through civil partnership to non-Members of Parliament under a private Member's Bill that she introduced yesterday, but that no Minister, whom we assume would be given a free vote, voted for that measure?
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it seemly for Ministers and other Members to be seen to grab benefits for themselves and their unmarried partners, but not to agree that the wider population should have them? In the light of that, will he consider providing Government time for that private Member's Bill, or will the Government introduce their own policy to end the discrimination against people who are not married or who cannot be married?
Mr. Cook: First, by convention, Ministers do not take part in ten-minute Bill Divisions for the very reason that the hon. Gentleman suggests—it is important that Government approval, or disapproval, is not read into the actions of individual Ministers. On the other issue that he raises, perhaps in a spirit of humility, I gently remind him that it was his amendment that extended to Members of Parliament the right to pensions for their unmarried partners, and it does not lie well with him to accuse the rest of us of having double standards now.
Mr. George Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate this autumn on the principle of ballistic missile defence? He will remember that in

427
response to a question asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), the Prime Minister said:
"I do not agree with those who are opposed to it."—[Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 273.]
The Leader of the House will be aware that a large number of Labour Members have signed early-day motion 23, which opposes ballistic missile defence.
[That this House expresses concern at President Bush's intention to move beyond the constraints of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in developing missile defence; and endorses the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which recommended that the Government voice the grave doubts about NMD in the UK, questioned whether US plans to deploy NMD represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international community and recommended that the Government encourage the USA to explore all ways of reducing the threat it perceives.]
May we have such debate so that those Government Back Benchers can put their views to those on the Government Front Bench, and those of us who, on this issue, support the Prime Minister—indeed, we would like him to go further—can express our views, too?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my hon. Friends will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude in suggesting that they should have an opportunity to express their views. May I remind him that no decision on the matter has been taken, that no decision can be taken until a question is asked of us and that, in those circumstances, it would be rather odd for us to debate it?

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY—FIRST PART]
Opposition Day

  Student Finance
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business—the first part of the third allotted Opposition day. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.24 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the best possible education of its citizens is both a principal duty of, and an immeasurable benefit to, any civilised society, and therefore deplores the rising levels of student debt and the resulting disincentive to continue in education post-school; condemns the failure of the Government to invest in Higher Education all the extra resources provided by the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of tuition fees; regrets that the conclusions drawn from reviews of student finance in Scotland and Wales have been ignored in Westminster; congratulates the Scottish Executive on abolishing tuition fees and restoring grants for students from low income backgrounds; believes that part-time students and students in Further Education should be treated fairly in comparison with full-time students in Higher Education; notes the recent decision by the Government to review student finance more widely; and calls upon the Government to abolish tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to put in place a fully funded support system, which will encourage more students, particularly those from low income backgrounds, to go into higher education.
  May I begin by saying how pleased I am that my right hon. and hon. Friends have chosen to debate student finance today and that they have asked me to move the motion in our names? May I make it plain that I have nothing to gain personally from the abolition of tuition fees, although I do have considerable personal experience of paying them? I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and, I understand, with the previous Secretary of State, the experience of having a child who was, unfortunately, involved in the first year of tuition fees. I have another son at university now, and my youngest son hopes to go to university in 2003, which, if all goes well, should be the last year of tuition fees.
  So it is not for reasons of personal benefit that I am pleased that my party has given this issue the highest priority for debate today; rather it is because in June this year two issues stood out as being uniquely Liberal Democrat issues: free long-term care for the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees. We received massive support from the public on both issues, and they represent the two greatest errors that the Labour Government made in their first term in office. We said that tuition fees were "a tax on education", and we were right.
  A sensible Government choose to tax things that they want less of; they avoid taxing things that they want more of. Liberal Democrats believe in education. We believe that education is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society. We believe that the best possible education for each individual in our nation is valuable not just for that individual, but for society as a whole. We also believe that education is not just about equipping the individual with the knowledge and skills that he or she needs for the

  429
  jobs of the modern world, but about giving that individual the opportunity to make the most of his or her natural talents and abilities in every aspect of his or her life.
  However, the student support system acts as a barrier to young people who want to go to university, particularly for the poorest students. First, there is the upfront payment of tuition fees—the tax on education. The Government have tried to argue that tuition fees are no disincentive After all, they say, the poorest 50 per cent. or so of students will not have to pay them. But, of course, it really nothing to do with whether the student is rich or poor. Almost all students are poor, and if it was only rich students who paid tuition fees, they would never have been worth collecting. No, the means testing is done, not on the student, but on the parent.
  Some parents pay, but many see no reason why they should continue to subsidise their adult offspring, just because those offspring happen to be intelligent enough to be offered a place at a university. So the sons and daughters of comparatively well-off parents usually end up paying the tuition fees. Often such students end up even more deeply in debt than other students whose parents happen to be less well-off.
  Where is the logic in a student finance system in which a graduate who enters a comparatively low-paid but socially useful job may have to pay off greater debts than a graduate who earns hundreds of thousands of pounds in the City, but whose parents happen to have been in less well-paid jobs? What is fair about that? Let there be no doubt that worries about debt are very real. Students can now expect to graduate with an average debt of £10,000, and often more. Of course, tuition fees make up only a part of that debt, and it is true that many students will not have to pay tuition fees.
  I must confess that I too was at first taken in by the seductive argument that tuition fees cannot possibly be a disincentive to those who will not have to pay them. However, I visited Durham university recently, and there I spoke to a first-year student who had come up only a month or so before. She described herself as coming from a working-class background. She told me that no less than four of her friends had decided not to go to university because they did not want to get into debt. They had heard about tuition fees, and they were frightened.
  It does not matter whether the fear of debt is soundly based; it is the fear itself that produces the disincentive. So will the Government now finally admit that tuition fees and the perception of tuition fees constitute a barrier to young people who want to go to university? How long before the Government stop monitoring and wake up to the crisis in our higher education system? Students are fed up with monitoring—they want tuition fees to be abolished. A sensible Government levy taxes for education and not on education.
  Tuition fees are of course only a part of the debt problem. Students must also maintain themselves. The Government fought the election saying that there was not a problem. They apparently saw no contradiction between their target of 50 per cent. participation and the system of student support that they introduced in 1998. During the campaign, however, the Prime Minister apparently woke up to the fact that young people and their parents do see a problem.
  430
  In the review of student funding announced at the Labour party conference, one stated objective was to
  "tackle the problems of debt and the perception of debt".
  The Secretary of State has explicitly recognised that debt is a barrier to access. On 4 October, she was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
  "I recognise that for many low income families fear of debt is a real worry and could act as a barrier to higher education. I want to make sure that our future reform tackles this problem."
  The following day, the Chancellor was quoted in The Times Higher Education Supplement as follows:
  "As we examine the financing of universities and the problems of student loans and fees, the test will be to break down the barriers that hold people back, so that all, and not just those who can afford it, have the chance to make the most of themselves and their talents."
  I suggest to the Minister for Lifelong Learning that if she has the Chancellor's backing, she has a much better chance than most of getting some extra finance into the system.
  Mr. David Chaytor: If there is a direct relationship between cost and access, will the hon. Gentleman explain why, during the long period when there were no tuition fees and there was a 100 per cent. grants system, the proportion of young people from working-class backgrounds going to university did not increase? When such education was free, working-class people still did not go to university. Why was that?
  Mr. Rendel: I am delighted to answer that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman raises an important problem. There are clearly reasons other than the fear of debt that influence the question—one of which is the number of children who go on to post-16 education. That is a particular problem for the sort of children to whom he referred. I am sure that the fear of debt and especially of having to pay tuition fees—even if, in practice, such students will not have to do so—are at least part of the important problem that we face.
  The facts speak for themselves. According to the Barclays student debt survey, since the 1998 reforms, average student debt has roughly doubled from about £3,000 to about £6,000, and average debt on graduation is expected to rise from £6,500 in 2000 to around £10,000 in 2001. The National Union of Students estimates that that figure is more in the region of £12,000. It points to a recent debt survey by the University College London student union, in which only 12 per cent. of respondents expected to be debt-free on graduation. Of those expecting to be in debt, 38 per cent. expected to owe up to £10,000, 50 per cent. between £10,000 and £20,000, and 12 per cent. more than £20,000. Of those surveyed, 18 per cent. had considered dropping out altogether as a result of financial difficulties.
  Even before the new arrangements were introduced, the student income and expenditure survey for 1998–99 found that 87 per cent. of full-time students experienced financial difficulties, and that 60 per cent. thought that such difficulties had damaged their academic performance. So why has it taken the Government so long to reach the conclusion that debt and the perception of debt represent a barrier to access?
  At least we Liberal Democrats can now welcome the Government's decision to conduct a review—and we do. At last the Government have recognised that a disincentive is

  431
  built into the system. Until now, they have maintained that there was no disincentive. Students, they say, can look forward to higher incomes later, but many students never receive those higher incomes. Even for those who do so, the costs are up front, while the benefits are three or four years down the line.
  Alistair Burt: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the review of student finance—we all would—but does he share my substantial concern and surprise that the review is being conducted entirely internally and cross-departmentally, so the very people who devised the system about which we are all complaining are devising the new one, too?
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I certainly share that concern, and I shall make a small offer in relation to it in a moment.
  It is not just those who see themselves going into low-paid jobs who fear mounting debts. A recent British Academy report of graduate studies in the humanities and social sciences made two points. First, the United Kingdom is failing to attract sufficient numbers of the best British students to take PhDs in the arts, humanities and social sciences, and, secondly, debt is a major deterrent to potential PhD students.
  Sadly, debt causes damage not only as a disincentive. It is clear that student finance has an impact on the quality of the university experience. The experience is valuable not just because it improves career prospects, but because it offers wider educational benefits—the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, the coming together of people from different backgrounds, exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking and, of course, the gaining of greater personal independence and freedom.
  So what are the implications of the fact that close to two thirds of students take up part-time work to help fund their way through university, or of a growing number of students opting to live at home because it is cheaper? Clearly, those trends mean less time to engage in the wider experience of university life, with all the extra benefits that that can bring.
  The central problem is that the Government are committed to expansion but not to providing the money to pay for it. If they are serious about widening participation, they must address the funding issue. We know that that can be done. How do we know that? We know because it has been done. In Scotland, tuition fees have been abolished; grants for students from poorer backgrounds have been reintroduced. We Liberal Democrats are delighted that our Scottish colleagues were able to persuade the Scottish Executive to make those changes. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in Scotland have jointly proved that a better system is possible and can be afforded.
  Diana Organ: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: I shall give way in a moment.
  432
  The Scottish system is not the only possible way of financing students. Indeed, it may not even be the best one. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches are not dogmatic about that.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Well, give way then.
  Mr. Rendel: If the Government wish as part of their review to discuss alternative proposals with us, we shall be happy to do so. I make that offer freely.
  Diana Organ: The hon. Gentleman referred to the value of higher education and the Government's desire to increase participation in and access to it. Do he and his party agree, therefore, with the target of 50 per cent. of young people having access to higher education? Is he committed to that, as his party should be?
  Mr. Rendel: The important issue is that students must have a quality university experience. There is no point in a target that results in more and more people going to university if the Government fail to meet the need to maintain unit funding for those students. If funding can be maintained, we would of course like the maximum number of students to go through university—if possible, even more than 50 per cent. of young people. If they can derive some value from their university experience, let us do that. However, without such valuable experience, doing so would be a waste of money.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Rendel: I have taken enough interventions for the time being.
  In replying to the debate, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm or deny the rumours that the following options are under consideration in her review: first, the abolition of tuition fees; secondly, a graduate tax; thirdly, the restoration of maintenance grants, at least for students from less well-off backgrounds; and, fourthly, whether student loans will still be made available.
  I hope that the Minister will also assure us that universities will not receive less money if extra resources are to be directed towards student support. The Government delude themselves if they believe that they can expand student numbers and deliver a world-class higher education system without a substantial boost in funding
  The Secretary of State rightly said in her speech on 22 October:
  "Universities are not a birthright for the middle classes."
  However, wider access to a bargain basement higher education system would be a betrayal of the young people the Government say they want to support. Just as higher education should not be a birthright of the middle classes, we must ensure that quality is available to all.
  Our country needs a world-class system of higher education; our students deserve it. We need to provide giants, at least for students from less well-off backgrounds. However, tuition fees have no part to play in such a system.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Jon Owen Jones.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman given way or has he finished his speech?
  Mr. Rendel: I have finished.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was giving way.
  1.41 pm
  The Minister for Lifelong Learning (Margaret Hodge): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the approach the Government has taken to higher education since 1997, particularly the extra investment the Government is making in Higher Education, meaning an extra £1.7 billion of publicly planned funding in the six years to 2003–04; further welcomes the Government's commitment to widening participation so that half of under-30 year olds will benefit from the opportunities of higher education by the end of the decade supports the Government's reforms of student support, introduced in 1998, which have increased the resources available to higher education establishments; agrees with the principle, underlying these reforms, that those who benefit from the considerable advantages that higher education can offer are asked to contribute when they can afford to; recognises that the Government has always been committed to monitor and to review the impact of these reforms; and further welcomes the Secretary of State for Education and Skills' recent announcement of this review.'.
  I am not surprised that hon. Members were not sure whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) had given way. It was not clear whether he had finished his contribution or, indeed, what he was talking about. However, I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats have given us the opportunity today to engage in a short debate on higher education. It gives me the opportunity, early in the lifetime of the Parliament, to set out the Government's vision for expanding higher education.
  I shall have to ignore much of the Liberal Democrat contribution because, in my simple little way, I do not understand the difference between a Scottish graduate endowment of £2,000 and payment towards the cost of education in a tuition fee. They may be called different names but they are the same.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Minister give way?
  Margaret Hodge: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make my second attack.
  It was interesting that the Liberal Democrats did not make a commitment to widening participation in and access to higher education. That is the basis for everything on our agenda for universities.
  Mr. Willis: What is the difference between paying an endowment at the end of an undergraduate's course of study and a graduate tax, which would be paid into the same pot?
  Margaret Hodge: All the systems reflect a contribution from the student—as a student or a graduate; directly or through the family—towards the cost of higher education. That principle is accepted by all parties.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). Does she agree that it is disingenuous of a party that campaigned on honesty in taxation to talk about getting rid of student tuition fees without mentioning the
  434
  fact that the policy was to be financed through graduate endowment payments? Where is the honesty in taxation in that policy?
  Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend's views. Liberal Democrat policies show little honesty, rigour or ability to add up.
  Mr. Don Foster (Bath): The Minister clearly does not understand the system in Scotland. It is therefore vital to place on record the fact that the money that students in Scotland pay after they have graduated is used as a contribution to increase maintenance support for students. It is not used to pay for tuition.
  Margaret Hodge: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is being rather too clever. Students are worried about the total cost of their education, which comprises tuition and maintenance: simply renaming the contribution from individuals before or after they have graduated is beside the point.
  I should like to set out our ambitions to try to give the debate some coherence. We have said that by the end of the decade we want half of our young people to have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the time they reach the age of 30. That is a tough and challenging ambition, but that target is part of our wider policies for higher education. It encapsulates many of the values that underpin our general approach to government. If we are to maintain and enhance capability and competitiveness in our economy, we need to improve the skills and capabilities of individuals in the labour market.
  Expanding higher education is not, as has been suggested by some, about dumbing down degree standards. Far from it; it is about raising attainment and qualifications levels so that we enjoy the appropriate and necessary skills that we need in the labour market to boost growth and prosperity. Indeed, it has been calculated that a 10 per cent. increase in the proportion of the labour force in higher education would raise the gross domestic product per person by about 3.3 per cent.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The Government reformed the student finance system only three or four years ago. Why, therefore, does the Prime Minister feel the need for a review?
  Margaret Hodge: I can answer that easily. The hon. Gentleman focuses on one element of a much broader policy, which I shall discuss. Any sensible Government would monitor their policies to ensure that they work precisely as they envisaged. I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree that it is appropriate for students or their families to make a contribution towards the cost of higher education because of the benefits that they gain through it. That did not happen before we introduced our reforms.
  Our economic goal is closely linked with our social objective. We do not perceive economic prosperity and social inclusion as competing ambitions. On the contrary, we shall achieve our economic objectives only if we ensure opportunity for all our young people to develop their full potential. Nowhere is exclusion a harsher reality than in higher education. The facts make grim and stark reading.

  435
  Despite the rapid expansion in student numbers in the past decade, the proportion of young people from lower-income backgrounds who go to university has remained stubbornly low. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) rightly made that point earlier. Those whose parents come from an unskilled or manual working background have just over a one in 10 chance of getting to university. Those whose parents happen to prosper in the professional classes have a three in four chance of getting to university. It is a 13 per cent. chance for those who are less well-off, but a 73 per cent. chance for those who are better off. That is the measure of the challenge that we face and the inequality that we are considering. That is the enormity of the gap in opportunity that we are trying to tackle.
  Closing that gap is at the heart of our determination to widen participation. Our aim must be to challenge all the barriers that inhibit access to higher education and to create an intellectual elite, who have access to higher education through their ability.
  Adam Price: Does not evidence show that removing the maintenance grant has had a greater impact than the abolition of tuition fees on less well-off students? The National Union of Students has produced evidence to show that the average debt for less well-off students has increased from £6,000 in 1997 to £12,000 in 2000.
  Margaret Hodge: The proportion of people from lower-income backgrounds who participate in higher education has not altered since the introduction of the new student arrangements. I wish that the matter was as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  We must deal with every barrier that prevents children from lower-income backgrounds from enjoying the experience and benefits of higher education.
  That challenge is particularly important to me. I know from my constituency how huge a mountain we have to climb. In Barking, only 3.5 per cent. of my adult constituents have a degree or equivalent qualification. The constituency has a lower participation rate than any other constituency in the country. I therefore understand how difficult it is to tackle the complex barriers that inhibit participation.
  I also know, however, what a difference higher education can make to the lives of individuals, as well as to their communities and the economy. A degree does buy a better income. Indeed, all the evidence shows that, despite a rapid growth in the number of graduates, the graduate premium in earnings has been maintained. A graduate will, on average, earn 35 per cent. more than the work force as a whole. A graduate is half as likely to be unemployed as someone without a degree. Moreover, a graduate is likely to stay healthy for longer than a non-graduate.
  Diana Organ: I am delighted to hear that we are keen to ensure that those who formerly encountered barriers are given an opportunity to enter higher education, but are not good further education sectors particularly important in that regard?
  Margaret Hodge: Further education can certainly make an important contribution to ensuring that young
  436
  people obtain prior qualifications, and, perhaps, spend the first years of their higher education in an environment to which they are accustomed. As we expand higher education, much of it is indeed being delivered through further education.
  Mr. David Laws: Liberal Democrats are delighted to learn that the Government are to conduct a review of student finance. What perceived deficiencies in the existing system will it seek to remedy?
  Margaret Hodge: As I told the hon. Member for Newbury, it is sensible and good practice to review whether one's policies are working properly.
  Mr. Laws rose—
  Margaret Hodge: I must get on with my speech. If the hon. Gentleman has a new point to make, no doubt it will arise later.
  Higher education remains a very good investment for students, which brings me to an important principle that we have already discussed today. Given the personal financial benefits that accrue to graduates, it must be right for them to contribute to the cost of their higher education. That principle was courageously established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he introduced his radical reforms of student funding and support in 1998. We will not shift from it as we conduct our review—properly and responsibly—to establish whether the reforms are working effectively.
  It might be helpful to recall the context of the 1998 reforms. In 1997, when Labour took office, there had been a massive 36 per cent. cut in unit funding for students: the previous Conservative Government—whose members are not listening very carefully at the moment—had imposed a cap on student numbers; and our universities had been starved of proper resources for their infrastructure, teaching and research.
  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): Will the Minister acknowledge that, over the 18 years of Conservative government, the opportunities to attend university that she considers so important expanded dramatically? In 1979, only about 10 per cent. of young people went to university; by the time Labour took office, the figure had risen to about a third.
  Margaret Hodge: I acknowledge that there was a rapid expansion of student numbers under the Conservative Government. My point is that that expansion was appallingly funded, which has created difficulties in regard to the quality of education. The last Government caused their own difficulties by capping student numbers.
  I pay huge tribute to the higher education sector. Despite that enormous underfunding, it managed to expand numbers while maintaining quality. We are still punching well above our weight in terms of research, and the university sector is in good health.
  Mr. Willis: Will the Minister also acknowledge that, if we subtract the Wellcome Foundation's investment in

  437
  research, the unit of funding per higher education student during this Government's lifetime has continued to fall year on year, and is now less than it was in 1995?
  Margaret Hodge: I do not accept that. I do accept that unit funding declined until, during the last comprehensive spending review, we injected a further £1.7 million of publicly planned resources into the higher education sector. That has enabled us to achieve a 1 per cent. increase this year, for the first time in more than a decade.
  Mr. Chaytor: During the last Parliament, did not the amount given to primary and secondary education increase dramatically, thereby enabling far more young people to go to university after leaving school?
  Margaret Hodge: Indeed—and what underlies that is the fact that, during our first term in government, we focused additional resources on schools in particular. It was important to get that right.
  Our reforms of student funding enabled us to start tackling the unholy mess that we had inherited. We have lifted the cap on student numbers, and every individual capable of undertaking higher education now has the opportunity to do so. We are investing an extra £1.7 million of publicly planned expenditure—18 per cent. in real terms. For the first time in a decade, we have financed a 1 per cent. increase in the funding of each student, and, together with the Wellcome Foundation, we have invested £1 billion on the research infrastructure in our universities.
  That investment is supporting our participation agenda. This year's figures continue to show a buoyant demand for places. The latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service show a 5.5 per cent. increase in the number of people allocated a university place this year, and a particularly pleasing increase of more than 10 per cent. in the number of mature students who have managed to enter higher education. Having achieved those considerable advances in the first term of a Labour Government, we are considering what further action we need to tackle all the existing barriers.
  Joan Ryan: I applaud the Government's focus on higher education and the increase in participation rates, but is it not important for the review to examine the possibility of more up-front support for students with less advantageous socio-economic backgrounds?
  Margaret Hodge: Support for students throughout post-compulsory education is crucial. We have introduced an education maintenance allowance, albeit on a pilot basis applying to only 30 per cent. of the country. That is a very good way of increasing participation. I accept, however, that we must bear in mind the link between the perception of debt and lower-income families.
  Let me now deal with what I consider to be equally important issues. Perhaps our most important and difficult task is to increase the number of young people who obtain level 3—A-level—qualifications. At present, nine out of 10 of those who obtain A-levels go on to university. Our challenge is to stop the haemorrhage of young people who leave school at 16 after their GCSEs, and to increase the number who remain in full-time education. That is what
  438
  our secondary school reform proposals are about, and that is what will be addressed by the strategy on 14 to 19-year-olds that we will publish in the new year. That is why we have introduced the education maintenance allowances, which have achieved a dramatic increase, and that is why we are introducing the ConneXions service. That is our key task.
  Equally challenging is the task of raising aspirations among young people.
  Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that year 8 is a particularly important year? It is the year before students take their GCSE options, and a year in which universities and secondary schools could work much more closely together to ensure that students' aspirations are raised. I commend the work that Staffordshire university does in terms of widening access and working with local schools.
  Margaret Hodge: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about ensuring that we raise students' aspirations at an early enough age. There has, possibly, been a tradition of thinking that if we can capture students at 15 or 16, before they take their GCSEs, we will achieve that increased participation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to reach them at a much younger age. Again, access to the 14 to 19-year-old agenda is all about ensuring those raised aspirations.
  One of the most shocking statistics that I discovered when I first took over this portfolio was that 44 per cent. of children from the lower socio-economic groups—nearly half—never hear about the opportunities of higher education during their school years. Abandoning such a huge number of potentially talented young people cannot be right. That is why we are funding a range of programmes to widen participation among non-traditional groups of students. Our £190 million excellence challenge will work with children from the age of 13 in excellence in cities areas and education action zones to raise their aspirations.
  Adam Price: The Minister has referred to arrangements in Scotland. Is she aware of the Rees report on student finance, which also examined the issue of support for further education students? It suggested introducing a maintenance grant in Wales for further education and higher education students. Will the Government allow diversity to flourish in FE and HE, as they claim to do in other areas?
  Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to note that that is entirely a matter for the Assembly in Wales.
  Let us look at what we are trying to do. We are introducing programmes to do more, with mentoring, out-of-school support and master classes. We are introducing programmes to get universities and further education colleges to do more, with access courses and summer schools. We are also encouraging them to look at how they recruit their students, because we want to tackle the disadvantage faced by children from schools in disadvantaged areas in gaining access to our best universities. We are introducing foundation degrees, which are both relevant to the labour market and attractive to the uncertain student, for whom we hope they will provide a passport to a job.

  439
  We are introducing programmes to encourage universities to change the way in which they work, to form closer links between further and higher education, so that they can give support to students from schools in disadvantaged areas. We are introducing programmes to target support on those for whom the financial burden is the greatest, with our opportunity bursary scheme, our child care support programme, our support for students with dependants and our support for disabled students. All those crucial initiatives should support our objective of widening access.
  Mr. Laws: In the light of the review, can the Minister think of a single problem with access to higher education created by the existing system of student finance?
  Margaret Hodge: The Government are now reviewing the system of student finance. The hon. Gentleman presses me again on an issue on which I have given endless replies, and which his party is patently not addressing properly. If all his solutions are going to come out of the 1p that his party wants to put on income tax, that 1p will have to stretch a long, long way. I was trying to stress that the issue of widening participation is much more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests, and that if the Liberal Democrats will not address that wider agenda they will fail to achieve the basic purpose of a student funding system, or anything else.
  Caroline Flint (Don Valley): One of the issues that I believe affects participation is the visual aspect of having a university within a community. Has any research been carried out into whether the location of a university in a deprived area has an impact on the community, not necessarily in terms of young people going to the university on their doorstep, but of their at least thinking about universities elsewhere? In South Yorkshire, I believe that there is a case for building on the great higher education developments that we have achieved and having a university in Doncaster.
  Margaret Hodge: As we widen participation, no doubt we shall want to extend access for students right across the country.
  I strongly believe that if we can get more young children to go into a university at a young age, just to get a feel of what life there would be like, it would be one way of raising their aspirations. We shall experiment with that through our excellence challenge programme.
  I turn to the way in which we are monitoring and evaluating our student funding reforms. The principle that the beneficiaries should contribute to the cost of higher education was right when we introduced the reforms and it remains right now. Having said that, it is worth remembering that not all full-time undergraduates pay a contribution to their tuition fees. Fully half of those students have all their fees paid by the taxpayer, and only one third pay the full fee. We must also remember that the fee covers only about a quarter of the full cost of providing tuition.
  I accept that some real issues have emerged from the reform. The system is extremely complex and difficult to understand. There are concerns about the up-front
  440
  payment of a fee. There is some evidence, although it is not extensive, that debt and the perception of debt are deterring people from lower-income backgrounds from going to university and might be having an impact on students staying the course once they get to university. We have established the review of student funding to examine these issues.
  We are, quite sensibly, working across government to look at whether we have got the balance right, and properly profiled, between contributions from the student, their family and the state. The review is now in place, but at this stage it would obviously be absurd to speculate on the outcome. Nothing has been ruled in or ruled out.
  What is clear is our aim. For too long, access to higher education has been a privilege for the few. We are determined to make access an opportunity for the many, because it is socially just and economically sensible. At the same time, we want to nurture and enhance the excellence that exists in so many of our universities—an excellence that enhances our productivity agenda, enriches our lives and strengthens our communities. Our ambitions for higher education reflect our ambitions for Britain: delivering on those ambitions is the task that we face in our team. That is precisely what we are doing.
  2.8 pm
  Alistair Burt: I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on student financing. The debate was ably begun by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I am not quite sure how many Liberal Democrat education spokesmen are present. I can count two or three. We are having a short debate, which may be shorter because I am not sure how many Liberal Democrat Members wish to speak. It would be strange if few did speak. We will wait to see how many catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  It is a great pleasure to shadow the Minister for Lifelong Learning, whose work I observed when she was Minister with responsibility for disabled people during the previous Parliament. Where she is working genuinely to expand opportunities for young people, to encourage and to inspire them to achieve more, she will find me a friend and colleague. Many of those aspirations are shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I shall look critically at some of the things that she does, one or two of which may come up during my remarks. I am not sure whether the rosy picture that she paints, particularly of the university sector, would necessarily be accepted in every campus, but perhaps we can come to some of the details later.
  Conservative Members welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on student finance. Our record on higher education is strong. It was a Conservative Government who between 1979 and 1997 drove forward wider access to higher education: from one in eight to one in three of the population—no quota, no fuss, just progress. Nor was that expansion confined to an elite of traditionally higher educated families. The number of school leavers from poorer families entering higher education roughly doubled in the 10 years to 1997, although sadly, as the Minister pointed out, it has remained somewhat static since. UCAS figures quoted in a recent Select Committee report on access show that the number of students in higher education from less well-off backgrounds fell between 1997 and 1999.

  441
  Kenneth Baker, now Lord Baker of Dorking, whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was proud to be, ended the divide between polytechnics and universities, recognising the thrust and energy in the poly sector. He was one of the first to appreciate the need to match wider access to a change in student funding, realising that a redrawing of the balance between student and taxpayer had to take place. That debate was not easy. It remains a difficult area for politicians, in which the easy answer is not likely to be a serious one, but I will come back to the Liberal Democrats in a moment.
  Let us be in no doubt why we are here. The Government's review of student finance—the prompt for today's debate and the first U-turn of the new Parliament—has an undistinguished parentage. The first promise reneged upon, at the very beginning of the previous Parliament in 1997, was that by Labour politicians not to introduce tuition fees. The Prime Minister, the title we used to know him by before he was elevated beyond normal politics, had said clearly during the election campaign that
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees".
  Within months, that promise to students, their parents and families was conveniently forgotten.
  Both arrogance and complacency, with which the country is becoming wearily familiar, characterised the next announcement, which was to reject almost out of hand and extremely rapidly the conclusions of the Dearing committee. To remind the House, Dearing recommended the continuation of means-tested grants in order to ease access for students from a low-income background, and recommended against the introduction of means-tested fees. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), chose to do the opposite to Dearing in both cases. Replying to an Opposition day debate on 4 November 1997, he claimed that he was offering not Dearing but "Dearing-plus". It is now clear what the plus means—increased hardship, increased debt, less access and more dropout. Accordingly, the essence of the Government's embarrassment, which we have already witnessed today, is that the crisis in student finance is almost entirely of their own making, born of deception, clothed in presumption but now sunk by their own failings.
  That is not the only crisis in the sector, to remind the Minister of things that she may have forgotten while she was at the Dispatch Box. Universities acknowledge the impact that the crisis in student finance has on access and retention, but they have concerns in other directions. They are irked at being required to succumb to greater and greater regulation—it is estimated that quality assessment alone costs some £250 million—while expecting less and less financial support from Government. They are worried about a crisis in their own funding. They estimate that a gap now exists of some £900 million a year in respect of delivering as they would wish on their students' expectations. They are worried about the demographics of their teaching staff, which foresee them being remarkably short of lecturers in a handful of years. They are worried about recruiting their replacements and attracting students to do PhDs.
  The crisis in student funding may not be the only one, but it has the most immediate impact on students of all ages and their families. If it was unexpected by the current Home Secretary and his party in 1997, it was not
  442
  unexpected by others. It was not long before evidence of it began to accumulate. The Select Committee on Education and Employment published two reports earlier this year examining higher education: on access and on student retention. In both, student finance came under scrutiny, resulting from the growing perception that not only fear of debt but real hardship beyond the usual tolerance long experienced by students were having an influence on choices and destinations.
  Professor Claire Callender co-authored a report for the DFEE entitled "Changing Student Finance" that was published in December 2000. She said that certain groups of students experienced severe financial hardship and her report found that one in 10 of full and part-time students had thought about dropping out for financial reasons.
  Professor Diana Green of Sheffield Hallam university told the Select Committee that the number of student exclusions for debt had risen by 17 per cent. between 1997 and 1999. The NUS student hardship survey in 1999 showed that up to a third of full-time students had considered dropping out of studies at least occasionally.
  Margaret Hodge: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have the second best retention rate of students among all OECD comparator countries? Does he further accept that there has been no change in our position since the introduction of the reforms in student support?
  Alistair Burt: My point is that we want to preserve and protect our very good retention rate. The evidence to the Select Committee shows that the Government's student financing package is putting that at risk. Even if the figures have not yet started to drop away, my quotations from those who are close to students show that it is a real danger. They are starting to see evidence of exactly what the Minister fears.
  Joan Ryan: I am astonished to hear that. I understand that since 1993 participation of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds has remained pretty constant at 26 per cent. Perhaps one reason why it has not improved is the fact that the Conservatives cut funding per student by 36 per cent. We are trying to regain that position and improve it.
  Alistair Burt: I have two points in answer to the hon. Lady's comments. First, as I said earlier, the number of school leavers from poorer families entering higher education approximately doubled in the 10 years to 1997, which include the years that she mentioned. That information is from table 1.1 on page 6 of the Dearing report. Secondly, the hon. Lady referred to the change in unit funding. She is quite correct, but unit funding was going down as the number of people in higher education increased considerably, at no loss of quality whatever, as the Dearing report commented.
  We want more people to experience good-quality higher education. That was the record of the Conservative party when it left office.
  Margaret Hodge: The key figure is not the number, but the proportion of young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who enter higher education. That has not changed. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the mortgage-style loan scheme introduced by the

  443
  Conservative Government was less inhibiting of students from lower income groups than ours, which is entirely income contingent?
  Alistair Burt: I did not say that we are content with the proportion of those from non-traditional backgrounds who enter higher education now. However, we did change it and the numbers were increasing under the Conservative Government. The rapid stop appears to have come round about 1997. Therefore, I am simply asking the hon. Lady to acknowledge that, just possibly, it might have something to do with the new financing arrangements that she introduced.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. Given the Conservative party's new-found concern about increasing participation in higher education—[Interruption.] In the period 1992–97 when the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were responsible for the system, I was one of those responsible for making it work, and our recollection of what happened is not quite the same as his. Does he not share the Government's target of 50 per cent. of young people going into higher education by 2010?
  Alistair Burt: It is a pleasure to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, who, as the House knows, took my seat in 1997, but who has subsequently made some kind remarks about me, both in the House and outside, which I much appreciate. He certainly knows his education, too. I am a little disturbed that he should say that our appreciation of people going into higher education is newly found. I will not restate the figures yet again, but my point is that things improved markedly when we were in office, and the present Government should seek to continue that progress.
  On targets, I have already said that we improved from one in eight to one in three, without quota, without target. The Minister's aspiration is much narrower: to go from one in three to one in two. I am a little puzzled about what might constitute higher education, following the Secretary of State's remarks yesterday in the Education and Skills Committee. She is reported to have said that one may not need a degree to qualify for what she called the "higher education experience", but that all would become clear. I do not know what criteria the Government will use to meet the target: taking a degree, visiting the university for a course, or driving past on a wet Tuesday afternoon. When we know that, perhaps we can talk figures.
  Margaret Hodge: There is no change in the calculations. The Conservative Government also used to count a whole range of qualifications at sub-degree level—HNDs. HNCs—and we have the new foundation degrees, but we will not double-count, as the Conservatives did.
  Alistair Burt: I am grateful for that clarification. Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
  "The nature of higher education has changed and I think people will go there at different parts of their lives to access that."
  444
  That is good. She continued:
  "One of the things we are doing at the moment is looking at the length of courses and qualifications, at the out-turn.
  When we've worked that out with the sector, we will want to tell you as well."
  When asked how the Government would define the target as being met, she replied:
  "It will be based on a good quality higher education experience"
  That is what has puzzled people, but no doubt we will find out in due course precisely what she meant.
  The impact of not completing a course of study is high. Least important, we all may think, is the financial cost, which some estimate to be about £200 million a year. Of greater significance, as we would all agree, is the cost in self-esteem to the undergraduate, who will have struggled to reach university, sometimes overcoming substantial obstacles in life, only to have to deal with a particular form of rejection.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on one of the most crucial issues, which is dropout. In the United Kingdom, uniquely, we do not credit students for what they have achieved. For students to be able to go through the system and gain their qualifications should be an aspiration for us all. Does he agree that, rather than talking about dropouts, we should regard people as having taken one step on the ladder towards achieving their degree or other success? I welcome him to his post.
  Alistair Burt: That is kind of the hon. Gentleman. Yes, I agree. I have read the debate that is taking place about what may constitute a credit for the degree or period of study, and I know that there is some concern about the current system. We need to find a new arrangement. I hope to explore that in my discussions with universities over the next few months.
  The rejection felt when a course is not completed can be communicated to others, rebuilding barriers to education that we all want to dismantle. For every person who has failed to graduate as a result of Labour's failure to understand the problem, the Labour promise of a better tomorrow has, sadly, been broken.
  Charlotte Atkins: Do not dropouts frequently occur for reasons other than student finance: for example, choosing the wrong course or not getting the right quality of teaching? I was a member of the Committee that produced the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Students told us that their main concern—although of course they were concerned about finance, as I was when I was a student—was the quality of teaching. We are doing a lot to improve that by putting extra investment into universities.
  Alistair Burt: The hon. Lady is correct: several factors may contribute to a student failing to complete a course. I am strongly of the opinion—as I know is the Minister—that more information needs to be provided by schools for those who enter at that stage. I have cited the quotations from those close to universities because I wish to query the impact of the new financial arrangements on the decisions that students make on whether to complete a course. The changed nature of the financial circumstances since 1997 has led to the fears that university representatives—and students—have mentioned.

  445
  Universities UK told the Committee that perceptions of debt are critical to students' decisions to enter and remain in higher education, especially for students from poorer backgrounds and those without a tradition of higher education in their families. It seems common sense that the level of debt, rather than the simple existence of any sum owing, must be the crucial factor in perception of debt as it applies to access to higher education. Therein lies the biggest error in the Government's calculations. Professing an aim to widen access not only to bring more students into higher education but to ensure that they came from a wider social spectrum, the Government hit unerringly on the single most likely barrier to those students' entry. Families for whom significant debt had often meant real hardship and fear had little likelihood of coming to terms with the new arrangements, when all too often there was confusion about the precise financial repayment arrangements.
  In the midst of the evidence that was building up from universities and others, Ministers either did not know what was going on or could not easily admit that they had got it wrong. In February 2001, Baroness Blackstone, then Minister with responsibility for higher education, told the Committee:
  "I know of no evidence to suggest that more students have dropped out as a result of the changes in the student support system that we have introduced."
  One wonders where the noble Lady was looking, because the evidence was all around her. The signature dish of this Government is high-handed arrogance and bare-faced denial of error. In those few words of Baroness Blackstone, it was set before us again.
  In contrast, the signature dish of the Liberal Democrats is promising the earth in the knowledge that they will not inherit it. In this debate, they have taken full advantage of the fact that nobody ever bothers to ask where they would find the money to fund their policies. A hefty price tag is certainly attached to the measures advocated by the hon. Member for Newbury. A reply to a written question has shown, for example, that the abolition of tuition fees would cost the Exchequer some £270 million every year, even before the cost of restoring maintenance grants.
  There is a proper debate to be had about the balance of contributions between the state and the student in further and higher education. However, it must be an honest debate. It is wrong to give students the impression that all their problems could be solved without talking about finance or through the now infamous 1p on income tax, about which we have heard so often.
  Dr. John Pugh: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Scotland, where tuition fees have been abolished, finance has been put in place to accommodate that change? Therefore, our proposal is financially solid and not unrealistic.
  Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difference between the jurisdictions in Scotland and England. It is not all roses in Scotland, because the threshold at which students begin paying the graduate tax is low—about £10,000—and the package of reforms introduced as a result of Cubie involved the reduction of loan entitlement for many students while they were studying, leading to greater hardship. Whatever the financing arrangements in Scotland, they do not begin to
  446
  equate to the number of students in the rest of the country and we have heard nothing about financing from the Liberal Democrats today.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Is not it astonishing that the Liberal Democrats can talk about this issue without saying where they will get the money, secure in the knowledge that the Scottish arrangements discriminate against English students? Those arrangements discriminate against students from the Isle of Wight, while taxpayers from the Isle of Wight and other parts of England pay for Scottish students to get a better deal—because of the Liberal Democrats.
  Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well.
  Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman challenged me on the point that we did not raise the financial issue. It is clear that, in practice, we have managed to make the new arrangements in Scotland work, in agreement with the Labour party, without resorting to any increase in income tax. In our last manifesto, we allocated a small part of the extra £3 billion that would be raised by a penny on income tax to the abolition of tuition fees. The figure that the hon. Gentleman himself has given demonstrates that only a small part of the £3 billion would be needed.
  Alistair Burt: Do you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, a wonderful game some years ago in which a child would ask a magic robot questions and it moved around to point at the answer? One might try to confuse it, but the magic robot always spun round to give the answer. I suspect that, upstairs in the Liberal Democrats' room, there is a magic robot and they ask it a different question every time. "How can we pay for improvements to the health service?" Unerringly, the magic robot replies, "A penny on income tax." "How can we pay for improvements to schools?" "A penny on income tax." "How do we pay for improvements to our universities?" "A penny on income tax." The remarkable way in which that one penny can be used so many times pays great testament to the number of times that the Liberal Democrats must play that game upstairs in their room.
  Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Alistair Burt: No, I must make some progress.
  It is vital that, as far as possible, we draw on the knowledge and expertise of those involved in higher education when we start to make decisions on changes to student finance. For that reason, I was particularly surprised that the Secretary of State said that she was reviewing the policy purely internally. She has disappeared back to the Department to produce another system devised by the same people who created the one about which we are all complaining.
  I read this morning in The Guardian—my newspaper of choice—a number of things that No. 10 and the Treasury are concocting to foist upon the Department. I appreciate that the Minister will not comment on unsubstantiated newspaper stories, but this one has worried us all and has the ring of truth about it. We will look carefully at what comes out of the review, but it is disappointing that the public's participation in the

  447
  Government's review of student financing is through the pages of the newspapers, rather than through a more open process.
  That will not be the Conservative way. Over the coming months and years, we will go out and talk to organisations such as the National Union of Students, the Association of Colleges, Universities UK and others, and we will draw on the experiences of university vice-chancellors, lecturers and students. We will listen to the views of the people who matter in our universities and FE institutions.
  Certain core principles will inform our policy-making process. First, we agree with bodies such as Universities UK that there is a real need to ensure that any system of student support focuses on those potential students from less well-off backgrounds. It is vital that we make a university education a realistic goal for every talented young person. It is also vital that young people from less well-off backgrounds are reassured that the financial cost of getting a degree does not put that beyond their reach. Access must not be prevented by cost.
  Secondly, any additional provision for students must not come at the expense of university funding. There is a real funding crisis in our universities and they cannot be expected to bear the additional burden of bailing out the Government on student support. The Government must look at ways of giving universities more freedom and allowing them greater scope to harness funds from the private sector. Development must be helped and not hindered by any state involvement.
  Finally, it is vital when looking at the entire sector that we do not become focused on higher education to the detriment of further education. The FE sector provides the kind of education that young people and employers want. Some of the more exciting and innovative courses, particularly vocational courses, are being offered by FE students. We must not allow FE to be squeezed out by the university sector, and the current crisis in teaching and recruitment—as revealed in this week's survey by the Association of Colleges—suggests another fine mess for the Minister to uncover to add to her burdens.
  In entering post-school education, whether straight from school or later, prospective students deserve the fullest knowledge of what courses are available. They need to know where and how good the courses are, the true value of the qualifications and what society thinks of them, what financial support is available, and when that support needs to be repaid. In that way, they will make their choices on the basis of what is right and appropriate for them in a culture where there is parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic, and where their choice of course, place and sector will enable them to reach their highest potential and not simply to fulfil Government quota or the financial necessity of an institution.
  The House knows that, with the best of intentions, any Government can go wrong. The alarms could not have been ringing louder in higher education over the past few years. The Government have ignored too many of them, at the cost of misery and disappointment to students and their families. It is time to listen and maybe—just maybe—to say sorry.
  2.36 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I am in two minds about the debate. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats have chosen this subject. The motion includes the important reference to student support outside higher education, although it is unfortunate that the focus so far has been almost entirely on the university sector. However, the issue has been presented in a way that exemplifies the worst forms of Liberal Democrat opportunism and hypocrisy. As long as Liberal Democrat Members continue to argue that there should be a massive expansion in the money available for student support without committing themselves in their spending plans to finding that money, the party's credibility will be zero.
  Earlier, I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) the Liberal Democrats' latest use of their proposed 1p increase in income tax. The Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to a radical increase in support for students in higher education, and the motion implicitly commits the party to some sort of expansion in support for students in further education. However, my hon. Friend told me that as recently as Friday the Liberal Democrat social services spokesman put in a bid for the 1p on income tax to fund in full the cost of residential social care.
  Where will all the money come from? I have to agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) that the proposition is no longer credible.
  Hywel Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the commitment given by the partnership Government in Wales to £40 million in education maintenance bursaries and financial contingency benefits next year is opportunism, or that it will benefit Welsh young people from poorer homes by giving them the opportunity to enter further or higher education?
  Mr. Chaytor: I welcome that commitment, although I am not familiar with the details. The hon. Gentleman had to consult his notes as he asked the question, which suggests that he is not entirely familiar with them either. However, we are talking about a comprehensive programme of reform of student finance, which must apply to students aged 16 and upwards. Whatever proposals the Government make will be funded, so whatever proposals other parties make must also be funded. The experience of the five years since 1997 is that the other parties will not say how that funding will be managed. Liberal Democrat Members believe that, one day, their party will be the second party in the House. I very much hope that that might happen, but I suspect that it will not as long as the Liberal Democrat party continues to promise the earth without putting its money where its mouth is.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows that I normally have great respect for what he has to say, but will he accept that we provided the British electorate with a costed list of all our proposals at the last election? If he does accept that, will he apologise to Liberal Democrat Members for his scurrilous remarks about uncosted proposals?
  Mr. Chaytor: What the Liberal Democrats are arguing for now is not what they were arguing for on 7 June. If the

  449
  hon. Gentleman gives me a revised version of the costed proposals, I may reconsider my remarks. [Interruption.] Their position shifts as the months go by.
  Dr. Pugh: If there is a clear distinction, will the hon. Gentleman explain in what respect it exists? Will he give us figures and details? He cannot simply allege that there is one.
  Mr. Chaytor: The Liberal Democrats originally supported the Government's recommendations on reforming student support. Their only point of difference was on student fees, and they fought the election on the abolition of such fees. As the months go by, they are gradually shifting their position and calling for a more radical transformation of student finance. I am in favour of a radical transformation of student finance, but I am prepared to argue for it, as are the Government, only when the money goes with it.
  There is no doubt that the Government's move in the last Parliament to grasp the nettle of student finance in the United Kingdom was brave and courageous. With the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief and the reform of company car taxation, the Government showed enormous courage in tackling the central planks of what is traditionally called the middle-class welfare state. They deserve credit for introducing their important policies to extend and redistribute opportunities for people in the United Kingdom.
  A number of parents and students have written to me and visited me in my surgery over the past four and a half years, and although there is concern about the level of debt in which some students find themselves, I have also detected a complete understanding of the importance of the general principle that those who benefit from a university education ought to contribute to it. I am not surprised at the comparatively low level of objection to the fundamentals of the system.
  Adam Price: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me, a fellow socialist, that the easiest way to enact that principle would be through a progressive system of income tax?
  Mr. Chaytor: There are many ways of enacting that principle. One difficulty with progressive income tax is that those who ought to have the greatest liability for income tax find it the easiest to avoid. There are deficiencies in an income tax system, however progressive it may be on paper.
  There are many ways whereby the system can become more progressive and fairer and reduce yet further the barriers to participation that many young people experience. I am sure that the Government will explore all of them. I completely support what they have done. It is important that in the review we do not abandon the central principle that those who gain the benefit contribute their fair share.
  We should focus on the details of the system. It is true that the perception of tuition fees has been a problem. However, 50 per cent. of university students do not pay tuition fees, and 15 per cent. pay only a part fee. That is not widely understood, so one of the details that needs to come out of the review is better communication regarding eligibility for tuition fees.
  450
  I find it incredible that people recommend abandoning the tuition fee. I cannot see how anyone who is concerned about equality and redistribution of opportunity in education can justify a system whereby every group of post-18-year-old students has to pay a tuition fee for their course, or is eligible to do so, whereas full-time undergraduates—the group that has the greatest benefit from their education—are not eligible. If young people who achieved zero GCSEs at school go to night school at 19 or 20 to improve themselves, they pay a tuition fee. If people in their 30s or 40s who work full time or look after a family do an Open university degree, they pay a tuition fee. How can it possibly be right that undergraduates, who, to have got where they are, have by definition had the greatest benefit from, and the highest investment in, their primary and secondary education, should not pay tuition fees?
  That is the key principle behind the payment—or rather, the contribution to the payment. Let us remember that the £1,075—I think that that is right; I have just written the cheque for my youngest daughter, who is starting her second year at university—represents about 25 per cent. of the average cost of providing the course, so we are not asking people to pay the full fee.
  Let us focus on the details in the review—information for parents, for example. The Government have taken heroic steps to mitigate some of the potential problems and perceptions among young people going to university for the first time; have introduced all kinds of new systems of support—for child care and transport, for instance—and have expanded the access funds in universities. There is now a plethora of additional forms of support. There is too much confusion and not enough information about the various special schemes that have been introduced.
  The system needs reforming and streamlining, so that any additional support that may come through can be focused on the needs of those whom we loosely term non-traditional students, or students from working-class backgrounds. The key criterion, surely, is that a student has non-graduate parents, and is the first to go to university in his or her family. That is the barrier that we have to break through. The prospect of someone whose parents did not go to university going to university themselves is far less likely than for those with graduate parents. I therefore hope that, in addition to better communication about the realities of the system of support, there will be clarification and streamlining of the various forms of support that already exist.
  I have praised the Liberal Democrats for including in their motion a reference to the support of post-16s in further education. The Government, and possibly the Welsh Assembly, are to be congratulated on having taken steps towards a form of education maintenance allowance for 16 to 19-year-olds. We have pilot schemes in the United Kingdom, and the evidence is variable, but by and large the schemes work and achieve participation.
  We know that rolling out education maintenance allowances nationally will be hugely expensive, but I urge the Government to think carefully and not to back off from a national scheme of support for 16 to 19-year-olds. As was said earlier, one of the key factors in participation is not so much the cost of going to university, so long as the cost is reasonable and students perceive that the higher

  451
  earnings in their subsequent careers will cover the initial costs. The key factor is not having the right qualifications at the age of 16 or 18.
  Caroline Flint: The education maintenance allowances in Doncaster have had a profound effect in the short time that they have been operational; staying-on rates have increased by 6 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that despite the financial issues that they raise, EMAs are a crucial way in which to roll out the programme to encourage more young people to stay on, and give them the chance to achieve the qualifications to get into university.
  Mr. Chaytor: I am delighted to hear that. I only wish that we had EMAs in my constituency. They have them in Rochdale, Bolton, Manchester and Salford. Indeed, one of the problems with the pilot schemes is that we now find that students taking the same course at the same college are funded in different ways.
  If we are to roll out EMAs nationally, we must consider the relationship with child benefit. The Government deserve enormous credit for grasping the nettle of reforming student finance in the last Parliament, and there is perhaps an even pricklier nettle to be grasped in this Parliament: the relationship between EMAs and child benefit. There are so many anomalies in the way in which our existing welfare state funds 16 to 19-year-olds, in and out of education. I make a plea for the extension of the definition of student financial support away from HE to include FE.
  I also ask for some special consideration for students attending London universities and colleges. Normally, I am wholly opposed to any enhancement of educational investment in London as, by and large, it is at the expense of poorer, northern, metropolitan districts such as mine—[interruption]—and those in other parts of the country. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning to early-day motion 308, which I tabled this morning and which refers to London weighting. There is no doubt in my mind that living costs for students in London are far in excess of the current weighting provided in student support. Given that students from all over the country attend London universities, the issue must be tackled.
  I hope that the Government will stick firmly to the principles. I hope that they will listen to the comments made by the Conservatives. I welcome the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—my former adversary—to the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment and hope that he will bring a new approach to the Conservative party and wish him well on his tour of United Kingdom universities to find out what people have to say. He did not say that he was making a European tour to learn from European capitals what should be done to improve public services in Britain. When those Members of the shadow Cabinet who are going to Europe have their interviews with Mr. Jospin and Chancellor Schröder and ask why British public services are often poorer than those in western Europe, the answer will be simple: "We did not have 20 years of Tory Government." That is the obvious message that the shadow Cabinet will receive on their European tour. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East
  452
  Bedfordshire will bring a constructive and reasonable approach to the formulation of Conservative post-16 policy.
  The key point is that we must focus on the detail. We must consider London weighting. We must give better information to parents to get rid of the fear factor—that is urgent. We must streamline the existing additional support schemes so that extra effort is directed towards the needs of poor students, especially those who are going to university for the first time.
  2 52 pm
  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The subject is of great importance and the House should address it. This is the second Opposition day that has been devoted to a discussion of education. That marks the importance attached to education by Members on both sides of the House.
  During the past four years, we have seen the flawed introduction of a new approach to financial support for our students. Even the Secretary of State, in her decision to review the steps taken four years ago and to reconsider the whole system of student finance, has admitted that what was done was not right; that it caused genuine hardship for far too many students; and that, increasingly. it provides a disincentive for students from less well-off backgrounds to enter further education—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) pointed out. The Government made a wrong decision and I hope that the current review will result in a more workable and acceptable system that is more attractive to would-be students.
  None the less, in choosing this subject for debate, the Liberal Democrats are chasing headlines, while failing to address the real issues relating to student finance. The problem for students, and the one that causes so many financial difficulties, is not tuition fees. To call for the scrapping of tuition fees just makes a cheap headline. It is not tuition fees alone, or even in large measure, that build up debts of between £10,000 and £15,000, but the huge repayment burdens—the burden of cost-of-living expenses built up over a three-year course, or four years in Scotland. That debt burden remains with students through the early years of, and often well into, their professional life. It is that debt burden, far more than tuition fees, that causes the fears that have been discussed.
  Twenty years ago, in the days when we had full grants and when I was a student, it was generally estimated that a student needed a little over £2,000 a year for living expenses in London—about £1,500 elsewhere. Obviously, given the changes in the cost of living, those amounts are hugely greater today, yet it is worth noting that the maximum amount available under the student loan system is only £4,000 a year. Today, students are left with huge debts. We need to address that issue for today's students, not tomorrow's.
  Caroline Flint: We could have a huge debate about how student finance should be constructed, but will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that, after the student loans system had been introduced under a Conservative Administration, when Labour came to power in 1997 it introduced ways in which the burden of debt could be

  453
  paid over a longer period, starting at a higher rate of earnings than was relevant under the Conservative Administration?
  Chris Grayling: I am interested in the issue for today's students, and the reality is that, whatever the history of student finance, today's students face a debt burden that is a disincentive and a huge problem for many of them. It is right and proper that the House, the Government and all parties with an interest in the area should be addressing that issue today.
  For that reason, at the general election the Conservative party said that our first priority should be to change the burden on today's students, to make it possible for students leaving education and entering their first jobs not to face a huge burden in their pay packets from day one—and a burden it is. A newly qualified nurse earns £15,355 a year. A newly qualified house officer—a young doctor—earns £17,935 a year. A newly qualified teacher earns a little more than £17,000 a year. Newly qualified social workers and other public servants all earn similar amounts.
  Currently, that newly qualified nurse, on £15,355 a year, must pay £481 a year in repayments from day one. Even if the proposals put forward by the Liberal Democrats at the general election were implemented, that nurse would pay more than £200 a year in debt repayments. That is why the Conservative party said, at the general election, that we needed a quantum leap in the threshold for repayments. We should not be looking to young, newly qualified public servants to start paying their debts until they have reached a reasonable salary level and start to have the cash that will enable them to afford those repayments.
  Valerie Davey: Did not the manifesto also say that that loan would be repayable at market rates of interest?
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady obviously did not read the detail in the manifesto. It said that market rates of interest would be offset by tax allowances that would enable us to securitise the student loan book to provide a significant cash investment in our universities, while ensuring that students paid no more money in repayments. That would have made a huge and real difference to our universities.
  Mr. Willis: We cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that, because the policy of the previous Government, when they left office, was to sell the student loan portfolio, and the Minister and her colleagues had to pick up that problem. No one would buy it. It is no good saying that the Conservatives would underpin universities with extra resources from a portfolio that no one would buy. It was not commercially attractive to anyone unless it was written down by at least 50 per cent.
  Chris Grayling: I think that in today's world one has rather more chance of securitising the student loan book than of encouraging further bondholders in Railtrack.
  We move on to what the Government are proposing. If we are to believe the apparently authoritative leak in The Guardian today, we shall see a return to a maximum grant. However, it will be a maximum grant that will go
  454
  nowhere near what is needed by today's students to live a life in full-time education. The suggested figure is £2,600 a year. I will be intrigued when the Minister sums up at the end of the debate if she can give us a hint of whether that figure is even in the ball park. If it is, it is profoundly worrying.
  If a poorer student is going to be entitled to a grant that represents a fraction of what is needed to live on, and if the student loan structure is to disappear, what about the rest? Are we saying that students from less well-off backgrounds will have to borrow large amounts from their bank and repay it at much higher rates of interest than the present student loan? The consequences will be serious indeed.
  Professor Alan Smithers of Liverpool university has offered some initial analysis of the report, saying
  "For many students it will be a poor deal as it would actually be better for them to pay the money up front and not to incur debts at market rates of interest … It is a very untidy solution and it is hard to see who is going to benefit. The financial consequences for a number of students are going to be quite serious … It is an attempt by the Government to put a sticking plaster over a self-inflicted wound."
  When the Minister replies, I hope that she can reassure us that the plans that are being discussed behind the scenes will not impose the potentially enormous financial burden that such an approach could represent for our students.
  At the end of the day, the family will be expected to pay. The Government's view is, and seems always to have been, that a family with an income of £35,000 a year is rich and can well afford to pay tuition fees—to pay a little extra here or support maintenance grants there. In reality, some Ministers have privately admitted that they are placing too many burdens on middle-class families with mortgages and other children to support. The present threshold of £35,000 is not such a vast amount of money that it leaves a huge amount of disposable income to support a student.
  We also hear that there may be a graduate tax, repayable over 25 years. What will be the threshold for the repayment of that tax? Will it apply in full measure to the newly qualified nurse, doctor or teacher I mentioned? Will they start paying in full from day one? If a graduate tax is to be the approach, it should not be structured in a way that will affect the least well off—the newly employed graduate.
  Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he agree that we want to expand the opportunities for most young people, so that they can get the best out of their education? We must recognise that graduates can earn four times as much in their lifetime as someone without a degree. There is no doubt about that fact. Therefore, there is a social justice to a graduate tax—they should pay something back for the benefits that they have gained from their education.
  Chris Grayling: At a time when the public services in my constituency and many others are crying out for people and simply cannot get the new entrants they need, it is the height of folly simply to pursue a political dogma, increase the financial burden and make it less easy still for graduates to move into jobs that are less well paid than those in the private sector. We need to deal with the problems of today's students going into today's public

  455
  services. Trying to expand numbers just to achieve a target while failing to recognise the potential impact on those people would be foolhardy in the extreme.
  Why the rush? The Prime Minister made a speech two or three weeks ago and we are already hearing detailed leaks of what the Government are planning. If they got it wrong four years ago, surely now is the time to step back, think about the matter carefully, talk to the organisations involved, have widespread consultation and then reach a conclusion. They should not cobble something together in three weeks.
  Many hon. Members referred to Liberal Democrat education policy—the magic 1p. I will not attempt, to satirise it. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has done a far better job than I ever could. Year after year, election after election, the magic 1p returns, each time with a different spending commitment attached.
  I flicked through the detail of the Liberal Democrat manifesto to see what came under the heading of that 1p this time. There are some startling figures. The range of potential spending commitments is enormous. The one that particularly caught my eye was the commitment to reduce class sizes to 25 pupils, on average, for children aged five to 11—an admirable desire in theory, but if fulfilled would require the construction of the equivalent of 3,000 new primary schools and the hiring of 30,000 new teachers. Schools cannot find teachers to fill today's vacancies, let alone find 30,000 more. The possible capital cost alone of pursuing that policy would gobble up a huge chunk of the magic 1p.
  Sue Doughty: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather more realistic to promise improvements in public services and help for students by accepting that taxes may have to rise, than by pretending that they will be cut?
  Chris Grayling: A responsible political party should make commitments on a basis that can be substantiated, not on the basis of promising all things to all people all the time, with no genuine financial backing to support them.
  It is also noticeable that little is said about grants and financial support for students in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. Tuition fees make the headline-grabbing political point, but the detail of how to tackle the debt burden is important. As I said in citing the example of the small threshold increase for repayments that was included in the manifesto, in reality little has changed in the huge debt burden placed on today's students.
  Mr. Rendel: I have a copy of the manifesto here, and the bit on student maintenance is clearly rather longer than the bit on tuition fees.
  Chris Grayling: I have given a specific example, taken from the hon. Gentleman's manifesto, involving a newly qualified nurse, to show that a significant repayment burden would still be placed on newly qualified members of staff in a key part of our economy where we desperately need more people. We should not provide disincentives to people to join those professions. The danger is that if we use our student finance system to
  456
  penalise new entrants to the public services that are crying out for people, we will not get the people needed to populate those public services in the future.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred to what has been done in Scotland, but my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned the Barnett formula. The truth is that while the Barnett formula exists, it will always be possible to do more in Scotland than in the rest of the country, because taxpayers in all other parts of the country—including those in the less well-off areas of the north of England, such as that represented by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—will continue to subsidise taxpayers in Scotland. While the Barnett formula exists, the Administration in Scotland will continue to be able to do things that are not possible in other parts of the country.
  I believe strongly that the magic 1p policy is hugely disingenuous. During the election campaign, I heard a senior member of the Liberal Democrat party say on the radio, "If we could only put 1p extra on income tax and charge a higher rate overall for high earners, we could solve the problems of our public services once and for all." Well, if Liberal Democrats really believe that they are genuinely fit only to be a minor party, that is how they should remain.
  Matthew Green: Would the hon. Gentleman like to remind the House which of the three party manifestos was fully costed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies?
  Chris Grayling: As I have just said, the hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that proposed a capital programme for schools that could not have been achieved without spending huge sums. That policy is simply not credible.
  The No. 1 priority is to reduce the repayments burden in the early years for today's students. I emphasise the phrase "today's students", because this issue concerns students who are in education today and who will leave with substantial debts in forthcoming summers. We need to find a better way to deal with that in future—not through the rushed review that the Government are carrying out and not through policy made on the hoof at the party conference, but through a long, substantial, real review that delivers a workable solution that will endure, not simply last another four years until people discover that it has not worked either.
  We need to do other things. There are plenty of anomalies in the way in which student finance is handled. A constituent contacted me a few weeks ago to ask, "Why do I have to pay a separate licence fee for the television in my room because the four of us who share the house just happen to have four different tenancy agreements?" Such anomalies in the financial framework surrounding our students must be addressed. We need to deliver the support, get rid of anomalies and find a better way of doing things.
  Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who expanded participation in higher education from 10 per cent. of young people to more than 30 per cent. Let us also not forget that it was a Labour Government who ended the principle of free higher education for all.
  3.10 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, and to debate with my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning. She kindly invited me—along with one or two colleagues on the Labour Benches—to a private meeting a few weeks ago to discuss these matters, and I put my view to her. I thought that I was alone at that meeting in expressing the dangerously radical view that we needed to reconsider abolishing fees and paying for the restoration of maintenance grants from general taxation.
  I was therefore absolutely delighted when the very next day an apparently well-sourced leak appeared in the newspapers suggesting that the Government were to conduct a review and might restore grants and abolish fees. I cannot tell my hon. Friend how pleased I was about that. I hope that the review will, indeed, come up with such policies. I have no doubt that during the review there will be certain pressures from the Treasury. I shall do everything that I can to support my hon. Friend in her struggles with the Treasury on those matters.
  I was one of 33 Labour Members who opposed the decision three years ago to impose fees and abolish grants. I did that with great reluctance; clearly, rebelling in the Lobby is very difficult and painful for everyone, and it certainly was for me. However, I had a view at that time, which I have held consistently, that the Government's decision was wrong. The fact that we are to have a review shows that the Government have listened, are listening and are going to change their policies, which is very welcome.
  Sadly, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). I agree with him on almost everything, but I find him unconvincing on the subject of higher education student finance. However, I hope that we shall always remain friends in other respects.
  Students are often portrayed as fortunate in enjoying the advantage of a university education. Indeed, I had one myself and feel fortunate as a result. However, students forgo several years of employment—certainly three years, often four and sometimes as many as six years, especially if one includes education from the age of 16—and the income that they could derive from that.
  Valerie Davey: I happen to have twin daughters, one of whom went to university and one of whom worked. My hon. Friend can imagine the fertile debates in our household as the one in work paid tax in order to pay for her sister at university. Does that seem fair?
  Mr. Hopkins: Provided that taxation is progressive and redistributive, taxation is fair. I should like to think that my hon. Friend's daughter who went to university will pay considerably more tax in her lifetime because she will receive a higher income.
  Valerie Davey: They will pay exactly the same.
  Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend disagrees, but the fact is that graduates earn more than non-graduates once they have made the sacrifice in those early years. Financing people through that period so that they can attain qualifications and therefore pay higher taxes later in life that meet the cost of their education is a fair deal.
  458
  Those students are privileged in the sense that, in general, they will have a better life because they have a degree than someone who does not. Of course, that does not apply in all cases. However, students pay higher taxes and they are vital for our economy. We must have well-qualified people throughout our economy; indeed, we are seriously worried about skill shortages. Recruiting people with the right skills and qualifications is proving difficult. Although unemployment is much lower than when the Conservative party was in power, we are suffering from skill shortages that must tackled.
  The Prime Minister was right to suggest that we should increase the number of those who go into higher education to 50 per cent. of the population, because it is good not only for those people but for society and our economy. To achieve that, we must guarantee students financial security while they are in higher education.
  Many people say that it is good for students to work while they are studying. That is not always so. In the past, when only the scions of the upper class went to university, they did riot have to work. They were dilettantes, who lived the life of Riley while they were at university. Perhaps they would drop in to the odd lecture and talk to the odd tutor, but, by and large, they drifted through university and into one of the well-paid professions. Doubtless some of them drifted into the House.
  That was the life of the upper class; we now live in a more democratic, egalitarian age when many more people go into higher education. That is essential for them and our economy. We must find ways of supporting students because they do not have the resources that the rich enjoyed in the past. It is right for the state to support them while they are studying.
  We should regard students not as privileged youngsters but people who do a job for themselves and society, which therefore pays them an income while they do that job of studying. If students saw matters in that light, I believe that they would concentrate better on their studies. It is preferable to following the traditions of the dilettante upper class of the 18th century.
  Students who have education maintenance allowances in my local sixth form college show greater diligence and a tendency to turn up to classes more often. They believe that their EMA might be taken away if they do not turn up. All the tutors there strongly favour EMAs because they have encouraged students to work harder and to turn up. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to extend that pilot scheme to the rest of the country. It will cost money, but reap dividends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, if we are to increase participation among post-16 students, we must encourage more marginal students to stay on in education.
  There are many families with non-traditional backgrounds in my constituency. Some are from ethnic minorities and others are from working class backgrounds with no tradition of going into higher education. Remaining in education beyond the age of 16 was perceived as strange. Indeed, when my wife wanted to become a teacher, her father said, "What do you want to do that for? Get out and get yourself a job, love." She persisted, went to teacher training college and became a school teacher, but it was a struggle because she came from a background that was culturally unused to higher education.

  459
  We are overcoming that barrier; more students are staying on, but we remain a long way behind competitor countries. We must make it easier for students from the sort of backgrounds that I have described to go into post-16 education and on to higher education. The 50 per cent. goal will be achieved if we can persuade people to stay on at 16 and undertake pre-university studies.
  We are considering a big issue, which is important for our future. That is recognised on the doorstep. In Luton, North, it was the second biggest issue after the health service, about which everybody was worried. I was surprised that education was the second biggest issue because the number of people in Luton, North who go to university is below average. It is a working-class area and fewer people go to university, but the feeling on the doorstep was strong. That applied to the less well off in some of the council estates and to some of the middle-class areas; people who had previously voted Conservative but swung to Labour perhaps because they had been enlightened in middle age. However, they realised that our traditional approach of state funding for public services was vital for a civilised society. They voted for us on that basis in 1997, and they were a bit shaken when part of it seemed to be taken away in the legislation on grants and fees.
  I said on the doorstep that I felt strongly that we must change that policy, and I am delighted that the Government are now reviewing it. I look forward to the restoration of maintenance grants, the abolition of fees, and the achievement represented by 50 per cent. of students entering higher education.
  3.20 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: I pay tribute to the candour and honesty of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I also declare an interest. I have three children at university—who, I hope, are working assiduously even as I speak—and I am very familiar with the telephone requests for extra money and the constant need to reach for the cheque book. My problems, however, are nothing compared with the problems of those on low incomes. Many have testified to that, and the evidence, such as it is, is not contested in any part of the House. We all agree that there is a high drop-out rate, that there is a high cost, and that there is high debt. Those are statistical facts, and statistical facts are not really open to argument.
  What I will say, however, and what I will blame on both Conservatives and Labour and their disastrous systems of student finance, is the radical change that has taken place in the whole atmosphere of universities. The relationship between university and student has changed—the line is often "If you cannot pay on time, get out"—as has the relationship between students and all the other people with whom they have to deal. Imperious demands from landlords are part and parcel of student life, as is working in cafes late at night and working at weekends.
  The Government's policy is an acknowledged disaster. It would have been welcome if the Minister had said "Yes, there are glaring flaws in the system as it stands. Yes, we have established focus groups and spoken to people on the doorstep, and we have found that this is a
  460
  very unpopular Labour policy". For that is what it is, as research shows. The Minister, however, pretended that things were otherwise. She said that this was part of good practice. She was not altering things because things were wrong; she was simply embarking on a procedure of good practice.
  If that is Government policy, and if good practice means revising each piece of legislation every three years, may I ask what other examples of good practice will be forthcoming? How many other pieces of legislation will be subject to the same treatment? Will every education policy now have a dust-over every three years?
  Mr. Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman speaks of good practice, implying that there is some kind of bad practice. Is he suggesting that it is wrong for students to work in cafes or bars occasionally in the evenings?
  Dr. Pugh: I am not suggesting that it is morally wrong. I am suggesting that it imposes an extra burden on them, which they might not need to bear if they were adequately financed. That is, I think, pretty evident.
  Let me be fair to the Minister; I might otherwise be accused of being a little unfair to her. Towards the end of her speech—having delivered the form of words, and said that this was just good practice—she read out a litany of flaws and errors in the current system, to which I listened very carefully. That is something that the Minister can own up to. It is not surprising: Governments make mistakes, and Governments can admit to them. It is also not surprising that there is to be a rethink, which I welcome. As I said, I was grateful for the honesty and candour displayed by the hon. Member for Luton, North. I wish that the Minister would show the same degree of honesty and candour, and I wish that we could agree on a review that would advance the position significantly and produce a better dispensation for students.
  Caroline Flint: It has been said that students with low-income parents are worse off than their counterparts. It has always been true that those with better-off parents receive better Christmas presents, and get the backhanders. I spent summers working in a baked-bean factory when I was at university while some of my more affluent fellow students were touring Europe, and I found that hard; but that is life. We must have a fair funding system, but we cannot constantly compensate for inequalities that we face every day. I would like to feel that my experience in the baked-bean factory had stood me in good stead in terms of character building, and understanding how others worked outside the ivory towers of university.
  Dr. Pugh: I am not in favour of sending all students off to baked-bean factories. The hon. Lady has identified a fault—a social inequality—and a problem that we have in society. I rather thought, however, that the object of the Labour party was to do something about social inequality.
  Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that working in a baked-bean factory through the summer vacation is an admirable thing to do, but having to work nightly in a bar when one should be studying is a very different matter?
  Dr. Pugh: I quite agree; the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head with his usual candour and refreshing insight.

  461
  I do not want to talk at length about the Scottish experience, but whatever has been decided in Scotland will not be followed by this Government. They will do anything but that, basically because they did not think of it themselves. Whatever the Government may say about the Scottish experience, there are three hard facts that I do not think anyone here will dispute. Fact No. 1 is that the take-up of students in Scotland is better than it is in England. That is indisputable.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Pugh: No, I want to make three points, and I will give way after that.
  My second point, to which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) might also want to respond, is that his colleagues in Scotland voted for the proposals. Unless Labour Members are going to argue that their colleagues in Scotland are either particularly dim or weak willed, it must be the case that their colleagues see some serious merit in that system. The third fact about the Scottish system is that it is financed, because it is impossible in Scotland, as in any corporate or Government body, to set an illegal budget.
  By all means, let us have the rethink. Let us have the review. At the end of the day, the battle might not be between anyone here in the Chamber but between the Minister and the Treasury. That is where the serious aggravation might begin. However, if we are to have a review, and some serious consideration of how things are going—I think we would all be up for that—it would be helpful in clearing the ground if the Government would say to the universities, to the parents and to the students, "Sorry."
  3.26 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: This has been an interesting debate. We have had magic robots and we have had bean factories. What we have not had is the former Conservative Front Bench, which resembled "The Magic Roundabout"; all of its members jumped off at the last election when the Prime Minister said, "It's time for bed."
  Mr. Nigel Jones: Boing!
  Mr. Willis: Thank you for the sound effect.
  I am delighted to see that the House has been so consumed by the Liberal Democrats' election manifesto. It is quite rewarding that people have taken it to their hearts, and that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) actually takes it to bed with him and reads it in such detail that he can memorise so much of it.
  The debate affects every Member's constituents, irrespective of which part of the United Kingdom they represent. Those of us who represent English constituencies sense that we have been left out of any real debate about student finance over the past two years. Whatever we might think about what has happened in Scotland, the reality is that the devolved Scottish Parliament grasped a fundamental issue and dealt with it. Whether MSPs dealt with it rightly or wrongly is clearly a matter for them and not for this House.
  It was interesting to see Conservative Members display the politics of envy about the Barnett formula. If the Conservatives' new policy is to abolish the Barnett
  462
  formula, they ought to tell their friends in Scotland, who would find it very difficult to determine their policy in those circumstances.
  I thank the Minister for the candid way in which she exposed the real inequities experienced by students from poorer backgrounds when they try to get into our universities. It is refreshing to hear a Minister expose the real problem in detail, and Barking is clearly no different from many other parts of the country, especially areas such as Leeds and parts of the north-east where I worked as a teacher.
  What emerged from the debate was the sad fact that, unless we tackle the issue of post-16 youngsters staying on at school or college, we shall have this debate in 10 years' time and nothing will have changed at all. It was therefore incredibly sad when on 13 October the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council launched an appalling attack on standards in FE colleges on the "Today" programme. He said that 40 per cent. of their work was poor and that 5 per cent. was appalling.
  That statement undermined every further education facility and sixth form college in Britain. How can we possibly expect to encourage young people to go into forms of education other than school when the chief executive makes such comments? If nothing else comes out of the debate, I hope the Minister will do all she can to take the chief executive to one side and make it clear to him that he owes every FE college in the country, other than those that have been inspected, an apology. Only five colleges were inspected, and that was the basis on which he made his remarks. I hope that, in her usual candid way, the Minister will respond to that directly in her winding-up speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made a powerful and convincing case, as did other Members, about the effects of student support arrangements following the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. There is no doubt that the level of student debt and poverty is beginning seriously to damage not only participation but the fabric of our university system.
  The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), in his first Front-Bench speech since he was outed by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), made a measured and well-researched contribution.
  Mr. Chaytor: I think that the word the hon. Gentleman was looking for was ousted, not outed.
  Mr. Willis: I should choose my words carefully. I apologise profusely if I got the hon. Member's orientation wrong.
  The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire spoiled his contribution by making an unresearched attack on Liberal Democrat policies, especially costings. He may deride the fact that we went into a general election with a costed manifesto, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies examined it and made it clear that every costing stood up to scrutiny. It was disingenuous of him and other Conservative Members to attack the cost of our policies when the Conservatives went into the general election without a costed manifesto, but with a commitment to cut public expenditure by £20 billion. That is the declared objective of the new leader of the Conservative party:

  463
  in time, the Conservatives want to cut public expenditure. There has to be some honesty about the way in which the new Conservative Front Benchers tackle student debt and poverty.
  In his passionate defence of further education, as ever, the hon. Member for Bury, North spoke a lot of sense. We will disagree about tuition fees. He has always held that position; we have always held a principled view and will continue to do so.
  The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) hit the nail on the head: it is investment that is needed, and the most effective and fairest way to provide it is through a direct tax system.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) made an uncharacteristic intervention. She said that those who do not go to university do not benefit from those who do. That is wrong. We all benefit from the skills of people who go to university, irrespective of whether we have had that opportunity ourselves.
  Valerie Davey: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman recalling my comment and I would like to clarify what I said. It has to be recognised that those who do not go to university pay tax, to the advantage of those who do. I said not that people at university have all the benefit, but that the contribution to our society of people who are working should be recognised, as the tax they pay benefits those at university.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Luton, North answered that point. First, graduates pay significant additional taxation throughout their lives and, secondly, the whole of society benefits from graduates.
  I should also mention the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who demonstrated a real commitment to resolving the issue. I was interested in the way in which he pursued the Tory party's proposal to raise the threshold immediately. Perhaps the financial ramifications of that proposal should be made clear. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the costings calculated by the House of Commons Library show that a medical graduate leaving university with a debt of £27,000 would have a debt of more than £50,000 after five years. I am sure that was not what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
  The debate has shown that the House is committed to resolving the problems—Liberal Democrats certainly are. That contrasts with the uncharacteristically puerile remark by the Secretary of State to the vice-chancellors on 22 October. She said:
  "Universities are not a birthright for the middle classes … Richer kids are not brighter than poorer kids."
  That is a disingenuous statement. It is not an either/or situation. We are not fighting a class war over whether some kids should go to university and others should not. We want a meritocracy in which everyone, including students from poorer backgrounds, has the chance to go to university.
  The facts speak for themselves. The Government, like their predecessors, have failed to attract students from poorer backgrounds to university. The significant difference is that the present Government admit it. Between 1994 and 1999 only 870 additional students from
  464
  the lower socio-economic group went to university. The fact that we have been unable to break down that barrier is a huge slur on our education system and our society.
  In Labour's first two years in office, the number of students from poorer backgrounds declined. I believe that that was a direct response to the 1998 Act and the furore over student finance.
  Other factors also affect poorer students, most of whom go to local universities, which inevitably are cheaper. That is wrong: students should be able to choose the course that is right for them at the university that is right for them. They should not always have to consider the local option. UCAS statistics show that students from more affluent backgrounds are prepared to travel an average of 82 miles to university, whereas those from poorer backgrounds travel an average of 42 miles. An analysis of the mosaic database reveals that students from poorer backgrounds tend to apply for low-cost courses—those that do not require a large supplementary income.
  Medical students are a special problem because they cannot earn additional income. The point about whether it is good for students to go to work is academic for medical students, because most of them are on their course for 50 weeks a year. They cannot exist at university without huge parental support. The sad fact is that 80 per cent. of all medical students are from the top two socio-economic groups, and virtually none from the poorer groups. That is not right and we need to tackle it.
  A recent analysis of the funding of medical students shows that 48 per cent. of those who come from semi-skilled or unskilled backgrounds receive no parental support at all. People cannot exist at medical school without significant extra support. Once the loans have run out, where do they go?
  The Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire laughed at the work done in Scotland and the post-Cubie arrangement. I found that, and the response to the Reece report, rather sad. Not once in the debate did the Minister cite any of the research undertaken in Scotland following Cubie or Pamela Reece's research in Wales. We achieved a coalition with our colleagues in Scotland to do something about student finance. We achieved consensus when the Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, and the late Donald Dewar buried the hatchet and reached a compromise. The blind obstinacy of a Government who say that Andrew Cubie's findings and the Reece inquiry have no part to play is staggering.
  Now there is to be a review. Interestingly, it was announced on a fringe of the Labour party conference. It was not announced to the House, there is nothing in the Library about it and no hon. Member knows any details. What are its terms? Can any of us become involved? Can we present evidence? Surely we all have a part to play.
  We know that the hon. Member for Luton, North is a key player, because he has influenced the review. How long will it take? The papers say that it might conclude in December or January. Will Parliament have a say? Will there be a debate? Will the Education and Skills Committee be asked to undertake an inquiry? Ministers are asked to speak to the Committee but it is not currently undertaking any inquiries. Surely there is an opportunity there.
  No doubt when Conor Ryan and Andrew Adonis decide the outcome and report to No. 10, the details will be revealed to the House—sorry, I mean to the "Today"

  465
  programme or The Guardian, which today informs us that the matter has already been resolved. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have had a meeting with their political advisers, to which the Minister and the Secretary of State were not invited—and neither were you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and suddenly The Guardian is called in and, in order to trump us, all is revealed on the day of the Liberal Democrat debate on student finance.
  What is the truth? Is the story in The Guardian today absolute nonsense? Is it true that the Secretary of State's plan for a grant and a graduate tax for everybody was her preferred option, but that it has been kicked into touch?
  What a way to run a review. It was announced at the Labour party conference, but there has been no debate in the House on a matter of such importance and with such a consensus of view. The policy for the whole country has been decided by a little coterie of friends late at night at No. 10 and then leaked to The Guardian. Do the Government ever learn? The Secretary of State told me that it was pointless to speculate about specifics, but The Guardian has revealed the whole policy for the next 15 or 20 years.
  We will sign up to the principle that students have to pay for part of their stay at university. In fact, in 1995 at our party conference in Nottingham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) ensured that it became party policy that students had to make some repayment because they benefit from that education, as do employers and the state. That remains our position. We accept that students should make a significant contribution to maintenance costs. That is what Cubie said, and we do not have a problem with it, but we will not compromise on our principles about tuition fees.
  The state invests in its people through the tuition fees. If the state is not prepared to do that, the Government cannot be serious about creating a knowledge economy. We have to make that investment, and that is our bottom line. This debate has revealed a consensus in the House to make progress. We will willingly take part in the Government's review: will they have us?
  3.47 pm
  Margaret Hodge: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to the debate.
  We have had an interesting debate and some hon. Members have chosen to address some of the real challenges that we face in developing a strategy and policy to meet our ambitious targets for higher education. The debate was initiated by the Opposition—
  Alistair Burt: It is not an Opposition debate: it is a Liberal Democrat debate.
  Margaret Hodge: They are both the same. Either way, we do not have much to learn from the their contributions today or from their actions outside the House. I remind the House, for example, that the Conservatives slashed the unit funding by 36 per cent., put a cap on student numbers and starved our institutions of the money that they needed to retain their global status.
  The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, do not have a clue. The infinite elasticity of their 1p on tax is the stuff that dreams are made of. For example, they have
  466
  responded to every plea on higher education. They would abolish fees, restore grants for poor students, and open access to benefits for students in the holidays—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have read it all in Liberal Democrat manifestos and other documents. They would raise the threshold for repaying loans, put up salaries in higher education institutions, give universities more money for taking working-class children, give more money to universities for every student that they take, solve the equal pay issue in higher education, extend generous student support to part-time students and bring in student support for all students in further education. Then the Liberal Democrats would spend the change from the extra 1p tax by cutting class sizes, recruiting more teachers and spending more on equipment for our schools. Who do they think they are kidding?
  I welcome the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) to his post and I look forward to engaging in debates with him. As I understand it, he will consult on subsidies for poor students by the introduction of maintenance grants and on top-up fees to give our universities some money. As I see it, the only outcome of that will be taxing the very rich, the only people who still occasionally support the Conservative party. Given the hon. Gentleman's record at the Child Support Agency, we should not have expected much more from him today.
  Alistair Burt: The Minister is trying to draw conclusions that simply are not there. I made no specific reference to any particular partner group. We are having an open consultation with all the parties involved in higher education. That is in total contrast to the closed review that the Minister started, but which now seems to have been completed by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister.
  Margaret Hodge: I was simply drawing to the House's attention the spending implications of some of the suggestions that the Conservatives have put on the table.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked us not to abandon the principle that those who gain from education contribute towards it. I can give him the assurance that we will not. I also recognise my hon. Friend's support for early-day motion 308, and I recognise the additional financial pressures that exist for students in London. I hope that he recognises that their entitlement to loans is 23 per cent. higher than elsewhere, but we will keep that under review.
  The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) showed more concern for today's students than for our ambition to increase participation to half of all people under 30 in Britain today. The financial burden imposed on today's students by the mortgage-style loans system introduced by the Conservative party in government creates far more difficulties for today's graduates than our proposal, which is based on the ability to repay because it is income-contingent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) is right that we are a listening Government. We are listening to him and to all other hon. Members. I agree that providing support to enable people to participate post-16 is one of the key issues that we must address.

  467
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) also referred to post-16 participation. I agree entirely that if we cannot get that right, we will not achieve the ambition that we have set ourselves. Part of our task is to ensure that those students who go through further education—most of the 16 to 19-year—old cohort is in that FE sector—should receive high-quality education. We must work to improve the retention and attainment rates of those students who go through the education system. The attention that we are placing on raising quality and standards in the FE sector—a matter addressed by the chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council—is important. The matter may not have been raised in the most appropriate way, but the issue is important. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and the Government in what we are trying to do to raise standards.
  Only the Government have the credibility, the energy, the commitment and the bottle to tackle the tough and challenging issues that need to be tackled to achieve real change. Getting more people through higher education will not be easy. We have to keep more young people in full-time education beyond school-leaving age. We must raise attainment levels at level 3. We must lift young people's aspirations, especially those from the lower socio-economic groups. We must change attitudes in schools, universities and colleges.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her speech to the universities on Monday, we want universities to put down roots in schools and colleges so that the presence of someone from higher education in our schools becomes the norm. We want young people's ambitions to be raised so that they are persuaded that university is for people like them.
  We must also ensure that the student funding systems are right to support our policies. I should like to make three brief points.
  First, we should not get the issue out of proportion. The UCAS figures for this year, far from showing a decline, show a healthy increase in the number of people seeking and securing a place in higher education. The exception, interestingly enough and in contradiction to an earlier claim, is Scotland. That goes for mature students, who belong to the group that many have claimed were the most fearful of debt and most likely to reject university because of the new funding regime.
  Secondly, we need to be clear about what is in place already. The tuition fee is means tested. This year, more than half of students will pay no fees at all. There is a range of specifically targeted schemes to support those students most likely to face most financial difficulties. That range includes opportunity bursaries, grants for disabled students, grants to students with dependants and child care grants.
  Thirdly, I believe that all hon. Members share and accept the important principle that it is right that those who benefit from the investment in higher education should contribute to the costs of it. The issues that we need to address have to do with the balance between the contributions from graduates, their families and the state, and about how and when repayments occur.
  That is why we have established our review. Now is the right time to take stock. We want to look at the concerns that have been expressed about student debt,
  468
  especially among students from lower-income families. We want to maintain and enhance the standards of excellence in our universities, and we want to make sure that we can reach our target of widening access.
  Despite speculation to the contrary, nothing is ruled in, and nothing is ruled out. This is a complex and difficult area, and the debate has shown that we will need to consider it carefully.
  I reassure hon. Members that the Government will want to consult widely on the options that we develop, but our ambition is clear. We want to open up opportunity for many more young people. We want them to have the opportunity to widen their horizons by engaging in further and higher learning, and to develop their intellectual skills, imagination, confidence and understanding.
  We want young people to be able to enhance the qualifications that they gain so that they can contribute more to the world of work, and to be able to earn more through their adult lives. We want them to have the opportunity to contribute fully to our country's economic, social, cultural and political life. Our agenda is about widening opportunity for individuals, and enhancing the potential for the economy.
  Higher education has a vital contribution to make to that agenda. It is our task to deliver, and we will.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 301.

  Division No. 43]

  [3.58 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Laws, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  McDonnell, John

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Brooke, Annette

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Price, Adam

  Bumside, David

  Pugh, Dr John

  Burstow, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Doughty, Sue

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  Gidley, Sandra

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Green, Matthew (Ludbw)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Heath, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Tom Brake.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bames, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Hilary

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blizzard, Bob

  469

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gapes, Mike

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Gilroy, Linda

  Bryant, Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burnham, Andy

  Grogan, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harman, Fit Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coleman, lain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Etherington, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, Iain

  470

  Lyons, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ryan, Joan

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDougall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKechin, Ann

  Simon, Siôn

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Meale, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moran, Margaret

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Julie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Tami, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Neill Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Organ, Diana

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Osborne Sandra (Avr)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Owen, Albert

  Tynan, Bill

  Pearson Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Perham, Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Picking, Anne

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter

  Watson, Tom

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Whitenead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Winnick, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Wood, Mike

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Woolas, Phil

  Rapson, Syd

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Dan Norris and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

  471
  Resolved,

  That this House welcomes the approach the Government has taken to higher education since 1997, particularly the extra investment the Government is making in Higher Education, meaning an extra £1.7 billion of publicly planned funding in the six years to 2003–04; further welcomes the Government's commitment to widening participation so that half of under-30 year olds will benefit from the opportunities of higher education by the end of the decade; supports the Government's reforms of student support, introduced in 1998, which have increased the resources available to higher education establishments; agrees with the principle, underlying these reforms, that those who benefit from the considerable advantages that higher education can offer are asked to contribute when they can afford to; recognises that the Government has always been committed to monitor and to review the impact of these reforms; and further welcomes the Secretary of State for Education and Skills' recent announcement of this review.

  Social Security
  4.11 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3210) dated 21st September 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th September, be annulled.
  The motion—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? We are beginning an important debate.
  Mr. Willetts: The motion was tabled so that the House would have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government's proposals on changes to incapacity benefit and other regulations. Indeed, we tabled it during one of the emergency recalls in order to secure an early debate.
  The purpose of the debate is to bring some clarity to the confusion spread during the past four months about the Government's proposals on incapacity and other benefits. It is a sorry tale that has left many disabled people uncertain as to what the Government are proposing by way of changes to the benefit regime that affects so many millions of them.
  The story begins with the Queen's Speech on 20 June which announced legislation on the matter, including a welfare reform Bill. A few days later, during parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made it clear: he said that
  "the Queen's Speech announced a welfare reform Bill that will include measures to ensure that more and more people are invited in for interview, so that they can see what options and choices there are to enable them to get back into work."–[Official Report, 25 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 367.]
  The proposal was for primary legislation as part of a welfare reform Bill.
  In a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Secretary of State expanded on his proposals. The press, of course, expanded on them even more, but the right hon. Gentleman said
  "as an example of that new approach, we propose to make awards of Incapacity Benefit for fixed periods. So that at the end of the award, we can review the claim and offer more … support".
  That was the position at the beginning of July.
  The Secretary of State encountered considerable concern and distress, not least owing to the clumsy briefing to the effect that the proposals were MOT tests for disabled people—hardly a helpful way of discussing welfare reform. The Conservatives support measures to ensure that disability benefits are awarded only to people who are genuinely disabled, but we do not think that is the way to tackle a serious reform.
  The issue came up during Prime Minister's questions on 4 July. The Prime Minister said:
  "It cannot be right that we have a situation in which people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work."

  473
  He went to make a comment that we often hear from Labour Members:
  "I think every Member of the House knows that people were transferred on to incapacity benefit to disguise the true levels of unemployment in the 1980s."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 254–261.]
  I want to offer the House a brief history lesson. Incapacity benefit was introduced in 1995 as a reform introduced by the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
  Mr. Win Griffiths: It was a new name.
  Mr. Willetts: No; it was not simply another name for a previous benefit; it was a significant change in the regime.
  The number of people on incapacity benefit fell steadily from the introduction of the benefit in 1995 until 1998, since when, under the present Government, the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit has started to increase. Therefore, under us the number of people on incapacity benefit was falling; under the present Government, the number of people on incapacity benefit is rising. The number of people whose claims were terminated by reason of failing the personal capability assessment was running at approximately 40,000 per quarter. That number is now down to 20,000. Almost half of the decline in measured claimant count unemployment is matched by an increase in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit under the present Government.
  I would gladly give the Secretary of State the opportunity to repeat the claim that he always makes: that those statements may be true—of course, they are true—but the explanation is that more and more women have a contributions record that entitles them to incapacity benefit. That is not the whole story. It is true that some of the increase in incapacity benefit claimants is among women, but there are now 24,000 more men claiming incapacity benefit than there were when the number of recipients reached its lowest point. In fact, there is now a steady upward trend in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit and I believe that the Government, instead of making false claims about the history of the benefit, need to explain clearly why, while they are in office, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is rising.
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): I very much hope to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to point out now that no history of incapacity benefit that starts in 1995 can possibly be complete. The total case load of incapacity benefit is far too high, and to a large extent that is because a very large number of people went on to the then invalidity benefit in the 1980s. The problem was that those people were given no help or advice to return to work; the then Tory Government simply dumped them on that benefit to disguise unemployment. If we are going to have a history lesson, let us have a complete history lesson.
  Mr. Willetts: It is certainly one effect of the calling in for interviews of people who claim unemployment benefit, and it was undoubtedly an effect when restart interviews were conducted in the mid-1980s, that some
  474
  people who are classified as unemployed are discovered to have disabilities that mean that they receive disability benefits. I should be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State will deny that that happens today, when some people are claiming jobseeker's allowance or income support on the grounds that they are not in work. Is the right hon. Gentleman willing to deny that, in benefit offices all around the country now, staff are saying, "We have discovered, from the interviews that we have been conducting with you, that you have a disability, so we believe that it is more appropriate that you be on a disability benefit"? Of course that goes on. That is part of the day-to-day business of scrutinising benefits and ensuring that people claim the benefits to which they are rightly entitled. I am asking the Secretary of State to explain why the incapacity benefit case load is now rising, and rising among men as well as women.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: The hon. Gentleman's figures appear to suggest that all the scare stories that he and the Liberal Democrats were putting round in 1999 have come to nothing, but I want to take him back to the Queen's Speech, which he mentioned at the start of his contribution. Is it not the case that the Queen's Speech talked about enhancing the civil rights of disabled people even further, and would that not include the right to work for people who can, the right to benefit and support for people who need it, and the right to high-quality advice, and are not they all embodied in the Secretary of State's proposals?
  Mr. Willetts: I entirely agree with all those propositions. It is important that people who are suffering from disability are helped into work whenever that is feasible; I accept that. The question that I hope to come to during my remarks is whether the Government's proposals will be effective in achieving that objective.
  While the Prime Minister was on his feet in this Chamber on 4 July, claiming that people were going to be on incapacity benefit for 10, 15 or 20 years without any attempt being made to investigate whether they were genuinely entitled to it—while he was perpetrating nothing short of a myth—the Secretary of State's colleague, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, in the other place at almost exactly the same time, was adopting a different tone, perhaps because, unlike the Prime Minister, she knew the facts. She said
  "At the moment the Benefits Agency carries out 1 million personal capability assessments every year. Half of those tests are repeat assessments, the other half are first-time applications. So all new claims for incapacity benefit are now subject to review at some point between the timespan of six months and five years. There is nothing new about checking ongoing claims for incapacity benefit."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 4 July 2001; Vol. 626, c. 858.]
  Indeed, a well-established provision in legislation enables any benefit officer who suspects that someone on incapacity benefit might be capable of work to require that person to have a medical reassessment.
  The Minister's predecessor, who is sadly now on the Back Benches, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), when discussing medical incapacity testing in Standing Committee D on 15 April 1999, said
  "Seventy-three per cent. of those tested were recommended by the doctor for retesting within 18 months. In only 28 per cent. of cases was no change in the medical condition anticipated and no pre-ordained retest time set."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 April 1999; c.786.]

  475
  That is the regime that applies at present. That description from the previous Minister responsible for disability benefits in the then Department of Social Security is an accurate description of the present regime.
  What the Prime Minister said in oral questions and the accounts that were spun to justify the Government's measures were not an accurate account of that regime. It is worth hon. Members on both sides of the House being aware of the facts about how the present regime works, as it enables us to scrutinise this measure properly.
  Chris Ruane: If there is so much concern on the Conservative Benches about this issue, how come only eight of the 169 Conservative Members have turned up today?
  Mr. Willetts: The main debate today was introduced by the Liberal Democrat party and we know how boring debates introduced by the minor parties on their Supply days are. The hon. Gentleman will find that Conservative Members never flock here on such days.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: May I remind my hon. Friend that had he and his colleagues not prayed against the measure, we would not have had any debate on it?
  Mr. Willetts: That is correct and it is another matter with which I hope to deal.
  By 5 July the Secretary of State had announced that the Government would introduce primary legislation and establish fixed time limits for the receipt of incapacity benefit. They justified their policy through seriously misleading claims about the way in which the present regime was operated.
  As we all know, there was widespread concern and confusion about what was proposed. Lord Ashley of Stoke was accurate when he pointed out in The Times that
  "The Government has the power to repeatedly reassess if it wishes, and it undoubtedly uses it. The proposed changes are unnecessary."
  One of our criticisms of the Government is that it is not the regulations that have caused problems with securing reliable and prompt medical assessments and reassessments under the present rules for incapacity benefit; the problem has been getting access to medical assessments and reassessments when benefits offices want them to be carried out. The real problem has been with the delivery of those assessments.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with the medical assessments that he mentions are partly caused by the way in which the Government have messed about with the remuneration and administrative arrangements of the medical officers involved, as one of my constituents recently wrote to tell me?
  Mr. Willetts: A very powerful Select Committee report on precisely that subject was published during the previous Parliament. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  476
  The Government got themselves into a serious mess, and on 12 July, The Guardian reported:
  "Government sources privately recognise the presentation of the proposal did not go as well as hoped".
  That is a fairly accurate account of the mess that the Government had got themselves into by 12 July. At that point, the climbdown began. First, we learned in a parliamentary answer from the Secretary of State that he had lost his nerve about introducing all these measures as part of primary legislation, which is where we began. Primary legislation would not be used, and he announced that
  regulations under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 would be laid before both Houses in the autumn."—[0fficial Report. 11 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 567W.]
  So I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he could confirm that, contrary to the assertions that were made, this matter will not form part of the welfare reform Bill that we expect to be introduced in the next few weeks? That was the first climbdown.
  The regulations that were then tabled include a memorandum that states:
  "The regulations will not result in claims being time limited."
  So I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he could also confirm that, contrary to what he told the House during oral questions before the summer recess, claims for incapacity benefit will not be time limited under the regulations.
  In answer to an oral question that I asked last week, the Secretary of State said:
  "Medical examinations are indeed appropriate and we are not proposing to change the regime in that regard, although the administration of the examinations is being improved."—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 911.]
  Has the regime for medical examinations under incapacity benefit changed? Hon. Members on both sides of the House and many representatives of disabled people are entitled to an answer to that question, not least because the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appeared to suggest in a written answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that
  "in certain circumstances, the new triennial review could lead to an additional medical test."
  So there seems to be a difference between what the Secretary of State said during oral questions and the Minister's answer.
  There has been confusion about whether the measures would be introduced under primary legislation or in regulations. There has been confusion about whether there will be a fixed period for incapacity benefit claims. There has also been confusion about whether there will be extra medical tests. To add to that confusion, the Government even seem to be confused about why we are debating the confusion.
  On 4 October, Conservative Members tabled early-day motion 216, which Liberal Democrat Members also signed, to try to secure a debate on these regulations. We made it clear at the time that that was why we tabled the motion, and I have a copy of it here. We were very surprised therefore to hear the Secretary of State say on the "Today" programme on Monday this week that
  "by the middle of last week I discovered that neither the Tories nor the Liberals had asked for a debate so I asked for our Whips to arrange a debate. The first slot I could get is this Thursday. Getting a slot on the Floor of the Commons is difficult at the best of times, but we've got that."

  477
  We are holding this debate because we tabled a motion objecting to the regulations and we then pressed for a debate through the usual channels, so the Secretary of State has been consistently wrong and misleading not only about the purpose of the regulations and how they will work, but about why we are debating them today in the House of Commons.
  Uncertainty and distress has been caused by the four months of confusion about the regulations, but, as has been said, the crucial, underlying question is whether they will have any practical effect in helping people who are disabled and receive incapacity benefit to find work.
  The Government are supposed to be keen on what they call "evidence-based" policy. That is one of new Labour's buzzwords. We have much evidence in many research reports from the Department of Social Security about the impact of the ONE programme and what effect piloting of work-focused interviews has had on benefit claimants.
  I shall quote to the Secretary of State the research produced by his own Department, evaluating the impact of ONE. Research report No. 140, published this year, says, for example:
  "ONE did not seem to challenge or change the expectations of those jobseekers with previous experience of claiming. They largely perceived the service to be the same 'process' they had experienced before and, in some instances, compared the advice received unfavourably with that offered through the Jobcentre."
  The report states as a summary:
  "there was no change in the attitudes and/or behaviour of those already in work".
  The researchers were not able to detect any change. The summary also states:
  "Personal advisers were able to change a few participants' attitudes to work".
  That, I suppose, is progress of a sort, although the summary continues:
  "These impacts, however, are an exception to the wider experience of those participants who did not feel work was an option."
  Labour Members believe that the Government have cracked the problem of helping people on benefits into work by introducing compulsory interviews. I invite those who genuinely believe that to consider the evidence in the Government's evaluations of the piloting of the schemes.
  Research report No. 126 found that in areas subject to the piloting of the scheme, where, it is worth pointing out, it has been going on for some time,
  "Respondents in the sick or disabled group who had not participated in ONE were more likely to be in work than were participants".
  So, before Labour Members tell us that they have cracked the problem of helping disabled people or others into work by introducing compulsory work-focused interviews, they need to explain why they do not believe the Government's evaluations, which the DSS has helpfully produced. As the researchers say,
  "This finding is not easy to explain",
  but that is their finding.
  I shall quote from other research reports, and refer Members who wish to pursue the subject to research reports Nos. 126, 140 and 149.
  "Among sick or disabled clients whose background or circumstances might hinder entry to the labour market, there was no evidence that those in the pilot areas were more likely than the controls"—
  478
  those who did not have ONE job-focused interviews—
  "to be working or looking for work at the second survey interview about 10 months after their claim".
  Therefore, the evidence is that the proposal, which after all the confusion and distress the Secretary of State has finally put before the House, is unlikely to have any practical effects on the prospects of people in receipt of benefit, especially disabled people, subsequently entering work.
  Mr. Chris Pond: It is helpful that the hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is thoroughly confused about the matter. I am sure that, by the end of the debate, it will become clearer to him.
  At the base of the issue is a significant difference between the approach of his party when in government, which was to look carefully at people's inabilities and to identify whether people could not do things, and that of the Labour party in government, which is to see what people can do and what measures can be taken to ensure that they are not written off as in the past but given all possible help. In every circumstance, that help may not be enough, but at least it will be given.
  Mr. Willetts: We have heard that rhetoric for five years. Are the practical effects, which are outlined in the evaluations of the policies that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) supported, consistent with that rhetoric? After five years, we are entitled to evidence. It is beginning to appear and it shows that the programmes are not delivering what was promised.
  The evaluation of the new deal for lone parents and their prospects of finding work clearly shows that those who did not participate in the compulsory interviews were slightly more likely to get employment than those who were called for interview. There is therefore no point in the hon. Member for Gravesham simply repeating the 1997 rhetoric. The Government can no longer live on that. We want to know what is working, and the evidence shows that the Government's approach is not.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman said that I was confused; I am pleased that he is not. I shall give way again, provided that he explains why we have moved from primary legislation to regulations, whether there will be extra medical tests and fixed claim periods for incapacity benefit, and why the House is debating the matter today. I am confused about those subjects, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is not.
  Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman knows that the majority of lone parents who went to an interview took up one of the options that they were offered. That does not necessarily mean that they entered paid employment; training or child care opportunities might be considered in an interview. However, the interview process increased the opportunities and potential of lone parents to make a better life for themselves and their families. That is a move forward.
  Mr. Willetts: We are getting into more detail than necessary at the moment.
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The substance.
  Mr. Willetts: I shall tell the Minister exactly what the research shows. In the pilot areas for the new deal,

  479
  a slightly higher rate of lone parents left income support than in those where it was not piloted. The number of lone parents going into work through the new deal was slightly lower. More lone parents left income support because of "repartnering". The only practical effect of the new deal appears to be that some lone parents admit that they are cohabiting when they get the letter that calls them for interview. I should be happy to debate that any time with the hon. Member for Gravesham. If he does not accept my comments, I should like to know why he disagrees with research report No. 108.
  The Government have caused distress and confusion to disabled people. They have changed their policy several times in the past four months and been unable to offer any significant evidence to support it. They have also been unable to show evidence that the interviews, which are supposed to have such a transforming effect on the prospects of disabled people, will make any difference.
  Mr. David Laws: The hon. Gentleman has made some telling points, but he has left me uncertain about the position of the Conservative party. Does he believe that the measures are too draconian or not draconian enough?
  Mr. Willetts: Our party's position is simple: we support effective measures to help people on incapacity benefit and others into work. We do not know what exactly the Government propose and whether their measures will have any effect. That is the reason for the debate. We look forward to the Secretary of State's explanation of the confusion that he has caused in the past four months.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate must finish at 5.41 pm. Several are trying to catch my eye and the length of the speeches will determine how many hon. Members can contribute.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I remember the 1980s, when the then Employment Service in every town and city had a monthly target for the number of people who had to be removed from the register—not necessarily into work—and the number against whom a sanction had to be applied. A regime of fear operated in the Employment Service, which had no interest in assisting anybody to get work. I hope that we saw the back of those days long ago.
  There is a great deal of misinformation, and disinformation, about exactly what the proposals mean. Personally, I am delighted that the Employment Service now seeks to be interventionist and to help people return to work. Some may recall that back in the 1970s everyone who claimed unemployment benefit had to go for an interview, and it was a work-focused interview. It may not have been called that, but that is what it was. In the 1980s, the Conservatives abandoned the system and abandoned unemployed people.
  In principle, I see nothing wrong with new claimants having to go for interviews, given the safeguards contained in regulation 5. However, perhaps the Secretary
  480
  of State will tell us in what circumstances an interview would not be deemed "appropriate"—that, I think, is a worry for all of us.
  David Winnick: I—along with others, for all I know—am especially concerned about the severely disabled, as I said in a question to the Prime Minister a few months ago. I note that when there are good reasons, such as a claimant's state of health, interviews can be deferred. The severely disabled, as new claimants, should not be put in such a situation as they are clearly in no position to work. I—and, I am sure, my hon. Friend—would not want any further anxiety to be imposed on them.
  Mr. Rooney: That is a worthy concern, but, according to the terms of incapacity benefit, claimants can be excused from further medical examination for three, five or 10 years, or for life, if it is obvious that their condition will not improve. I assume that the intention is to extend exemption from interview to those who are already exempt from medical examination.
  We need to reflect on the measures taken over the past four years and the impact that they have had. Will the regulations prove to be an extension of those measures, or will they begin to undo them? Between April 1997 and September 2001, my area has experienced an 80 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment and a 72 per cent. reduction in adult long-term unemployment. That has not happened by accident; the new deal has played a part. The new deal, however, is becoming an old deal. It is becoming tired.
  There is now a hard core of young people with multiple problems who do not fit easily into any of the slots, and the new deal is not flexible enough to cope with them. For instance, about 50 per cent. of unemployed people under 24 in the Bradford travel-to-work area are referred to the environmental taskforce or voluntary sector options, 90 per cent. of them on a mandatory basis. The vast majority are experiencing that for the second, third or fourth time. All that the new deal is doing is recycling people. If we are to handle them properly, we must think again about the principles of the new deal and the rigid inflexibility that it incorporates.
  I fear that claimants will lack confidence in the new work-focused interviews. I fear that the advisers will not be sufficiently well trained, and will not be supported by enough flexibility in the system, to deliver packages demonstrating that individuals rather than targets count. It may not have been intended, but there is now an incredible degree of rigidity and prescription in the Employment Service's application of the new deal. It has escaped from its original admirable ambitions and application. During the first two or three years, it was fantastic and the flexibility was there, but it seems to have lost it. We need to be careful that this measure does not go down that same road. The focus has to be the individual, not departmental programmes, statistics or targets.
  There is another problem, which seems to operate across all civil service matters and all programmes, whichever Government are in power. Over time, there develops an obsession with outputs rather than outcomes. If we are serious about this matter, we need to start sending messages down the line that it is outcomes that matter, rather than being able to put a tick in the correct box.

  481
  If this measure is to work, we need the right training for the advisers, and confidence among claimants that the system will help them, rather than beat them. We also need to emphasise that this is a matter of choice, not coercion. Approximately 25,000 people a year with severe disabilities have, with the right help and support, been moved into mainstream employment through sheltered employment projects such as Remploy. That is not cheap, but it shows that, with the right programme, the right support and the right attitude towards discriminatory employers, the opportunities are there for those who want them. This scheme must work on the same basis. Those who are readily employable and who want to work will easily be able to walk away from the benefit system and get employment. The challenge will be for those difficult cases with a multiplicity of problems.
  I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a technical question, because I cannot see the answer in the regulations. At the moment, anybody on statutory sick pay is automatically transferred to incapacity benefit after 196 days. It is not clear from the regulations—that provision does not seem to have been repealed—whether that will still apply or whether such a change would be conditional on an interview. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify that.
  In principle, I support what the Government are doing, but the mechanics of the proposals need to be worked out very carefully.
  4.47 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: It will be on the record of the House that I expressed concern about these regulations when the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill was first debated in May 1999. I used the opportunity of an exchange during oral questions to the Leader of the House on 11 May to pursue the subject. The Secretary of State will recall that, during the most recent oral questions, I also pursued the matter of the therapeutic earnings rules, when I asked what part they would play in what would be offered to people with disabilities.
  My particular concern is the one that I had originally, and it has also been picked up by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). It is the matter of people with a severe disability. I want to focus on people with learning disabilities and on-going mental health problems. I shall not rehearse the arguments that I made before on the subject. I simply say to the Secretary of State that the arrival, out of the blue, of a request to attend a compulsory interview on a particular day is a major problem for many people with a severe learning disability or mental health problem. I can think of many people with that type of disability who would simply bin the letter in a panic.
  The Secretary of State has said that there is to be recognition of people with on-going severe disabilities and that they will be protected. Will he give a little more detail of exactly how those cases will be analysed? I accept that this regulation relates to new claimants, but some new claimants will have severe, lifelong disabilities. I am all in favour of trying to access appropriate employment for people with a range of disabilities, including some of those with severe mental health problems and some of those with learning disabilities.
  We hear a lot about portals and gateways. If those people are to be required to go for an interview and are told that if they do not attend they will lose key benefits,
  482
  it is essential that, whatever portal or gateway they are encouraged to go through, appropriate and well-informed sources of support are in place to help them to access that employment. It would be criminal to raise expectations and to put them through what could be for them the traumatic experience of the interview without being able to guarantee that support will be there on the other side of the gateway or portal.
  John McDonnell: The hon. Lady raises an important point regarding mental health and various other conditions. The key aspect is the training of the staff involved, their ability to respond to the particular needs of people suffering from those conditions, and their ability to assess reactions to the demand for an interview and the behaviour at the interview itself, which could become confrontational unless training is given.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right. I know that he takes a particular interest in these issues and speaks with great knowledge on the subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will have heard what he said.
  What worries me is that in the regulations there is a priority list of benefits that will be lost if a person fails to attend the interview. At the top is income support. The Secretary of State will know that people with a severe disability may qualify for the severe disability premium of income support. The amount of money that they receive may qualify them for certain levels of housing benefit. They may have a package of support from, say, social services, to which they make a contribution. That contribution will be based on the level of income support that their disability attracts. Suddenly to remove or to reduce it because they did not attend an interview could cause severe financial problems. They could get into debt. It could cause huge problems in terms of their well-being and state of mind.
  I want to know from the Secretary of State how he will deal with severe disability while at the same time offering equal opportunity. If what was being put before the House was an enhanced opportunity for people, particularly those with learning disabilities or on-going mental health problems, to access employment or a phased way into paid employment that was not just a make-work scheme but real paid employment, I could appreciate that. What I cannot appreciate is that that group of people will be told, "This is compulsory and if you do not attend the interview you will lose benefit."
  I think that the Government have gone wrong. It is a new rule that is to apply only to new claimants. The very language of the debate and what is written in the regulations seems to imply that just about everyone claiming benefits who has a disability once held down a job and for physical disability reasons no longer does so.
  We know the prevalence of back injury; it is common. People start out in a working life. Their health may deteriorate physically or they may suffer a back injury or some strain injury at work that means they are no longer able to do the job they have always done. They may then go on incapacity benefit. To try to get those people into some other form of work is wholly laudable.
  If that is what the Government are trying to do, they will have my total support, but there is an element of, "Come for the interview on the day we say, regardless of

  483
  your level of disability." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I wait to be reassured. It is now three years down the track and I am still not reassured. the disability organisations are not reassured and Lord Ashley of Stoke is not reassured. We are waiting for that reassurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I will in a minute. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may find it amusing, but I have received correspondence from people with disabilities who may be affected by the legislation. They do not find it amusing at all. They find it not only hurtful and confusing, but rather frightening.
  David Winnick: I know that the hon. Lady is being baited by my hon. Friends. Party politics comes into these matters and I am the last one to criticise that. However, she can take this reassurance if it is worth anything to her: today she has said hardly a single word with which I disagree.
  Mrs. Browning: I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman indicated in an intervention earlier that he is knowledgeable on this subject. I am sure that he is concerned, as many of us are, about our constituents who will receive such a letter. I should like the Secretary of State to provide more details about what will happen to people who may not turn up to the interview because they cannot manage official correspondence or because their state of mind is such that they are unable to deal with the letter. We cannot assume that all such people have very convenient social workers whom they can phone up and ask, "What shall I do about this letter?"
  We are dealing with a draconian rule that failure to attend the interview will result in a loss of benefit and with regulations that catch-all do not apply only to people who have a disability that has prevented them from working for some time and want to get back into work, but to people on the disability register who have lifelong disabilities that they were born with. The provision makes no differentiation between those people and someone who may have a back injury.
  Mr. Levitt rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I let him intervene on me in the debate in 1999 and I hope that this time he will make a more sensible intervention than he did then.
  Mr. Levitt: Fond memories, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The points that the hon. Lady raises would be right if they had not been answered during the debates in 1999. I remember raising the same issues in Committee and I was told by Ministers that it would be possible for advisers to visit the homes of people who could not get out and that it would be possible for communications support to be provided—indeed, it would be essential. There will be a flexible, personalised, tailored process so that people get the appropriate help in the appropriate way. The hon. Lady should not forget that 1 million disabled people would like to work.
  Mrs. Browning: I am not forgetting that, but for some people about whom I am concerned a stranger visiting them at home would be a major trauma. I quite appreciate that if someone has a physical incapacity that means that
  484
  it is difficult for them to attend an interview, the interviewer may decide that it would be better to offer them an interview at home. However, people with certain disabilities have communication problems that could be critical in an interview. They do not always have support workers to attend the interview with them.
  Reference has been made to training and the level of expertise offered by interviewers and their support workers. I should like to think that it was there, but I am afraid that it is not. We do not see it in any other aspect of the lives of people with those disabilities, so it seems strange that it is suddenly on offer when they have to attend a statutory interview.
  Mr. Rooney: The hon. Lady is in danger of severely over-egging the pudding. She should remember that we are discussing people who have made contact with the service in order to make a claim, so she should be careful about using the communication argument.
  Mrs. Browning: Regardless of how those people contacted the service in the first place, some quite intelligent people are affected by communications disorders. They cannot pick up the phone and make contact—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads. Their ignorance on this subject is palpable. Ignorance is bliss. I hope that the Secretary of State will be wise when he responds to the debate.
  The problem, as we can see from previous debates, is that the profile of a person with a disability is predominantly of someone with a physical disability and ignores those with multiple disabilities or severe learning disabilities. It certainly does not encompass someone with schizophrenia, living in the community and drawing benefits, who will almost certainly receive such a letter. It is too much of a catch-all provision.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the Government's agenda is not about addressing the needs of people with disabilities but about using the benefits system to gerrymander some figures to make it look as though they are fulfilling some long-lost election pledge to deal with benefit fraud. There are very few people who genuinely have a disability who seek to defraud the Exchequer.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: My point links to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). One of the real achievements of the party that is now in opposition was to change the debate about unemployment. It managed to focus the public mind on the fact that a considerable number of people were unemployed because they wanted to be, rather than because no jobs were available. We have lived through a period of about nine years during which the number of jobs in the community has continued to rise. It may be that we are now in a period during which, in the country as a whole, the number of people in work will begin to fall.
  When I was in opposition, I supported the policy of linking claimants to the labour market—it was called supply side reform—and I continue to do so now that we are in government, but we are beginning to enter a different period. I recently received a parliamentary answer showing that in 266 of our constituencies the

  485
  employment rate is now lower than when we were first elected in 1997. In other words, while there will of course be some jobs, even in Birkenhead, it is becoming more difficult for claimants to find work, even if they want to. That will be generally true of the country as a whole, but particularly true of areas where there are already job scarcities.
  As we support joined-up government, the Secretary of State will have no problem with my plea to him, which is to tell the Chancellor that, while Labour Members support those moves that continue to develop the services that we provide for people who are seeking work, it is getting even more difficult to find work in some of our constituencies, quite simply because there is a shortage of jobs.
  Of course we support the development of the supply side policies to help people into work, but I hope that it will not be long before the Government begin to think of measures that they can introduce to encourage reflation at a local level, so that those of us who represent seats where the employment rate is lower than when our Government were first elected—that is, about a third of hon. Members—will see that such policies go hand in hand with policies to try to increase the number of jobs in areas with severe job shortages.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: In order to try to decide what the regulations are designed to achieve, it is worth considering the circumstances in which they were brought into the public view. On the day when the Secretary of State made his speech to the think tank about the regulations, catching the disability organisations on the hop, the newspapers. before he spoke, were running headlines about MOT tests for the disabled.
  Ministers shook their heads when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) raised the issue, but when we read on the day of a Minister giving a speech, that
  "Details will be disclosed by Alistair Darling … Mr. Darling also hinted",
  I suspect that there has been some communication between the newspapers and the Department. The same phrase, "MOT for the disabled", appeared in the Evening Standard one day and in The Times the next day, and although that phrase was not in the Minister's speech, it makes me wonder what role the briefers had to play.
  Mr. Darling: I regard the phrase "MOT for the disabled" as deeply offensive in that context. If the hon. Gentleman reads the article, he will see that it is not attributed to me. but it is directly attributed to someone else. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House who said it, because that person should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Webb: If the Secretary of State's spinners, when they leak speeches to the newspapers, produce such headlines, he should have better people spinning for him.
  Mr. Darling: I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. As he is entitled to do, he has referred to a newspaper article. Will he now please tell us who made that remark, because i t is attributed to someone by
  486
  The Times. He has the article and, for the sake of completeness, I hope that he will tell us who made that offensive remark.
  Mr. Webb: The article says that Joe Korner of the Royal National Institute for the Blind was worried that the Secretary of State was proposing MOT checks for the disabled. All the subsequent press coverage—and the Government have some influence on what is written about their policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the Government have no influence on what is written and I have misunderstood. The coverage of what the Secretary of State had put in The Times before his speech led to grave concern among disabled people. The Secretary of State may claim innocence of that, but that was the result. Disabled people opened their newspapers in the morning to read the coverage that arose from the Secretary of State's briefing about the speech.
  The next day, the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick) challenged the Prime Minister at Question Time. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister had believed the spin from the Department for Work and Pensions. As the hon. Member for Havant said, the Prime Minister said that people could not be left for 10, 15 or 20 years on benefits, but the fact is that the situation is extremely atypical except for the most severely disabled people. The Prime Minister thought that the regulations had something to do with getting people who were not really disabled off benefit. They are nothing of the sort.
  The Secretary of State must take responsibility for the way in which he briefs the press when he launches an initiative. The Government are proud of the way in which they manage the media, but if that management disturbs genuinely disabled people, the Secretary of State should examine his conscience on the issue.
  On which points do we agree with the Government? When it comes to Liberal Democrat criticism of his policy, the Secretary of State is fond of setting up straw men and then knocking them down, so I shall make our position clear. We support efforts to help disabled people who want and are able to work to get back to work.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: So do we.
  Mr. Webb: So that is the Conservative party's position as well. However, should not the Government be doing more to make it easier for disabled people to get back to work allowing people to combine part-time work with part-time benefit?
  Mr. Darling: Tax credits.
  Mr. Webb: Those are received by a handful of people compared with the 1 million whom we are told want work. Four years ago, the Government said that 1 million disabled people want to work but are not doing so. Today, we heard the same figure. What have the Government been doing? They have achieved nothing in four years.
  The key issue—which was properly raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney)—is how the compulsory issues will affect disabled people. More than a quarter of the people receiving incapacity benefit have mental health or behavioural problems, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. What effect will the regulations have on them?

  487
  On 15 October, I asked the Secretary of State to supply me with the guidance notes that he will issue to his officials to administer the scheme. Those guidance notes still have not been forthcoming.
  Mr. Darling: They should be.
  Mr. Webb: The Secretary of State says that they should be, but I asked the Library this morning. At that time, the staff said that they had received nothing. Later, they rang to say that they had received the two-page memorandum, but they had not had the jobcentre guidance for officials. So I had to get it from somewhere else. Tabling a question in the House of Commons and giving it ten days is obviously a waste of time; I had to get a leaked copy from somewhere else. That is appalling.
  I was staggered when I read the guidance, which has not been in the public domain until this week. There is a section on people with mental health problems, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said. Paragraph 58 deals with the threat of suicide, and says that
  "if information is received by phone, letter or in person, that a person in distress plans to commit suicide the basic rule to remember is that, they might well do so. It is therefore important to treat such information seriously."
  That is the guidance for those who will be forcing people with mental health problems to come in for interviews on pain of loss of benefit. The guidance says:
  "Staff have a responsibility to process benefit claims quickly and accurately and to be aware of the potential risks to the customer when legitimately withdrawing or sanctioning benefit from a person known to have a mental health problem."
  Why has not any of this been laid before the House for us to see? The Government are telling their own officials that, potentially, they will have real problems when they deal with people with mental health problems. [Interruption.] I will not repeat what was said from a sedentary position; it would be unparliamentary. It is clear that people with mental health problems will have concerns about this matter. What will the Government do for them?
  What about severely disabled people? A number of hon. Members are concerned about who will be allowed what they call "waivers" at the interviews. The astonishing thing is that we have referred to the primary legislation—the Act that allowed the regulations to be introduced—but it did not say who would be exempted. We have looked at the regulations, which do not say who will be exempted.
  The memorandum that came to the Library this morning says that, for example, people with a terminal illness, people who have been recently bereaved or people about to start a job should be exempted. But who else? We do not know and we have no way of controlling it, because it is not in the regulations. It is down to the guidance; the guidance that was not laid before the House and which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is down to the discretion of individual decision makers.
  The Government say that they are concerned about the rights of disabled people. Why do not they have these rights in the regulations? Why is it down to the individual discretion of the decision maker? What protection do those involved have? Do they know that the interviews
  488
  can be waived at all? Will anyone tell them? If they fell in a definite category because of a particular condition, they would have some security. However, they have no security under the proposals. The hon. Member for Havant said that the research evidence is clear that these schemes do not actually work. He referred to research report No. 149, but did not read out the title.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman seems to be relying very much—remarkably so—on the arguments of the hon. Member for Havant. What about the views of the organisations of and for people with disabilities? So far, he has mentioned the RNIB. I have its briefing, which is excellent. Nowhere in it does the RNIB support the view that the regulations should be annulled. Does he have any evidence that any other organisation of that kind supports the same view? I have not found any.
  Mr. Webb: The RNIB briefing says that
  "the helping hand philosophy
  —the Government's defence of what they are doing—
  doesn't exactly tally with the compulsory, punitive nature of the provisions."
  It goes on to say that the regulations will mean that
  "blind people face a new hurdle to getting their full benefit entitlement."
  The RNIB goes on to talk about people who become blind and lose their job, saying that an interview just after losing work because of the onset of blindness
  "may not do them any good, but it could very well cause them additional stress and anxiety."
  I agree that it does not say at the end of the briefing, "Therefore annul" but it does not sound to me like a ringing endorsement.
  The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) is quite right to mention what disabled people's organisations are saying. Leonard Cheshire says that it is
  "concerned that the fear of lost benefit as a direct consequence of not turning up to an interview may lead disabled people to giving up altogether."
  SCOPE says that
  "compulsory interviews will heighten the fears of disabled people."
  A number of organisations are concerned about the regulations—to varying extents, I accept—and we should listen to what they say.
  The research evidence is about the medium-term effect of the pilot schemes. It gives the schemes time to work, but the key word in the title is "voluntary." This is a departmental report on voluntary schemes to get people to go to interviews. It found that people who turn up to voluntary schemes—and such people are presumably well motivated—are no more likely to get a job. If volunteers are not more likely to get a job, what about conscripts? There is no evidence that the interviews work. In fact, there is clear evidence that disabled people—and especially newly disabled people—feel threatened by them.
  I tabled a question to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), about the effects of the interviews. This matter returns to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, North. The Minister told me that, although the

  489
  work-focused interview would not normally have any effect on a subsequent medical test, there could be circumstances in which the person who conducts the work-focused interview will suggest that there should be another medical test.
  What expertise does the person talking about jobs have about disability and people's ability to work? Given that the work-related interview will probably be triggered by a person failing a medical test in the first place, what expertise does the person who conducts the interview have that will enable him to decide that that interviewee is not really ill and that there should be another test?
  Clearly, the regulations will be passed by the House, even though we will oppose them. Will the Secretary of State tell us, on the record, which severely disabled people will be excluded from the forced interviews? Secondly, will he confirm that the people conducting the interviews will have proper disability training so that they can work with people who are deaf or blind or who have other disabilities? Thirdly, will he confirm that targets will not be set for the numbers of people taken off incapacity benefit?
  The Government have failed to lay before Parliament the proper information about the regulations. They have frightened disabled people. That amounts to harassment and should be opposed.
  5.17 pm
  Lynne Jones: I should like to associate myself with the concerns that have been raised by other hon. Members.
  When the matter first arose on 3 July, I was telephoned by a journalist who informed me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had briefed the media about his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research the next day. I was told that my right hon. Friend had told journalists that all recipients of incapacity benefit—apart from severely disabled people who had no prospect of recovery—would be subject to repeat medical tests every three years. It is correct to say that I do not think that anyone suggested that my right hon. Friend referred to MOT tests for disabled people. I am pleased to be able to make that clear.
  That speech would probably have received little attention had it not been for that press briefing, which was clearly designed for a purpose. Subsequently, we heard about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's now notorious remarks, in which he spoke about people languishing on benefits. That seemed to be nothing more than an attempt to create the impression that disabled people get generous benefits that they do not deserve.
  I presume that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister must have been briefed before his performance in the House that day, but clearly he was not well briefed. Perhaps it would be too much to expect him to grasp all the detail, or perhaps he was not aware that during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 the Minister with responsibility for disability benefits had explained that the doctors performing the all-work tests on behalf of the Benefits Agency are given five options with regard to specifying intervals between subsequent tests. They can specify three months, six months, 12 months or 18 months or they can opt for "no significant change anticipated".
  490
  More than 50 per cent. of those who are tested are recommended for retest in 12 months or less. In only 28 per cent. of cases was no preordained retest time set. Subsequently, the Government acquired powers to carry out tests even when there was no obvious change in a claimant's condition. They also introduced the personal capability assessment, a stringent medical test that takes into account what work a person can do.
  Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that fraud in claiming incapacity benefit, which is worth a meagre £69 a week at the long-term rate, is virtually non-existent. Only three cases—0.5 per cent.—were found from a sample of 1,400, whereas official errors were four times as high.
  In our last manifesto, we claimed that the number of people receiving incapacity benefit had fallen by 11 per cent. since 1997. Since then, the Government have backtracked somewhat on the initial proposal mooted by the Secretary of State. It became known that the new arrangements would apply only to new claimants—at least in the first instance. We know from the regulations that the proposals are for work-focused interviews, as laid down in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, which are to take place at least every three years, and people can still be referred for another personal capability assessment.
  It is difficult to find out what assessment the Government have made of the impact on the Benefits Agency medical service of conducting additional personal capability assessments. There are delays of between 90 and 170 days in carrying out the tests, and the system produces many wrong decisions. Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the system's inadequacy and, indeed, cruelty.
  All hon. Members share the aim of giving people with disabilities more opportunities to participate fully in society, including, if they are able to work, the opportunity to do so. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that many disabled people say that they would like to work and many think that they could, given the proper assistance. The question is whether compulsion will assist in the process.
  Would a disabled person who was called to a compulsory interview about his capabilities and opportunities for work approach it positively? After all, he might not be entirely convinced that out there in the wide world, in the labour market, the Government have succeeded in overcoming the disadvantage and stigma attached to disabled people, particularly those with mental health difficulties. Would he approach the interview positively, given his fears that he might lose benefit and that he might be referred back for yet another harrowing persona] capability assessment?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) referred in an intervention to the RNIB briefing. I cannot speak for his interpretation of the briefing, but mine is that although it is very much against the regulations it accepts that the Government are determined to push them through. Indeed, they started to do so a couple of days before we were able to debate the measures in the House.
  If my right hon. Friend is determined to push the measures through, perhaps he could set up an experiment to gauge their effectiveness. The pathfinder areas could be divided into two groups. In one group, the measures

  491
  could proceed as planned; in the other, instead of making attendance compulsory, the measures could be promoted among disabled people, using their networks. That would comprise the positive and helpful support for disabled people that we want to see.
  My experience from speaking to people who have been on new deal programmes before is that they value the assistance given. That is especially true of lone parents. Many of them opted into the system voluntarily because they had heard good things about it from their friends. That is a much better approach to achieving our aim, which I entirely share, of assisting more disabled people into work.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider that as a possibility, and that in the light of the outcome of this experience—I hope that he will give it sufficient time to provide adequate evidence—he will not extend the provision further unless there is evidence that it works.
  5.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Alistair Darling): I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who had hoped to speak in the debate, but it is a short debate and if I do not speak now I might not be able to answer some of the points that have been put.
  It is interesting that in neither of the speeches by the principal Opposition speakers did we hear one shred of policy for dealing with a problem that successive Governments have had to confront. I understand the difficulties that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has in opposing what is before the House, because I have just reminded myself what the Conservative spokesman said about the single gateway to the benefit system and work-focused interviews when we debated the primary legislation in 1999:
  "we do not have a problem with the idea of the single gateway … There is great logic in directly connecting a claimant's interview process and eventual job achievement with the claiming of benefit."—[0fficial Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 674.]
  Who said that? It was the present Leader of the Opposition, so I can see the difficulty for the hon. Member for Havant
  It might be helpful if I set out what the regulations do. They provide that everyone of working age who makes a new or repeat claim to benefit at a Jobcentre Plus office should take part in a work-focused interview as a condition of receiving benefit. Jobcentre Plus offices are replacing the Employment Service and Benefits Agency offices; the first 49 opened for business on Monday, and that number will be extended throughout the country, starting from next year.
  Yes, this is a new approach. For the first time there is a single gateway to the benefit system, and we want to make sure that everyone of working age has the opportunity to find out what help there is to help them to work, if they can work. At the same time, that gives us the opportunity to get more help to people who cannot work.
  We are making the changes because we want to ensure that the help and advice previously available only to people getting jobseeker's allowance are now available to other people of working age, too. During this short debate we have discussed the position of lone parents and people
  492
  with a disability. In the past the problem was that we did not do nearly enough to ensure that those people got the sort of help that they needed.
  We have heard about the fact that the Disability Rights Commission referred to the labour force survey that shows that there are about 1 million people with a disability who are not in work, but would like to work. If anyone in the House asked us today what we do to ensure that we help those 1 million people, the answer would be that we do not do enough. That is because until now we have never sat down with people, addressed the problems that they faced, and helped people with a disability get back into work.
  I understand some of the difficulties that Members have raised about the availability of jobs, and the fact that we are dealing with people who may have a range of conditions, not just one particular condition. I understand the difficulties, but I say to my hon. Friends and the rest of the House that the Government are prepared to do everything we can to try to help people who for years have been excluded, and have been denied the sort of help that they ought to have had throughout those years.
  That is what the regulations are about—providing help and support. However, that is possible only if we can see people in the first place and tell them what is on offer.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The trouble is that in constituencies such as mine, where the pits and the textile industries have closed—some during the past four or five years—the number of people who are really unemployed, if we count them all, has hardly shifted since 1997. The problem in those areas—the Labour party has identified at least 25 of them—and it is reflected in some of the voting patterns, is that we badly need employment. I made a proposal for about 9,000 jobs on a pit site in Derbyshire. I have been trying to get that show on the road for four years. People say to me that the Government should be finding them work. After meeting those interviewers, in their sharp suits and Italian shoes, and going through the exercise, a lot of people are going to say. "Where are the jobs?" The Government can try as hard as they like in some areas, and it may come to fruition. I do not like the culture that surrounds the proposals but, that notwithstanding, it will be almost impossible to make them work in areas such as mine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) put his finger on the point: when unemployment figures, sadly, start to increase generally—I hope that does not happen—the position will get worse.
  Mr. Darling: I fully accept the points made by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field): there are real difficulties in some constituencies in some parts of the country, but that does not mean that we should not try to do everything we can to help those people to get into work. For example, there are constituencies in London, such as Tottenham and in Hackney, where unemployment remains extremely high, yet not far away there are employers with acute skill shortages.
  Mr. Skinner indicated assent.
  Mr. Darling: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees.

  493
  The whole thrust of the Government's policy is to ensure that mechanisms are in place to enable us to match people with those jobs. It is difficult in some parts of the country, but it is important that we try.
  Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: I should like to make some progress—[Interruption.] If I have time, I shall get back to my right hon. Friend. With due respect, he spoke earlier and I want to deal with some of the points that were raised during the debate.
  The difference between us and the previous Conservative Government is that through measures such as the new deals and the single gateway we are doing far more to meet people and to give them the help and advice they need to get them into work. That is why youth unemployment has come down by 75 per cent. That is why we have got 95,000 lone parents into work. Even in its pilot form, the new deal for disabled people got 40 per cent. of people into work. Most of those people would not be in work had we not been able to offer them the help and support that we are giving them.
  Many Opposition Members asked why we introduced the proposals. The reason is that experience—in particular, through the new deals—has shown that unless we can sit down with people and tell them about the help and support that are available, far too many of them do not know what is on offer. For example, when we set up the new deal for lone parents, we found that when people attended an interview and found out what was available about 89 per cent. joined the new deal. The problem was that the vast majority of people did not go for an interview so they did not know about tax credits, the benefit run-ons for lone parents or the working families tax credit. Unless we can get people to attend an interview so that we can tell them what is on offer, including the help available for those who cannot work, a situation that is intolerable to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, whereby a whole generation was written off for year after year after year under the previous Government and given no help, will continue.
  I shall address directly some of the concerns that were expressed in this short debate. The first point is that we must treat individuals as individuals. That is where I have some difficulty with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). She had a good point to make but she spoilt it by over-egging her argument—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) pointed out. I repeat a point that I have made time and again and which is also clear from the guidance and the memorandum that we placed in the Library: we must treat people sensitively. We must avoid a severely disabled person who has no prospect of working and who would gain no benefit from work being alarmed unnecessarily. The hon. Lady must accept that to treat everybody who receives incapacity benefit—or, indeed, everyone who might be affected by the regulations—as though they were completely unable to deal with an interview is wholly unreasonable. I repeat—
  Mrs. Browning rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  494
  The regulations and guidance issued to our staff make it absolutely clear that, first, there is power to waive or defer interviews and, secondly, contrary to what the hon. Lady said, we will not remove benefit from someone simply because they do not turn up. There are provisions to ensure that we act reasonably at all times. After all, decisions of our staff are subject to appeal, so I do not accept the rather over-argued case that the hon. Lady advanced. She also asked the perfectly good question whether we would treat people sensitively and ensure that our staff were trained; I readily assent to that.
  Mrs. Browning: I did differentiate between certain hypothetical situations. Will the Secretary of State confirm one point? On 23 October, The Independent printed the draft guidelines for officers deciding waivers and deferrals, which provided that deferrals should be used "infrequently" and waivers "very rarely". How does the right hon. Gentleman square those words with the rather sympathetic approach that he is now explaining to the House?
  Mr. Darling: I will tell the hon. Lady how I do that. We want to ensure, wherever possible, that everyone of working age, including people on incapacity benefit, is seen, so that we may offer them the appropriate help and support. If we decided at the outset that we would routinely write off large numbers of people and not invite them for interview, that would defeat the object of the exercise.
  I believe that the hon. Lady would accept that it is a minority of people who would not at some stage be able to come in for interview and receive that help and support. I know of her interest in this matter, which has arisen for perfectly understandable reasons that I shall not go into now, and I can understand exactly the type of case that she has in mind, to which I am extremely sympathetic, but I do not accept the argument that our staff should routinely be reluctant to invite people in, because many people who could come in might benefit from that help.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke nonsense about the guidance on suicide, which has applied to our staff for years. As he might imagine, we routinely encounter people in the present benefits system who might be at risk of suicide. The guidelines issued to our staff state very clearly that they should be sensitive. I am very sorry—
  Mr. David Cameron rose—
  Mr. Darling: I will not give way just now.
  When it comes to scaremongering and upsetting people, the hon. Member for Northavon has done more than his fair share, particularly over the past few days, including the weekend.
  We have introduced powers to waive and to postpone interviews. I hope that that knowledge will allay some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). No one wants our staff or the Government to act unreasonably, but I repeat that we want to ensure that people who would benefit from help and support get it.
  It is important that we avoid the present position, whereby someone can go a considerable time—perhaps years—without help and support. We are now moving to

  495
  a position where, no matter what benefit people are claiming, their circumstances will be reviewed at least once every three years, to ensure that we do not let people lie for year after year without getting the help and support that they need.
  I hope that when Members consider the regulations tonight, they will see that the Government are acting reasonably and are doing something that Governments should have done years ago. It cannot be right that we leave people with no help or support. It is extremely interesting that, despite the fact that we heard an extremely long speech from the hon. Member for Havant and another from the hon. Member for Northavon, at no point did we hear an alternative approach or a single workable or affordable measure that would help to deal with this difficult problem. In contrast, we can show that over the past four years, through the new deal and other measures, and through the single gateway to the benefits system, we are moving forwards and doing more to help people than ever before. I am determined that we, as a Government, ensure that we help people get back into work wherever possible, as well as offering far more effective support to those who cannot work.
  In that spirit, I hope that the House will endorse the regulations, so that we may help the millions of people denied help for too long in the past.
  5.40 pm
  Mr. Willetts: With the leave of the House, I refer the Secretary of State to the manifesto for disabled people that we published at the general election. The Labour party did not produce a manifesto for disabled people; we did and it contained practical measures to help them, including implementing the points made by the National Audit Office, which one Labour Member rightly raised, about the failure of the present system of medical assessment.
  This measure is another example of a Government who are preoccupied with regulations when the real problem is the delivery of medical assessments, for which there is already ample regulatory and legal provision.
  The Secretary of State has been caught out in a bogus crackdown, trying to spin tough policies. His colleague the Prime Minister was doing so in July. Today, the Secretary of State has had to beat an undignified retreat, abandoning statements that he made on the record in oral questions in attempting to explain the policy launched at the Institute for Public Policy Research.
  We welcome the fact that as a result of our motion we have had this debate. We are certainly committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, people on incapacity benefit are helped into work. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Is it your wish that the motion be withdrawn?
  Hon. Members: No.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 16(1) and 17(2) and Order [20 November 2000].
  The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 302.

  Division> No. 44]

  5.41 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Barnes, Harry

  Laws, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  McDonnell, John

  Breed, Colin

  Price, Adam

  Brooke, Annette

  Pugh, Dr John

  Burstow, Paul

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Rendel, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Chidgey, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Doughty, Sue

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Webb, Steve

  Gidley, Sandra

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Willis, Phil

  Harvey, Nick

  Winnick, David

  Heath, David

  Holmes, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mr. Nigel Jones.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Battle, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cox, Tom

  Beard, Nigel

  Cranston, Ross

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benton, Joe

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Betts, Clive

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  David, Wayne

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brennan, Kevin

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Browne, Desmond

  Doran, Frank

  Bryant, Chris

  Dowd, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnside, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Cairns, David

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cawsey, Ian

  Etherington, Bill

  Challen, Colin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Chaytor, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  497

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Flint, Caroline

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Khabra, Piara S

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foulkes, George

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gapes, Mike

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lammy, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gilroy, Linda

  Laxton, Bob

  Goggins, Paul

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Grogan, John

  Levitt, Tom

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Linton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Love, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Lucas, Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Luke, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Lyons, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hesford, Stephen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  MacDonald, Calum

  Heyes, David

  MacDougall, John

  Hill, Keith

  McFall, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hodge, Margaret

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hood, Jimmy

  McKechin, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  McNulty, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Hurst, Alan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Martlew, Eric

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Meale, Alan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Merron, Gillian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Morgan, Julie

  Joyce, Eric

  Morley, Elliot

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  498

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stringer, Graham

  Owen, Albert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Tami, Mark

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tynan, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wills, Michael

  Sawford, Phil

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Simon, Siôn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  European Food Law
  5.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level.
  I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach particular importance to the establishment of a European food authority as an aid to re-establishing consumer confidence in the food supply and to making the European Union regulatory process more transparent.
  Proposals were published by the European Commission in November last year and agreement to a common position was reached in the Council in the summer. Several issues that are covered in the proposal have already been debated in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House of Lords last year during deliberations on the Commission's White Paper on food safety. This proposal cleared scrutiny by the European Union Committee in the Lords in March. All views expressed have been taken into account in the negotiations that were given priority by the Swedish presidency in the first half of the year.
  The European Parliament is considering the Council's common position text. It is likely that the co-decision process will be completed in time to allow formal adoption of the regulation by the end of the year. That would enable the European food authority to be established by early 2002, in line with European Council conclusions.
  The proposal can be broken down into three distinct parts: general food law, establishing a European food authority and dealing with emergencies and procedural food safety issues in the Union. I shall speak briefly about each part.
  The food law element will establish an overarching approach to considering food safety issues at European level by defining general principles, which legislators must take into account when developing European Union and national food law. It also includes requirements for those who produce our food. Some are new general requirements, such as traceability, although specific, detailed traceability requirements already exist in some sectors. Others enhance existing obligations, such as procedures on withdrawal and recall.
  In the United Kingdom, we operate basic safeguards primarily under the Food Safety Act 1990. The Food Standards Agency administers the controls; consumer protection lies at its heart. We are trying to strengthen that concept in Europe and when setting international food standards more generally.
  Although most food law is already subject to harmonised measures throughout the Union, the proposal now better reflects our basic safeguards. That will ensure that the principles of consumer protection and prohibition on placing unsafe food on the market will apply to food legislation throughout the Union.
  500
  We initially expressed preference for a directive, especially given our anxieties about the potential for delaying the establishment of the European food authority. The original proposal was unclear about scope and intent, but the text has been significantly improved in the past six months. In the light of rapid progress, we can support the legislative form of a regulation, which will be directly applicable. Given the similarities, some changes will be required to our primary legislation. However, our high standards on food and public health will not be compromised.
  Although our Food Standards Agency has wide statutory powers, combining all the inherent elements of the risk analysis process—assessment, management and communication—the European food authority will differ because it will be limited to scientific assessment and its communication. The legislation and control elements—risk management—will remain with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. We do not want to change that, but as we stated in the Government response last year, it is essential to recognise the need for effective communication between all those involved in risk analysis. They include the food authority, the Commission and member states. We have achieved recognition of the need for such coherence in the common position text.
  Mr. David Drew: I am trying to work out how one can split risk assessment and communication from risk management. How will that affect, for example, genetically modified organisms? The criteria overlap on that.
  Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We aim to try to ensure that the role of the European food authority is to draw together the best scientific advice, expertise and evidence. Views based on that evidence should be communicated to those who will have to make decisions about risk management. The processes are different. We want to ensure that those responsible for the decisions make them in the light of the best scientific evidence available in the European Union.
  We believed that it was especially important that, when advising on risk assessment, the food authority should be able to identify options or make recommendations for action to risk managers. They should give a public explanation for any deviation from the authority's recommendations. That would mean not that the food authority would become involved in determining risk management solutions, but that the assessors, with the scientific data at their fingertips, should be able to identify practical solutions. That was our view, but others were not able to support it. That is a missed opportunity, but we note that the proposal still provides for the authority to express and publish its conclusions on matters within its remit.
  I stress that the proposed authority will not be directly responsible for any enforcement or control aspects of legislation. That remains the responsibility of member states under the food and feed control directives, although there are proposals in the pipeline, as the Commission's legislative plan in the White Paper on food safety suggests, to introduce a fully harmonised approach on the matter.
  The authority's remit is also seemingly broad, encompassing animal health and welfare and plant health. Some of those issues could have an impact on food safety,

  501
  but it is extremely important to ensure that secondary issues do not divert the authority from its principal role of safeguarding food and feed safety. The National Farmers Union told us forcefully that the authority should concentrate on its core remit.
  We have considered carefully the arguments and counter-arguments in regard to whether the authority should be a one-stop shop for all scientific advice, including advice on issues that have a less direct impact on food safety. That has obvious implications for resources, and for the authority's ability to deal with issues directly affecting food safety and the safety of consumers. We are satisfied that the proposed regulation now strikes the right balance in terms of the focus of the authority.
  It is vital that this opportunity to establish a truly innovative approach to the way in which food safety issues are tackled at European level should not be squandered by the establishment of a food authority that is so overburdened that it may not act in a proactive manner, or whose structure dictates that it will not be able to make its voice heard in a truly independent way. We pushed hard for maximum openness and transparency, as well as independence from political influence, for the management board.
  The Commission has stated its preference for its original proposal, which involves four members from the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, but we now see reference to members' being appointed in such a way as to secure the highest possible levels of competence and a broad range of relevant expertise.
  Our European partners have been impressed by the UK's policy of debating important food safety issues in public. We achieved provision in the proposed regulation for the possibility of public meetings of the scientific panels, and the possibility of observers on the panels themselves. Similar points have been made to us effectively by the Consumers Association, which is keen to ensure that the public are involved. We now have more potential for consumer involvement: the original proposal contained no more than a passing reference to contacts with consumers as contained in the original proposal.
  The latest text now better defines the forum's role, ensuring that the authority can tap into the wealth of knowledge residing in member states. That will help to avoid duplication of effort within the EU, and will serve as a mechanism for exchange of information on potential risks and pooling of knowledge.
  The final part of the proposal relates to procedural matters, such as the establishment of a crisis unit, and a mediation procedure, with Commission involvement, in the event of differences of opinion between member states. Those initiatives are particularly welcome in the area of crisis management. Consideration will need to he given to a fast-track procedure, with the authority's active involvement, enabling important decisions to be taken as quickly as possible on the basis of the latest science.
  As I have said, the European Parliament is currently considering the Council's common position text with a view to amendments. The process is still in its early stages. The main issues seem to relate to a greater role in the appointments of the executive director and management board, and a provision that would prevent food business operators from preventing or discouraging anyone from co-operating with the competent authorities
  502
  when there was a risk to food—a whistleblowing provision. On the latter, we are sympathetic to the principle but are considering the scope and effect. This issue is essentially covered in domestic legislation for employees under the Public Information Disclosure Act 1998.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say something about the massive power that we are giving the authority to charge fees? What kind of fees will they be, who will determine the size of the fees under article 45, who will determine to whom the fees apply, and to whom can the Government complain if they think that the fees are unfair? Would it not be helpful for us to be given some advice on this new power to levy fees throughout Europe?
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I understand that member states already have power to charge fees for the analysis of documents and the submission of dossiers. This is not a new power as such, and we shall therefore need a system ensuring that equity and transparency are involved in the charges and the arrangements generally. Such a system will be developed during the process of establishing the authority.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. As the Minister knows, the Scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament recommended that this was an issue of such importance that a debate on the Floor of the House should be devoted to it. I am pleased that that recommendation has been agreed to, and that we are having this debate today.
  In recent years there have been serious problems in the food chain due to BSE, foot and mouth disease, E. coli and dioxin poisoning; there is also a public debate raging about genetically modified foods. The need for a focused and concerted approach to food safety is clear to anyone. It is also abundantly clear that, just as environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, so it is with food safety issues. It is important to have cross-country, cross-border co-operation to ensure the integrity of the food chain and the maintenance of the highest levels of consumer confidence in the food that is consumed.
  I fully accept that there is an important role for Britain to play by co-operating in restoring and maintaining high levels of consumer confidence in food safety, but we must not forget that there is a balance to be struck in achieving this. We must resist the temptation that is often prevalent among Governments of all political parties to impose too many layers of bureaucracy in seeking to deal with a problem. That can lead to institutions being given, in effect, a blank cheque, allowing them to be meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering, officious and harsh in the way in which they go about their duties.
  The motion on the proposed European food authority is a straightforward one, and I welcome the fact that the Minister's speech fleshed out some of the details of the authority, including how it will operate in practice and the principles behind its establishment. However, a number of issues in the proposals need further clarification in the light of the Government's responses to the House of Lords' report on the subject and the Department of Health's explanatory memorandums signed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and the Minister.

  503
  Some areas of concern need to be examined further. If the Minister is unable to respond to some of my questions due to lack of time tonight, I should appreciate it if she would write to me to deal with the points that I have raised. It is important to clear these matters up. I have read the mass of papers made available to us by the Vote Office, and some of the detail has been changed through amendments in the European Parliament and through the Commission, so we need to know exactly what is being proposed at the moment.
  The key objectives of the European food authority will be to provide independent scientific advice on food safety and nutrition issues, to identify emerging risks, to operate an extended rapid alert system and to inform the public on all matters within its remit. The key to the success of an effective food authority will be the quality of the scientific advice that it receives. The White Paper published by the Commission states that the organisation is
  "to be the scientific point of reference for the whole Union."
  Rightly, to find the best scientific evidence available, it will be able to seek evidence beyond the European Union if that is appropriate and necessary. Given our experiences, I suspect that on occasion it will be appropriate and necessary for it to go further afield for the best scientific advice—to places such as Australia, the United States, Japan and other nations.
  However, I have a question for the Minister. At the time of the BSE crisis in the mid-1990s, there was considerable conflicting information and seemingly differing scientific evidence. Does the Minister believe that the situation would have been exactly the same if the European food authority had been in place at that time? Because of the unknown nature of BSE when it started to unfold in all its horrors, would we have been in exactly the same position, because there was not enough scientific advice anywhere for us to be able to come up with a straightforward understanding of what exactly was going on in the early stages of that crisis?
  Similarly, as the organisation will be the scientific point of reference for the European Union, it logically follows that it will produce advice that will almost certainly need to be acted upon. There needs to be greater clarification of whether the organisation will primarily be a proactive or a reactive body. It is a potential conflict that will have to be resolved at the outset if one wishes to avoid tensions and pressures that will undermine its efficiency and effectiveness.
  The organisation's remit has been described as strikingly broad, including food safety, nutrition, plant health, animal health and animal welfare. The Minister referred to that strikingly broad remit, but with any body that has a broad remit, there is a danger that it will lose sight of its main objective. In this case, its main objective is to provide and to help advance food safety.
  The National Farmers Union has written to hon. Members in anticipation of the debate. To be fair, the NFU broadly supports the establishment of the EFA, but it has expressed a concern that I think is genuine: the EFA must be focused, have a specific remit and not be diverted by issues that are only vaguely linked to food safety. It has given an example to back that concern: environmental or consumer issues that are not strictly speaking related to food safety. Does the Minister have any view on how
  504
  the problem can be avoided where an overzealous EFA, for whatever reason, is sidetracked on to issues that are only loosely connected to food issues, is waylaid and goes beyond its true remit of food safety? The danger cannot be dismissed lightly. I hope that the Minister has considered the matter and has an answer on how to try to stop that problem emerging.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Knowing his strength and determination, I am delighted to see my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, but surely we cannot ask the Minister to make sure that that does not happen. She will have no power to do that, bearing in mind that all the people on the authority must be independent and totally outside the control and direction of any national Government. Surely he should not ask the Minister to do something that she cannot do.
  Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. particularly for his kind and typically generous comments. I also fully understand his genuine concern about the Minister's lack of powers. Perhaps I did not make my plea as clear as it should have been but, given that all the necessary proposals to establish the EFA have not yet been concluded, and given that the Minister, through the Government, still has an opportunity to persuade her ministerial colleagues in the European Parliament and the European Commission to fine-tune any parts of the proposals as necessary, if she agrees with the point that I have just outlined I hope she will use her influence to that effect.
  Another area of concern is the harmonisation between member states. The NFU has raised the problem of the variation in quality and safety that third countries can exploit when sending produce into a member state. The produce is often prepared and wrapped as if it were the produce of that member state. Is the Minister in a position to give any clarification or reassurance that the EFA will implement the European rules and directives to ensure a common standard that will harmonise food safety across the EU and put an end to such imbalances. The problem has persisted for far too long and it needs addressing. Another related issue that will be crucial to the success of this authority is surveillance and enforcement.
  I understand that surveillance will be conducted through a dual process—by member states and in addition by the EFA. There have been examples of poor quality or utter failures in surveillance by certain member states. The most glaring recent example involved Germany's failure in regard to the import of beef with spinal cords. How will the EFA stop or improve those unacceptable situations?
  Perhaps surprisingly, enforcement is not part of the remit of the EFA, but rests with the European Commission. I wonder whether that is the most satisfactory or competent arrangement. The other place has recommended that Food and Veterinary Office functions should be brought together with those of the EFA. I wonder whether, on reflection, the Government now think that that might improve enforcement once the authority is up and running.
  As the Minister will know, the Lords Select Committee has also recommended that the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of

  505
  member states' monitoring and enforcement systems. That suggestion has many merits and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will look at it again with a view to seeking to influence the EU, the EC and the European Parliament to move on this issue. I have found in many walks of life that one way to concentrate the mind when effective action is needed is for a body to look into what is going on, reach a decision on what the standards should be and, in effect, name and shame organisations or individuals that are failing.
  Unfortunately, there have been far too many examples in recent years of some member states interpreting the rules of the club to their own advantage, rather than correctly. The glaring example is that of the French cocking a snook at the rules over British beef and, so far, getting away with it. It is not satisfactory for the Commission to be the enforcing officer. We need a far more vigorous system in place to ensure that all member states enforce the rules equally so that no one is disadvantaged.
  I wonder whether the proposal to split risk management and risk assessment between the EFA and the Commission, unlike in our system, in which both responsibilities reside with the Food Standards Agency, is sensible. When the Government introduced the Food Standards Agency, they clearly believed that the most effective system was to have both functions within the remit of one agency. I assume that they spotted the fundamental difference in the European proposals. I do not know whether they made representations and were unsuccessful, or whether they took their eye off the ball. If it was the former, I am sorry that their influence did not carry the day, because I believe that they were right in what they did here.
  Does the Minister feel that splitting the functions could lead to conflict between the authority and the Commission? Not having them under the same umbrella could lead to tensions that could mean that the system does not work as effectively or efficiently as intended.
  I want to ask about an issue of great importance to hundreds of thousands of individuals and organisations that is raised in the Minister's explanatory memorandum of 11 October. When her predecessor, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, published her memorandum before the general election, it said—I make no criticism, as it was a reasonable statement at that time—that it was too soon to come up with any realistic figures or suggestions on the extent of the impact of the proposals on British agriculture, commerce and industry.
  Since then, the Minister has published another memorandum, in which, because events have moved on, she has been in a better position to give an idea of compliance costs. Annexe A of the Department of Health's partial regulatory impact assessment gives an estimate of the number of businesses that the Government anticipate will be affected by the proposals. The figures are quite significant: it is estimated that 63,000 farmers, 405 farm animal feed producers and approximately 612,000 food business establishments will be affected. However, even as recently as 11 October, the Department of Health was still unable to produce a guesstimate for the compliance costs. The legislation will have a significant impact on the whole agriculture sector and the food industry, and it would be helpful if the Government would
  506
  publish their guesstimates—or their estimates, if they are more confident of those—of the compliance costs as soon as they are able to do so.
  The explanatory memorandum also deals with whistleblowing. The European Parliament's environment committee is trying to come up with some sensible and workable proposals on this issue and it would seem that the Government are sympathetic to the principle that food business operators should not prevent or discourage anyone from co-operating with competent authorities if there is a possible risk to food. I assume that the Government are working with the European Parliament on workable proposals to protect whistleblowers who have information that should be passed to authorities to prevent threats to the food chain and food safety.
  As the Minister knows, the House has a considerable interest in the development and improvement of food labelling. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject last year and, in a few weeks' time, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will introduce his private Member's Bill on food labelling. In the debate on 3 March 2000 on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—the then Minister—was not minded to support the legislation because it fell for determination within the European remit, rather than that of our national Government and this House. I am not convinced that that is accurate, but if the EFA is to have a responsibility in all areas of food safety, food labelling is an important issue. Consumers have the right to know certain things about the food that they purchase or consume. Any extension of food labelling should consider the issue of the nutritional value of food. Can the Minister tell us whether in this Parliament we can extend the food labelling proposals? If not, will the new authority be able to do something to afford greater protection and more information to consumers, which they should have as a right?
  I have raised a number of issues on which the House needs more information concerning this far-reaching change in the existing regime for ourselves and our European partners in terms of the way in which we seek to protect and defend the integrity of the food chain. The debate is time limited and I fully understand that the Minister—who is helpful—will not have time to answer all the points that I raised. If she would write to me on those matters with which she cannot deal in the debate, I would be very grateful.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I do not intend to detain the House, but I wish to speak on this important issue. For those of us interested in the evolution of food policy, this is another step along the road. I will not counter what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said on food labelling or on the Bill on that subject, which I shall be supporting a week on Friday and which I want to become law.
  I wish to make three points: first, the role of the Food Standards Agency in relation to the European food authority; secondly, what the proposal may do in terms of food imports; and, thirdly, food labelling. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made a valid point when he asked whether the agency would be proactive or

  507
  reactive. One of the best aspects of the agency—an organisation in its infancy—is that it has sought to investigate, research and communicate with the general public.
  I had the fortune to accompany my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) a couple of weeks ago when the agency held an open meeting. It was good to see that the agency was trying to engage with the general public on issues that matter to them. Food issues do matter. Anyone who wants a good discussion—not disregarding the subject of international terrorism—should mention food and people will put in their threepenny-worth.
  It is not usually my inclination to be pro-European, but I can see the value in setting up such a European authority. However, I would not want the nature of the Food Standards Agency to be lost by being merged into something flaccid and regulatory, rather than innovatory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give a clear indication that we will encourage the agency to pursue its exciting role in education, health and communication.
  I would like to know how the European food authority will engage with issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, which clearly have a pan-European importance. It is not just Britain that is struggling with scrapie and BSE in sheep; the TSE issue is something that Europe as a whole must face. There is the possibility of conflict between scientists of different nations—something we have grown used to. Scientists will give their honest and best advice on whatever issue they are asked to comment. For example, the findings of French scientists on British beef were different from the findings of scientists in the rest of Europe. They may have been looking at slightly different questions, but I want to know how the problem will pan out. We have to be aware that it could cause difficulties for the EFA. Any comments from my hon. Friend the Minister will be closely scrutinised.
  I have been pursuing in Europe the question of embedded items in food. Such items have been banned in the United States, but in this country we still allow them in chocolate eggs and other foods. I was lucky enough to hold an Adjournment debate on the matter some time ago. How will the EFA deal with that issue?
  I come now to the other two matters that I wish to raise. It is clear that food imports are one of the issues of the moment, and the number of written questions on the subject show that we are examining import controls in this country. Imports from third countries have been mentioned, so how will the UK tighten up on imports, given that we will be taking more of a pan-European approach? The National Farmers Union inquiry into import controls raises questions about the co-ordination and effectiveness of what is going on. I hope that the EFA will have a role in getting rid of some of the substandard products that arrive in this country and end up on our shelves.
  Finally, it has been established that consumers want food labelling. The forthcoming Bill on food labelling has yet to be published so I cannot comment on it, but although its predecessor had some merit it also had some problems. Not least of those was the fact that the
  508
  European Court was likely to rule against it on the advice of Ministers. We need some clarification on whether matters have moved on since then, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford hoped.
  It would be good to know that we are able to deal with the principle and the practicalities of food labelling. People need to know that they are buying what is listed on the label. If they want more detail, they should be able to get it from a database. That is now possible, and it is just a matter of getting the delivery right. This country wants to tighten up in this area, and it will be interesting to see what the EFA may have to say on the matter.
  I largely welcome the draft regulation, although I agree with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that we need further clarification of some matters. We should do all we can to make our food safer and better, and information about it more accessible. The draft regulation seems to be moving in that direction, and so can only be a good thing—even though some hon. Members want a national entity working in the areas to which I have alluded.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I agree with earlier speakers that this debate is important and timely. The development of food policy and consumers' interest in the food that they eat, its safety and how it is produced. will command attention both in the House and outside it. Perhaps more people outside the House will be interested in the subject than hon. Members, judging by attendance for this debate.
  Food safety issues are increasingly important, and the international aspect of the food production and processing chain is growing. We have to ensure that there is genuinely free movement of goods in the single internal market, but we must also recognise that there are clear problems and risks associated with food imports. However difficult it may be, we must try to establish some basic principles with regard to what food safety, nationally and internationally, really means.
  First, the regulation needs to cover the whole of the food chain, across all the food sectors and between all the member states. If it is to work properly, it will have to be drawn up very carefully. Secondly, we must establish where responsibility truly rests within the chain and which authorities are competent to monitor and enforce matters. Having read through all the papers, I do not think that that has been made abundantly clear. Thirdly, we need to set up real traceability of feed and food. The process must be transparent and the risk analysis must have credibility based on clear science. Again, there seems to be a problem regarding where the scientific advice is established and deciding how it is to be used between the European food authority and the Food Standards Agency.
  We greatly supported the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, which has made an important contribution to the process. However, it is still in its infancy and has as yet to command the unquestioning public confidence that it will need if its pronouncements are to have authority. Regrettably, some of the recent comments about BSE in sheep have not added to the FS A's credibility.
  We need to extend this area into a European dimension to protect public health and restore consumer confidence now that food processing and trade has become more international. As right hon. and hon. Members have said,

  509
  labelling will be crucial to the exercise. It was pointed out last year that our ability to introduce labelling will be subject to European involvement. Will the EFA's remit cover proactive involvement in labelling?
  As the Minister mentioned, the EFA's establishment also provides the opportunity to divide the responsibilities of risk assessment from risk management. However, it is not clear to me nor, I believe, to some other speakers whether that distinction is vital to the ability to control food safety or whether it will be divisive and a means by which national food standards agencies can conflict with the European food authority. They need to he complementary, not contradictory.
  There is a need to take measures to safeguard food imports from third countries, and it was brought home to me when I visited Felixstowe a few months ago. People there were obliged to accept descriptions and paperwork from European imports of food that had been imported from third countries. There is no doubt that we are all exposed to the weakest European Union border and its control and enforcement of what can ultimately arrive on our shores and on to our plates.
  For the EFA to be successful, it must display true independence and be free of any commercial or political pressures. That will be one of its most important and, perhaps, difficult tasks. There could always be a suspicion that political influences and expediencies as well as commercial pressures—perhaps even via bodies such as the World Trade Organisation—may have an undue influence on its pronouncements. It must be open and transparent in its dealings with the public. For it to have respect and credibility, its science and evidence must he rooted in cross-border national scientific bodies.
  It is essential that the European Commission and the European food authority evidence is always made available to the European Parliament. It is no good if pronouncements are taken to the Commission and decisions are made on evidence that is not freely and transparently available. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when we make our views known to the European Union, we will say that that transparency should be an important part of the way in which a European food authority will operate.
  I agree that it is rather dangerous to extend the remit too far by including food risks, nutritional issues, animal health and welfare, environmental protection and suchlike, and so lose the focus. None the less, it has become clear that we want many of those issues to be included in the round of World Trade Organisation talks. It would be interesting to know whether the EFA will participate on behalf of the European Union, or whether its advice will be part of any EU involvement in the talks. If so, the EFA must have some involvement in and knowledge of animal welfare and environmental issues.
  There has been comment about the costs of the exercise. We do not know precisely how much the EFA will cost, let alone what it will cost individual farms, food processors, businesses and shops. It would behove the European Union to give clear guidance on what the costs are likely to be. The public will not be too impressed if we merely accept something with a huge potential cost that could fall on our farmers, our agriculture industries, our retailers and our food processors.
  For far too long, the general public have not been fully engaged in understanding or even accepting much of Europe, but if the consumer is to be king and is to be
  510
  properly involved, and if there is to be proper consultation and public discussion, rather than pronouncements being received from on high, here is a real opportunity for the public to be involved in an area of policy in which they are directly interested. It behoves all hon. Members to ensure that there is proper public debate and that our constituents are involved in food policy, especially the way in which it affects our relationship with Europe.
  A few concerns remain. Some of them have been aired already, but I would like to repeat them. How will the proposed EFA and the national food safety bodies—in our case, the Food Standards Agency—relate to each other? How will we ensure that they do not duplicate each other's work? If disputes arise, as they are almost bound to, how will mediation work? Who will come out on top in the end? That must be clear. Will the national body be sovereign in its own state, or will the EFA have the last word?
  How will the division of responsibility for risk assessment and management work in practice, especially if there are differing scientific views? How will we be protected from the danger that regulatory decisions may be influenced and taken on overtly political grounds rather than on grounds of real agreed science? How will we ensure that in all member states the EFA has the credibility to be able to make clear decisions without undue influence being exercised? Finally, as I have said, we need to know precisely how the authority will be funded.
  Those are legitimate concerns, but there is an overriding need to move on. The last time this subject was debated, my hon. Friends voted against the motion, but matters have now moved on and become more urgent. Unless we address the concerns that remain, many of which have been raised this evening, we will not get it right. At the time, we believed that it would have been appropriate for the EFA to grow out of the national food standards bodies in each member state, so that they would have a stake in how it was being formed and how it would operate and be regulated. We are now proposing to put it on top, before some member states have even established their own food standards agencies. We should realise that there could be difficulties that will need to be overcome. Despite that, we give the measure broad support in the hope that the EFA will be successful and that public food policy, and food safety in particular, will be enhanced by it.
  6.50 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I have a few questions and I hope that I shall get some answers.
  I was glad to hear the thoughtful and challenging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). He talked about the transfer of power to this European organisation. Bearing it in mind that this is an important issue that will cost much public money and involve a substantial transfer of power, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether it will make the slightest difference whether we vote for or against the motion. I hesitate to mention voting because my party has recently made it clear that we do not want to vote on anything, but I should like to establish the point.
  My first point is that there is much undue optimism and hopefulness about the establishment of this massive new body. Instead of discussing how to set up this huge new

  511
  organisation, which will overshadow organisations that are already working well, would it not be infinitely better for Britain, and for Europe, to set up an organisation to consider the basic problem of over-production of food?
  I ask that question because the Minister may have noticed that on Friday I received a written answer that described the success of the European Union in destroying food. I found to my astonishment that last year 269,000 tonnes of apples were destroyed at public expense, as were 255,000 tonnes of peaches, 229,000 tonnes of oranges and much more besides. Well over 1 million tonnes of food were destroyed at public expense when we have already paid farmers a great deal of public money to produce it. Is there not a danger of over-optimism? What will this new organisation be able to do that is not already being done by our national organisations?
  Secondly, how much power will be transferred? The report of the European Scrutiny Committee notes:
  "whilst the present system had … functioned well, there needed to be a comprehensive and integrated approach to food safety"—
  and that, although responsibility was not exclusive to the Community—
  "all aspects needed to be addressed at Community level".
  It strikes me that there will be a substantial transfer of power to the EU and that, once it goes, our Parliament, our Government and the European Parliament will have no control over what happens: total independence will be given to the organisation.
  The organisation's remit will cover matters such as animal health. What powers will it have on that? For example, if it thought that the conditions in which calves were kept in, for example, like Holland were deplorable, shocking and disgraceful, what could it do about it? People who are concerned about animal welfare will be especially interested to learn from the Minister about the powers that the organisation will have to deal with nasty or cruel conditions.
  Thirdly, I want to ask about the power to charge fees, which is another substantial power being given to the organisation. In three years, it will be able to charge fees for any of its services. If British food producers, farmers or shopkeepers thought that the costs and fees were unfair or unreasonable, what exactly could they do about it? My understanding is that once the organisation has decided on its fees, there is nothing that we can do about them.
  Fourthly, will the Government have any power or control over the organisation? The proposed article 37 includes the words:
  "The members of the Management Board, the members of the Advisory Forum and the Executive Director shall undertake to act independently in the public interest".
  That means that they should not be subject to any political controls. Is it a fact that that organisation, once established, is fully independent and cannot be controlled in any way?
  Fifthly, where will the organisation be located? It is most unusual to have before us a motion that does not allow us to decide anything that sets up an expensive new organisation in an unknown location. Of all the European organisations, such as banks, that have been established, hardly any have come to the United Kingdom. Has it been decided where this organisation will be located, and if not, who will decide?
  512
  Sixthly, I want to ask about the costs. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) said that there was no indication of costs, but there are a good many references to them in the papers that we have been given. Paragraph 27 of the explanatory memorandum, headed "Financial implications", says that the start-up costs were to be £5.4 million, the annual costs initially £14.9 million and the running costs thereafter £26.6 million. Is that a realistic projection? Will we in fact spend £26.6 million after spending the £5.4 million, and will the costs be kept under control? My feeling is that, like all the Euro-ventures, it will probably end up costing a great deal more.
  Seventhly, I want to ask the Minister about media. because the legislation and papers refer to the organisation's setting up a substantial media organisation. If the British Parliament, the British Government, the European Parliament or any other democratic body thought that the organisation was using its media consultants and staff—which are provided for in the legislation referred to in paragraphs 23 and 23.1 of the Government response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, headed "Risk communication and relations with the media"—to put out information that they regarded as unsatisfactory, untruthful or misleading, what power would our Government have over the organisation? My understanding is that they would have none.
  Eighthly, what controls will the organisation have over imports? All the written answers on imports make it abundantly clear that as a result of our chronic problem of over-production of everything in Europe, which is getting a great deal worse, there is massive pressure to try to restrict and control imports. I do not feel a special obligation in that respect because I consider that we have a responsibility to other countries that produce excellent food to high standards that the consumers of Britain like to consume.
  I always buy New Zealand butter because I know that it is produced in a country where standards are high, and the knowledge that it is produced without subsidies adds to my enjoyment when I eat it. I would be very upset if I felt that our European so-called friends were going to have the power to restrict or control imports from such countries. I simply ask the Minister, if, for example, the new organisation said, "Because of a specific plant or flower, we take the view that New Zealand butter is unacceptable" because we have too much butter of our own, what could New Zealand, the British Government or consumers who wanted to consume it do?
  I am afraid that I have been a bore about this over the years, but in Europe we have set up a number of organisations over which we and our democratic bodies have no control, but in respect of which we have expressed undue hope and optimism. I found that that was the case when I had the pleasure of being a member of the Treasury Committee—although I misbehaved—for a brief period and visited Germany and France.
  I met the business communities there to discuss the single currency. They all thought that everything was going to be wonderful. The Germans were delightful people. They said, "We've got a rubbish Government and, unfortunately, rubbish Opposition but once we get the single currency everything will be sorted out."

  513
  The French were even nicer, although they seemed to drink a little more. They said that they had a mad Government who were, unfortunately, introducing a 35-hour week, but that all that would stop once they had the single currency. In the continent of Europe, they seem to think that anything new and any new power, such as the food authority, will bring benefits that they simply do not bring.
  Another strange aspect of the matter is that on page 18, the document uses the words
  "to be open to … public scrutiny".
  That influenced me a great deal. Will the Minister say how the body will be open to public scrutiny? If my constituents, the Confederation of British Industry or some organisation in my constituency wanted to find out more about it, how would they do so? She will be well aware that organisations set up under the European Union are not open to public scrutiny.
  For example, on financial controls, the Minister will be aware of the horrific news the other day that for six years the Court of Auditors has not approved the EU accounts. The way in which the money is being spent should be a matter of concern.
  I do not wish to speak for too long as other hon. Members want to contribute, although the motion does not matter and it will not make the slightest difference what we say about this or any other matter relating to the European Union. What benefit will result from this measure? Are we not simply transferring powers that were effectively controlled and managed and that could be altered and adjusted as we thought appropriate?
  I was interested to hear all the talk about labelling. Hon. Members must know that although we propose private Members' Bills, the system is a load of codswallop. We do not have the power or control. Although we can let people put "Made in England" on goods, we cannot demand, under European laws, that it be stated that something is made in Germany, France or Portugal.
  There is a danger that we think that we have powers that we do not have. Tonight we are simply transferring more power for something that will be of no good purpose. We are setting up an organisation that we cannot control. It will be wholly independent and outside democratic control and it will cost us a great deal of money. We are transmitting far more powers than we contemplate. The measure is a great mistake. I think that we could press the matter to a vote, but bearing in mind the views of the Conservative party—we do not want to vote on anything—I will not do so. We certainly should make it clear that we regret the measure and are concerned about it.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I could probably disagree with one or two statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I understand that we are discussing a take-note motion, but it gives us an opportunity to debate an extremely serious issue.
  I also disagree with my hon. Friend about New Zealand farming. It is true that subsidies were stopped for farming there, but other subsidies still exist and there are also questions of marketing and processing to consider. When the agriculture recession hit New Zealand, the majority of
  514
  farmers were on some form of benefit payment. To say that when he spreads his butter on his wholemeal bread for breakfast, he is eating unsubsidised butter may not be true. It is good butter, however. Furthermore, in New Zealand grass grows for 11 months of the year, which gives their farmers a slight advantage over hill farmers in the north of England. That is why vulnerable farms here need some form of assistance.
  As always with such European issues, we are ill at ease because we do not know where we shall be at the end of the process. We do not even really know the route that has been proposed. Those of us who have lived through such things in the past know only too well that what starts as an apparently beneficial and useful idea ends up being costly and complicated for those who become involved. For example, the EU directive on abattoirs was printed on two sides of A4 paper, but by the time that it had been fully implemented, the United Kingdom's slaughtering industry had been virtually wiped out because of it. I always embark on such things with a certain trepidation.
  Having said that, I do not disagree with the proposals on the European food authority. However, I should be grateful to the Minister if she would tell us her views on the House of Lords recommendations. Unlike my hon. Friend, I think that the value of the EFA would be its independence. The House of Lords recommended:
  "the EFA should have explicit powers to offer opinions on the effectiveness of Member States' monitoring and surveillance systems, and in turn on the adequacy and consistency of food safety enforcement activity across the European Union."
  The EFA would represent an important development if it were to have that power because, as has been said, it is feared that substandard food gets into the EU through its weakest border. We know that some EU countries pay little attention to what food comes into their countries because they know that it is simply in transit from their port of entry to other parts of Europe. If the EFA could flag up that issue, it would do the EU and its nations a service.
  I appreciate that the Minister will want some time to answer the questions that have been asked, so I shall briefly explore the detail of two other matters that were mentioned by the National Farmers Union in its briefing and by hon. Members, the first of which is how much the EFA can stray into dangerous areas. The NFU suggests that as
  "pesticides or additives … may involve risks to the environment or to the safety of workers, some environmental and worker protection aspects should also be assessed by the Authority in accordance with the relevant legislation."
  We need to clarify exactly what powers the EFA will have to deal with such issues.
  The same applies to genetically modified organisms, because the NFU suggests that the EFA will have a view on GMOs, and the EFA's expert views may well contrast with those of individual nation states. Certain people in the United Kingdom are highly nervous about genetic modification, whereas I am pleased to say that people in other parts of Europe take a more robust view and think that genetic modification is a good thing. I agree with that view; I am one of the few people who think that it is a thoroughly good science that should be encouraged.
  Secondly, I want to say something about plant and animal health and welfare. That does not form part of the EFA proposals, but it is dealt with in the general food law

  515
  section of the EU document. Again, interesting anomalies could arise between different countries. The Minister may or may not be aware that, for example, the use of stalls and tethers in pig rearing was abolished unilaterally in the United Kingdom. That obviously caused considerable additional costs for our pork producers, but stalls and tethers were not outlawed in Denmark. If the objective was to rule that the use of stalls and tethers was satisfactory because they were not prohibited in other European countries, what recourse would United Kingdom farmers, who could no longer use them, have to compensation for being put at a disadvantage?
  When organisations such as the EFA start to deal with health and food safety issues, there is scope for costs to increase greatly and for the market to be distorted in consequence.
  Mr. Drew: It is a question of persuading the Danes to bring their animal welfare standards up to those of this country. That is the way to approach the matter.
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Danes may argue that there is no welfare problem with the practice. If that were endorsed Europe wide, our pig farmers would have the right to challenge it.
  I would be interested to hear more detail about the issues that I have mentioned if the Minister can provide it in the time available. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that much more has been raised than she can deal with in her reply. We have had an interesting debate. I hope that we have shone a little light—clearly not enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East—on what could be a complex and important issue.
  7.10 pm
  Ms Blears: With the leave of the House, I shall reply.
  There have been several extremely well informed and expert contributions to the debate. I for one have certainly learned some interesting new information. I shall do my best to respond to the questions that have been raised, but if I am unable to cover one or two of them, I shall certainly reply to hon. Members in writing.
  The hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Bums) and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wondered whether the European food authority would be a new layer of European bureaucracy. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford was concerned that it would become unduly meddlesome, unnecessarily interfering and an extra burden on us. I reassure him that there is absolutely no intention that the EFA will become a bureaucratic body. In fact, it will rationalise much of the scientific information available in Europe. I understand that, at the moment, there are eight separate scientific committees advising the European Union on a range of issues. The proposal is for six different scientific committees and one overarching committee, so that there is unity and coherence in the system. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Burns: To reassure the Minister, I was saying that a balance must be struck. All too often, organisations set
  516
  up by Governments become bureaucratic, but I was not saying that the EFA necessarily would. We must ensure that it does not.
  Ms Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification and for what I take to be support for the organisation. The issue is important. In this case, the proposal is about bringing together mechanisms to try to ensure that we do not duplicate our activity but draw added value from pooling our scientific knowledge.
  Other hon. Members raised the issue of the coherence of the system and member states' input into the EFA. I reassure them that the advisory forum will comprise representatives of all member states—from the Food Standards Agency in our case and from similar institutions in other member states. Therefore, there will be an opportunity to pool expertise and knowledge while at the same time maintaining a connection with local institutions. The EFA will not, as it has been alleged, sit on top of member states' institutions. It will be a partner in a network. It is a key issue for us that the EFA is not about overlapping of layers but about added value.
  The quality of scientific advice has been mentioned. That is also a key issue. If the organisation is to have credibility not just in the European Community but internationally, it must draw together the very best scientists. We intend to draw on opinions from outside the EU as well as from within it to amass the best science possible. The key to the credibility of the institution is putting all that information in the public domain so that people can make informed choices. Therefore, the EFA will make a tremendous contribution.
  Hon. Members asked whether the authority will be proactive or reactive. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made some important points about the proactive nature of our Food Standards Agency, which holds hearings, involves the public and is developing a new approach. I am pleased to say that the European authority will play a proactive role. It will be able to take up matters that are in its remit; it will not simply react to events, but explore what goes on in the wider community.
  I said in my opening remarks that we want to ensure that the EFA's remit is tight, with a core focus on food and food safety. Other issues, such as animal welfare and plant health, impinge on food safety, but we have managed to amend the mission statement for the authority so that its role is limited to providing scientific opinion on the other issues when they have no bearing on food or feed. That will occupy no more than 5 per cent. of the authority's overall work. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that the EFA's remit is focused on food safety, not other matters.
  Hon. Members asked about tightening country of origin labelling. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East is clearly knowledgeable about that and holds strong opinions. We are pressing for changes to the rules to provide clear, unambiguous country of origin labelling. We appreciate that consumers want improvements in labelling, and it is a priority for us. The Food Standards Agency is about to review current guidance to ascertain whether we can toughen it. It is clearly important to the public.
  I was asked whether, had the EFA existed, it could have identified the problems of BSE. It is difficult to speculate about that time, when little knowledge was available. I was also asked whether the EFA could have prevented

  517
  the French from banning British beef. I should like to believe that the advisory forum, which will comprise member states, could have met to share knowledge and expertise and work for consensus. The action by the French was illegal and is a matter for the European Court. However, I like to believe that when we can share knowledge and expertise maturely, we can prevent such difficulties from arising.
  Mr. Breed: On that basis, there will be no change. If the EFA pronounces on a matter, the member state can simply ignore it and carry on regardless.
  Ms Blears: Yes, but I hope that, in a system whereby everybody is engaged and has a stake in the process, people will share information and expertise and reach a consensus. If not, the EFA could not prevent people from taking unilateral action.
  Cost and compliance were mentioned. There are high level proposals for traceability; people will have to record where they buy a product and to whom they sell it. The majority of businesses make some record, for example, of an invoice or a VAT return. Consequently, there are no new specific requirements to fill in forms; there is no increased bureaucracy, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East will be delighted to know. It is simply a matter of recording in the way that businesses already operate. We have held extensive consultations with small and medium-sized enterprises and were assured that compliance costs for business can be met.
  Let us consider the EFA's involvement in nutrition. It will play a role in functional foods, babyfoods and so on, but its purpose is not to run campaigns on healthy eating. Those are matters for member states, which must decide what they wish to promote. Its purpose is not to harmonise so that all member states have homogenous food and diets. All of us who enjoy consuming different European food must strive to maintain its diversity.
  The debate has been interesting because genuine tensions have been expressed. Some hon. Members said that the EFA should be independent and robust if it is to have integrity and credibility, while the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East wants to control it and ensure that politicians determine its actions. In our negotiations, we have striven to push forward the boundaries of openness and transparency to try to ensure an element of public scrutiny. That does not accord with traditions in some other countries, and it is fair to say that the Food Safety Agency and our approach take a lead on involving the public and consumers. That is the right way forward. If this body, whose aim will be to bring together the sources of the very best science, is to have credibility and re-establish consumers' confidence in their food, it is crucial for it to be seen as being able to say things without fear or favour on the basis of the scientific evidence before it.
  518
  The cost will be 24.9 million euros initially, rising to 44 million after three years. No extra funding will be needed: I understand that provision has already been made. As for location, there are currently bids for Barcelona, Helsinki, Parma and Lille. The Government have not taken a view of the appropriate location; each will be considered on its merits.
  Media provision is important. Obviously the public will want to know that information is being disseminated widely, arid that they know what is emerging from the scientific committees.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—indeed, I think all hon. Members—mentioned the division between risk assessment and risk management, which will clearly be a fundamental issue for the authority. The authority's purpose is to provide advice in order to inform the development of policy, and there is a clear difference between those two roles. If a new authority had a complete remit, without leaving member states or the Commission any role, we would risk creating a monolithic approach without the necessary flexibility and sensitivity to the needs of individual states.
  The whole debate has concerned getting the balance right between independence and credibility—balancing control and advice, and achieving balance between the parts of the authority that will need to act and the basis on which such action should be informed. Such considerations are important, but I believe that the balance is right.
  Third-country imports have been mentioned. That, too, is an important issue: consumers want to know that they can rely on the information that is available. I believe that the Food and Veterinary Office makes regular enforcement visits and gives regular guidance on the matter.
  I entirely understand the commitment of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East to these issues. Let me encourage him to be a little more optimistic, and not to assume that this institution will not make a difference. It will make a difference: it will bring together the best scientific knowledge that we have.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Union document no. 14174/00, a draft Council regulation laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food; and supports the Government's objective of the introduction of effective arrangements to re-establish and maintain consumer confidence in the regulation of food safety at European Union level.

  Cervical Cancer
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  7.23 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject. Let me begin by summarising what I want to say before developing my arguments.
  The cervical cancer screening programme has performed an enormously valuable service in this country over the years. Tens of thousands of women's lives have been saved by it. However, it is now running up against technical limitations. Advances are being made in the science and the application of testing—especially human papilloma virus testing—that are not yet operating in the United Kingdom. I know that the Government are conducting pilot studies, but my purpose is to bring a sense of urgency to the process, and to ask whether it can be accelerated.
  I have a personal and a broader reason for doing this. Earlier in the summer I lost my wife, whom I loved very much, to cancer. As it happens it was breast cancer rather than cervical cancer, but obviously, having been through that experience, I want to ensure that all that can possibly be done will be done to stop women's lives being cut short prematurely. My wife received superb NHS treatment in the Royal Marsden hospital, as many women do. The fact is, however, that lives are being lost, and we must do anything that we can to stop that.
  There is a growing campaign to focus attention on the possibilities of human papilloma virus testing. It is now a Europe-wide campaign, and some Ministers, parliamentary colleagues and European colleagues are involved in it. It is sufficiently well developed that, earlier this year, I had 5,000 separate letters from women in my constituency alone, pressing for action on this matter. There is a growing consciousness of the issue, and a growing sense of frustration at the slow progress that is being made.
  I shall explain why the issue is important. Cervical cancer is a major cancer in women—the second most important for younger women. The incidence of the disease in the United Kingdom is above average in European terms. Morbidity from the disease has been falling, which clearly reflects the success of the screening programme, but it has, until recently, been rising among younger women, which reflects some growing difficulties.
  The key point about this disease, as opposed to many other cancers, is that it is exceptionally amenable to early treatment. I believe that 80 per cent. of women whose cervical cancer is detected early survive, which is a very high rate. That is why the issue of screening is so important.
  Smear testing in the United Kingdom has a long history—I think that it was first introduced in the 1940s. It has been well developed in this country, and I think that we are still the only European country with a full national screening programme. It is to the credit of the NHS and the Government that they introduced it and made it work. There have been considerable success stories along the way. As I mentioned, probably tens of thousands of women are alive who would not be if they had not been screened using smear tests.
  520
  However, it became apparent a few years ago that there have been limitations. This was all brought to a head in the 1998 report by the Public Accounts Committee, which revealed the many limitations of the screening programme that were beginning to pile up. These included human fallibility, lack of staffing, failures in the cytology process, numerous cases of litigation against the NHS—in particular, scandals associated with hospitals such as the Kent and Canterbury hospital—and so on.
  The Government have addressed these issues, and I do not want to dwell on them. This is part of the history of the smear test as it has developed, and the limitations are now reasonably well understood, in terms of the lack of training, the lack of staff numbers among cytologists, and the fact that a significant number of women are still being missed by the test, many of whom are on low incomes or in ethnic minority groups.
  I do not want to dwell on those issues, however. I want to focus on the particular problems associated with the testing itself. The problem is that the smear test is highly imperfect. Even the most optimistic assessments judge that 20 per cent. of the tests are wrong. There is some argument about whether it is 20 per cent., 30 per cent., or 40 per cent., but substantial numbers of women who are tested and found to be clear none the less develop the disease. That is due to the limitations of the technology.
  I believe that about 1,200 women a year die from cervical cancer, despite the screening process. About half those women have been fully tested—in other words, they participated fully in the screening process and there were no failures by the people carrying out the tests. What has happened has been due simply to a deficiency in the technology. That is the issue on which we need to focus.
  In recent years, there has been a growing understanding of what causes the disease. Uniquely among cancers, it is caused by a virus, known as the human papilloma virus or HPV. There is also a growing understanding that the virus can be detected. When I started researching this debate, I was surprised at the extent to which that was well known years ago. Professor Jack Cusick, one of the leading practitioners from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, was publishing on this subject in the British cancer journals in about 1994 and 1995. We are not dealing with entirely new science. We are dealing with science that is well known and well understood.
  There has been a lot of research and testing, particularly in the United States. I do not claim to be a medical scientist, but I have tried to understand as best I can some of the recent literature. In February, a major study was published in "Journal of the National Cancer Institute" in the United States—the ASCUS/LSIL triage study, a summary of a great deal of testing in pilot studies in the United States, which advanced not only the science, but the understanding of how testing can operate and be made to work.
  Knowledge is spreading widely in Europe. The European Journal for Infectious and Immunological Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology published a study earlier this year by a group of German scientists, which again advanced knowledge and understanding of the subject. What can now be said categorically is that the cause of the disease is understood: it comes from the virus. That virus can be detected with 100 per cent. certainty, as opposed to the 80 per cent. or less certainty that comes from the smear test.

  521
  I understand that merely achieving a scientific breakthrough is not a sufficient condition for adoption by the NHS. The NHS rightly has to go through a process of evaluation. The economics are always important. I have on occasions pressed for early introduction, for example, of drugs to deal with Alzheimer's, and the answer comes back from Ministers, "We understand that it will clearly help a lot of people, but it is very costly and we have to look at the costs and benefits."
  What is unique about the HPV screening controversy is that it is an example of a new advance that would save, as opposed to cost, large amounts of money. That is not merely my assertion. A lot of technical literature supports that view, with which I am sure the Minister's Department is familiar. Articles were published as early as 1997 by Professor Cusick and his collaborator Sasieni. The British Journal of Cancer published an article in the same year by a Dutch researcher, Van Ballgooijan. Jeremy Holmes of the Economists Advisory Group was also involved. They have all done the sums and come to some careful conclusions about the benefits that the NHS would derive from adopting the HPV testing system. It would be possible to increase the length of time that women need to spend before the screening from three to five years, and there would be fewer inadequate tests: the figure could be cut from 8 per cent. to 1 per cent. That means fewer women being recalled and less need for testing, quite apart from the anxiety that that causes the women concerned.
  There would be a considerable reduction in the NHS time and resources involved. Moreover—and perhaps most important—fewer women would attract the disease, and there would be less need for extensive and indeed painful therapies. The research suggests that the NHS would probably save £30 million a year by adopting HPV testing—a quarter of the whole cost of the screening programme. There are probably very few examples in modern medicine where the benefit-cost ratio of a new programme is so clear cut.
  That brings us to why testing is not happening. A controversy has run over the years as to why things have not moved more quickly under the Government of the day—primarily this Government, because people became aware of the problem after 1997. One of my colleagues in the House of Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, secured a debate on the issue in the early part of 1999 and raised many of the questions that I raise now, which makes me even more impatient to understand why there has been a hiatus.
  I understand that the Government have brought in a series of pilot tests in three regions and that they are due to be finished at the end of 2002. Presumably, there will then be a period of evaluation until early 2003, and a decision will be made roughly two years from now. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that would be the timing and what the roll-out time would be to make the programme universal, were it established that it was sound.
  First, I have to ask why this is necessary. As someone with scientific training, I understand the importance of pilot studies, but many pilot studies have been carried out in the United States involving not only an enormous amount of laboratory work, but extensive field testing. Beyond that, health practitioners in the United States have already been given guidance on how to administer the
  522
  test, so they are several years ahead of us. I appreciate that that applies not only to the UK, but to the whole of western Europe.
  I am perplexed about why we cannot adopt American best practice. I appreciate that we have a universal programme and that, in that sense, ours is a better system, but given that the technology and the economics have been proved, I cannot understand why we cannot move on more quickly.
  My second question relates to the British pilot testing system. I understand that it deals only with borderline cases. As the HPV test has potential for universal screening to be run alongside the smear test, why is it not being undertaken on all women in a particular region of the country? Why is it being carried out in this rather narrow, circumscribed way?
  My third question also relates to the British pilot. I understand that the Scottish Executive have recently curtailed funding for various pilot studies in Scotland. I appreciate that it is not the Minister's responsibility; indeed the Scottish Executive are the joint responsibility of our two parties, so this is not a party political point. However, for whatever reason, the Scottish Executive have chosen to curtail research. That merely adds to the feeling of many campaigners and specialists in this field that the United Kingdom is not as committed as it could be to bringing this new testing system on stream.
  In conclusion, I should like to quote an extract from what my colleague in the House of Lords said about this two and a half years ago. Almost exactly the same points were being made then, so it is not a novel problem. He said:
  "The FDA in the United States has already undertaken extensive trials. The test is in use for the US for borderline cases. There are trials in a number of other EU countries. Here in the UK the ICRF has a trial involving 12,000 women due to be completed next year."
  That was in 2000.
  "It is already in use in Marie Stopes clinics, yet the official trials seem to be destined to take for ever … Yet this is a diagnostic tool to supplement an existing test, not a major new treatment. Why cannot we rely on the ICRF trials when they are complete? That does not seem to be displaying the same sense of urgency as the Dutch Government, for instance, who are pressing for interim results."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 1999; Vol.597, c.1781–2.]
  I could repeat the same message today.
  At first sight, there seems to be little reason for holding back. There are good humane reasons in terms of the health of women as well as economic reasons for progressing fast. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to go through this rather protracted process? When is the earliest end point to the process of testing that she can envisage? Can she give us an assurance that if—as seems to be the case—knowledge and understanding are advancing rapidly, this process of testing can be short-circuited in order to save hundreds of unnecessary deaths?
  7.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for raising this important subject. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in offering him our condolences. He clearly has a personal commitment to this subject and an understanding of the issues.

  523
  He outlined the key point, which is to ensure that our programmes are effective and that we do what is necessary to safeguard women from cervical cancer to the best of our ability.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, we already have significance evidence that the NHS cervical screening programme is successful. Research has shown that it saves about 1,300 lives per year. It was directly responsible for a 43 per cent. drop in the incidence of cervical cancer between 1988 and 1997, and more than 8,250 lives were saved over the same period. In 2000–01, 83 per cent. of eligible women in England had had a test in the previous five years, 3.6 million women were screened and laboratories reported 4.1 million tests. I pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of cervical screening staff across the country.
  Organised screening, as the hon. Gentleman said, is available nationwide only in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. In 1988, the UK was the first country in the now European Union, and one of the first in the world, to launch a nationwide cervical cancer screening programme based on computerised call and recall. The UK programme is among the best in terms of numbers. The Dutch programme is similarly nationwide and organised, but no other country screens as many women per year as the UK, where coverage is highest.
  Cervical screening is the most reliable method of detecting changes to the cervix that, if left untreated, may go on to develop into cervical cancer. However, like all screening techniques, it is not perfect. There is a measure of interpretation, as the hon. Gentleman said, based on the expert judgment of the individual cytoscreeners involved in assessing abnormalities in screening samples. In a proportion of cases, the abnormalities will be so slight that different cytoscreeners could reach different decisions as to the correct result. In addition, the test itself is not 100 per cent. sensitive.
  Women invited for cervical screening need to understand the potential benefits and limitations, in order to be able to make an informed choice about whether they wish to proceed. Information provided to women must be honest, comprehensive and understandable. That is why the NHS cancer plan said that all women will receive a national information leaflet on cervical screening when they are invited to attend. The new leaflets will be launched at the end of this month, and are based on research, including discussions with a diverse range of women. The development of the national leaflets was overseen by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening and the national cancer director.
  The new screening leaflets are an important step under the new principle of openness in the NHS to which we are all committed. For the first time, women will be given all the facts about cervical screening and a real informed choice about whether they wish to be screened.
  The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the opportunities provided by developments in technology, and I want to follow him in that. New developments may help to address some of the problems surrounding cervical screening. That is why the Government are currently piloting both liquid-based cytology and human papilloma virus testing in the cervical screening programme.
  524
  The two pilots are related. Liquid-based cytology techniques offer a new way to prepare screening test samples for examination in the laboratory. By offering a new way of storing and preparing cervical samples, liquid-based cytology may improve the quality of the cervical screening test. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has suggested that introducing liquid-based cytology could increase the sensitivity of slides, reduce the number of unsatisfactory tests and improve the speed with which slides can be read. The LBC arm of the pilot is designed to collect information on the effect, costs and practical implications of introducing LBC technology into the cervical screening programme.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, human papilloma viruses are a group of 80 viruses known to be implicated in 99 per cent. of cervical cancers. In most women, the virus is cleared naturally by the immune system, but in some it persists and goes on to cause cervical abnormalities that, if left untreated, may develop into cervical cancer.
  The hon. Gentleman's questions about the speed and effectiveness of HPV screening partly come down to whether we are talking about that screening as a primary screening method or as a method of sorting, following a smear test that suggests a mild or borderline case. I wish to address both of those issues.
  As yet, there is no evidence to support the use of HPV testing as a primary screening tool. The health technology assessment review of research into HPV testing, published in September 1999, concluded that the evidence might support testing for HPV only in certain situations, such as the management of mild and borderline screening tests. The HPV arm of the pilot is therefore using HPV testing as triage—sorting—for women with mild or borderline test results to provide stronger evidence on which women should return for further screening and how soon.
  We are not ignoring the issue of primary screening. St Mary's hospital in Manchester is co-ordinating a study to investigate HPV as a primary screening method. The study began in January 2001 and will take six years, including the following up of the data, and will involve 28,000 samples. The Department of Health is funding equipment for the study, at a cost of £90,000.
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments about the Manchester trial, because I have also been in contact with the people there. Is she aware that a significant part of the trial includes the examination of the stigma associated with cervical cancer, of the resultant depression when women believe that they have contracted cervical cancer, and of the expensive prescribing of anti-depressants that results? Is she also aware that significant bodies of medical research suggest that HPV testing can be used as a predictive measure to identify those women at particular risk of developing cervical cancer and enable follow-up work to be done?
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady makes important points about the range of the research, the complexity and implications of screening programmes—for diagnosis and the effects on the women involved—and the procedures before and after diagnosis that we need to ensure are in place.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham raised the issue of the timing of the pilots. It is beneficial to pilot the HPV testing and the liquid-based cytology together, which is

  525
  one of the reasons for the timing; HPV testing can be carried out on the original LBC slide, whereas at present a woman would need to be called in for a separate HPV test.
  The pilot of HPV testing as triage and of liquid-based cytology began in April 2001 at three sites in Newcastle, Norfolk and Norwich and north Bristol after the selected sites had addressed the issues of training and installation of equipment. Results of the liquid-based cytology arm of the pilot should be available early next year. The HPV arm of the pilot will end in September 2002. Analysis of the data on HPV will begin in October 2002, and the report on the evaluation of the HPV arm of the pilot will be submitted in early 2003. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the NHS cancer plan set out the commitment that, if the pilots prove successful, the Government will fund implementation of the programme across the NHS.
  In addition to piloting the new technologies, strict quality assurance operates across the cervical screening programme, at a cost of £3.5 million a year. Quality assurance is an important part of the cervical screening programme. It acts as a safety lever by maintaining standards and continuing improvement in the performance of all aspects of cervical screening in order to ensure that women have access to a high-quality service wherever they live.
  The performance of laboratories is kept under close review. They are subject to rigorous external quality assurance procedures. The procedures aim to spot potential problems before they become serious and quickly to identify solutions. This, together with the ever-increasing expertise of screening staff, means that the observed benefit of cervical screening is set to continue to increase.
  The improvements in cervical screening would not be achievable without investment in cancer staff. Cervical screening staff are an important group and we will invest
  526
  to support their continuing development. Arrangements for new ways of working are under development. They will explore the potential for an advanced practitioner grade, which will lead to a more flexible work force. New pay arrangements to support this measure have now been agreed with staff representatives.
  In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for raising this important subject. The NHS cervical screening programme is successful, enabling us to identify and support women. It has enabled us to diagnose early and to save women's lives. However, we need to ensure that as we develop the technology, we introduce it into the screening system effectively and appropriately. We are committed to ensuring that we maintain a high quality of monitoring and staff development.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the issue is not only of personal importance to him, but of significant importance to the NHS, and one that we are committed to continue to develop.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eight o ' clock.

  Cervical Cancer

    CORRECTIONS
    Official Report, 23 October 2001: In col. 130, "Mr. Foster" should read "Mr. Don Foster (Bath)"
    In col. 136, delete "The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)" and insert "The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson)"

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Genetics and Insurance
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2000–01, HC 174, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5286.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Stringer.]
2.30 pm
Lynne Jones: Today's debate provides an opportunity to promote the forward thinking of a Select Committee that has not received the attention that it deserves—or that, at least, is my view, and I always think objectively. The report that we are discussing was published in April and was the Committee's fifth report of the previous Session. It considers the use that insurers make of the results of genetic tests in assessing risks and setting premiums. The report is short, but it picks up some of the important recommendations made following a year-long inquiry by the Conservative-dominated predecessor Committee. Those recommendations were, sadly, addressed inadequately by the then Government.
In many ways, that 1995 report was ahead of its time and must not be lost only because it is more than six years old. It is a very good read.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Lady, with her normal courtesy and charm, has just referred to me, as I was the Minister with responsibility for science and technology in the Conservative Government. We took the Select Committee seriously, although we did not agree absolutely with what it said.
Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right. Eventually, after much persuasion, he accepted one of our major recommendations but, sadly, not the recommendation related to today's debate.
The purpose of the 1995 report was to encourage action that would ensure that society receives the benefits deriving from genetic research while anticipating and controlling possible adverse effects. Issues raised in that report, including those on the subject of genetics and insurance, are only now being adequately recognised and addressed.
As the most long-in-the-tooth member of the Select Committee that produced the 1995 report, I have the honour of introducing the debate, because our Chairman, Michael Clark, the former hon. Member for Rayleigh, did not seek re-election in June. It is a tribute to his skill in chairing the Committee, which is not always well behaved, that we have produced so many effective and influential reports over the past four years.
I shall begin by saying a few words about the science of genetics before moving on to consider the Committee's conclusions and recommendations and the Government's most welcome response.
140WH
All genes in the human body are expected to be sequenced in the near future. Genetic tests have already been developed to identify individuals or groups of people who might develop particular disabilities or diseases or have a genetic predisposition for such conditions. Although at present they are few in number and relate to diseases associated with a defect in a single gene, gene sequencing is becoming so rapid that it is expected that genetic tests, with some predictive value for a wide variety of disorders, are likely to become available over the next decade. It is even conceivable that an individual's entire gene sequence will be able to be used as a diagnostic tool. Increasing knowledge of the human genome and genetic variations is being used to discover molecular processes involved in common diseases, such as diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer's and heart disease—and, of course, cancer, which was the subject of another excellent Committee report.
Among the expected benefits are better diagnosis and treatment, including drugs designed precisely to fit the molecules implicated in disease, and new gene therapies. Genetic science, including cloning techniques, holds the hope of new therapies for previously untreatable diseases. The economic benefits of DNA research to Governments and insurers are highly significant, as the management of untreatable or inadequately treated diseases soaks up enormous resources. Prevention, better treatments or even cures could stem major drains on budgets. Increasing knowledge of the genetic basis of disease may be the best chance of halting spiralling health and nursing care costs.
It can easily be envisaged that extensive genetic testing and screening, especially where results are misunderstood, could do great harm. People may be denied health or life insurance or be expected to pay unaffordable premiums. Employers may be reluctant to take on those identified as having a genetic "defect". I should add that abnormal genes may confer beneficial traits. There are fears of the creation of a genetic underclass that faces widespread discrimination. People's choice of a partner might be affected, pressure could be put on parents to terminate pregnancies and there might be less tolerance of people with disabilities. There is a real danger that people would decline to take genetic testing. Such reluctance would not only deny people the benefits of knowing the results, but could hinder genetic research that will be needed if genetic knowledge is fully to benefit society.
Genetic testing does not increase the rate at which disorders appear. On the contrary, if testing leads to prevention or treatment the opposite is likely to be the case. The insurance industry should therefore have little to fear from the increased knowledge that genetic testing provides, and ultimately should have much to gain if it leads to a reduction in susceptibility to diseases. If people who have potential genetic problems were deterred from taking tests or seeking clinical advice, possible health benefits would not be realised.
Our Committee was concerned about the impact of demands by insurers for genetic tests results, not only on people's health, but on research programmes if people were discouraged from taking tests for such programmes. Our predecessor Committee proposed that the individual's right to privacy should prevail in relation to genetic tests. Likewise, we acknowledged insurers' main concern about the risks of adverse

141WH
selection, which was that people whose tests revealed susceptibility to genetic diseases would buy expensive policies to exploit the system. We felt that it should be possible to find ways to regulate the use of genetic information and insurance that protected the interests of society in enabling as many people as possible to obtain insurance, and protected the insurance companies.
Dr. Evan Harris: In the Committee's investigations, did it find any evidence—academic or experiential, perhaps from the United States—of widespread use of adverse selection by patients who had received disappointing diagnoses? Is there any evidence that people rush out and buy insurance policies, or does evidence suggest that it hardly happens, if at all? Is there no evidence either way?
Lynne Jones: We found no evidence, although it is theoretically possible that people could react in that way. As I shall explain, few could take advantage of such knowledge.
I return to the protection of insurance companies. The Committee had previously suggested, as an example, the introduction of an exemption from a moratorium on the use of genetic tests for high-value policies. Our 1995 report suggested that possible model, and recommended that the insurance industry should be given a year to propose its own solution or face legislation. I am sorry if it will upset the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) to hear that the then Government, to their discredit, did not accept that recommendation, but placed their faith in the insurance industry doing the decent thing. The resulting Association of British Insurers' code of practice was weak and ineffective, having clearly been formulated on the basis of the least common denominator acceptable to all its members.
Against that background, the Committee decided to revisit the issue, pointing out that the unwillingness of the previous Government to become involved in the subject had contributed to the atmosphere of confusion and ignorance that pervaded the use of genetic test results.
Mr. Oliver Heald: When Professor Martin Bobrow was giving evidence to the Committee about the experience with HIV and AIDS, the hon. Lady mentioned the many sufferers who had taken out large insurance policies without disclosing their HIV status, and asked him whether the potential costs for insurance and the creation of a level playing field for insuring a client justified the insurers' demands for access to that information. Professor Bobrow said that it was a question of balance, but that insurance companies are entitled to be protected against being taken for a ride. Does the hon. Lady wish to say any more about that knowledge? I come new to the subject, but recognise that there are some concerns.
Lynne Jones: It is right that we should put such points to people like Professor Bobrow. However, the Committee acknowledged that there was a theoretical risk of adverse selection and formulated ways of trying to address such concerns. Genetic testing is not the same
142WH
as HIV—although now that people with the virus do not necessarily go on to develop full-blown AIDS for some time, the situation in each case has become similar.
The Committee also acknowledged insurers' concerns about the risk of adverse selection and accepted, as a principle, that commercial insurance companies should have access to the same information as applicants, where it is relevant and reliable. Crucially, it added the caveat that that should apply only if there were no adverse consequences for society as a whole—for example, discouraging people from taking tests. In view of the very small numbers involved, the Committee suggested that insurers could afford to ignore genetic test results for the foreseeable future.
Cases involving genetic test results comprise less than one tenth of 1 per cent. of all insurance business, and the Committee questioned the predictive significance of positive test results and their actuarial relevance at such an early stage in the development of genetic science. Adult-onset single gene disorders are so rare that few people would know that they might suffer from an inherited disease within a normal lifespan. As Professor Bobrow pointed out in his evidence to the Committee, genetic tests might be good at distinguishing those who carry a particular gene from those who do not, but they are less accurate at identifying those who will succumb to the disease.
In view of that, the Committee strongly criticised the industry for acting in too precipitate a manner and for being too eager to establish its right to use the results of genetic tests, regardless of their relevance or reliability. However, it praised those enlightened insurance companies which had voluntarily introduced a no-disclosure policy for genetic test results. They deserve a mention—Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.., Standard Life Assurance Company and Virgin Direct Personal Finance Service Ltd.
The Committee also criticised insurance companies for failing to clarify their policies on the use of test results. Many gave the impression that they either did not want people to know what they were doing or, even worse, did not understand the principles behind their own policies. Several companies, and the ABI, changed their policies during the course of the inquiry because questioning had exposed their inadequacies. The Committee called on each insurance company to make a clear statement of its policy and on the industry to publish more actuarial data supporting the changes insurers make to insurance premiums on the basis of positive test results.
The Committee called for a voluntary moratorium on the use of all positive genetic test results for at least the next two years to give time for more research on the actuarial and scientific relevance of genetic test results, and the possible consequences of their use for research and for health care. If the insurers were unable or unwilling to enforce the moratorium, it recommended that the Government enforce it by legislation, although it was not in favour of legislation denying insurers access to all genetic test results, as has been enacted in some overseas countries. Tests can prove that people do not have a specific genetic defect, and it is in the interests of those with a family history of genetic illness that insurers should take into account negative tests.

143WH
The Committee also examined the role of the Genetics and Insurance Committee, which is the regulatory committee that the Government set up to evaluate the scientific and actuarial relevance of genetic tests proposed by the insurance industry. We called for the committee's procedures and membership to be reformed. Specifically, we said that it was an unacceptable conflict of interest for a geneticist nominated by the ABI to judge his own test application as a member of GAIC. We recommended that the reformed committee re-examine the decision to approve the use of the Huntington's genetic test by insurers.
We also considered the role of the Human Genetics Commission. We recommended that it should continue to monitor the use of genetic tests by insurers and the consequences of their actions in the widest context. We also said that it should continue to advise the Government on developments and be given extra resources if that meant extra work. The HGC responded positively to our report. Its interim recommendations were published in May and the comments that it made to inform the Government's response were published in June. The reply from the Department of Health was published on 23 October. It was late in coming, and arrived just in time for this debate; nevertheless, it was worth waiting for. It largely accepted the Committee's recommendations.
Published at the same time was the ABI announcement that the industry had agreed to a five-year moratorium on the use of genetic test results for life insurance up to £500,000, and critical illness insurance, long-term care insurance and income protection insurance up to £300,000, with a review of those financial limits after five years.
I congratulate the Government on persuading the ABI to extend the two-year moratorium and the £100,000 limit for life insurance, which it announced in May, no doubt as a gesture of good will. Those developments were brought about because of the Government's stance, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health outlined just after the publication of the Committee's report. He said that he would, if necessary, consider legislation to prevent the inappropriate use of genetic information for insurance purposes. That approach was first recommended by our predecessor Committee in 1995 and finally results have been achieved.
Beyond the £500,000 and £300,000 limits, the industry may use positive genetic test results only where approved by GAIC. The Government agree with the Committee that insurance companies were wrong to use the results of genetic tests to load premiums before those tests were approved by GAIC.
I am sure I speak for my former fellow Committee members when I welcome the Government's acceptance that an independent mechanism is needed to en force the moratorium and the proposal for an independent complaints system. GAIC's remit is to be extended so that it can monitor compliance with the moratorium and with the ABI's new code of practice. It will be asked to report annually to Ministers on that.
We also welcome the publication of the ABI's first compliance report and its agreement to consult outside bodies on its revised code of practice. The code should be introduced swiftly, and those outside bodies should
144WH
include patients' groups. The code must make it clear that insurers must not use results that are taken from genetic tests for research purposes. The Government agree that insurers should take negative test results into account where a geneticist confirms their relevance.
We welcome the Government's agreement to review and extend the membership of GAIC and their acceptance that there was a perceived conflict of interest in having the ABI genetics adviser on the committee. We make no criticism of Professor Raeburn's personal conduct, but we welcome his decision to step down.
The Government have acknowledged that the reformed GAIC might need to revisit the committee's decision to approve the use of the Huntington's disease test. They have also undertaken to encourage further actuarial research to evaluate the effects of genetic conditions on insurance risk, and have made it clear that such research should be published and be subject to peer review—quite right too. Also welcome is the Government's acknowledgement of the concern that some of those who carry an inherited disorder may find insurance difficult to obtain because of their family history, and the proposal to consult genetic support groups and the industry to examine what can be done to help such people. I hope that when the Minister replies, she will be able to give us an idea of the likely time scale in which this is to be carried out.
As I draw my remarks to an end, it would be uncharacteristic if I did not make one criticism. However, it is a small one. The Government say that they will keep under review the adequacy of GAIC's and HGC's resources. Such an expression is often a useful formulation for inaction. Evidence to the Committee suggested that such bodies were already overstretched. For example, GAIC has apparently been dependent upon the good will of actuaries nominated by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries to provide independent actuarial reviews free of charge, instead of paying the normal rate. The HGC's June statement says that it foresees a need to fund external expert advice, surveys and modelling, and further public consultative meetings. I hope that the Government will respond positively to requests from those bodies for additional resources.
I am pleased to have been able to follow through to a satisfactory conclusion, if a belated one, the recommendations to which I contributed in 1995. I will not be a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee when it is reconstituted, which I hope will be very soon, but I have been most honoured to be able to participate in the work of the Committee over the past nine years. I thank other colleagues for their contributions and wish the new Committee well.
Finally, I apologise if I have to leave before the end of the debate, and particularly if I am not able to return to hear the Minister's response. It is expected that there will be a debate on social security regulations some time after 4 pm, in which I hope to participate. I will hot-foot it back as soon as I can, but if I do not make it for the Minister's response or for the contributions of hon. Members who speak for Opposition parties, I promise that I will read the Hansard record avidly.
2.52 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). I, too, have to offer my apologies. I pushed a meeting back this afternoon to enable me to participate in the debate, but I cannot push it entirely back, so I will have to leave before the end of the debate. I find myself, as always, in awe of the hon. Lady. Her ability constructively to criticise her Government leaves us full of admiration. On this occasion she also provided an admirable summary of the work of the Select Committee, and I am delighted that we are debating this matter, which is of broad public significance and in which there is much public interest. A debate in this Chamber can at least give the matter an airing.
As I said in an earlier intervention, I was, in a long ago age, pre-1997, the Minister with responsibility for science and technology. I remember dealing with some of these matters with the predecessor Committee. The issues are complex, and as the then Minister I had to try to balance the principles behind the concept of insurance with an important series of rapidly emerging scientific developments in the area of genetics. I had also to attempt to anticipate how that area would continue to develop.
In the end, we found a roughly amicable solution, with one or two false starts in my relationship with the Select Committee. It is significant that the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, which I had been involved in setting up, considered this issue at its first meeting. Indeed, its first report was on this issue. Its successor committee, the Human Genetics Commission, which has a slightly adapted remit, has also taken a close interest in what is happening and has recently reported its views of the matter.
The report was one of the series that we were considering in terms of advice to the Government. The conclusions that we drew are significant, because they attempted to be constructive in relation to an important industry, which provides assurance to people by giving them insurance, and its needs, and the way that science could raise questions about the public's confidence in the process of research and how that would affect their problems. The Alzheimer's Society summed up our report's conclusions rather well. It stated, first, that
"people affected by genetic disorders are at risk of social exclusion and discrimination".
We found some evidence that that was a real worry. Furthermore,
"the insurance industry failed to demonstrate a need for genetic information".
Again, I think that that was admitted in the evidence sessions, and subsequently.
I understand that four of the genetic tests have been included in a reassessment by the Association of British Insurers as being unreliable. It was clear during our session that the insurers were learning to come to terms with the science. Although one of our conclusions suggested that insurers appeared to have been more interested in establishing their future right to use genetic test results in assessing premiums than in the reliability or relevance of such tests, I took the view that a marker had been set to show the industry that it needed to be more careful about rushing ahead with tests that had not been fully verified. To do so could have produced a very negative effect on the way the industry was perceived.
146WH
The summary also stated that the Committee believed that
"the insurance industry was able to withstand the risk of adverse selection."
That emerged in the evidence; certain companies made it very clear. A moratorium would help to prevent genetic discrimination and would encourage families to participate in genetic research without fear. That is an important facet of the Committee's aims.
There is a problem; it may appear that we are just bashing the insurance industry. However, that is not true. We wanted to give the public a wider confidence that the insurance industry was taking into account the progression of science and the existence of tests; that it was being asked to think carefully about its precipitate use of tests, which have subsequently been thought unreliable—even that for Huntingdon's disease may need to be reassessed by the reconformed GAIC—and that we understood that the principle of insurance slightly conflicted with the concept of a genetic disorder, because genetics can be used to anticipate the likelihood of developing a disease, raising the question of what the insurance industry should do to take account of that. Inherited genetic disorders might also need to be considered. The issues are complex and I do not have time to go into them now, but we discussed them at length.
The HGC's commentary brought out a point that concerned many of us. It stated:
"It is our impression that the main principle underpinning private insurance contracts— 'utmost good faith'—bears more heavily on the applicant than on the insurer."
Much evidence showed that the insurance industry was aware that a degree of transparency would be needed in the new areas in which science was creating an impact. I am delighted that that is beginning to be apparent in the statement that we have just received from the ABI.
Genetic tests are important and there is no doubt that we must develop them, not necessarily for immediate adaptation by the insurance industry, but to try to understand how we can use genetics to improve the quality of human life and to lessen disease. Several members of the Committee went to the Sanger centre in Cambridge, and we were impressed by the progress being made in genomics and by the scientists' insistence that they needed volunteers to take tests. It was crucial to their ability to progress with the science of genetics that people, and of course families—because they are important to the understanding of the subject—should come forward. Any barrier to their doing that, in the form of the thought that something that might be discovered about them would prevent them from obtaining insurance, would slow down genetics research and cause a great deal of concern. That has not only been recognised by the ABI. It has been mentioned in many of the other documents that we have. We must assist in research excellence if we are to make real progress.

147WH
The ABI code has now been published. If problems arise because certain companies do not observe it in detail, it will still allow ministerial comment to be made. However, I certainly welcome it. I know that my views are not shared by all members of the Committee, but I believe that the industry finding a solution for itself would be better than the Government trying to regulate. I hope that the Minister will not disagree with me—she is now experienced in her job—when I say that Governments are not always terribly good or timely at regulating. It would be much better if we could encourage the industry to regulate itself. If the ABI could be criticised, it would be because, until recently, it has been sluggish—but at least we have now got there.
Dr. Evan Harris: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I invite him to compare regulation of the insurance industry with our experience under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That Act has stood the test of time because, 10 or 11 years later, only a few parts of it may need to be tightened. In that sense, the then Government did a very good job by legislating and not leaving the industry, especially the private sector, to regulate itself in such an important and controversial area.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, I think that the area that he mentioned, which includes embryology, is a good deal more sensitive and more difficult than that covered in our discussions with the ABI on insurance and genetics. If he reflects on it, I believe that he will follow the point. None the less, I do not disagree with him; not only was the 1990 Act very good, but we have recently been able to extend it to degenerative diseases and stem cell research. I pay personal tribute to him for his leadership role—I am sure that he did not intervene on me in order to be paid a compliment, but he deserves it—in explaining to a sceptical House why stem cell research was an important advance and why we should amend the 1990 Act in order to extend its provisions to degenerative diseases.
I shall be brief. I compliment the Association of British Insurers. I hope that it will police its own moratorium to ensure that there are no exceptions. I hope that it will do its best to stimulate research in genetics. I agree that it may not be appropriate that it should have its own person on the Genetic and Insurance Committee, however much he may be respected by the industry, but I commend it for taking early steps to include a scientist because that will lead to better understanding. That was something that I had encouraged.
My final plea is that if the ABI maintains the moratorium for five years, it must not be used simply a breathing space. Those five years need to be used to allow intense understanding of the problems, and of how research can be developed; a deeper understanding of the positive and negative implications of tests, and what tests could be carried out; and a much better and wider public understanding, so that people realise that being tested for genetic problems could extend their lives by enabling them to change their life styles. People likely to suffer a degenerative disease, be it heart disease or whatever, might be able to take action early enough to mitigate the disease and thereby extend the quality of their active lives.
148WH
I welcome the report. It has made a good contribution to the debate. I am delighted that it has received such a wide-ranging and clear response from other bodies and from the Government. I may not be here for the Minister's reply, but I shall read it avidly in hard print.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the next speaker, and perhaps to liven up proceedings a little, I note that three of those who hope to catch my eye have the title "Dr". I hope that during their opening remarks they might say whether they are doctors of medicine or philosophy, as that will help us to understand their presentation.
3.4 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I am philosophical, Mr. Winterton.
I am pleased to welcome the report and the Government's acceptance of some of our requests; they have gone further than we asked in some instances.
I want to consider in more detail the genetic prediction and personal insurance issue. In principle, genetic testing may predict future health, and insurers have a prima facie interest in it. Whether it becomes an important instrument of insurance policy depends on whether the prediction of common disorders turns out to be quantitatively significant in insurance terms. It is too early to know how that will turn out. The genes that influence predisposition to common diseases are not proving easy to isolate, and it will be some years before a true picture emerges, despite the human genome project.
The relatively uncommon mutations that cause single gene disorders have been known for some time. However, many medical geneticists argue that because our knowledge, even of those, is incomplete, and because they are sufficiently uncommon not to constitute a significant economic issue for the insurance companies, the industry should not discriminate against those disorders, apart from limitations to protect themselves against fraud, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said. Such a voluntary gesture would have allowed cooperative research between geneticists and the insurance industry and created mutual and public trust and confidence.
What were the scientific problems with the Association of British Insurers' list of seven diseases? The gene changes underlying those diseases are known and the laboratory tests are not in doubt; however, there has been little primary insurance research into those disorders. All information is gleaned from medical literature, which contains certain predictable biases when applied for the purpose of life insurance for which the studies were not designed.
The most serious manifestations of a condition are usually the easiest to diagnose. People studying selected series of cases for medical purposes over-represent serious manifestations of the disease, and find out about mild manifestations only much later. For example, the cystic fibrosis gene contains some mutations that cause male infertility. The seven diseases vary in their presentation, some individuals being much more severely affected than others, and the literature probably overstates the true average severity of the diseases caused by mutations in these genes.

149WH
The more serious manifestations are likely to lead to the most rapid course of the disease, so the medical studies will perhaps overestimate the probability of the early onset of diseases.
Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point in the context of the report. Does he believe, as I fear, that the five-year moratorium will not, unless there is significant prompting from Government, produce the sort of actuarial, social and socio-medical research into the impact of testing that is required to enable a sensible decision to be taken at the end of the five-year period? I have no doubt that the medical research will continue at a high level; the question is whether the correct research in terms of the social consequences is being commissioned and whether it will be completed within the appropriate time scale.
Dr. Gibson: The report has set up a new culture in the interaction between insurance companies and the scientific community. The matter is being taken seriously. Next week Professor Sandy Raeburn and I will be speaking about these issues at a meeting of the insurance organisation. Science and genetics cannot be studied without considering the social context in which they will be applied. There is a new spirit loose in the land and it will be our job, in a year or so, to ensure that the monitoring and the partnership work achieve the report's aim.
Diseases are often defined before treatments are developed. For several of these conditions forms of therapy may well make a difference in future. For example, renal transplants have transformed the outlook for polycystic kidney disease. I have seen little evidence that the industry has attempted to take account of treatment effects. Science and medicine are moving apace, and who knows how many more discoveries will effect new treatments in a year's time? The human genome certainly holds out that prospect.
Not all people with an abnormal gene get a disease. We all have abnormal genes; there is no perfect genome. Early genetic studies are often based on large families with many affected members and are biased towards over-representing those families in which the gene is particularly likely to lead to clinical disease. That is why they produce large families with many affected members.
Early genetic studies are therefore biased towards high penetrance. For example, the breast cancer genes were initially thought to confer a risk of developing the disease of more than 80 per cent. More recent estimates, however, lower that to 50 or 60 per cent. Who knows what will happen as more studies are conducted?
The Parkinson's Disease Society recently presented a document welcoming the report and the Government response, but said that genetics plays a limited role in most instances of Parkinson's disease and we should take a careful line on it.
The Alzheimer's Society says that there are predisposing genes in familial Alzheimer's disease, but has asked the ABI to withdraw its applications for genetic approval of familial early onset of Alzheimer's.
150WH
The societies are therefore suspicious too, and I am referring to diseases that are more likely to be offset by stem cell research than by genetics at this stage.
Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that to take a family history, as insurers do, and base a decision on it is a more robust methodology than to take into account any genetic tests that happen to exist?
Dr. Gibson: When someone asks for an insurance policy, they are asked how their parents died. I believe, as do others, that that is a pretty good indicator of what they will suffer from, without any high-falutin' genetics. That method has been good enough until now, and has created few problems of which I am aware. It will suffice while the genetics and other actuarial evidence are assessed.
Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend accept that insurance companies should be more upfront about the actuarial information on which they load premiums where people have a family history?
Dr. Gibson: Yes, I am sure that insurance companies will listen to our requests and present the data. I come from an insurance city, which is now almost dominated by Norwich Union and Virgin Direct. All the feedback that I have received from such companies suggests that they take the matter seriously, and they have said that the actuarial evidence will come upfront. Again, the Select Committee or other organisations will look into the report a year from now and ensure that that is being applied.
Although not true for the relatively uncommon diseases, it is likely to be true in the more complex diseases that a gene that confers an increased risk of one thing may also confer a decreased risk of something else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said. A possible example is the gene variant associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's, which is suggested to confer a decreased risk of heart disease. The jury is still out, and the evidence is being assessed.
Medical studies based on collections of cases will often define the harmful effects of genes long before their beneficial effects are discovered. People will know that there is a good case for linking malaria and sickle cell anaemia: someone can have sickle cell anaemia and be resistant to malarial parasites. From a life insurance viewpoint, the issue is not any one disease, but the total probability of all diseases within a set period. That must be part of the equation, but it has not been up to now.
All these biases in the medical data will tend to exaggerate the seriousness of a gene abnormality in an insurer's view. More sophisticated research and analysis are required to provide a fair picture of genetic effects for insurance purposes. There is little sign that the insurance industry intends undertaking such research or withholding its judgments until better data are available.
We await with impatience its response to the debate and the reports from the Human Genetics Commission, the disease societies and so on. All the problems will be much more severe when considering the predisposition to common, rather than rare, diseases. By attempting to ignore the problems and adopting a rigid approach, the

151WH
insurance industry has lost the confidence of many professionals and the public in terms of its capability appropriately to handle scientific information. The hope is that it will take up the cudgels and respond to some of the problems.
It is also essential that during the moratorium we have not the examination of the science and actuarial evidence, but monitoring of what insurance companies are doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, in 1995 there was a tendency to think that there was a solution to the problem. That was clearly ignored and, despite the ABI guidelines, people moved at different paces for reasons that are not clear.
I welcome the recent comment in the British Medical Journal by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health that the Government are willing to outlaw the use of genetic tests by insurance companies if the Human Genetics Commission recommends such a step. It has now done so, and we should run with that. However, we must ensure, over the next five years, that the research on genetics and the work done by the insurance industry do not cause the creation of an underclass of people who are frightened to use scientific information because they might be penalised by faulty data.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not often that the occupant of the Chair admits an error, but I said earlier that three Members with the title of "Dr." were seeking to catch my eye, whereas there were in fact five. The two hon. Members whom I did not see, sitting on the left of the Chamber, are medical doctors. I call one of them now.
3.7 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Thank you, Mr. Winterton.
The strengthened moratorium of the Association of British Insurers on the use of genetic tests by the insurance industry is very welcome. It follows the excellent report of the Science and Technology Committee on genetics and insurance and I congratulate those who contributed to it. The science of predicting who will get what disease and when is insufficiently mature for companies to achieve any actuarial precision on the basis of genetic testing. That is not of great moment to the bulk of the insurance industry, given that it is principally concerned with risk that is based on population. The business of the House is very much to do with individuals; that is why we are here. The rare, relatively clear-cut, genetically determined Huntington's disease was rightly identified as the progenitor of possible genetic testing for the future. However, even if insurance companies were inundated with people aware of their genotype and therefore their likelihood of manifesting the disease—so-called adverse selection—the effect on insurance companies would be small, because the fact is that most of us will eventually succumb to degenerative disease.
Early predictions that we may be able readily to determine the medical misfortunes to which we are predisposed have been overdone. The likelihood is that mortality is determined by a cocktail of environment, genetics and sheer bad luck in a way that may never be
152WH
defined precisely. As we have heard, genotypes may paradoxically give protection for some diseases while predisposing for others. Our first concern must be to protect people from explicit and implicit compunction in genetic testing. Genetic testing raises a raft of ethical and practical difficulties, with implications not only for the index case, but for relatives and even those who suppose themselves to be relatives. Our genes do not exist in isolation and we have to recognise that throwing light on them may have unforeseen implications for the welfare of third parties.
Insurance and financial products so pervade our lives as to be regarded a necessity of modern living. That is all the more so as we seek to encourage personal provision. Given that we are endorsing such a shift, we have a duty not to encourage testing if it might exclude individuals from participation. I well remember the difficulty that testing for HIV caused in the 1980s and the covert means by which worried people procured results to prevent the possibility of a positive test, or even the fact that they had been tested, being recorded in medical documents and subsequently causing difficulty in obtaining financial services and products. There are parallels here.
Although it does not affect the vast majority of people, I am concerned that permitting the use of tests at all—albeit under the direction of an enhanced Genetics and Insurance Committee—for high-value policies tacitly accepts that genetic tests are useful and reasonable. I find that to be intellectually unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Minister will comment.
On Tuesday, the House discussed breast cancer, and hon. Members raised the issue of the evidence base for screening. We must ensure that a thin evidence base does not disadvantage individuals, and I believe that the revised recommendations of the ABI largely achieve that. In five years' time, the science will be more mature, but it may well be that we move towards simply accepting that adverse selection will operate to the disadvantage of those of us with the genetic harbingers of misfortune. Such a view will probably require something more than the ABI moratorium.
3.9 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: In response to your earlier question, Mr. Winterton, I am a double doctor. I have PhDs in philosophy and in science but, in fact, I am a chemist. Therefore, you could increase your figure to six.
I am pleased to take part in the debate. Insurance is a necessity of life for many people; for example, in obtaining a mortgage or credit card facility and, for some, private health care. Those who are socially excluded are usually unable to acquire insurance, and there is a risk that the use of genetic test results may increase the number of socially excluded people.
The Co-operative Insurance Society told the Science and Technology Committee that
"the British public is under-insured and under-protected."
Therefore, it is important that we do not make the situation worse by creating a genetic underclass. For that group of people, insurance would be too expensive or, even worse, unobtainable, because of their genetic fingerprint.

153WH
There is a fear, perhaps unfounded, that demographic pressures—for example, an increasing elderly population—are rolling back state support for individuals in favour of a greater role for the financial services industry, including insurance-based products. In turn, that leads to cherry-picking, whereby the industry accepts the best risks but rejects others to be cared for by the state; in this case, the genetic underclass.
Apart from mutual insurance companies, the rest—public limited companies—are out to maximise profits for the benefit of their shareholders. As insurance premiums rise, more and more people opt out of insurance. The trick is to decrease premiums for an increasing majority of people and thereby attract the under or non-insured to buy more insurance products. Perhaps the insurance industry sees the use of genetic testing, with the exclusion of the higher risks, as a means of accomplishing that. If so, gone will be the concept of risk sharing, often referred to as mutuality by the industry—not to be confused, of course, with a mutual insurance company. Consequently, the industry will segment, with more emphasis on tailor-made insurance products. I would regret that because I believe strongly in the concept of risk sharing, whereby those in the lowest risk categories subsidise those in the highest risk categories. Wherever there is increased complexity in marketing, consumers find it harder to locate the right product at the right price. Although increased competition might lead initially to cheaper products, in the long term consumers would find it difficult to exert downward competitive pressure on insurers. If that happened, many consumers would find themselves either paying higher premiums or excluded from the market.
The insurance industry has acted precipitately and without necessity on genetic testing. That is why the Science and Technology Committee recommended in our fifth report, published in April this year, that
"the best way forward for the Government and industry would be a voluntary moratorium on the use of all positive genetic test results by insurers for at least two years."
The insurance industry has argued that it will be financially disadvantaged if it is not allowed to use genetic test results and believes that those who have had a positive test result may seek more insurance cover as a result. That concept, which has already been mentioned, is adverse selection. The counter-argument is that the insurance industry has managed actuarially without genetic tests since its foundation.
The general public are not complimentary about the insurance industry. The use of genetic test results, particularly positive results to increase premiums, is also unpopular. In a MORI poll commissioned by the Human Genetics Commission, only 8 per cent. of respondents thought that genetic tests should be used to set insurance premiums, while 78 per cent. disagreed. Research for the Co-operative's social accountability programme has found considerable mistrust of the insurance industry among consumers, which it believes contributes greatly to the under-insurance of our fellow citizens.
In November 1998, the ABI, which represents about 400 insurance companies that provide about 97 per cent. of UK insurance business, published a list of 10 tests for
154WH
seven disease conditions that it regarded as sufficiently reliable to be used by the industry. However, the list was not readily available, not even for example as an appendix to its code of practice. There is some dispute about the reliability of the tests, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). The only test that was validated, in October 2000 by the Government's Genetics and Insurance Committee, is for Huntington's chorea. However, GAIC is expected to publish soon its assessment of tests for hereditary Alzheimer's disease, and breast and ovarian cancer. Some insurance companies—for example, Norwich Union—appear to have been using genetic tests before their approval by GAIC.
It is noteworthy that four of the 10 tests that the ABI strongly recommended are no longer considered, even by it, to be reliable. Insurers have given the test results a predictive significance that cannot be justified. As far as I know, only the three insurance companies that have already been mentioned use only negative genetic tests to lower insurance premiums. Other insurers take into account positive test results, presumably always to increase premiums.
Until recently, those applying for life insurance linked to a mortgage for £100,000 or less were not asked for results of any genetic tests that they may have had. Since the Select Committee report, that cut-off figure was increased in May 2001 to £300,000. I am pleased that, following discussions with the Government, the insurance industry this month announced a five-year moratorium on the use of genetic tests that will apply to life insurance policies of up to £500,000 and critical illness, long-term care insurance and income protection of up to £300,000 for each type of policy. For applications over those amounts, test results for Huntington's chorea will have to be disclosed. That announcement should be welcomed, but I hope that all 400 members of the ABI comply. According to the Alzheimer's Society, which carried out a survey in March 2000, the ABI code of practice on the use of genetic information has often been breached by its own members. Fortunately, it seems that public pressure has had some impact on the insurance industry.
Mutuality and the achievement of broad equity between persons of similar circumstances who are in an insured risk pool have always been used by the insurance industry to arrive at its premiums. Family history has always played an important role in arriving at premiums and certain factors—for example, when a non-smoker seeks life insurance or a security system is in place on a property for which insurance is being sought—have always been taken into account.
The use of family histories to arrive at insurance premiums can result in unnecessarily high premiums for many people. The use of negative genetic testing would benefit those affected. The Government have supported that point of view, which begs the question whether the moratorium on the use of genetic tests will apply to negative as well as positive test results. Apparently, it is to be left to the discretion of individual companies.
The seven conditions chosen by the ABI's genetic committee are all relatively rare. The Prudential dealt with only seven applications involving genetic test data in 2000. Norwich Union dealt with only 50 out of 150,000 applications for insurance in the same year and

155WH
the Co-operative Insurance Society a meagre 14 out of 460,000 applications in three years—a minuscule 0.003 per cent. of its business.
Let us examine Huntington's chorea in more detail. An estimated 6,000 people in the UK have the condition, not all of whom are relevant for insurance purposes. The gene for this fatal condition has been cloned and a diagnostic test developed. However, the gene's presence in an individual does not indicate whether it will express itself in that person's lifetime or, if it does so, exactly when. Professor Bobrow told our Committee that he was unaware of any scientists who believed that the age of onset of the condition could be predicted with any accuracy.
Significant concerns have been raised about the procedures used by the GAIC to examine genetic tests that it is asked to approve, including the approved test for Huntington's chorea. The Wellcome Trust states:
"The justification for their decision (in that case) was not subject to the rigours of a peer review such as that required for publication in a respected scientific journal".
The Select Committee thus recommended that GAIC re-examine its procedures for approving the use of genetic tests, and I understand that it is prepared to do so.
Nevertheless, traditionally, close relatives of a known sufferer of this highly heritable disease will have their insurance premiums substantially loaded—by as much as 300 per cent. according to the Huntington's Disease Association—owing to the perceived increased risk, based on family history and in the absence of a genetic test result. If the more accurate data derived from a positive genetic test were applied, the loading may prohibit insurance completely. Currently, only about 15 per cent. of those at risk from Huntington's chorea take a genetic test.
Through the network of regional genetic centres many people whose genetic diseases would otherwise escape attention can be diagnosed quickly and accurately, and receive treatment and advice to improve their quality of life. Those who have the gene associated with familial polyposis and who are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer can be kept under regular surveillance and, should polyps he detected in the large bowel, preventive measures can be taken.
Many in the field of clinical genetics are worried that the use of genetic test results by the insurance industry and possible discrimination against those who volunteer for the tests may deter people from seeking the available help and treatment for their disease condition. The CIS has recognised that possible conflict, which has apparently informed its policy on the use of test results in favour of its clients.
We need more research in this area. By comparing which disease, if any, volunteers contract and their genetic make-up, it is hoped that a much greater understanding of the role of the genetic component, as distinct from environmental factors, can be reached. Obviously, anything that might inhibit patients from volunteering for such clinical trials would be of great concern.
Fortunately, the insurers and the ABI have recognised the worry in that they state that they will not seek the results of such clinical trials for individual patients who might also be their customers. However, the Committee
156WH
considered that they should be more explicit in that connection—for example, by incorporating that principle in their code of practice.
It would help, too, if the insurance industry contributed more of its considerable profits to research into the development of genetic tests to improve the health of our society and the impact of genetic tests in other areas, such as insurance. The genetics and insurance research centre at Heriot-Watt university is conducting research, funded by the industry, and that should help to clarify the link between genetic test results and insurance premiums. I have already referred to the research being carried out by the Co-operative social accountability programme.
I am sure that the debate will continue. As gene technology advances, it will have a greater impact on our thinking and on the behaviour of society and its servants. I am confident that we shall discuss the topic again in the not too distant future.
3.35 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I wish first to make two matters clear. I am a chartered insurance practitioner and I qualified many years ago as an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute. I derive no income from the insurance industry and, to that extent, while I hope that I have an informed interest, in no way do I have a partial or partisan interest in today's important debate.
I welcome the five-year moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurers that was announced by the Association of British Insurers. We are living through a particularly dramatic period of change in our understanding of human genetics, which has far-reaching consequences for medicine, pathology and our predictive and diagnostic powers. That in turn has far-reaching social and public policy consequences, not least for life and critical illness insurance.
In the words of the fifth report of the Science and Technology Committee:
"It is therefore becoming increasingly feasible for the identification of disease-associated and other genes to be available at the level of the hospital pathology laboratory, and. within the foreseeable future, also in the primary healthcare surgery."
The advance of science is linked fundamentally to the predictive power of its theses. Of course, it is to be hoped and celebrated that the principal application of such advances in genetic knowledge falls within our capacity to treat and ultimately cure or eradicate disease.
However, predictive power is also an essential element in the business of insurance and the actuarial basis on which that industry rests. Insurance is fundamentally about risk and the pooling or sharing of risk. It is not about public compensation for known and certain loss. That is why we cannot, for example, take out insurance against fire damage when a fire has already started. A body of English law has grown up around the issue of proximate cause, which I shall not rehearse now, but it is precisely the issue of causation and the fact that the preponderance of knowledge of such proximate causes is likely to be with the party seeking insurance that has given rise to the second essential foundation of insurance contracts.

157WH
To overcome the asymmetry of knowledge, the consolidating Act relating to insurance, the Marine Insurance Act 1906, lays down a fundamental duty of disclosure on the parties to an insurance contract. Classically, that means that insurance is "uberrimae fidei" or what section 17 of the Act describes as
"a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party."
Section 18 states:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the assured must disclose to the insurer, before the contract is concluded, every material circumstance which is known to the assured…Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in fixing the premium, or determining whether he will take the risk."
That 95-year-old legislation crystallises the contemporary problem that reliable genetic testing poses to public policy. Clearly, it is wrong that, as a result of a genetic test, somebody diagnosed with Huntington's chorea should take out life and critical illness insurance cover of almost £1 million that he would not have purchased otherwise.
Lynne Jones: I want to pick up my hon. Friend's point about somebody taking a genetic test and being diagnosed with that condition. Taking a genetic test does not diagnose a person with that condition; it only indicates that that person may be predisposed to it.
Mr. Gardiner: I accept my hon. Friend's correction, and I shall deal with that issue later. Over the next few years, however, there will be more and more reliable and accurate tests with greater and greater predictive power. We hope that that will occur, because we also hope that, in the field of medicine, we will be able to use such tests to eradicate disease. I am discussing the principles involved, not the vagaries of which tests may be more or less effective.
If somebody whose test proved positive for Huntington's chorea had to take out life or critical illness cover of almost £1 million that they would not have purchased otherwise, that would be wrong, because they would not be seeking to protect themselves and their family from the eventuality that something might happen. They would seek to gain a certain benefit from an event, albeit tragic, that they could predict with almost certain knowledge.
Mr. Tony McWalter: There seems to be confusion in my hon. Friend's mind. He believes that such tests will have ever-increasing predictive power and he wants that to happen because it will produce ever-increasing medical resources to combat that illness. However, the development of those medical resources will not confer predictive power, because the disease will be short-circuited and stopped in its train. Having a propensity to a disease is very different from having it.
Mr. Gardiner: I accept what my hon. Friend says. However, he must take this on board: until there is a
158WH
conclusive test that shows with certain predictive power a propensity to what is currently a fatal condition, it will be impossible to develop the counter to it.
Mr. Heald: When Professor Bobrow gave evidence to the Committee, he was asked about that. He said that it is well documented that, at one end of the Huntington's mutations, 3, 4 or 5 per cent. of the people who carry genes that are clearly abnormal by current definitions do not manifest the disease by the age of 70. He is therefore saying that about 95 per cent. do. In the case that he put forward, finding a propensity to Huntington's chorea would mean a substantial probability of onset by the age of 70.
Mr. Gardiner: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to continue, I shall tackle the issue that he and other hon. Members are raising.
In terms of the benefit secured at the expense of fellow policyholders, those fellow policyholders consider themselves to be engaged in a commercial contract of sharing risk, not a public policy scheme of compensating guaranteed loss. I have reached the point at which I can, I hope, address the remarks that have been made.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gardiner: After I have commented on the matters that I wish to discuss.
Before I proceed, I must make it clear that I accept that arguments can be made concerning the validity and the predictive power of current individual genetic tests. The Genetics and Insurance Committee must be our standard on that. I shall use the test of Huntington's chorea because it has been pronounced the most reliable to date by GAIC. However, my argument rests on the assumption that valid and reliable genetic tests will be developed. That is why I seek to address general principles rather than the specifics of an individual test.
Dr. Harris: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept the criticism made by several hon. Members that, in theory, a test that gives one increased risk—it can be called increased risk if the figures are 100 per cent. or 80 per cent.—could not be gamed with to raise one's insurance. I have always accepted in debates with the insurance industry that that happens, but is that practice, or the potential for it, so substantial that it outweighs the gains to be had from pooling the risk? The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to that point.
Mr. Gardiner: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I will address it later.
The Government have correctly focused on social exclusion. That is a proper concern, and it has informed the report and the Government's response. The key concern is to prevent the development of an insurance underclass of people who are unable to participate in the everyday business of taking out a mortgage or protecting their family. That is the legitimate motivation for the inquiry and for the debate that must develop during the moratorium.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) opened the debate, she spoke of the problems that might arise for people faced with

159WH
expensive premiums and of the danger that people might choose to forego a medical test that they need for fear of the possible consequences in respect of their insurance status. With regard to the first matter, the problem already arises separately from any genetic test: in any application for critical illness, family history questions already affect premium rating. I declare an interest regarding that matter, as my family history has caused underwriters to rate me at a substantially higher risk than normal.
It would be difficult to persuade a member of the public that, because they have a family history that might suggest increased risk of disease, they should pay a higher premium or be denied cover altogether, but that a standard rate of premium should apply to their neighbour, who has received a positive test that concludes that the disease will almost certainly develop. Those anomalies will assume greater importance in public debate if and when genetic tests become more numerous and accurate in their predictive power.
Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend seems to have misunderstood the Committee's recommendation. His argument does not apply, because someone who took a genetic test would still be subject to disclosure of family history. However, there is a separate argument regarding the openness with which the insurance industry discloses the actuarial data that it uses to load premiums.
Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me for once. I am trying to point out that if someone with no family history took a test that had a positive outcome and was graded at the normal rate, it would be difficult to explain to someone with a family history showing only increased risk that they would receive a higher rating. That is the anomaly to which I am referring; it concerns a test that might be taken, not by someone with a family history, but by someone without one.
Lynne Jones: My understanding is that it is highly unlikely that someone who tested positively for the Huntington gene would not have a family history.
Mr. Gardiner: Again, I am not focusing on individual tests and the current state of technology and science. I am dealing with the principles. If we move towards circumstances in which tests have increasingly predictive power, those tests will be used in medicine to achieve diagnostic effect in the general population. What my hon. Friend says is no doubt correct, but I am trying to find out where technology may lead us and the principles that we should apply now because of the impact that they may have later.
Mr. Heath: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, although I am not sure that I entirely agree, because he claims a diagnostic infallibility for testing that is not borne out by fact. Will he consider the other side of the coin?
A point was made earlier about people with a familial history of a particular condition who pay significantly higher premiums as a result of a test that shows, however, that they are genetically negative and cannot develop the disease in spite of that familial history. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in such circumstances the
160WH
insurance company should immediately take that into account and that the additional premium should not be paid?
Mr. Gardiner: Yes. That seems even-handed. However, it is not right that the upside of an equation may be taken into account, but not the downside.
Mr. Heath: I am so sorry. The hon. Gentleman faces a lot of interventions because he knows about insurance and the rest of us know a little about medicine. There is a dialogue between the two, but they are not equivalent. One deals with increased risk, and the other with absence of risk. One relates to a potential for developing a condition, and the other to the absolute potential not to develop the condition, as that is all that the test can prove.
Mr. Gardiner: I hesitate to tread on medical ground, but I understand that if a person shows no genetic predisposition in particular tests that have not yet been approved as normative by GAIC, such as that for ovarian cancer, that would not mean that ovarian cancer could not develop. Again, therefore, I refer to principles.
I am trying to consider the fundamental principles involved and I am not limiting the debate to specific genetic tests such as that for Huntington's chorea. I referred to that test only because GAIC said that it is the most relevant and has the most predictive power. In future, other tests will have that predictive power.
Dr. Harris: I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point that there is perceived unfairness in not allowing a positive genetic test in the absence of a family history. Some conditions will have new mutations and will not involve a family history. Some people know that their parents are not their genetic parents, and other reasons may be involved. Unfairness might be perceived compared with people who have a family history but are not genetically tested. We must recognise that such unfairness exists. It is not an excuse for lack of genetic confidentiality, because there is something precious and special about a person's genetic information that does not relate to and is unique compared with the history of another person who happens to be in his family.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman makes his point extremely well.
The anomalies that I outlined will assume much greater importance in the public mind if and when genetic tests become more numerous and more accurate in their predictive power. The Human Genetics Commission survey on the future of genetic information showed that the vast majority of people believe that human genetic information could and should be used to understand diseases and identify criminals, but should not be used to set insurance premiums, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggests. However, that might not long survive the reflection that information about road traffic accidents is used not only to improve road safety, but to ensure that an elderly lady driver in her Nissan Sunny does not pay the same premium as a 19-year-old man in his Ferrari.

161WH
I conclude by returning to social exclusion. The insurance industry has shown itself to be extremely capable of refining its products to meet real need. Insurance policies have always admitted policy exclusions. If a conclusive positive test were developed, an insurer could provide cover for all other critical illness risks at standard rates for the period of cover, but exclude that peril. That is not cherry-picking, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said, because it is not an example in which the insurer would accept a lower but not a higher risk.
The insurer would accept a risk, but not a certainty. Insurers welcome high risk, because without it there would be no high premiums. The professional job of the actuary is to ensure that the contribution made by each policyholder to the pool of premiums reflects the proportion of risk that each person brings to the overall liability. If that is undermined, commercial insurance is undermined. Only Government underwriting from public policy could replace it.
Our Government should be careful before deciding to go down that route. We have a five-year moratorium, but there is no doubt that genetic testing will develop. The response of the Government and of industry to any development during that period must take fundamental cognisance of two principles, which lie at the heart of insurance and must remain there. First, one insures against risk, not certainty, and, secondly, there is utmost good faith between the parties concerned.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before I call the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), I tell hon. Members that I understand that there may be a vote in the House at 4 pm. If one occurs, I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes. I hope that all hon. Members will return, perhaps before 15 minutes have elapsed. We have injury time available and the sitting may continue beyond 5.30 pm in the event of a Division.
3.57 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: For your information, Mr. Winterton, I am the happy possessor of one modest PhD, with which I am quite content.
The debate has two central issues—that is the beginning and end of it—and those are the ethics of using genetic test data and the validity of that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman has resumed his seat, I merely suspend the sitting for exactly 15 minutes.
3.58 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.13 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Turner: In my lifetime, the state of knowledge of genetics has advanced beyond the wildest dreams of
162WH
biological scientists. Even so, despite knowing the human genome sequence and the identification of a large number of individual genes linked to specific diseases, we are still finding out how much more we need to know before we can link people's genotypes with their lifetime's health expectations. It is dangerous to assume that the possession of a diseased gene inevitably means that an individual will develop the disease. Even the most clearly established link, that of Huntington's chorea, gives no indication of the likely time scale for developing the condition. We might all have one or more potentially lethal genes, and we could all find ourselves having to pay increased premiums if our full genetic make-up were known. The only certain outcome that can be predicted from our genotype is that we will die; but we cannot predict when.
The purpose of genetic research is an increased understanding of disease and a search for new therapies. The results so far have been achieved by dint of the enormous and inspired efforts of scientists, which have involved huge financial investment. However, I do not know whether the insurance industry has made much contribution, either intellectual or financial, to that research. Insurers' interests in genetic information can be construed as only financial: there is certainly no suggestion—or very little suggestion—of altruism.
The insurance industry has always sought genetic information. For decades, it has used family histories in its underwriting of life policies and health insurance. It seems to have prospered quite adequately on that level of information. None the less, some insurers told the Select Committee that ignoring the results of genetic testing would be too costly, despite the fact that it is available on only about 0.01 per cent. of the insurance that is written. At the moment, the information is so poor a predictor that family history is as good as any other information available to the insurance industry.
To justify its assertion that ignoring genetic testing would be too costly, the insurance industry would need to show a level of scientific knowledge and an understanding of genetic information that it clearly lacks. The availability of genetic test data would not be of much help, even from the narrow perspective of the insurance industry's financial performance.
Other hon. Members have stated that the primary objective of genetic testing, which is to benefit patients, should not be prejudiced by the potential misuse of the information by third parties, whether insurers or employers. Prospective patients or volunteers must not be deterred from undergoing genetic testing because of fears that the information could be used to their disadvantage. If that were to happen, future research to define the links and mechanisms between the possession of potentially diseased genes and the development of the disease would be tragically prejudiced. It would also deny those individuals the benefit of any therapeutic intervention that may result from genetic testing.
The insurance industry as a whole shows a lamentable lack of understanding of the issues surrounding genetic testing and how it affects individuals, and its voluntary code of conduct is quite ineffective. We must therefore seriously consider whether it is right to permit insurers access to the results of genetic tests of individuals. At present, insurance companies would not be exposed to significant financial risk if they did not have access to that information. Fortunately, that fact is recognised by

163WH
the three companies that have acted most honourably by declining to seek that information. There would clearly be a risk to individuals if insurance companies could request such data.
HIV status offers a perfectly good precedent for the confidentiality of personal data, and there are compelling reasons to extend the same principle to genetic test data. Therefore, I am pleased that our report recommended—and the Government accepted the need for—a voluntary moratorium on the use of genetic test data for insurance purposes and on requests about whether a prospective customer has undergone genetic testing. However, I would go further and advocate a much longer period than five years. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any excuses for error, there should ideally be a statutory moratorium possibly lasting 10 years. After that, the situation would need to be fully reviewed in the light of the available knowledge. Only in the light of increased knowledge would it be possible to separate the two main strands of principle involved in testing—the ethics and the practical validity. That can be done only if we have accurately predictive tests.
It has been said that we might undermine the whole principle of insurance if we continue to use genetic test data for insurance purposes. Until now, insurance has been successfully based on the principle of mutuality and of spreading the risks. We rarely hear of insurance companies going bust, and they would have to manage their affairs very badly to do so. Instead, they make some pretty healthy profits. Therefore, there is no risk to any sensibly conducted insurance business in the present context.
Mr. Heald: It is true, as we have heard, that genetic tests have been offered in a tiny number of cases, so the amounts at issue are small. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Co-operative Insurance Society said in its evidence, a time might come when the technology is much more widely available, more accurate and more predictive? Important issues of principle would arise in those circumstances.
Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, but increased knowledge is likely to show that we all have potentially lethal genes. None of us will know whether they will be expressed, nor will an insurance company. We would all become uninsurable if the possession of a particular gene were used as the only piece of evidence. I would therefore be reluctant to pursue that line.
If we are to separate ethics from practical validity, we need to have a long moratorium before we can assess whether the test information is a valid predictor of life outcomes. We may decide that we have reached that position with regard to the predictive accuracy of the science, but I for one would still question whether it would be ethical and, indeed, sensible to use such data as a predictor.
Mr. Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend saying that it would be wrong for either party to use the information, or that it would be wrong for the insurance company to use it to the detriment of the policyholder who had taken the test? It may advantage other policyholders who had not taken it by allowing their premiums to be reduced.
Dr. Turner: I am aware of my hon. Friend's fear that someone with a lethal gene might want, to all intents and
164WH
purposes, to rob an insurance company. That is a small risk. It is a fair point, and would be covered, I think, by the ancient legislation governing insurance, to which he referred.
Mr. Gardiner: I happily respond to that point. Section 18(3) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, a copy of which I happen to have before me, states:
"(3) In the absence of inquiry the following circumstances need not be disclosed, namely…
(c) Any circumstances as to which information is waived by the insurer".
Given that insurance companies would have waived the relevant information during the moratorium period, it would be legal and proper to conclude a contract under the Act.
Dr. Turner: I do not think that that really helps in the case that I am considering. A conundrum persists. The closest indicators of a link between test results and disease are found in Huntingdon's disease and HIV. Let us not forget HIV.
Huntingdon's disease has a simple genetic basis and the link between the possession of the lethal genes and the development of the disease is extremely strong. One would think that that would provide some justification for the CIS's policy of offering insurance to individuals with a family history if they have negative genetic test results. However, that would leave those with a family history but who have not been tested or who have positive results in an impossible position. How would they provide housing for their families if they could not get a mortgage because they could not get a mortgage protection policy? Even the most socially conscious insurers could run the risk of creating a genetic underclass. I am not sure that mortgage companies would be happy to grant a mortgage on the basis of a protection policy that included an exclusion clause for any specific disease. That would have to be explored, but I see many obstacles to that approach.
Mr. Gardiner: I agree with my hon. Friend, but a common feature of a mortgage and a life insurance policy is that they both run for a particular term. If a predictive test suggested that there was no risk within a certain period, but that there was a risk beyond it, it would be possible within the term of security to conclude both insurance arrangements and, on the back of those, a mortgage contract, on the basis of the test. My hon. Friend is right that we need to examine the issue carefully, but he is wrong in thinking that it would not be possible to reach an accommodation between predictive tests and the need to obtain insurance and a mortgage.
Dr. Turner: I did not suggest that it was impossible, but that there were obstacles. I do not think that there is great disagreement between us.
An equally strong link exists between HIV-positive status and the development of AIDS. However, some years ago an ethical decision was made to deny insurers access to such information. There are far more HIV-positive individuals at large in the population than there are people who have had genetic testing used for insurance purposes. I am not aware that the insurance

165WH
industry has suffered unduly from problems caused by people with HIV status. Fortunately, from the insurers' perspective, although there is a strong link between HIV-positive status and AIDS, the development of that disease has changed dramatically over the years. It has not been cured, but its management has improved dramatically, so that whereas previously an HIV-positive diagnosis constituted a death sentence to be executed within a year or two, patients are now living for decades. There is no known limit to the life expectancy of well-managed HIV patients. That is a good precedent, because it is almost certain that the same process will occur in the case of genetically controlled disease.
At the same time as discovering the link between the possession of a gene and the development of a disease, science will also learn about mechanisms of therapeutic intervention that will make it possible to manage that disease. That will probably—in many cases certainly—lead to that gene being prevented from producing the disease with which it has been linked. It is not solely a question of establishing the existence of a potentially lethal gene: there is also the more complicated question of how, why and when that gene will be expressed as a disease and whether it will be possible for preventive measures to be taken during that chain of events.
The insurance argument runs the risk of being far too simplistic. There is a strong possibility that in, say, 10 years we shall be unhappy not only with the ethics of using genetic test data for insurance purposes, but with their validity as a predictor—not because we do not accept the link between the gene and the disease, but because we will become increasingly confident about the possibility of disturbing that link. In that event, there will still be no clear link between the possession of the gene and an insurance company's having to pay out on a life policy. I suspect that in 10 years' time, we might—in the light of what is then known—want to say to the insurance industry that it will have to do what it has always done and work with family histories, and that a personal genetic identity should remain confidential.
4.33 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am forced to confess that I am not a proper doctor. I am a medical doctor, and I recognise that those who have a PhD have gone through higher postgraduate training than I did; I just did six years of hard slog—mainly in politics. Perhaps that is why I am here and not on the wards.
It is important to note that doctors of any kind do not have a monopoly of wisdom in this area, and that those who do not have a scientific background have a huge amount to bring to the debate, perhaps more than those who do, because this is a debate about society. I would even include the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in that. These questions relate to social issues, not just—indeed, not even mainly—scientific ones.
I should like to apologise, if that is the appropriate word, for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He was here for most of the afternoon, but now has Front-Bench duties in the
166WH
other Chamber. That is one of the problems of duplication that many hon. Members are concerned about.
There has been talk outside this Chamber about the role of the Opposition. The Liberal Democrats are strongly opposed to the Government's lack of action on this subject. I hate to stress party differences when speaking in this Chamber, particularly given the mood of the debate, but we do have differences with the Government over the way in which they have approached the matter, which are perhaps greater than those of the Conservative party. The Government got off quite lightly in the Select Committee report and even more lightly—breathtakingly so—in the criticisms outlined by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). The hon. Lady is no longer in her place, but many of us greatly respect her courage in taking on Governments, especially of her own party, on certain issues.
Dr. Iddon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that criticism does not apply only to this Labour Government? It could be a criticism of any Government during the past few decades, in that technology and moral issues move on apace in the public domain and government is always behind. I cite the debates on euthanasia, stem cell research and genetic modification as examples. It is unfair to criticise this Government, because all Governments, of whatever political complexion, are guilty of the same failings in that respect.
Dr. Harris: That is an important point. All Governments are chary of debating some of these issues. Indeed, this debate is long overdue. It should not have required a Select Committee report and a Government response to justify it. I have often bumped into the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) outside the Speaker's office, where we have both put in for Adjournment debates on this subject in the hope of getting some indication of the Government's thinking. I also accept that it is not just this Government who are peculiarly sensitive about discussing scientific, genetic and sexual health issues, although they are particularly sensitive about those subjects.
However, it is a Minister of this Government who is facing me today, not a chemist from another party who was recently in government and whom we could equally charge with certain faults. Having said that, the Conservative Government must be commended for the way in which they legislated on fertilisation embryology. It was brave to open that can of worms, that Pandora's box, at that time. The difficulty that we have had in dragging further legislation on that subject from subsequent Governments of both political complexions shows what a brave and correct step the initial legislation was.
When government gets involved in this area, it usually does a good job because it listens to advice. The problem is one of under-legislating, not faulty legislation. Unlike in some other areas of social policy, it is hard to pinpoint poor decisions in this field. I am disappointed in the discussion in the Select Committee report of the Government's approach. The hon. Members on the Committee are not usually shy in coming forward. I

167WH
hope that, if restraint was exercised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North and his colleagues, he gets his due reward.
Dr. Gibson: In heaven.
Dr. Harris: Yes, if one believes in that approach. I hope also that the Government will get their comeuppance thereafter.
Political parties have also been bad at debating the issue. I am not aware—I await correction on this—that the issue has been debated in policy forums in the Conservative or Labour parties. I am not referring only to their party conferences, because many policy decisions are now made in policy forums. The Liberal Democrats have debated the matter on several occasions at our conferences. Our clear policy—I shall justify it in the light of the report later—states that we believe that an individual's genetic record should remain absolutely confidential and that
"insurance companies, employers and others should not be entitled to require genetic testing".
It is not a knee-jerk reaction to take that perspective; it does not mean that we see the insurance industry as a big bad wolf from which people must be protected. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) acknowledges that I accept that insurance companies have the right to try their best to identify where risk lies and make corrections accordingly. However, we have already discussed how reliable such data are.
We should not blame the insurance industry for being an insurance industry. I believe that if we want to protect society, we should rely on legislation rather than on the industry's good will. Even with the best will in the world, an insurance company will still have a duty to its shareholders to extract the maximum return for them, and to gain a competitive advantage over other insurance companies that take a more social approach—if they exist.
My argument is not with the insurance industry. I came to the debate open-minded. I have been a member of the UK Forum for Genetics and Insurance and have attended all their meetings, paying the same rate as some of the big insurance companies to do so, and have discussed some of the issues in detail with academics from Heriot-Watt university, Professor Raeburn, Chris Daykin and others. I maintain my belief that we should ensure that society can express its view that we should not go down this path.
Why should we perform genetic tests for insurance purposes? Insurance companies believe that such genetic tests will be reliable and relevant and could be viewed objectively. The hon. Member for Norwich, North explained why, if the insurance industry tried to use results from medical research it could fall into pitfalls due to bias. The bias would not be in the original medical research, but because the patient and sample selection might be geared towards medical research outcomes. I commend him on being so clear that even a lapsed medic such as me could understand him. The fact that something might appear reliable does not make it so, therefore the insurance industry needs to invest in some original research. I understand that it is not short of a bob or two for such work, unlike many medical researchers.
168WH
The insurance industry may want to undertake such research because it is relevant. A reliable test may be meaningful in identifying risk, so would enable differential rates to be offered. That is the business of insurance, and we could not argue otherwise. The industry also argues that a test is necessary if it is reliable and relevant, because it does not consider the other possibility, which is to pool the risk. Society could ask or make the industry decide to do so. It may not lose much by being denied genetic testing in the long-term, because many of the major diseases are multifactorial, and their penetrance and relevance is not strong and so hard to establish, so they are difficult to predict. Some of the actuarial models are incredibly complex, even those based on something as simple as the presence or absence of the Huntingdon's chorea gene. Few conditions have a high-penetrance, single-gene detectable impact, so the risk to be pooled is not great.
I do not believe that it would destroy the insurance industry or its general principles if it were subject to a self-denying ordnance for five years, or even permanently.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has picked up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about the fact that the industry has managed without genetic tests for a long time. Other hon. Members have referred to the fact that there has been no increased incidence of disease in the population as a whole. The hon. Gentleman asks why the industry cannot simply pool the risk. However, so far he has failed to address the basic problem about the asymmetry of information, though I hope that he will do so. The prospective policyholder may have information and use it in a way that would, in other circumstances in the insurance industry, constitute fraud.
Dr. Harris: The very first line on my scrawled note relates to the question of adverse selection. I shall not repeat everything that has been said on that, but I have risen twice to make the point that demonstrating that a theoretical risk of adverse selection exists is not the same as saying that it represents a practical objection. We need to look for evidence to show whether the very small number of people who may be affected would play the system, whether they would get away with it. and whether protection would be available, such as a maximum limit.
I asked for such evidence, because I was aware that it had been presented at a conference of the UK Forum for Genetics and Insurance. I could not find the papers earlier, but a briefing that many of us will have received from GeneWatch—an organisation with which I do not always agree—references that study, saying:
"A recent US study with breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes found no evidence that they tried to mislead insurers."
The reference is to pages 29 to 39 of last year's volume 93 of the American Journal of Medical Genetics. If I remember correctly, that work was done at the university of Kentucky.
It is incumbent on the insurance industry to demonstrate in carefully designed studies that there is a significant risk of adverse selection and that having a ceiling—which would be a reasonable, possibly legislative, compromise—would have a bad effect on the rest of the insured pool. I do not think that such evidence exists, although it has been sought.

169WH
There are reasons why we may want to use genetic testing, but I do not find any of them conclusive.
Mr. Gardiner: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes this part of his speech, I should like to ask him one question. He was gracious enough, in one of his earlier interventions, to agree with me that we must establish the principles now that will become relevant in future. He accepted the suggestion that we may one day have many more tests with more accurate predictive power. If that is to be the case, does he not accept that one day so many people may be in an asymmetrical position, in which the information could be used for adverse selection, that he may have to review his position?
Dr. Harris: The fact that I support legislation banning something does not mean that I would never rethink my position; it is simply a matter of putting a legislative bar on something. Before the situation that he describes becomes a relevant factor, a huge change in the burden of disease would have to take place, between diseases known to be multifactorial and only somewhat genetic or hardly genetic at all and the impact of smoking, for example.
In principle, it is true that everything must be kept under review. Indeed, in the other Chamber, the Government are discussing a policy on student finance that is being kept under review, although it originally seemed absolute. However, that is not an argument for not legislating—it is an argument for reviewing legislation after the fact.
There are strong arguments, which have already been hinted at by other hon. Members, why it is bad for individual patients and for society to allow genetic testing. One of those arguments is the possible impact on what should be a clinical decision between patients and their counsellor and practitioner about whether to take a genetic test, which has big implications.
If our constituents were forced or encouraged to take genetic testing in order to get life insurance when they were buying a house, for example, it would add a non-clinical factor to the decision. I do not think that I am speaking from a peculiarly medical perspective when I say that in the patient-doctor relationship we try to ensure that big decisions about treatment and investigations are taken on the basis of a partnership between patients and those treating them. Decisions are based mainly, if not entirely, on clinical implications and a judgment about the ability of the patient to cope with the result—be it positive or negative—and its implications. I would hate patients with, for example, familial polycosis, to be discouraged from taking a genetic test because of the fear that it might have to be disclosed if they sought insurance, because in such cases they would be unable to benefit from screening through colonoscopy.
The insurance industry's interest in non-genetic testing is not good. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that there would be great difficulty in getting people to come forward for HIV testing, even though it might benefit them and their partners, if they feared that they would be stigmatised. There is a further worry: it is appalling that
170WH
an insurance company, on hearing that someone with a family history of the disease had tested positive for a BRCA gene, insisted on a prophylactic mastectomy before offering insurance. I do not bear any animosity towards the insurers; from their point of view it may have been a reasonable actuarial decision, but we should not allow that to intrude into what should be a strictly clinical decision. As well as other, more obvious, considerations, there will be a fundamental loss of equity in such circumstances as those who do not require life insurance because they are better off financially will have an advantage over the less well-off. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the Government will not allow such things to go on, in spite of their inaction in the past four years. Something that may be reasonable from an insurance point of view is a salutary lesson about what we should avoid.
The impact on society is another reason for avoiding such a course. I will not repeat what has been said about the danger of creating a genetic underclass of those who are uninsurable because of their genetic inheritance. As the hon. Member for Brent, North said, future developments—further predictable single-gene defects, for example—might increase the number of people brought within such a group.
We accept that it is a social good for people to be able to buy their own house, but it is often a requirement that anyone taking out a mortgage must also have life insurance. If we accept that buying one's own home is generally a good thing, we must not deny that right to people on the basis of their genes. There are stronger arguments about people who decide to smoke; although I accept that there are equity arguments in such decisions, it is a personal decision to start to smoke. The matter of genetic inheritance is much more difficult.
There is a stigma attached to having a genetic test and if confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, having such a test may give rise to concern. The stigma associated with HIV and AIDS caused a considerable setback in public education on the issue. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said that it would also affect the way we regard people with a disability.
The Association of British Insurers has proposed a moratorium and I have a few worries about that approach. The ABI states that only 96 per cent. of the industry is covered. That is significant and an argument for legislation, because coverage should be 100 per cent. If there is a gain or competitive advantage to be had from not complying with the moratorium and the insurance industry is right, that 4 per cent. may expand. A 96 per cent. ban or moratorium defeats the purpose, because it allows the companies that are not covered to gain a competitive advantage. That depends on whether the industry is right, and it may be for certain conditions.
What will happen after five years? When we consider the specific recommendations, we see that that problem still exists and we are left in doubt. Society should be able to give a view now. The debate has lasted a long time, and we should not have to keep revisiting the position before reaching a statutory resolution.
The record is not good. Paragraph 28 of the report shows the tangled web that the ABI has woven:
"The ABI did not initially help to clarify this confusion. The ABI's first memorandum stated that they recommended the use of the ten tests for seven conditions detailed above. During the

171WH
inquiry, however, we were informed by the Government that the Association had agreed, after the publication of the HGAC's first Report in 1997, that if any tests were not submitted to the GAIC by December 2000 it would advise its members to withdraw from using them. The GAIC informed us that apart from the test for Huntington's Chorea, the ABI had only submitted applications for a further four tests, namely those for early onset familial Alzheimer's disease and hereditary breast/ovarian cancer."
I do not think that that instruction went out as the ABI said that it would. We are seeing that it is not reasonable to assume that the industry will do what we expect it to.
The final problem with the moratorium is that, in the event of a concern, the appeal is to the person's own insurance company. If they are not satisfied, they must then go to the ABI. In this important sector, I have seen no regulation where the first two stages of appeal are to anything other than the insurance bodies.
In addition, the Government have not acted appropriately. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said that in 1995 the Conservative Government were unwilling to act on a Science and Technology Committee report. However, it did not die with that Parliament. The report still lies on the table, and for four years the Labour Government have also chosen not to act on it.
The Human Genetics Advisory Commission published a report in December 1997 that made clear recommendations. I was troubled, however, because the Select Committee stated in paragraph 13 on page x that the commission's first report, "The Implications of Genetic Testing for Insurance", was published in March 1997. The footnote refers to December 1997. The report describes itself as being published in December 1997. Whatever the Committee says, the report was clearly published in the time of this Government, so the Conservatives are off the hook in that regard.
There was a clear recommendation that there should first be a moratorium and then genetic tests should be used only after being approved by the Genetics and Insurance Committee. It was extremely disappointing that the Government eventually appointed that Committee but did not insist to the insurance industry that tests were not used until the Committee had approved them. That is a major factor, because only the genetic test for Huntington's disease has been approved so far.
By lack of action, the Government allowed testing to go on, against the HGAC's recommendation. Indeed, there is controversy over whether the industry made promises to the Human Genetics Advisory Committee about a moratorium on tests until they were accepted and passed by any committee that watered down the Human Genetics Advisory Committee report. The Genetics and Insurance Advisory Committee could look only at the technical, clinical and actuarial relevance of tests. It could not take into account, as we would hope legislators could, their impact on society. The fact that the report's conclusions were not, at that time, subject to peer review—as is now being recommended—raises questions about the decisions of that committee.
Another area where the Government have failed is in their response to paragraph 33 of the report. That paragraph states:
172WH
"The ABI's decision that four of the tests it recommended insurers use three years ago are now no longer relevant or reliable casts the gravest possible doubts on the validity of all the tests not explicitly approved by the GAIC, being currently used by insurers."
Their response, at paragraph 7 on page 6, is that
"The Government believes strongly that only tests that have passed scrutiny by the Genetics and Insurance Committee (GAIC) can be justifiably used by insurance companies."
If that is the Government's view now, I welcome that, but it could not have been their view four years ago because they did not at that time insist that tests were used only when they had been cleared by the Genetics and Insurance Committee.
Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that bringing the human genome project to completion has concentrated people's minds on the issue in a way that may not have been the case in 1998?
Dr. Harris: Certainly scientists' minds have been concentrated on the human genome project but I have not heard Ministers use the relentless onslaught of exciting scientific projects as an excuse—I am sure that they would not do so—for not having legislated. I am sure that the Government had reasons for not taking a tougher view earlier and not bringing forward the moratorium at a time when that would have protected many patients who have been subject to genetic tests that have not been approved by the Genetics and Insurance Committee.
I was, again, surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak did not stress paragraph 62 of the report. Because she did not do so, I shall. That paragraph states:
"The previous unwillingness of the Government to become involved in this area has contributed to the atmosphere of confusion and ignorance that pervades the use of genetic test results."
There has been huge confusion over what the future will be, and that is not to the advantage of the insurance industry. People have told me that they have found it difficult to plan when they do not know what the situation is. I do not believe that a five-year moratorium will make it any easier for them; indeed, the Government's delay in deciding their policy on long-term care insurance, after the royal commission, has also created difficulties for the insurance industry. The Government, quite rightly, want to support British industry but they have to recognise that protracted failure to make up their mind on such issues can have an adverse impact.
The Select Committee raised a question, in strong terms, about resources for the Genetics and Insurance Committee. It did not, strangely, bring that out in its recommendations but it described as alarming the response to the fact that the Genetics and Insurance Committee has 1.6 whole-time equivalent staff while the insurance industry has a huge budget to spend on the area. Will the Government give an assurance that they will not just keep that concern in mind but actively review it? The Committee's recommendation on the funding of the Human Genetics Commission was also clear. It stated at paragraph 74:
"The Government should, as a matter of urgency, review the funding and resources the HGC is allocated. If the HGC is to receive extra work as a result of our recommendations, this should also be reflected in its budget."

173WH
The Government say merely that they are
"committed to keeping the resources available to all their advisory bodies under review".
I had hoped that the Government would say that they have carried out a specific review of that work load.
A major concern that I have about the Government's action relates to paragraph 67 of the Select Committee's report:
"Insurance companies were wrong to use the results of genetic tests in assessing risk before they had been approved by the GAIC."
The Government now say in paragraph 42 of their response that they agree with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether she is willing to identify and perhaps compensate any patients or insurants who might have suffered as a result of the Government's failure to act earlier.
This has been a useful debate, but the Select Committee missed an opportunity to be much clearer. I will end with a comment about the recommendation in paragraph 70. The Select Committee fell into a trap of believing that the choices for legislation were all or nothing. It stated,
"We do not believe that legislation denying insurers access to all genetic test results would be appropriate."
The Government agree with that, and so do I. Clearly, there is benefit in having a moratorium below a certain amount so that it is reasonable to use positive results when people are seeking to insure themselves above an amount; however, that could be reflected in legislation. Similarly, it is reasonable to ensure that insurance companies are able to use negative results, which would bring people down to the standard risk; again, legislation could allow that. It is a pity that the Select Committee, having stated that legislation banning all genetic testing would not be appropriate, decided that the logical conclusion was a voluntary moratorium. The middle way between a voluntary moratorium and a ban on all genetic testing would be legislation to introduce a ban—along the lines of the moratorium, perhaps—so that society can be protected.
Despite that criticism of the Select Committee, I believe that its report was good in that it brought the issues together in a timely manner and enabled us to examine the continuing work of the Human Genetics Commission. I hope that the Government will respond to my concerns and accept that the on-going process should not be reviewed by the insurance industry only; Government should review the working of the moratorium as well—thus far, we have not heard anything about that.
5.7 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Well, that was interesting. That speech seemed to raise a few contradictions. On the one hand, the moratorium is a rather good idea, although it is not in statute. On the other, we should pool all risks, ignoring those shown by genetic testing, although we should do it only under a certain limit.
174WH
I congratulate the Committee on a thorough piece of work. Michael Clark, who was the Chairman, is well known for being assiduous and careful and for understanding his science. We can see in the evidence the careful questioning by him and other members of the Committee, and it is a tribute to the Committee that the Association of British Insurers and the Government have reached a point at which there will be a five-year moratorium. A Minister in the other place described it as a breathing space, and there is a lot to be said for that in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made the important point, which has also been made by the Co-operative Insurance Society, that medicine might evolve rapidly and many future diagnoses will be made on the basis of genetic tests rather than the existing medical tests. That could extend the boundaries for concessions from the insurance industry and could lead to a series of changes that we cannot foresee.
I find it difficult to be totally critical of the insurance industry in the way that some have been. The ABI was the first such body in the world to produce a code of conduct on genetic testing and it has made efforts over the years to keep up with science and ethical difficulties. It is easy to criticise Governments, but they face the same problems because this is a fast-moving picture. Medicine is not keeping pace with the science, so is it reasonable to expect insurance companies and Governments to do so? We must do our best, and some success has been achieved because of the report and the Committee's work in the 1990s.
I have concerns about the principles that we should follow. We cannot say that, because the tests do not work as well as we would like, they never will and, because there are only a handful of cases in which tests have been used, we should have a moratorium and ignore the question for the next few years. We must examine the issues of principle.
When Professor Bobrow gave evidence, he said that a wider question than that of genetic tests was genetic information and how insurance companies use it. He described taking a family history as genetic information. What is the Government's attitude to the present situation? Family histories, which involve genetic information, are taken with the result that some people are loaded and some are refused insurance.
Is the Minister happy for the well-established principle that only similar risks should be shared to continue? It is important to establish whether the Government are saying that the current moratorium might form the basis of future policy—that is, that certain evidence will be ignored and risks pooled more widely—or is it their position that the moratorium will give us time to think matters through properly, but that they are not planning fundamental changes for the insurance industry?
What is the extent of the problem that genetic tests address? Taking a family history obtains a lot of genetic information and allows the insurer to make a decision. People who are genetically tested will, by and large, have a family history. Is the genetic test element significant in a number of insurance company cases? The present information is that the element is significant in only a handful for each of the big companies.
Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just insurance that has a problem with genetics and

175WH
that there is also the question of employability? That question may spill into other industries as well, which is why the broader picture and principles must be examined during the moratorium.
Mr. Heald: I am sure that that is right, and it is an important point. Given my agreement with the Minister, I have only three minutes left in which to speak, so I shall not be able to complete my speech. I shall press on.
If a person is refused insurance and dies in circumstances in which dependants suffer, there is often a cost to the state. The refusal of insurance often has adverse consequences for society, but it would be helpful to know what the Government consider to be the balance. The Select Committee talked about the adverse consequence of positive genetic testing—people may not be prepared to take the treatment that they should. Is that how the Government view the balance? Do they consider that to be the adverse consequence or do they view the problem more widely?
What is the position on enforcing the moratorium? As the hon. Member for Brent, North said, if a material disclosure is not made and a claim is subsequently made on one's behalf, the insurance company can void the policy. That is the law. Does the Government's agreement with the ABI change the law and, if so, in what way, or will ABI members simply change the contracts that they make with individuals?
Mr. Gardiner: Because the industry and its members have agreed to waive that information, it is covered by section 18 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906. Therefore, there is no reason to void the policy.
Mr. Heald: I would be grateful to hear the Minister's view on that.
Are the Government tempted by the idea that all policyholders should share the risk up to a particular ceiling, even though some policyholders have genetic conditions that are known about through genetic tests, but which do not have to be disclosed? In other words, is the Minister tempted by the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)?
By what mechanism is enforcement to occur? The Minister spoke about GAIC monitoring compliance of the moratorium, but how will that be done? Will GAIC respond to individual complaints of non-compliance or will it take proactive steps to ensure that the moratorium is followed? What is the international perspective? Is the moratorium unique? What are other countries doing? Is there a danger that internet products will be made available in this country at lower premiums because other countries are not enforcing or reaching agreements as our Government have?
I intended to ask many more questions, but I am running short of time. The Select Committee wants to see more published research. Does the Minister believe that the moratorium will contribute to more actuarial research by insurance companies or hinder it? If so, what should be done? What is the overall public interest in this sector?
Is there evidence that those who receive an adverse medical result and are therefore likely to be refused insurance will fail to take medical advice? Presently, the
176WH
insurance refusal rate is about 3 per cent. Are people acting in the knowledge of that risk and failing to take medical treatment? Is any other independent evidence available to suggest that people will, on account of the risks, adopt the approach identified by the Select Committee—failure to take the treatment that they should?
We have heard several speeches, including those of the hon. Member for Brent, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), which entirely contradict each other. One argued for the insurance company view and the other for community rating in the insurance industry. What does the Minister believe?
5.18 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): The debate has been stimulating and useful. It follows the Select Committee's report, which provided a timely and helpful review of the use of genetic test results for insurance purposes. I thank present and former members of the Select Committee for their work.
Today's debate has also provided a useful opportunity to inform the House of progress made in respect of genetics and insurance since the report's publication. The Government response to that report was published on 23 October. In developing that response, the interim recommendations of the Human Genetics Commission, chaired by Baroness Helena Kennedy, proved invaluable. I thank the HGC for its important contribution.
As many hon. Members have said, the pace of developments in genetics in recent times has been impressive and important. The announcements of the human genome project have given us a glimpse of the enormous potential that will come from our greater understanding of the part that genetics play in susceptibility to, and development of, a host of diseases. Genetics is a fast-moving issue and, understandably, one that generates a great deal of interest. The Government's response to the developments must be not only swift and timely, but measured and flexible.
In the past, we have viewed genetics as affecting a relatively small number of people with rare serious disorders. However, in the future we may be offered tests that predict the risk of developing more common acquired diseases, such as cancer and heart disease. Many families carry as part of their genetic inheritance genes that might lead to genetic illnesses in some individuals. Many people in that position agree that the decision to take a genetic test can be difficult. The United Kingdom can be justly proud of the teams of dedicated professionals who care for patients and their families and who may have, or be at risk of, a disease with a genetic basis. The counselling and care offered by those teams can help individuals reach a decision that is right for themselves and their families.
Unfortunately, however, the decision to take a genetic test may be inextricably linked in many people's minds with concerns about the implications of the results for insurance and employment. It is imperative that people should not be deterred from taking such tests because of worries about non-health-related use of the results. As has been pointed out, genetics is not only about diagnosis. Such technologies also play a central role in

177WH
the battle to develop new and better treatments. Those benefits will not be manifest without public confidence and participation in valuable genetic research. There is a real danger that people will not take part in such research if they fear the insurance consequences.
Politicians and the wider public greet genetic developments with a mixture of optimism and apprehension. As we improve health and health care through a better understanding of our genes, we are charting new waters. Against the backdrop of great promise, we must balance very real worries about the ethical and societal issues that the technologies raise.
The implications of genetic testing stretch beyond health and health care. In particular, because of their potential predictive value, genetic test results have implications for insurance provision. The advent of genetic testing has created a situation that has potential financial implications for both the insurer and the consumer. There are concerns that an adverse genetic test may render insurance unobtainable or unaffordable and worries that consumers may withhold that genetic information from insurers. Clearly, there could be financial implications for the insurer if those people who know that they are at high risk take out high-value policies while concealing relevant information about that risk from the insurer. That is known as adverse selection. That genetic test results represent a double-edged sword in relation to insurance must be recognised. How should we best balance such worries?
Our debate has been important and well informed. When opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) gave an excellent summary of the history and the issues involved. I am sure that other hon. Members will want to join me in expressing disappointment that she will not continue to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee. She and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), raised the important issue of family history. Clearly, concern exists that people whose family members carry an inherited disorder may find insurance difficult to obtain because of their family history, irrespective of whether they have had a genetic test. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Secretary of State for Health has stated that he will consult support groups and the insurance industry to examine what can be done to improve matters for those whose family history makes insurance difficult or impossible to obtain due to cost. If a person has a family history of genetic illness with a negative genetic test result, insurance companies may use the result to reduce increased premiums to normal levels. My hon. Friend pushed the Government to respond on the time scale in relation to that. The Human Genetics Commission has indicated that it will consider the issue of the use of family history by insurers. It will report on the matter next year, and we shall want to wait to take into account recommendations that it may make on the issue.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) used his long experience of the issue, as a Committee member and as a Minister, in his contribution. He rightly highlighted the positive benefits of genetic testing while urging continued action during the moratorium. I
178WH
will come on to that point later. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) highlighted the complexity of interpreting genetic testing, the need for more research, and the need to ensure that that testing and research benefits people medically and socially. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) challenged the activities of insurance companies, especially in relation to the predictive use of genetic tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East emphasised the need, as did the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, for compliance with the moratorium in relation to what action the Government intended to take. In an interesting contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) used his insurance background to highlight the principles of insurance cover, and made a useful contribution if only because it enabled another voice and view to be heard during the debate.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) reassured us that the Liberal Democrat conference has addressed this important issue. I must have missed that particular session. I agreed with his emphasis on the social importance of this issue, which I shall address in a moment. However, I agreed with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that some of his other conclusions or policy proposals were contradictory. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire questioned the monitoring that would be in place of the moratorium, which I shall discuss later. He also made an interesting point about the international comparison and international implications, especially in relation to the internet, about which I shall write to him.
Mr. Gardiner: In her remarks about the moratorium, will the Minister clarify for the Committee the Government's position on the interpretation of the policy limits? The Government's response states:
"The moratorium will apply to life insurance policies up to £500,000 and critical illness…up to £300,000".
Will she clarify whether that is per life, per policy or per person taking out the policy who has an insurable interest, as, of course, a husband may take out a policy on his wife, and vice versa? It is important to know what is the total exposure that the Government anticipate will apply to the moratorium.
Jacqui Smith: I think that I shall be covering those issues. If my hon. Friend thinks that I do not so, I am sure that we can follow that up later.
Governments have been actively working with key stakeholders to examine these issues since 1996. In December of that year, the previous Government established the non-statutory advisory body, the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. Following a consultation exercise, it published a report in December 1997. The Government's response, published in November 1998, agreed with HGAC that a permanent ban on the use of genetic test results by insurers would be inappropriate, and that remains our position. However, the Government's response drew attention to the need to introduce an independent mechanism to evaluate the use of specific test results by insurers. By April 1999, a new body, the Genetics and Insurance Committee, had been

179WH
established by the Government to fulfil that role. To date, GAIC has reviewed and accepted the evidence for a single test—that for Huntington's disease—for life insurance policies only. GAIC has also begun to review applications for the use of genetic test results for breast cancer and the early onset of Alzheimer's disease.
Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that GAIC's work on those tests is being examined not only by the insurance industry but by geneticists, and that it is important that its work should not be considered only in the context of insurance, but that it should be seen as important throughout the medical world?
Jacqui Smith: All of the work that is being undertaken in the area that is under discussion is of importance not only in the context of insurance. Specific mechanisms are needed to ensure that tests that are used by insurers are clinically, technically and actuarially relevant—and that is a task for GAIC. However, the Government have also addressed the wider ethical and societal issues that arise from developments in genetics. To maximise potential gains from those developments, the public must be fully engaged in the debate about how they are used, and an understanding of their potential and, more importantly, a faith in the regulatory system, will be crucial. The Government must carry public opinion with regard to such matters.
In 2000, the Government established the Human Genetics Commission as an independent body to advise them on policy issues with regard to human genetics. In recognition of the broad interest and concern that there is in that area, the HGC was specifically tasked with addressing its social, ethical, legal and health care implications.
The Government asked the HGC to provide advice on the specific issue of genetics and insurance, and in May 2001 the HGC produced recommendations for a moratorium of not less than three years on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies. An exception was recommended by the HGC for higher value policies where the use of the test results reviewed and accepted by GAIC might continue. The HGC's recommended ceiling of the moratorium is £500,000 to cover the total value of an individual's insurance policies.
The Select Committee report and the HGC's recommendations have provided an important opportunity to consider whether systems put in place two years ago, with the establishment of GAIC to oversee the use of genetic test information by insurance companies, remain appropriate.
On 23 October 2001 the Government published their response to the Select Committee report. It contains details of our plans for adapting our mechanisms of oversight to meet the needs of today. The Government have agreed a package of measures that are designed to protect consumers and to provide for a suitable environment to develop a long-term sustainable policy. That package contains three key elements: a new moratorium by the Association of British Insurers on the use of genetic tests in insurance; the restructuring of GAIC, and a new expanded remit for it with regard to the monitoring of compliance with the moratorium; and a recognition of the need to develop a sustainable policy to replace the moratorium.
180WH
The moratorium, which the Government have negotiated and agreed with the ABI, will take effect from 1 November 2001. It sets out high financial ceilings underneath which genetic test results will not be used in the calculation of premiums. The new moratorium covers all types of policy up to the value of £300,000, with the exception of life insurance, for which the ceiling will be £500,000. The moratorium will stand for five years with a provision for a review of the financial ceilings after three years. The ceilings exceed the recommendations of the HGC, which sought an agreed limit of £500,000 to cover the total value of an individual's insurance cover. Under the new Association of British Insurers moratorium, should an individual wish to take out life, critical illness, income protection and long-term care insurance up to the ceiling value of each product, a total maximum value of all those added together would be £1.4 million.
Let me respond to worries about the clinical and actuarial relevance of tests that are accepted. Above the moratorium's ceilings, insurance companies will be allowed to use only the results of genetic tests that have been approved by GAIC. The introduction of those thresholds is designed to protect the insurance industry from potential high-cost adverse selection.
A five-year voluntary moratorium was agreed. That is longer than the minimum recommended by the Select Committee and the HGC. It essential for the moratorium to be sufficiently long to allow agreement about a long-term policy. We recognise that genetics is a fast-developing field and that we need to allow for the consideration of new data derived during the moratorium by stakeholders, and we have included a review point of the financial limits at three years.
The Government are committed to reviewing the membership and remit of GAIC. In line with the Select Committee's recommendations, the membership of GAIC will be expanded. We plan to advertise such vacancies later this year as part of a nationwide recruitment campaign for a number of health bodies. We will seek to strengthen GAIC by appointing additional members. They will include a person with expertise on consumer affairs, an insurance broker and a genetic councillor.
In response to a point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, let me say that GAIC will be charged with an expanded role in monitoring compliance with the terms of the moratorium. That will go beyond providing for an independent review of the annual returns that insurers provide to the ABI, and will include giving GAIC a new remit to investigate individual examples of non-compliance with the moratorium. If a policy applicant is unhappy about the way in which an insurance company dealt with their application, they should initially take that up with the company. If they are not satisfied with the results, they will be encouraged to contact the ABI. Importantly, if the applicant remains dissatisfied, they will be able to take their complaint to GAIC. If GAIC cannot resolve the matter, an independent tribunal will be set up with wide-ranging powers, including the provision to impose unlimited fines on insurance companies.
Mr. Heald: A matter that was also raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is what happens about insurance companies that are not in the ABI, such as Virgin Direct.
Jacqui Smith: On the whole, insurance companies that are not in the ABI have tended to have a more generous interpretation. However, the Government will carefully examine such insurance companies and would want to take action if they were acting in a manner that is not in line with the moratorium.
Dr. Harris: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No. I am running out of time. The hon. Gentleman took plenty of time with his contribution.
GAIC will be asked to make annual reports to Ministers about insurers' compliance with the moratorium and the code of practice. Let there be no doubt that any failure of the agreement will lead to a reconsideration of the Government's position regarding the need for statutory control. If there is evidence of serious and persistent non-compliance with the moratorium by the insurance industry, the Government will, if necessary, enforce the moratorium through legislation.
I thank the Select Committee for its work. Its report and the recommendations of the HGC have been invaluable in helping us to identify the best way forward. The terms of a strong and effective moratorium were negotiated with the ABI. I am particularly pleased to note
182WH
that the financial ceilings on the moratorium are substantial. There will be robust and independent arrangements for monitoring compliance. That provision is important if the moratorium is to be effective. Taken together, the moratorium and the arrangements for monitoring compliance will provide a suitable environment to develop—
Dr. Harris: We have a little time before the end of the sitting. What about people who suffered as a result of paying a higher premium because of the use of genetic tests up to 1 November, before the moratorium that the Minister negotiated comes into force?
Jacqui Smith: Considerable action has been taken, as I outlined. I would not consider it appropriate today to make the sort of commitment that the hon. Gentleman is trying to force out of me.
The Government believe that the moratorium and the arrangements for monitoring compliance will provide the environment that will, as hon. Members said, be important in ensuring that we develop a long-term sustainable policy in a field that is changing and developing quickly. We are confident that the package of measures will help both protect the public and maintain a competitive insurance industry.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That was an excellent and informed debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Six o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Advisers
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of(a) advisers, (b) agencies and (c) task forces (i) based in and (ii) administratively linked to his office. [7153]

  The Prime Minister
  At 15 October, I had agreed to the appointment of the following special advisers:

  Andrew Adonis

  Phil Bassett

  David Bradshaw

  Alastair Campbell

  Hilary Coffman

  Patrick Diamond

  Kate Garvey

  Anji Hunter

  Sarah Hunter

  Peter Hyman

  Katie Kay

  Roger Liddle

  Liz Lloyd

  Alasdair McGowan

  Chris McShane

  Fiona Millar

  Joanna Nadin

  Geoffrey Norris

  Carey Oppenheim

  Jonathan Powell

  Ed Richards

  Catherine Rimmer

  Justin Russell

  Derek Scott

  Carl Shoben

  Simon Stevens.

  In addition, I announced last week the appointment of independent advisers to work with the new Forward Strategy Unit (FSU). These roles are unpaid. Those appointed are:
  Arnab Banerji—Chief Investment Office of F&C Management Ltd.;
  Nick Lovegrove—Partner at McKinsey's;
  Penny Hughes—formerly President of Coca Cola Great Britain and Ireland, currently non-executive director of Vodafone plc and Trinity Mirror plc;
  Adair Turner—Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch.
  314W
  Lord Birt, my unpaid strategy adviser, will have an overarching role on a number of projects supported by the FSU.

  For details of other appointments and non-departmental public bodies linked to my office, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2001 (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/2001/co report), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. An up-to-date list of task forces, review groups and other ad hoc advisory groups will be published soon by the Cabinet Office.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason salaries of Ministers special advisers are confidential. [10221]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of individual special advisers' salaries are not published in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role of the banks in Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus in money laundering for(a) terrorists and (b) drug runners connected to Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [8876]

  Peter Hain
  The "Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus" is not internationally recognised except by Turkey, and has consequently never been formally assessed by any of the leading global anti-money laundering organisations. There is evidence, however, that it is vulnerable to exploitation by those involved in money laundering, and it has taken some steps to combat this.

  The United Kingdom authorities will continue to remain alert to the activities of financial institutions in the area.

  Maluku
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action the Government have taken to help Indonesian Christians and Muslims on the Maluku Islands. [9657]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department for International Development (DfID) has pledged more than £4 million to help establish the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Conflict Prevention and Recovery Unit in Jakarta. The unit will build up capacity in conflict reduction and recovery in the provinces torn apart by ethnic conflict, particularly in north Maluku. We will continue to work with the Indonesian authorities and UNDP to promote reconciliation, begin wider reconstruction work and to offer practical assistance where appropriate.

  The British Government have repeatedly encouraged the Indonesian Government bilaterally and through multilateral forums to bring to justice religious extremists responsible for human rights abuses in Maluku. I most recently raised these issues with the Indonesian Vice President, Hamzah Haz, when we met in Jakarta in August.

  Balkan Rebels (al-Qaeda Funding)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has of al-Qaeda funding of the rebels in Albania [9618]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no evidence of al-Qaeda funding activity in Albania.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Mujahedeen who operated with the Bosnian Army in the 1990s are now involved with the rebels in Macedonia. [9617]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no evidence that any Mujahedeen who operated in Bosnia are now active in Macedonia.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium Transportation
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the security arrangements covering the transportation of plutonium. [7871]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The transportation of plutonium is carried out in accordance with strict national and international regulations and recommendations. The standards applied are approved by the Director for Civil Nuclear Security, the Government's Regulator, to ensure that the security risks associated with the transportation of nuclear material are effectively countered by protective measures.

  Pyramid Investment Schemes
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to introduce regulations tightening controls on pyramid investment schemes. [9622]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Investment schemes fall within the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority.

  Utilities
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure that consumers of gas and electricity who are wrongly transferred from their supplier are compensated for resulting loss and inconvenience. [9871]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A voluntary code has been developed by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch) and has been accepted by all suppliers of gas and electricity to domestic consumers. The code, known as the Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter, will come into effect in January 2002. It will ensure that consumers who have been wrongly transferred will be returned to their previous supplier with as little inconvenience as possible. The consumer will be able to contact either supplier, who will resolve the problem and provide the consumer with any necessary information.

  Bassetlaw
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses in Bassetlaw constituency have been(a) assisted and (b) established by the Small Business Service in the last year. [9879]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since April 2001, 142 businesses in Bassetlaw have been assisted. In the previous 12 months a local Enterprise Agency supported 226 and facilitated 29 business start-ups.

  Fishermen's Compensation Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-trawlermen whose claims are outstanding have died since the fishermen's compensation scheme was announced. [9869]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I regret that this information is not available, since the Department is not informed of deaths in many cases.

  Fireworks (Accidents)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries were caused by fireworks in each of the last 10 years. [9603]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of deaths and injuries caused by fireworks in each of the last 10 years is given in the following table. The seriousness of injuries is not separately identified in the annual statistics.

  Total number of accidents

  Deaths

  2000

  972

  2

  1999

  1,056

  0

  1998

  831

  0

  1997

  908

  0

  1996

  1,233

  2

  1995

  1,530

  0

  1994

  1,574

  2

  1993

  1,058

  0

  1992

  942

  0

  1991

  723

  0

  1990

  805

  0

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote offshore wind farming as an alternative source of energy. [10563]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 13W.

  BSkyB
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects the Office of Fair Trading to report on its inquiry into BSkyB. [10097]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Competition Act inquiries are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  TRIPS Council
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the TRIPS Council between WTO member states on 19 September. [8313]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights) Council on 19 September concentrated on issues about access to medicines.

  The meeting reached no conclusion and the matter has been referred to the Chair of the World Trade Organisation General Council to take forward discussions regarding a ministerial declaration. The next TRIPS Council will be on 26 to 30 November 2001.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Gosport)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are planned for the numbers of service personnel to be based in service establishments in the Gosport constituency. [9771]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 19 July 2001,Official Report, columns 334–35W to my hon. Friend the member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) in which I advised the House that as part of the implementation of the Defence Training Review the Ministry of Defence is conducting a series of studies into rationalisation of training facilities. Under this programme HMS Sultan in Gosport will be the benchmark or Public Sector Comparator for electromechanical engineering training. As Project Definition work is not due to be completed until next March it is, however, too early to judge the outcome of this study.

  Skynet 5
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the employment implications for United Kingdom companies with special reference to Astrium Ltd. of the awarding of his Department's Skynet 5 Military Satellite Communications contract to a majority UK-based communications company; [10169]

  (2) when he expects to announce the name of the company making the successful bid in his Department's Skynet 5 Military Satellite Communications contract, and if he will make a statement; [10168]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the Paradigm Secure Communications consortium's bid to be awarded his Department's Skynet 5 Military Satellite Communications contract, and if he will list the names of the companies which have submitted bids; [10171]

  (4) what criteria he is using to assess the bids for the awarding of his Department's Skynet 5 Military Satellite Communications contract. [10170]
  318W
  Dr. Moonie
  Proposals have been received from two consortia: Paradigm Secure Communications (led by Astrium) and Rosetta Global Communications (led by Lockheed Martin, British Telecom and BAE Systems). The evaluation of Skynet 5 is very complex and will primarily take into account financial, commercial and technical issues. The assessment will also consider the industrial implications of each proposal. Both bidders have been invited to submit 'Best and Final Offers' by the end of November 2001. All aspects of the bids will be fully assessed before a decision is reached. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the bidders' proposals while the competition is taking place. However, on current plans I expect to announce the preferred bidder in the early part of 2002.

  Internees (Far East)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice the Department of Social Security gave to the Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region in November 2000 on the interpretation of which categories of claimant could count as British in order to qualify for the ex gratia payments announced on 7 November 2000. [10226]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ex-gratia scheme for former captives of the Japanese is administered by the War Pensions Agency, which was an executive agency of the Department of Social Security until 8 June 2001 when the agency transferred to the Ministry of Defence.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 22 October 2001, Official Report, column 2W.

  Plutonium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the source of the 0.3 tonnes of plutonium still to be moved from AWE Aldermaston to Sellafield as of 14 March 2000; what quantities of plutonium have been moved to Sellafield and placed under safeguards since this date; and what plans there are to move further quantities of military plutonium to Sellafield. [8962]

  Mr. Ingram
  Taken in their totality, acquisitions of plutonium for the nuclear weapons programme were predominantly from Sellafield. A number of other sources are described in the Ministry of Defence report of April 2000, entitled 'Plutonium and Aldermaston, an Historical Account'. It is however impossible to identify the specific original source of the 0.3 tonnes of weapon grade material to which my hon. Friend refers. Of this 0.3 tonnes, some 235 kilograms have been moved to Sellafield and placed under International Safeguards—this represents some 162 kilograms since 14 March 2000. It is intended that the balance of 65 kilograms will be moved in due course.

  Microsoft
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has plans to migrate to Microsoft Windows XP and MS Office XP; what estimate of the costs involved has been made; and what alternatives have been examined. [8782]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is planning to integrate its corporate information systems under a single Defence Information Infrastructure programme, the requirements for which are still being
  319W
  formulated. If approved, this programme will assess various options including software provision and any potential move to Microsoft XP products, taking account of costs and benefits.

  Separately, MOD has recently agreed a defence-wide licensing agreement reflecting the considerable number of Microsoft products already used within the MOD. This agreement would allow MOD to migrate to new products if shown to be cost-effective.

  Armed Forces (Pensions)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what abatement is made in respect of pay levels in the armed forces to take account of the benefits from the non-contributory pension scheme. [9392]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is the remit of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) to consider broad pay comparability, and this includes taking account of the deferred pay represented by pension provision. The AFPRB currently applies an abatement to comparators' earnings to account for the early and fast accrual of benefits under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) compared with those available in the civilian sector. The level of abatement set in the AFPRB's 30th Report (2001) is 7 per cent.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made of the costs of increasing death-in-service benefits of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8739]

  Mr. Ingram
  Within the current Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), the death-in-service gratuity for non-attributable deaths is significantly lower than in most other comparable pension schemes. The recent consultation document setting out our initial findings from the review of the AFPS therefore recommended that the death-in-service gratuity should be increased to three times pensionable salary. Overall, the changes would represent a substantial improvement in terms for family and dependants. The additional cost of this enhancement has been estimated at some £9 million per annum.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme will report. [8742]

  Mr. Ingram
  The period of public consultation was due to end formally on 31 July but was extended informally to admit some late replies. The Ministry of Defence is now undertaking an analysis of the responses with a view to identifying significant issues and recommending how it might move ahead on these. This will require detailed discussions to agree responses that meet our recruitment and retention needs, but which are also consistent with wider public sector pensions policy. In addition, we intend to engage in further discussions with the ex-service community during this process, both to discuss their particular concerns and inform them of our thinking. This approach means that it is not possible to set a definitive time scale but our current plan is that we should seek to report on the review by the late spring of next year.

  Service Accommodation
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that substandard service living quarters are upgraded; and within what time scale. [9770]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced a significant new programme of investment at the Defence Estates Conference for Industry on 14 March 2001.

  The upgrade programme will involve a major investment year on year for the next decade, which will build up to new investment levels of approximately £200 million per year on new and upgraded accommodation.

  A number of upgrade and rebuild programmes are already under way. We are preparing a competition for a major Single Living Accommodation Modernisation Prime Contract, to be awarded by the end of 2002.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role has been played by the Territorial Army in Exercise Swift Sword. [R][9675]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Territorial Army have made a very positive contribution to exercise Saif Sareea (Swift Sword) II in a variety of roles. Around 400 Territorial Army personnel have been deployed primarily to augment regular units in a wide range of specialist functions including intelligence, medical support and military policing.

  Porton Down
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which states(a) biological and (b) chemical material have been supplied from Porton Down since 1990. [8770]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Defence and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down has supplied biological, or biologically derived samples to the following countries: USA, France, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Austria, Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Japan and Canada. Chemical materials that fall within the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention have been supplied to Sweden and Canada.

  Challenger
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the production lead time is for producing additional air filters for the Challenger II main battle tank; [8740]

  (2) what production facilities exist to produce air filters for the Challenger II main battle tank. [8741]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Challenger H air filter is produced by PALL Aerospace at their facility in Redruth, Cornwall. The company have a production lead time of eight weeks, but they have been able to provide filters within a three week period when necessary

  Tracer Programme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Tracer programme. [10157]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK and the US have taken a joint decision to bring the Tracer programme to a close in July 2002 when the current assessment phase comes to an end. In keeping with the principles of Smart Acquisition, this illustrates our willingness to take the right decision early in a programme in response to changing priorities. The Tracer programme has successfully developed a pool of key technologies that can now be utilised in future programmes such as the Future Rapid Effects System which will play a key role in meeting the Land Commander's Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance needs.

  STTA Map
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the drawing of the STTA map, LFA14T; and when the borders were last redrawn. [9982]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Tactical Training Areas, within which Operational Low Flying is conducted, were selected on the basis of low population density and remoteness from major conurbations. The boundary of Low Flying Area 14(T) has remained unchanged since it was established, with the creation of the current UK Low Flying System, in 1979.

  Chemical Warfare Training
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent training the armed forces have received for dealing with chemical warfare; how up to date that training is; and what has been done to ensure that training has been updated to take account of recent terrorist attacks and the present international situation. [9270]

  Mr. Ingram
  Training for nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) defence is a wide ranging and comprehensive activity for all armed forces personnel, beginning with basic recruit courses and continuing throughout their careers. Training is carried out both individually and collectively in units and formations. NBC defence is integrated into a wide range of military training, including major and minor exercises. The Defence NBC Centre at Winterbourne Gunner is world-renowned. A major task of this tri-service unit is to provide the best possible training in NBC defence for officers and NCOs, whether they are employed in staff appointments, as instructors, or at unit level. The content of training courses remains under regular review to ensure that it is relevant, up to date and effective, and mechanisms are in place to ensure that NBC Defence training is validated by all three services.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Road Traffic Accidents involving service personnel have taken place in the last 12 months on(a) MOD property and (b) public roads in which driver's fatigue has been identified as a significant factor; and if he will make a statement. [10217]
  322W
  Mr. Ingram
  Information on Road Traffic Accidents is updated centrally for the period 1 April to 31 March each year. The number of Road Traffic Accidents for the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 where driver fatigue was identified as a contributory factor, rather than a significant factor, is 115, broken down as follows:

  Places

  Number

  On Ministry of Defence property

  47

  On public roads

  68

  Further information on road safety matters is contained within the Defence Annual Road Safety Report and a copy of the report for 1999–2000 will be placed in the House shortly. This report also contains details of various measures being put in place to reduce the risk of accidents (including fatigue). The report for 2000–01 is due to be published towards the end of this year, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Apache Helicopter Programme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 4W, when the first operational Apache Squadron will be available; and when a full task force capability based on an attack helicopter regiment will be operational. [10227]

  Mr. Ingram
  The first regiment to be equipped with Apache will be 9 Regiment Army Air Corps, based at Dishforth. Elements from that regiment will provide an Initial Operational Capability in 2004. A full Operational Capability, based on three regiments, is expected to be available by the end of 2007.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on submitting parliamentary questions by electronic means. [9611]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Responsibility for this rests with the Procedure Committee. However, I understand the Committee is currently inquiring into parliamentary questions and I am sure that Members will have an opportunity to make the Committee aware of their views.

  Webcasting
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to make proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on webcasting the business of the House. [9612]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Responsibility for this rests with the Broadcasting Committee. However, I understand that, following a recommendation from the Committee, a pilot project to explore the potential of webcasting will begin in January, and proceedings from each House will be webcast from that date.

  New Technology
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council what the cause was of the delay in the supply of new technology for hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [10220]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  During the debate on Members' Allowances, Insurance &c. on 5 July 2001,Official Report, columns 421–77, I said to the House that distributing new computer equipment to Members' offices in Westminster and the constituencies has proved to be a massive logistical exercise. Hon. Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that early delays were due to the complexity of the operation. Our suppliers have had to process orders with different combinations of product and then to dispatch and install the equipment, often on two or three sites.

  The new Advisory Panel on the Members' Vote which advises Mr. Speaker and myself has been monitoring progress. I am told that of the 468 Members who have now placed orders, 162 have been fulfilled and 55 have been met in part. Members who ordered before the end of the recess can expect to be offered delivery and installation before the end of November. By the end of the financial year over 6,000 items will have been delivered and installed to over 1,300 locations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reintroduce targets for the reduction of exclusions from schools. [6697]

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to reintroduce targets for the reduction of exclusions from schools. [6713]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to set fresh targets to reduce permanent exclusions further. We have met our target to reduce permanent exclusions by a third a year early and consider the current level of exclusions to be sustainable. Our priority now is to ensure that teachers are supported in maintaining classroom discipline, and that where pupils are permanently excluded, they receive a full-time education.

  Teachers (Retention)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to encourage people who have left the profession to return to teaching. [6701]

  Mr. Timms
  We have recently introduced a series of incentives to encourage qualified teachers to return to the profession. We have introduced a scheme to pay bonuses of up to £4,000 to those returning to teaching in maintained schools and non-maintained special schools between April and December this year. We have increased funding to provide a total of 1,800 places a year on refresher courses for returners to teaching, including £150 a week grants and help towards child care costs. And we have also made changes to the Teachers' Pension 324W
  Scheme to make it easier and more attractive to retired teachers to return to teaching on either a full-time or part-time basis.

  Class Sizes
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to reduce junior class sizes. [6702]

  Mr. Timms
  As a result of the additional funds we have invested in education, the average size of junior classes has fallen from 28.4 January 1999 to 27.9 in January 2001.

  Grammar School Ballots
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to alter the franchise for ballots on the future of grammar schools to include those parents whose children attend the school. [6703]

  Mr. Timms
  In selective areas the electorate already includes parents whose children attend grammar schools. We have no plans to amend the criteria of eligibility for parents voting in feeder school ballots.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to alter the system of holding ballots on the future of grammar schools. [6712]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no plans to amend the grammar school ballots legislation.

  Teacher Work Load (PricewaterhouseCoopers Review)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to publish the findings of the review of teacher work load being carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers. [6705]

  Mr. Timms
  PricewaterhouseCoopers produced their interim report in August. Copies are available on the Department's website: www.dfes.gov.uk/teachers/workloadstudy. The final report is expected at the end of November.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review student finance. [6706]

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements her Department has made to monitor and evaluate the impact of funding changes on access to higher education. [6717]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced on 3 October 2001 that she is leading a review of student funding, working together with representatives from HM Treasury and No. 10. We need to ensure that we have an appropriate balance between the contribution made by students, their families and the state to support our ambitions to widen access and participation in higher education. A range of policy options is being considered. No decisions have been taken.
  325W
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) which bodies she will invite to submit representations to the cross-departmental review she has announced on student finance; [10200]

  (2) what plans she has to invite external submissions to the cross-departmental review she has announced on student finance. [10199]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have said that we plan to consult on any proposals to emerge from the review.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she plans to meet representatives of Universities UK to discuss student finance. [10201]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has written to Prof. Roderick Floud, President of Universities UK, to inform him that a review is under way. We plan to consult on any proposals for change and would expect Universities UK to contribute.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to meet representatives of the National Union of Students to discuss student finance. [10202]

  Margaret Hodge
  I met Owain James, President of the National Union of Students, in the summer to discuss student finance. We are currently reviewing student finance policy. We plan to consult and would expect the National Union of Students to contribute.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what options are under consideration in the review of student finance which she has announced; and if she will make a statement. [10203]

  Margaret Hodge
  We will consult on proposals that emerge from the review.

  A-level Results
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on this year's A-level results. [6707]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The advanced level results published by the Joint Council for General Qualifications on 16 August 2001 are provisional. A copy of these provisional results has been placed in the Library. Final figures for this year's results will be published in November.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on learning and skills councils. [6708]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council and its 47 local arms became fully operational from April 2001. Significant progress has been made by the LSC to develop its strategic framework for the period to 2004, with the publication of its first corporate plan at the end of July. The plan includes key objectives and targets for 2004. This is providing the foundation for local strategic plans and business plans, which are now being developed by the local councils in consultation with key local and regional partners.

  Further Education
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans to improve standards in further education colleges. [6709]

  John Healey
  We are fully committed to raising standards in further education colleges and will reward high quality and take firm action where our standards are not being met. We are supporting teaching staff to continue their professional development, requiring that new staff have the necessary qualifications, and helping colleges to update their computer equipment and develop centres of excellence.

  Mr. Miliband
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her plans for the development of further education provision for(a) 16 to 19-years-old and (b) adults. [6686]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford),Official Report, 25 October 2001, column 393.

  Research Assessment Exercise 2001
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review with the Higher Education Funding Council the operation of the 2001 research assessment exercise. [6710]

  Margaret Hodge
  The operation of the 2001 research assessment exercise will be reviewed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the other UK funding bodies after the exercise has been completed.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the progress of the specialist schools status programme. [6711]

  Mr. Timms
  The Specialist Schools Programme is popular and successful. Since May 1997, 504 schools have joined the growing network of specialist schools. There are now 685 operational specialist schools across the country and we are on course to achieve the proposals set out in the White Paper "Schools achieving success" to extend the programme to eight specialisms and expand the number of specialist schools to 1,500 schools by 2005.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will issue new guidance following the review of Curriculum 2000. [6714]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In August, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority published detailed guidance for schools and colleges. This is available on its website. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  On 12 September, the Joint Council for General Qualifications issued guidance to schools and colleges about measures designed to reduce "burden of assessment".

  Teacher Shortages
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations she has received from Oxfordshire county council concerning teacher shortages. [6715]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials have maintained regular contact with Oxfordshire local education authority over recent months. The LEA and schools are working hard to recruit the teachers they need and I am pleased to be able to report that schools in Oxfordshire are operating normally.

  Education White Paper
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with the National Union of Teachers to discuss the Government's White Paper on education. [6716]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend met the National Union of Teachers at the time of the launch to brief them on the White Paper and again on 4 October 2001 to discuss the proposals.

  Connexions Service
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what effect the Connexions service has had on levels of participation and attainment. [6718]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since April 2001, 15 out of a total of 47 Connexions partnerships have commenced operation. The remaining partnerships will be phased in during 2002–03. Raising the levels of participation and attainment of young people in education and training in conjunction with other partners is seen as a key objective of the new service and is reflected in the priorities and targets of all Connexions partnerships. The progress of partnerships towards meeting these key targets will form an important part of the performance review process in future years once relevant annual data covering participation and achievement become available from 2002 onwards.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of individual learning accounts. [10372]

  Estelle Morris
  The individual learning account (ILA) programme is to be withdrawn from 7 December in England. The programme has attracted over 2.5 million account holders and has been a great success in bringing down the financial barriers to learning. ILAs have opened up access for a great many people to a wide range of learning opportunities. However, the rapid growth of the scheme has exceeded all expectations, causing us to think again about how best to target public funds in this area and secure value for money. I also have concerns about the way in which some ILAs have been promoted and sold. There is growing evidence that some companies are abusing the scheme by offering low value, poor quality learning.

  The scheme is now closed to applications for new accounts, but learning begun by existing account holders will continue to be supported provided it is booked with
  328W
  the ILA centre by 7 December. We remain committed to a forward-looking policy of encouraging the widest possible participation in lifelong learning.

  Failing Schools
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the funding of failing schools and strategies to improve them. [6692]

  Mr. Timms
  The Standards Fund supports expenditure required to bring schools out of special measures. LEAs and schools may provide additional funding focused on action to secure improvements.

  Governors of every school on special measures and the LEA are required to produce an action plan setting out how they are addressing causes of failure. The effectiveness of a school's actions is monitored by OFSTED. My Department works with LEAs to challenge and support actions under way.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9368]

  Estelle Morris
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised, nor would it be practicable to do so.

  LEA Funding Formula
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress she has made in the review of the LEA funding formula. [6691]

  Mr. Timms
  We have two working groups, comprising local government and schools partners, developing proposals for a new LEA funding system. To ensure that we get the formula right, we have decided to implement reform in 2003–04 rather than 2002–3. This will allow us to see the impact of all the changes we will be making to local authority finance, not just those which affect education.

  Post-16 Education (Northumberland)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about the operation of the new funding for post-16 education in Northumberland. [6699]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding for school sixth forms in Northumberland this year is provided by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Learning and Skills Council provides funding for further education and work-based training. From April 2002 responsibility for funding school sixth forms will transfer to the Learning and Skills Council. Funds will continue to reach schools via the Local Education Authority.

  Primary School Standards
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about standards in primary schools. [6698]
  329W
  John Healey
  There has been a substantial rise in primary school standards following the introduction of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Since 1998, there has been a 10 per cent. point improvement to 75 per cent. in the number of pupils achieving the expected standard for their age in the Key Stage 2 English tests and a 12 per cent. point improvement to 71 per cent. in maths. We remain committed to raising standards further and achieving the challenging targets we have set.

  School Discipline (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what meetings she has had with Ofsted to discuss standards of discipline in schools in Somerset. [6684]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend has not taken part in any meetings with Ofsted about school discipline in Somerset. However, we do meet Ofsted colleagues regularly, and standards of discipline in a particular local education authority will be discussed if an inspection of that authority shows that standards are poor.

  Aiding Communication in Education Centre North
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to support the Aiding Communication in Education Centre North. [9815]

  John Healey
  The Department for Education and Skills funds both the Aiding Communication in Education (ACE) Centre North and the Aiding Communication in Education Centre Advisory Trust through the British Education Communications and Technology Agency (Becta).

  We are currently working with the ACE Centre North to support its transition to charitable status. We will continue to support the valuable work of these centres in providing services for children and young people who use communication aids.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the share of gross domestic product spent on education in each year since 1992–93. [8878]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The amount of gross domestic product spent on education between 1992 and 1997 fell from 5.1 per cent. to 4.6 per cent. Between 1998 and 2002 it will have risen from 4.5 per cent. to 5.0 per cent. This translates to a cash increase of almost £11 billion. It is estimated to rise to 5.3 per cent. by 2003–04, which means the Government will have kept their manifesto promise to increase the proportion of national income spent on education in this Parliament.

  Public sector education spending in the United Kingdom as a proportion of GDP in each year since 1992–93 is shown in the table:

  Percentage

  1992–93

  5.1

  1993–94

  5.1

  330W

  Percentage

  1994–95

  5.0

  1995–96

  4.9

  1996–97

  4.7

  1997–98

  4.6

  1998–99

  4.5

  1999–2000

  4.5

  2000–011

  4.8

  2001–021

  5.0

  2002–032

  5.1

  2003–042

  5.3

  1Estimate

  2Forecast figures

  Source:

  Tables 1.2 and 3.4 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, 2001–02" and prior equivalents

  Union Learning Representatives
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will announce the results of the recent consultation on proposals to place union learning representatives on a statutory footing. [10237]

  John Healey
  I am pleased to announce today the results of the consultation. There were 89 responses and the majority of respondents agreed strongly with the proposals in the consultation document that learning representatives should qualify as such if elected or appointed according to the rules of the union and that they should undergo training within a specified period. There was much general support for the production of a Code of Practice to help with the implementation of the practical implications of the proposals. This will include guidance on reasonable time off and the use of facilities. We will introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Safe Cells
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells will be installed in(a) prisons and (b) police stations in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year. [8457]

  Beverley Hughes
  A total of 681 safer cells will be installed in prisons in 2001–02, and there is at present financial provision for a further 531 in 2002–03. These include 576 in 2001–02, and in 2002–03, in Design, Construction, Management and Finance (DCMF) prisons in which elements of the safer cell are being incorporated.

  Safer cells are not fitted at police stations, but each of the 43 forces will continue to upgrade cells to reduce ligature points. There are no figures available for the number of cells to be improved in this manner either for this year or the next financial year.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners accommodated in safe cells have committed suicide in the last five years. [8459]

  Beverley Hughes
  One. The cause of death is not yet known as the inquest is outstanding.
  331W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells were installed in(a) prisons and (b) police stations in each of the last five years. [8458]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the numbers of safer cells installed in prisons in each of last five years. These include 2,441 cells in Design, Construction, Management and finance (DCMF) prisons in which elements of the safer cell are incorporated. Safer cells are not fitted at police stations, but each of the 43 forces will be upgrading cells to reduce ligature points as and when funds allow.

  The number of safer prison service cells installed in prisons from 1997–2002

  Year

  Total

  1997–98

  10

  1998–99

  120

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  1,919

  2001–02

  681

  Full total

  2,740

  Prison Suicides
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners committed suicide in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many were(a) male, (b) female, (c) on remand and (d) aged under 21 years. [8456]

  Beverley Hughes
  Statistics for the number of self-inflicted prisoner deaths between 1996–2000 are shown in the table.

  Number of suicides in England and Wales in each of the years 1996 to 2000 by gender, on remand and under 21 years of age

  Year

  Total

  Male

  Female

  On Remand

  Under 21 years

  1996

  64

  62

  2

  31

  12

  1997

  68

  65

  3

  26

  9

  1998

  82

  79

  3

  39

  14

  1999

  91

  86

  5

  45

  14

  2000

  81

  73

  8

  39

  16

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 20 July [ref. 373]. [9959]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 288W.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued under the fast track scheme for shortage occupations in the period since the introduction of this scheme; how many permits were issued for shortage occupations as a proportion of the total; and if he will make a statement. [9443]
  332W
  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits issued for Tier 1 applications can only be given from 1 October 1999 which are 120,750 of which 65,002 are shortage occupations. The shortage skills occupation category was first introduced into the work permit arrangements in February 1990. The number of work permits issued for shortage occupations since that date are not available as the way in which work permit management information is collected was changed on 1 October 1999.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued to IT professionals in(a) the last year and (b) in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9446]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits which were issued to Information Technology professionals in the last year, from 1 October 2000 until 30 September 2001 was 28,191. The number of work permits issued in the period 1 September to 30 September 2001, which is the latest period available is 1,477.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued in the last 12 months to immigrants from India and Pakistan seeking employment in the IT industry. [9382]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of work permits approved in the last 12 months for Indian nationals seeking employment in the Information Technology (IT) industry was 16,575. The number approved for nationals from Pakistan seeking employment in the IT industry was 342.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the period between the commencement of the home detention curfew scheme on 28 January 1999 and 30 September 2001, what are(a) the total number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including the specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (1) received and (2) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, who (A) breached the conditions of the curfew, (B) disappeared and were recaptured, (C) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (D) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [9476]
  333W
  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to permit asylum seekers to take paid employment; and if he will make a statement. [9455]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not presently envisage any changes to the operation of the employment concession for asylum seekers. Under the terms of the employment concession adult asylum seekers can apply for permission to work if their application has been outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost per week of detaining an asylum seeker(a) in prison and (b) in a closed reception centre; and if he will make a statement. [9456]

  Angela Eagle
  (a) The weekly cost of detaining an immigration detainee in prison is set out in the table.

  Location

  Cost per place

  Cost per prisoner

  Male locals

  495

  455

  Haslar

  323

  360

  These data are derived from the annual report for that year. We do not publish figures for cost per week so the above data have been derived by dividing the annual outturn by 52 weeks.

  (b) The current weekly unit cost of housing an asylum seeker at Oakington, the only closed reception centre currently operating and based on an average occupancy of 170 in September, is estimated at £1,620. This is a higher figure than quoted in earlier replies but the unit cost is subject to variation because of changes in occupancy and, during September, this was significantly lower than during any of the previous six months. This was as a result of the contingency arrangements required in the light of legal proceedings on the legality of detaining asylum seekers at Oakington.

  The weekly costs quoted are not comparable as they compare an average cost for a prison with the specific costs of a unit designed to take quick asylum casework decisions. Oakington was set up to fast track asylum applications and this has resulted in significant savings in the time taken to process applications and therefore in asylum seekers support costs, which offset operating costs.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations involved in asylum seeker support and advice who have expressed to him their views on the voucher scheme; what proportion of them opposed it; and if he will make a statement. [9448]

  Angela Eagle
  We have undertaken to place a list of the organisations that contributed to the review in the Library of the House, together with copies of their responses. A summary of the responses will be published in the review report.
  334W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the level of support to asylum seekers including dependants, increased in the year 2001; and if he will make a statement. [9447]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is only responsible for setting the support levels for the asylum seekers it is supporting directly. NASS has not increased its levels of support in 2001. Individual local authorities are responsible for setting the level of support paid to asylum seekers supported under the interim scheme and there is no central record of the amounts paid. But the grant paid by the Home Office is subject to unit cost limits.

  Some asylum seekers remain eligible for support under the income support arrangements. It is understood that the rates for adults and children were increased in April and that there was a further increase in the income support rate for children yesterday. In most cases, asylum seekers in receipt of income support will also get their full housing costs paid through housing benefit.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to make a statement on the voucher review before the end of the month.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of every £10 allocated for vouchers to asylum seekers is spent on administering the support arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [9454]

  Angela Eagle
  Of the total amount spent by the Home Office on supporting destitute asylum seekers just over 3 per cent. can be identified as administration costs. This includes grants to the voluntary sector for the provision of services associated with the current support arrangements.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependants whose applications have not been determined have been detained in custody for(a) over 25 days, (b) over 50 days, and (c) over 100 days; and if he will make a statement. [9452]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest published information on the number of asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 June 2001. Information on the length of detention of persons detained as at this date is given in the table.

  Detained asylum seekers as at 30 June 2001

  Length of detention1

  Number2

  More than 25 days

  850

  of which:

  more than 50 days

  640

  more than 100 days

  365

  1 Relates to current period of detention; where persons have been transferred to and subsequently from the Oakington Reception Centre, the time in detention prior to Oakington is excluded.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and exclude persons detained in police cells and the Oakington Reception Centre. Figures include 100 persons who are recorded as being detained under dual immigration and other powers.

  335W
  Information on the stage of application of detained asylum seekers is not available except by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost, so it is not possible to determine how many of these persons were awaiting an initial decision on their asylum claim on 30 June 2001.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and dependants were held in detention on the last day of each of the last 12 months; and what proportion of these were detained in prison. [9453]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 30 June 2001, 1,515 persons (to the nearest five) who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some point were being held in detention under Immigration Act powers. Of these, 880 (58 per cent.) were held in prison service establishments, which includes 400 persons detained in the dedicated Immigration Service wings at Haslar, Lindholme and Rochester, and 135 persons detained under dual immigration and other powers. Information on the number of asylum seekers held in immigration detention is not available prior to 30 June 2001. More recent information is not currently available.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) asylum appeals have (i) taken place and (ii) have failed and (b) failed asylum seekers, excluding dependants, were removed in (A) 1998, (B) 1999, (C) 2000 and (D) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [9458]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is given in the table. The information on appeals relates to first appeals only (excluding appeals to the Tribunal, or a higher court). Appeal outcomes and removals in any given time-period do not necessarily relate to one another.

  Asylum appeals

  Determined by IAA1

  Of which dismissed2

  Removals

  1998

  25,320

  21,195

  6,990

  1999

  19,460

  11,135

  37,665

  2000

  19,395

  15,580

  3,48,980

  2001 January-July

  423,760

  19,4704

  3,4,54,170

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Immigration Appellate Authority.

  3 Estimates based on Presenting Officer's Unit data.

  4 Includes persons returned under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme.

  5 Covers the period January to June only. Excludes dependants.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to abolish the voucher scheme for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [9449]

  Angela Eagle
  We are reviewing the operation of the voucher scheme. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to make a full statement on immigration and asylum policy later this month. The outcome of the voucher and dispersal reviews will he announced at the same time.
  336W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women, (b) children under 14 and (c) children aged between 14 and 18 asylum seekers and relatives of asylum seekers are detained (i) in prison arid (ii) in closed reception centres; and if he will make a statement. [9460]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest published information on the number of asylum seekers detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 June 2001. As at that date, 25 females (to the nearest five) who are recorded as having sought asylum at some point were being held in immigration detention centres, and 10 females were being held in prison service establishments, most of whom were being held under dual Immigration Act and other powers. Information on the age of detainees is not available except by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost, so it is not possible to determine the number of children detained. The requested information is not available for the Oakington Reception Centre.

  HM Prisons
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the availability of(a) work and (b) courses in building trades in HM prisons. [8612]

  Beverley Hughes
  Around 800 prisoners at any time are employed by prison works departments on minor maintenance work in establishments. Around 1,100 prisoners at any time are engaged in construction industry training courses across 69 establishments running 134 courses. These cover painting and decorating, bricklaying, carpentry, plumbing and other building trades. The Prison Service is seeking through this and other work and training activity to increase the proportion of prisoners able to gain employment on release.

  Drugs Policy
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to review(a) the targets and (b) the policy on drugs relating to 16 to 24-year-olds. [8647]

  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 we still have the right balance and focus. This supports the hard work already done by Keith Hellawell. As the Home Secretary indicated in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 October 2001, he is also seeking advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on their assessment for reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C, proposing an innovative public awareness campaign on drugs aimed at young people, providing £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, proposing the roll-out of drug testing programmes, and a series of measures, in partnership with the Department of Health, to minimise the harm drugs cause.

  Addressing substance misuse among 16 to 24-year-olds is a key priority in delivering the Strategy. We are developing our policy and approach in a number of areas,

  337W
  such as in improving the planning and co-ordination of the delivery of services for young people through "Young People's Substance Misuse Plans". These will help integrate the work of the Drug Action Teams, responsible at local level for delivering education, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation measures, with other children's services. We will shortly be launching a consultation exercise on ways of supporting effective joint working at local level.

  Family Visits
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) oral and (b) written appeals concerning family visits to the UK were disposed of in each of the last 12 months; what proportion were successful; and if he will make a statement. [9445]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of family visit visa appeals disposed of by Adjudicators in each of the last 12 months and the proportion successful is set out in the table.

  Oral appeal disposals (numbers)

  Proportion successful (percentage)

  Written appeal disposals (number)

  Proportion successful (percentage)

  2000

  October

  0

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  November

  0

  n/a

  22

  45

  December

  7

  57

  45

  18

  2001

  January

  9

  56

  93

  49

  February

  12

  92

  57

  30

  March

  71

  59

  138

  25

  April

  70

  69

  131

  44

  May

  96

  70

  161

  39

  June

  148

  67

  263

  33

  July

  297

  75

  214

  45

  August

  239

  77

  350

  41

  September

  228

  68

  240

  36

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Combined Pension Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the roll-out of the combined pension statement has been delayed. [8973]

  Mr. McCartney
  Roll-out of the new combined pension forecasting service, which is a joint initiative between the Department and the pensions industry, began, as planned, from October 2001.

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much of the expenditure by her Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated with respect to this index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [8938]
  338W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  None. Expenditure on the benefit programme is determined by the number of benefit claimants who satisfy the qualifying conditions that apply to a particular benefit. Similarly, the employment programmes offer help to all people seeking work providing they meet any criteria for entry to a particular programme. Certain employment programmes—Action Teams and Employment Zones—are designed to support people in disadvantaged areas, but expenditure on these is not allocated with specific reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

  Jobcentre Plus Interviews
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the process for(a) deferments, (b) exemptions and (c) waivers, set out in the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001; [8047]

  (2) when he will issue written guidance to offices on the Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews) Regulations 2001; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [8046]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the process for deferrals, waivers and exemptions is set out in the guidance for Jobcentre Plus staff which was sent to offices on 10 September 2001. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7236]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Information on the normal retirement age and on compulsory early retirement or severance for my Department and for the executive agencies and public sector bodies for which it is responsible is as follows:

  All staff outside the Senior Civil Service are able to elect to remain in employment beyond the minimum retirement age of 60 for any period of time up to 65, at which age staff must retire. Under the Civil Service management code, Senior Civil Servants are required to retire at 60.

  Staff may also be retired on compulsory early retirement or severance terms on grounds of structure, and on compulsory early retirement terms on grounds of limited efficiency. In addition, as a pre-redundancy measure, volunteers can be sought to leave on compulsory terms to avoid compulsory redundancies. Early retirement applies to staff aged 50 and over; early severance applies to staff aged under 50.

  London Weighting
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the total value of
  339W
  London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6848]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The total value of London weightings and London living allowances for the Department for Work and Pensions is £49,737,543.

  London weightings and London allowances account for 2 per cent. of the Department's total wage bill. London staff represent 12 per cent. of the total staff in the Department.

  These figures are correct as at 31 August 2001.

  Building projects—expenditure

  £ million

  Description

  Site

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total cost

  Extension on existing site for the Pension Service.

  Tyneview Park, Newcastle

  n/a

  n/a

  110.0

  Adaptation of three buildings for the Pension Service to accommodate circa 500 staff in each building.

  Dundee

  4.09

  0.05

  4.14

  Simonstone, Burnley

  1.96

  0.02

  1.98

  Swansea

  1.98

  0.02

  2.00

  Provision of new, and reconstruction of existing, portacabins to accommodate staff on modernisation projects.

  Lytham St. Annes

  2.5

  —

  2.5

  Construction project (new build) to provide Pathfinder Office for JobCentre Plus.

  Birmingham South West

  3.0

  —

  3.0

  Reconstruction of a commercial premises to re-house staff in support of the Government's modernisation programme in Sheffield.

  Sheffield

  0.135

  3.99

  4.125

  1 The equivalent cost for Tyneview Park is given as this is part of an Inland Revenue-led PFI project and hence no capital cost is involved.

  Refurbishment projects—expenditure 2001–02

  £ million

  Description

  Site

  1Total

  Renovation and refurbishment of existing DWP office buildings to provide new Pathfinder Offices for JobCentre Plus.

  Aberdeen

  1.33

  Blackburn

  2.663

  Greenock

  2.091

  Harlesden

  1.79

  Kilburn

  1.31

  Neasden

  1.69

  Port Glasgow

  1.47

  Southend

  1.39

  Streatham

  1.515

  Wallasey

  2.404

  Wembley

  1.25

  Renovation and refurbishment of existing DWP accommodation (in three buildings) to house staff to administer Carers Allowance for over 60s.

  Preston Office Centre

  1.0

  1 All refurbishment projects to be delivered this financial year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 20 July [ref. 428]. [9961]

  Jane Kennedy
  I answered these questions today.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are planned by his Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6594]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Details of building and refurbishment projects that will be completed within this financial year and the next are given in the tables. Information is provided only in respect of projects costing £1 million or over in total. No building or refurbishment projects have so far been approved to commence in the next financial year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many PFI transactions have been overseen by his Department in each of the last 10 years; what his estimate is of the cost savings made in each of these transactions in comparison with the public sector alternative; what are the outstanding payments to be made in relation to these transactions for each of the next 15 years; and if he will make a statement; [5720]
  341W
  (2) if he will list the economic penalties imposed on private sector firms in each of the last five years for failures to deliver in relation to key performance indicators in projects involving the private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement. [5721]

  Jane Kennedy
  The NIO has had no involvement with PFI projects over the last 10 years.

HEALTH

  Spinal Injuries
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the spinal injuries units in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [6751]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: There are eight units in England as follows:
  Middlesbrough: South Cleveland Hospital
  Oswestry: Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital
  Salisbury: Odstock Hospital
  Sheffield: Northern General Hospital
  Southport: Southport and Formby General Hospital
  Stanmore: Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
  Stoke Mandeville: Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

  On 28 February 2001 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a National Service Framework would be developed for long term conditions, and that this would have a particular focus on the needs of people with neurological disease and brain and spinal injury.

  Issues relating to Wales are matters for the devolved Assembly.

  Maternity Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when information will be provided on the criteria and deadline for applications to the maternity services capital fund; if funds from the fund can be used to create midwifery-led birth centres in existing maternity centres; and if funding will be approved for the creation of(a) stand-alone birth centres and (b) birth centres within a community and cottage hospital. [7072]

  Ms Blears
  Letters inviting applications for the maternity service capital funds, including the criteria, were issued to the regions on 11 July 2001, copies of

  Chemical agent

  Composition/ingredients

  All purpose cleaner/sanitiser for hard surface cleaning five litre: Brand D10

  2-Aminoethanol (OES)

  Nonionic surfactant

  Cationic surfactant

  Surface sanitiser for hard surfaces 3 per cent. available chlorine 10 kilogramme: Brand D4BX

  Chlorinated trisodium phosphate

  Powder surface sanitiser 2 per cent. available chlorine 500 gram: Brand Titan Sanitiser

  Sodium silicate

  Anionic surfactant

  Sodium dichlorolsocyanurate dihydrate

  Detergent liquid general purpose neutral 5 litre: Brand Hospec

  Aqueous solution of anionic/nonionic surfactants, salts and preservatives

  342W
  which have been placed in the Library. The funding allocations for each unit were announced on 11 October 2001.

  This capital investment of £100 million is to modernise and upgrade facilities in maternity units to improve the environment in which care is provided and not primarily for the redesigning of maternity services. Each existing maternity unit and/or trust decided their own priorities for using the capital fund after consultation with local health communities, staff and service users.

  The National Health Service provides a variety of types of care for women during pregnancy and childbirth including care in midwife-led birth. We expect this variety to continue and it is important that decisions about service provision are made at a local level.

  Herceptin
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government are taking to speed up the assessment periods for Herceptin; and if he will make a statement; [7078]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on the priority to be given to clinical assessment of Herceptin; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the time taken for the clinical assessment of (a) Herceptin and (b) Viagra. [7079]

  Ms Blears
  The assessment report for the appraisal on Herceptin was extended following consultation in order to consider additional clinical data. While it is regrettable that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance should be delayed, it is in the interests of all concerned that NICE's authoritative guidance should be soundly based and fair.

  NICE's appraisal committee will meet again on 25 October 2001 and, if there are no appeals, guidance is expected in December 2001.

  Viagra has not been referred to NICE for appraisal as regulations regarding the availability of Viagra and other specified drug treatments for impotence have been in place since July 1999.

  MRSA
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what chemical agents are being used within the NHS to combat MRSA. [8722]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following chemical agents that are active against methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus are currently in use in the national health service:
  343W
  Although the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has national contracts for the items listed, individual NHS trusts may buy other products containing agents that combat MRSA.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each health authority contracted MRSA in each of the years 1995 to 2000. [9238]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: Aggregate data on numbers of incidents of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) voluntarily submitted by national health service trusts for specialist microbiological tests since 1995 are shown in the table. These data are routinely available on a regional basis only. Data on staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias (blood infections) showing the proportion resistant to methicillin in England and Wales are published quarterly by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the Communicable Disease Report. Copies of these are available in the Library. More comprehensive information about bacteraemias, including MRSA, has been collected from all acute trusts since 1 April 2001 and these data will be published from 1 April 2002.

  Incidents of MRSA: 1995–98

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  142

  237

  297

  223

  North Thames

  566

  539

  544

  289

  North West

  65

  176

  259

  215

  Northern and Yorkshire

  90

  150

  224

  202

  South and West

  80

  206

  254

  101

  South Thames

  377

  421

  385

  220

  Trent

  52

  99

  123

  109

  West Midlands

  128

  121

  102

  69

  Wales

  116

  158

  176

  169

  Total

  1,616

  2,107

  2,364

  1,597

  Notes:

  1. Population estimates are mid-year estimates based on 1991 census data.

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001 vacancies in NHS trusts by region and health authority areas1, radiographer three month vacancy rates2,3 and staff in post

  Staff in post (wte)

  Three month vacancy rates (Percentage)

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  England total

  9,165

  1,309

  4.4

  8.0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,323

  154

  2.5

  10.4

  Bradford HA

  114

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  102

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  County Durham and Darlington HA

  80

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  East Riding and Hull HA

  94

  14

  5.0

  27.0

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  68

  4—

  1.5

  n/a

  Leeds HA

  273

  56

  3.5

  18.2

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  119

  44

  1.2

  1.1

  North Cumbria HA

  51

  8

  6.6

  0.0

  North Yorkshire HA

  123

  1

  3.1

  0.0

  Northumberland HA

  48

  4—

  0.6

  n/a

  Sunderland HA

  56

  4—

  3.4

  n/a

  Tees HA

  134

  32

  1.5

  0.0

  Wakefield HA

  60

  4—

  7.6

  n/a

  Trent

  816

  154

  2.5

  1.9

  Barnsley HA

  32

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Doncaster HA

  55

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Leicestershire HA

  127

  23

  0.0

  4.3

  Lincolnshire HA

  96

  31

  0.0

  0.0

  344W
  2. For 1995 and 1996 and the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new regional office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years.

  Incidents of MRSA: 1999–2000

  1999

  2000

  Eastern

  80

  60

  London

  290

  170

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  70

  North West

  180

  90

  South East

  170

  100

  South West

  40

  10

  Trent

  100

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  50

  Wales

  130

  40

  Total

  1,190

  620

  Notes:

  1. Data for 2000 are complete.

  2. An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  3. The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the Public Health Laboratory Service for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000).

  4. These revised criteria have led to a fall in the number of incidents of MRSA that were reported to the PHLS.

  Job Vacancies
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures giving job vacancy percentages by health authority for(a) radiographers, (b) radiation physicists and (c) radiography technicians. [9094]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures for diagnostic and therapeutic radiographer vacancies are in the tables. The Department does not collect vacancy information for radiation physicists or radiography technicians.
  345W

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001 vacancies in NHS trusts by region and health authority areas1, radiographer three month vacancy rates2,3 and staff in post

  Staff in post (wte)

  Three month vacancy rates (Percentage)

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  North Derbyshire HA

  31

  7

  0.0

  0.0

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  57

  4—

  1.4

  n/a

  Nottingham HA

  131

  29

  5.1

  0.0

  Rotherham HA

  36

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Sheffield HA

  124

  35

  0.0

  0.0

  South Humber HA

  49

  7

  9.3

  0.0

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  78

  23

  9.3

  8.1

  West Midlands

  912

  84

  5.5

  15.1

  Birmingham HA

  261

  32

  7.3

  15.9

  Coventry HA

  88

  13

  12.1

  13.7

  Dudley HA

  53

  4—

  1.9

  n/a

  Herefordshire HA

  24

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  North Staffordshire HA

  93

  13

  2.1

  0.0

  Sandwell HA

  28

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Shropshire HA

  79

  11

  2.7

  8.6

  Solihull HA

  4—

  4—

  n/a

  n/a

  South Staffordshire HA

  77

  4—

  4.0

  n/a

  Walsall HA

  38

  4—

  9.9

  n/a

  Warwickshire HA

  53

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Wolverhampton HA

  45

  17

  5.7

  26.2

  Worcestershire HA

  73

  4—

  6.4

  n/a

  North West

  1,481

  150

  3.8

  3.8

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  45

  9

  0.0

  0.0

  East Lancashire HA

  98

  4—

  8.4

  n/a

  Liverpool HA

  149

  4—

  5.2

  n/a

  Manchester HA

  203

  53

  5.7

  10.1

  Morecambe Bay HA

  69

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  North Cheshire HA

  72

  4—

  8.3

  n/a

  North West Lancashire HA

  132

  27

  0.0

  0.0

  Salford and Trafford HA

  94

  4—

  5.6

  n/a

  Sefton HA

  110

  1

  4.2

  0.0

  South Cheshire HA

  103

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  South Lancashire HA

  28

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  53

  4—

  10.2

  n/a

  Stockport HA

  43

  4—

  7.7

  n/a

  West Pennine HA

  78

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  108

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Wirral HA

  97

  60

  3.0

  0.0

  Eastern

  876

  137

  4.1

  6.8

  Bedfordshire HA

  97

  4—

  5.8

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire HA

  170

  41

  0.6

  10.9

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  54

  1

  15.0

  0.0

  Norfolk HA

  152

  29

  3.2

  0.0

  North Essex HA

  120

  20

  2.4

  0.0

  South Essex HA

  100

  4—

  6.5

  n/a

  Suffolk HA

  95

  14

  0.0

  0.0

  West Hertfordshire HA

  88

  32

  8.5

  8.5

  London

  1,535

  246

  7.1

  9.1

  Barking and Havering HA

  57

  16

  5.0

  10.9

  Barnet HA

  64

  4—

  14.2

  n/a

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  62

  4—

  6.1

  n/a

  Brent and Harrow HA

  90

  2

  3.2

  0.0

  Bromley HA

  30

  4—

  6.2

  n/a

  Camden and Islington HA

  246

  43

  5.4

  4.4

  Croydon HA

  30

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  117

  32

  11.3

  25.4

  East London and The City HA

  155

  34

  6.0

  0.0

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  40

  17

  4.8

  0.0

  Hillingdon HA

  37

  4—

  7.5

  n/a

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  151

  55

  7.9

  13.4

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  48

  4—

  0.7

  n/a

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  206

  41

  1.9

  2.4

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  146

  4—

  15.6

  0.0

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  56

  5

  11.1

  0.0

  346W 347W

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2001 vacancies in NHS trusts by region and health authority areas1, radiographer three month vacancy rates2,3 and staff in post

  Staff in post (wte)

  Three month vacancy rates (Percentage)

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  South East

  1,300

  214

  5.1

  13.1

  Berkshire HA

  111

  17

  3.5

  5.5

  Buckinghamshire HA

  94

  4—

  2.1

  n/a

  East Kent HA

  99

  1

  4.5

  0.0

  East Surrey HA

  43

  4—

  22.0

  n/a

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  130

  13

  4.4

  19.2

  Isle of Wight HA

  19

  4—

  15.9

  n/a

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  58

  4—

  0.9

  n/a

  Northamptonshire HA

  76

  23

  0.0

  0.0

  Oxfordshire HA

  126

  27

  11.5

  25.5

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  78

  29

  0.0

  6.5

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  112

  30

  3.5

  21.1

  West Kent HA

  137

  40

  6.8

  6.9

  West Surrey HA

  128

  35

  0.8

  2.8

  West Sussex HA

  90

  4—

  5.5

  n/a

  South West

  921

  170

  3.0

  2.9

  Avon HA

  265

  54

  5.1

  6.8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  86

  7

  2.3

  0.0

  Dorset HA

  145

  26

  0.0

  0.0

  Gloucestershire HA

  97

  28

  0.0

  0.0

  North East and Devon HA

  71

  23

  0.0

  0.0

  Somerset HA

  69

  1

  2.8

  0.0

  South and West Devon HA

  119

  31

  4.0

  3.4

  Wiltshire HA

  69

  4—

  6.7

  n/a

  Special health authorities

  1

  4—

  0.0

  n/a

  1 Health authorities figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare

  2 Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents)

  3 Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the non-medical workforce census (whole time equivalent)

  4 Trust does not employ these staff

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  2. Numbers rounded to the nearest whole number

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey 2001

  Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2000

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2001

  Vacancies in NHS trusts by region and Radiographers

  wte

  wte

  Percentages

  Staff in post

  Number of three month vacancies

  Three month vacancy rates

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  Diagnostic radiographers

  Therapeutic radiographers

  England total

  9,170

  1,310

  420

  110

  4.4

  8.0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,323

  154

  30

  20

  2.5

  10.4

  Trent

  816

  154

  20

  0

  2.5

  1.9

  West Midlands

  912

  84

  50

  20

  5.5

  15.1

  North West

  1,481

  150

  60

  10

  3.8

  3.8

  Eastern

  876

  137

  40

  10

  4.1

  6.8

  London

  1,535

  246

  120

  20

  7.1

  9.1

  South East

  1,300

  214

  70

  30

  5.1

  13.1

  South West

  921

  170

  30

  10

  3.0

  2.9

  Special health authorities

  1

  1—

  0

  0

  0.0

  n/a

  1 Means no staff

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents)

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental and non-medical workforce census (whole time equivalent)

  3. Health authority figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare

  4. Percentages rounded to one decimal place

  5. Numbers rounded to the nearest 10 for three month vacancies and to the nearest one for staff in post

  Bed Blocking
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures will be taken under the cash for change initiative to reduce bed blocking. [9059]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities will receive funding allocations through a special grant under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000. The grant is to be used to enable local authority community care services to work with national health service partners to significantly reduce the number of people who are ready to leave hospital but are unable to do so. Local authorities will achieve this by increasing the availability of care home places and support services which enable people to return to their own home.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will allow people on Incapacity Benefit to receive free prescriptions; [8506]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the extent of non-use of prescriptions by citizens on Incapacity Benefit who cannot afford the charges. [8507]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: No. Incapacity Benefit is not income related and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to extend automatic exemption from prescription charges to recipients of this benefit. No assessment has been made of the extent to which people on Incapacity Benefit do not make use of prescriptions. People on low income who are not otherwise exempt from charges, can apply for free prescriptions under the national health service low income scheme.

  Feng Shui
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent employing feng shui experts in his Department in the last 12 months. [9239]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: The Department has not employed any feng shui experts and has not expended any money on this service within the last 12 months.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average daily number of available beds, in wards open 24 hours, for(a) short stay and (b) long stay patients in each year since 1995–96. [10520]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Bed data including average bed availability rates are available in the annual publication "Bed availability and occupancy—England: Each Financial Year to 1999–2000", copies of which are available in the Library. Alternatively information can be downloaded from the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity.

  Restaurant Food
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the nutritional value of restaurant food. [9730]
  350W
  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that they have an on-going programme to determine the nutrient content of a wide range of foods on a regular basis. Analytical surveys in 1994 and 1997 included foods and meals sampled from takeaway outlets or restaurants. There are plans to update this work soon.

  This obviously is subject to the qualification that there will be significant variation in the nutritional balance between individual restaurants and individual restaurants' meals.

  From a nutritional point of view, the composition of individual foods is less important than the nutrient content and overall balance of the diet as a whole. A varied and balanced diet, which includes plenty of fruit, vegetables and starchy foods, should provide all of the nutrients that a healthy individual requires.

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the expenditure by his Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the index of multiple deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated with respect to this index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [8933]

  Mr. Hutton
  No national health service resources are allocated using the index of multiple deprivation. The weighted capitation formula used to inform revenue allocations to health authorities includes a number of health and socio-economic variables. These are listed in "Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formulas", copies of which are available in the Library.

  No personal social services resources are allocated using the index. The personal social services standard spending assessment formulas, which are used to allocate most of personal social services resources, include a number of socio-economic variables. These are listed on the following web site: http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ssa/0102/1gfr/index.htm.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 20 July [ref 296]. [9962]

  Mr. Hutton
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 21 August.

  Residential Care (Wales)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase funding to the National Assembly for Wales for residential care in Wales. [9267]

  Mr. Touhig
  I have been asked to reply.

  Allocation of funds from the Welsh block is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, has recently announced that £8 million is to be provided to help health and social services authorities in Wales to meet immediate pressures this winter. Within

  351W
  that, up to £5 million will be made available for measures which are aimed at avoiding hospital admissions, supporting people in their own homes after discharge and helping local authorities in commissioning additional capacity in residential and nursing homes.

  Child Protection
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been killed since 1 January 1995 during contact visits with violent parents in England and Wales; how many children have been killed since 1 January 1995 in circumstances where the parents had separated due to domestic violence and were disputing contact or residence in England and Wales; what the names and ages of each child killed were; and in how many of these cases contact or residence orders had been made by the courts. [9610]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the number of child deaths during contact visits, where an application for contact or residence is outstanding or where a residence or contact order is in force, is not available. I am looking into what information we can collect in this area. The Government acknowledge the concerns about the safety of both children and the resident parent in cases where domestic violence is a known factor and, in addition to an interdepartmental working group, has set up a ministerial group to consider this matter fully.

WALES

  London Weighting
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total value of London weightings and London living allowances for his Department; and if he will make a statement. [6812]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not pay a London weighting or living allowance. Staff permanently based in London are on different (higher) pay scales than those based elsewhere. Staff serving temporarily in London are reimbursed accommodation and travel costs and receive a 10 per cent. recruitment and retention allowance.

  Civil Servants (Retirement Age)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the compulsory retirement ages which apply to employees of his Department and of executive agencies and other public sector bodies for which it is responsible, broken down by grade or job title. [7232]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Civil servants working within my Department (who are all secondees from other Departments) would ordinarily retire at 60 if they were members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) or between 60 and 65 years if they were at a grade below the SCS. I am responsible for no other agencies or bodies.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) building and (b) refurbishment projects are
  352W
  planned by his Department in (i) the current and (ii) the next financial year; and what the costs will be of each project. [6595]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Plans are not yet complete. However work in the current year will include the provision of disabled access and the completion of a programme of redecoration begun in 2000–01.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the top 10 companies to which his Department contracted out their construction and refurbishment work in the last 12 months. [6609]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There has been no construction work in this period.

  Design and project management of refurbishment work has been provided through the National Assembly for Wales' contract with the managing agent Dalkia Energy and Technical Services Ltd. The actual work was carried out by Vale Building Services Ltd.

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [6893]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information is not available in the detail requested. However, during the period from 1994 until June 1999, the former Welsh Office employed a maximum of two special advisers and between eight and nine press officers. Since its establishment on 1 July 1999, the Wales Office has employed two special advisers and three press officers, including my Press Secretary.

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest date by which the Boundary Commission for Scotland's recommendations for the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland would have to be enacted by Order in Council in order to take effect for a Scottish parliamentary election in 2007. [8864]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This will depend on the nature of the recommendations in the Boundary Commission's report.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the circumstances in which she would seek to make modifications under the terms of section 4 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to the recommendations contained in the next report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland on the general review of the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. [8848]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I will be able to consider whether modifications to the Boundary Commission's recommendations might be appropriate only once I have received and studied its report.
  353W
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she expects to receive from the Boundary Commission for Scotland their final report on the general review of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland. [8863]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Boundary Commission for Scotland is required, by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, to submit its report to me between December 2002 and December 2006. It is a matter for the Commission when, within that time scale, it reports.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the revised constituency and regional boundaries to be recommended by the Boundary Commission for Scotland by December 2006 will be used for the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections. [8865]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This will depend on the date the Boundary Commission submits its report. It is not envisaged that changed boundary arrangements for the Scottish Parliament would be implemented before 2007.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is her policy that(a) the boundaries of Scottish parliamentary constituencies should be coterminous with constituencies used to elect Scottish hon. Members of the House of Commons and (b) the ratio of constituency to regional members should remain as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. [8847]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The statutory position on the boundaries of Scottish parliamentary constituencies and the ratio of constituency to regional members is set out in Schedule 1 of the Scotland Act 1998.

  The Government have, however, made it clear that if a good case for changing the Scotland Act is made, in the light of experience in the Scottish Parliament, we will consider it.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland began its review of Scottish constituencies; when she expects to receive its report; and if she will make a statement. [9740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Boundary Commission for Scotland gave notice in the Edinburgh Gazette on 29 June 2001 of its intention to commence forthwith its general review of constituencies in Scotland.

  £ million

  Grant receiving body

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Scottish Screen

  1.8

  2.0

  1.8

  —

  —

  Sgrîn

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  —

  —

  Northern Ireland Film Commission and other grants

  0.3

  0.7

  0.8

  1.1

  —

  British Film Institute

  16.5

  16.0

  15.1

  16.91

  —

  British Screen Finance

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  —

  British Film Commission

  0.8

  0.85

  0.85

  0.85

  —

  European Co-Production Fund

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  —

  National Film and Television School

  1.9

  2.1

  2.1

  2.2

  2.3

  Film Council

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  21.8

  Total

  25.6

  25.9

  24.9

  25.6

  24.1

  Notes:

  The Film Council became operational in April 2000. It now funds the British Film Institute from the grant-in-aid it receives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The British Film Commission is now part of the Film Council. British Screen Finance and the European Co-Production Fund have been absorbed into the Film Council.

  Figures shown for Sgrîn, Scottish Screen and the Northern Ireland Film Commission are pre-devolution.
  354W
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the Commission to submit its report to me not less than eight or more than 12 years from the date of its last report. Its next report is therefore due between December 2002 and December 2006. It is a matter for the Commission when, within that time scale, it reports.

  Regional Television
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she plans to meet Scottish Television to discuss regional television coverage. [9337]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with broadcasters in Scotland about a wide range of matters, including regional television coverage and the wider implications for Scotland of the forthcoming Communications Bill. I last met representatives from the Scottish Media Group on 23 August.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is in respect of disposals from the Government art collection. [10078]

  Dr. Howells
  It is the general policy of the Government art collection (an Exchequer-funded national collection) to retain for posterity and to preserve to the best of its ability all items accepted into its core holdings. The Government art collection has a disposals policy which closely follows the ethical guidelines for disposals recommended by the Museums Association. A number of items purchased with specific funds or donated with specific conditions attached may not be disposed of at all.

  Film Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support the Government have given to the British film industry in(a) direct funding and (b) tax breaks in the last five years. [8247]

  Dr. Howells
  The table gives details of Government funding for film. In addition to direct Government funding, the Film Council, Scottish Screen and the Arts Councils for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland distribute lottery funding for film.
  355W
  The estimated tax cost of relief provided to British qualifying films under section 48 Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 is £200 million in the period 1997–98 to 2000–01. The additional estimated tax cost of relief provided to British qualifying films under section 42 Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 is £150 million in the period 1996–7 to 2000–01. Finally, the estimated tax cost of relief to other films produced in the UK under sections 40A to D of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 (formerly, section 68 Capital Allowances Act 1990) is £250 million over the same period. In total tax relief for films produced in the UK is around £600 million in the period 1996–7 to 2000–01.

  Government Office region

  All grades

  SCS level

  Level 6/7

  SEO/HEO level

  EO level

  AO/AA level

  Industrial/other grades

  Number of staff by grade level and region (WTE)

  London

  461

  25

  74

  133

  107

  122

  0

  South East

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  North East

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Eastern

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  471

  25

  82

  133

  107

  124

  0

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  UK total

  472

  25

  82

  133

  107

  125

  0

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand total

  472

  25

  82

  133

  107

  125

  0

  Average salary

  —

  55,700

  37,028

  26,056

  18,560

  14,893

  —

  Percentage of staff by grade level and region

  London

  97.7

  100

  90.2

  100

  100

  97.6

  0

  South East

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  0.4

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0.8

  0

  North East

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  0.4

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0.8

  0

  Eastern

  0.2

  0

  1.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England total

  99.8

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99.2

  0

  Wales

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  0.2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.8

  0

  UK total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  0

  Northern Ireland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  0

  Royal Palaces
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many flats in the royal palaces are occupied by persons other than the royal family. [8240]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: There were 244 residences in the occupied royal palaces occupied by persons other than members of the royal family at 31 December 2000.

  Civil Servants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [6778]

  Dr. Howells
  The information regarding the number and proportion of staff in my Department, and the average salary of each grade is set out in the table.

  Theatre Visitor Numbers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact on(a) London and (b) regional theatres of the fall in the number of visitors following the events of 11 September. [9649]

  Dr. Howells
  It is too early to say how far the events of September 11 have affected attendance at theatres in London and the regions. The Arts Council of England, Regional Arts Boards and Society of London Theatres
  357W
  will continue to monitor the situation within both the commercial and subsidised sectors over the coming weeks and will keep me informed of all developments.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many ministerial decisions were made where authority for the same derived from the royal prerogative for the most recent calendar month for which information is available. [9366]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not keep records of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised, nor could it be practicable to do so.

  TV Quality Criteria
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria relating to quality of programmes and schedules she applies to decisions on granting and renewing television broadcasting licences. [10204]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, the licensing of television services is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. Channel 3 and Channel 5 licensees had to pass a programme quality threshold before the Commission granted their licences. Channel 4's distinctive and innovative remit is incorporated in its licence. Cable and satellite television services are not subject to statutory programming requirements.

  On-line Libraries
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many local authorities have put all of their public libraries on-line; and when the remaining libraries will be brought on-line. [10469]

  Dr. Howells
  79 local authorities offer public internet access in all their public libraries. By the end of December 2002 all will do so.

  Sportsmatch
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much grant was allocated to Sportsmatch in each full financial year since the scheme was started. [10233]

  Dr. Howells
  Sportsmatch received the grants shown in the table.

  £ million

  1992–93

  1.0

  1993–94

  2.9

  1994–95

  3.3

  1995–96

  3.7

  1996–97

  3.2

  1997–98

  3.2

  1998–99

  3.2

  1999–2000

  3.37

  2000–01

  3.37

  2001–02

  3.55

  2002–03

  3.55

  Commercial Radio Licences
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish her policy on future commercial radio licences as they affect Torbay and South Devon. [9979]

  Dr. Howells
  The award of commercial radio licences is a matter for the Radio Authority.

  Lottery Funding (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was(a) the total amount of Lottery awards, (b) their purpose and (c) the total value of Lottery awards per constituency in Scotland over the last year; and what was the total percentage of Lottery funding and value in Scotland compared with the other nations and regions within the United Kingdom. [10159]

  Dr. Howells
  To date, National Lottery awards across the UK total £9.54 billion, shared between projects covering the Arts; Charities; Health; Education and Environment; Heritage; and Sport, plus those associated with celebrating the millennium. (A complete list is available on the DCMS website: www.culture.gov.uk.) The total value of Lottery awards per constituency in Scotland over the last year was £1.22 million. A comparison of Scottish Lottery funding with the other nations and regions within the United Kingdom is set out in the following table.

  The total percentage of lottery funding and value in Scotland as compared with the other nations and regions within the United Kingdom, over the last year1

  Regions/country

  Amount awarded (£)

  Percentage of lottery funding

  East Midlands

  51,569,533

  5.89

  Eastern

  44,273,651

  5.06

  London

  172,898,301

  19.74

  North-East

  45,541,175

  5.20

  North-West

  95,052,820

  10.85

  Northern Ireland

  36,023,995

  4.11

  Scotland

  88,066,669

  10.06

  South-East

  59,966,324

  6.85

  South-West

  56,865,218

  6.49

  Wales

  51,202,363

  5.85

  West Midlands

  58,538,348

  6.68

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  59,701,202

  6.82

  n/a

  56,011,231

  6.40

  Total

  875,710,830

  1 Covering the period 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001

  TV Licences (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what income the BBC raised in the last 12 months from licence payers in Scotland; and how much of this is spent on the production and broadcasting of television and radio programmes in Scotland. [10098]

  Dr. Howells
  The BBC income and budgets are calculated for the financial year. In the financial year 2000–01, the total licence fee income from television licence fee payers in Scotland, minus approximately £10 million collection costs, was £195 million.
  359W
  BBC Scotland's budget income for the same period breaks down as follows:

  £ million

  Specific television and radio services for Scotland

  68.1

  Scottish productions for network TV

  35.1

  Scottish productions for network Radio

  3.4

  Co-production/Gaelic Broadcasting Funds

  13.8

  Total

  120.4

  The projected budget for BBC Scotland in 2001–02 is £140 million, and in 2002–02 is £160 million.

  Scotland also benefits, of course, from the programming which the BBC provides across the UK as a whole.

  The costs of transmitter operations, which are paid for centrally by the BBC, are not included. The budgets for independent production companies commissioned by network television and radio on behalf of BBC Scotland are included, but the costs of independent companies commissioned by the networks for their own productions are not included.

  Departmental Staff
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the number of staff employed by her Department by region and nation of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6774]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 October 2001,Official Report, columns 1008–12W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much of the expenditure by her Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated with respect to this Index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if she will make a statement. [8936]

  Mr. Morley
  No departmental funding has previously been allocated on this basis. The Index is used however, as an indicator to measure sustainable development.

  Organic Farming
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms became organic in 2001 to date. [7733]

  Mr. Morley
  For the period December 2000 to June 2001, the number of officially registered organic holdings, including those in conversion, in the UK increased from 5,508 to 5,939.
  360W
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the support mechanism to convert to organic farming in EU member states; which countries make no payments for them; which provide transitional support; and which make continuing post conversion payments. [9533]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Support for conversion to organic farming is governed by EC Regulations 1257/99 and 1750/99. The regulations require member states to set out their planned support for organic farming in a rural development programme which must be approved by the EC Commission. We have done so in the England Rural Development Programme, which can be accessed through the DEFRA website. We do not have copies of the programmes of other member states but detailed information about other Governments' support is available at www.organic-europe.net.

  Under the EC regulations, payments to farmers who convert their land to organic farming methods must be made for at least five years. For most farmers, the conversion period is two years, thus farmers are supported during conversion and in the immediate years following. The rates and structure of payments vary widely between member states. Many of them make payments beyond the five-year period. The current England Organic Farming Scheme directs support at the time of greatest need, ie during the conversion period and the initial years of full organic status.

  Agriculture Review
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on her review and reform of agriculture. [9143]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food have commenced their work and are undertaking a written consultation exercise. We expect their report at the end of the year.

  Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has taken to promote British farming. [8428]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1997 the Government have injected some £1.35 billion into the farming sector. We are promoting the modernisation of farming through key policy initiatives including the Action Plan for Farming, the England Rural Development Programme, and measures in the Rural White Paper. We are also now working on how to help the livestock sector move forward to a more secure future in the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease outbreak.

  The independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food will give further impetus to this work.

  Cereal Producers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what support her Department is giving to cereal producers in the East Midlands. [8140]
  361W
  Mr. Morley
  The principal means of support for cereal producers in the East Midlands, as elsewhere, is the EU's Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS). Claimants in the East Midlands in 2000 received some £107 million for cereals under AAPS, as well as £3.6 million in agrimonetary compensation. Cereal producers also benefit from support measures which operate under the EU's common market organisation for cereals, and many of them also participate in agri-environmental schemes under the England Rural Development Programme.

  Payments under AAPS for 2001 will start later this year. The aid rate for cereals will be £225.64 per hectare, compared with £217.27 per hectare in 2000.

  Pyre Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to dispose of waste arising from pyres used to incinerate livestock in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [8092]

  Mr. Morley
  Where possible, and subject to groundwater authorisation from the Environment Agency, ash has been buried on site. This activity is carried out by contractors and staff working to local disease emergency control centres. Where groundwater authorisations could not be given, ash has been collected under a national scheme and transported to a suitable landfill site and buried.

  Waste Plastic
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are being taken to encourage the collection and recycling of waste plastic. [8504]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 place obligations on certain businesses to recover and recycle specific tonnages of packaging waste, including plastic. The recovery and recycling targets for 2001 under the packaging regulations are 56 per cent. for recovery and 18 per cent. for material-specific recycling of packaging waste. We are currently consulting on recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste in 2002.

  All local authorities have been set statutory recycling performance standards, to underpin the national targets established in the Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales, of recycling or composting at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005. Future standards will be considered in the light of technological advances, with the aim of maximising the recycling and composting of waste. It is for local authorities to decide which waste streams they should tackle in meeting their performance standard.

  The Government have also established the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to promote more sustainable waste management through tackling the barriers to increased reuse and recycling.

  WRAP has identified plastics as a priority area in its business plan to 2003–04. One of WRAP's priorities is marketing existing recycled plastic products and removing discriminatory standards. These are linked to the development of 'buy recycled' policies and a research and
  362W
  development programme to develop plastics recycling technology and support composite product development. One of WRAP's aims is to achieve a 20,000 tonne increase in the mixed plastics processing for industrial products by 2003–04.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requests for funding she has received from the Environment Agency to prevent future flooding of the(a) Ouse, (b) Uck and (c) Cuckmere; and if she will make a statement. [8676]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the severe flooding last year, this Department has responded with a number of funding initiatives, some of which have benefited the Environment Agency's flood management of the Ouse, Uck and Cuckmere directly as shown in the table.

  £000

  Initiative

  Benefit to Ouse, Uck and Cuckmere

  Contribution to emergency response and repairs costs

  over 500

  Special funding of design and feasibility costs of, for River Ouse strategy

  150

  The agency has made some estimates for possible capital works in its medium term plans and these will be considered for grant aid in the normal way when detailed applications are submitted.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Environment Agency regarding the funding of the agency's four proposed schemes to combat flooding of the River Uck. [9768]

  Mr. Morley
  None. We understand that the Environment Agency are still considering a range of options for schemes to alleviate flooding from the River Uck. No doubt when the agency has identified its preferred options, applications will be submitted to this Department for grant aid. Any such applications will be considered sympathetically against the normal economic, technical an environmental criteria and priority score arrangements.

  Form A and D Notices
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what records are kept of Form A and D notices in Herefordshire. [9436]

  Mr. Morley
  A computer record is maintained by the Worcester Animal Health Divisional Office of all Form A and Form D notices in Herefordshire.

  Oak and Horse Chestnut Trees
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent information she has collated about the spread of diseases, viruses or bacteria adversely affecting(a) oak and (b) horse chestnut trees; what her assessment is of the risk they pose to those trees; and if she will make a statement. [9117]
  363W
  Mr. Morley
  We have collected information about two diseases that affect oak trees, neither of which is thought to pose a significant risk to trees in Britain.

  The first is known as Oak Dieback. The Forestry Commission has been investigating this over the last decade, and a similar decline in the health of oak trees has been reported from many other countries in Europe. The cause remains unclear but our experts consider that a strain of fungus may be thriving as a result of climate change. Drought and insect defoliation are also thought to be playing a part. The species affected is the Common oak (Quercus robur) while our native, the Sessile oak (Q. petraea), appears to be immune.

  The second is known as Sudden Oak Death. This new disease, recently named Phytophthora ramorum, was identified in parts of California last year. The principal host is Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) although some species of true oak (Quercus spp.), which do not occur in Europe, and certain other plants including rhododendron and viburnum have also been affected. Similar symptoms were recorded on rhododendron and viburnum plants in Germany and the Netherlands as long ago as 1993 although it was only earlier this year that it was established that P. ramorum was the causal agent. The Forestry Commission and DEFRA are working together to establish whether any British oak trees have been affected or are, indeed, even susceptible to this disease. Early indications are that European oaks may not be susceptible. Current quarantine controls on plants exported from the USA, aimed at other pests and diseases, are considered sufficient to provide protection against accidental import of the disease. This disease and controls against it are being considered by the EU Standing Committee on Plant Health.

  There are no specific pests or diseases affecting horse chestnut trees in Britain, although we are monitoring the progress of the Horse Chestnut Leaf Miner (Cameraria ohridella) in continental Europe. This pest was first detected in Austria in 1989 and has since spread to many parts of Central and Eastern Europe. It is only found in leaves and leaf litter, and is dispersed when leaves are moved to new areas. Unfortunately, cars, lorries and trains often carry leaves long distances, and this is probably how it has spread across Europe. Leaves are, of course, also dispersed by the wind. Attacks are not fatal and trees may survive repeated attacks by successive generations of larvae. Our scientists are closely involved in research into control methods. The Forestry Commission is also planning to publish an illustrated leaflet describing the biology and symptoms of infestation of the moth next spring, to coincide with the period of the moth's activity.

  Litter
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to review the litter laws; and if she will make a statement. [8329]

  Mr. Meacher
  In March 2001, I announced that the litter legislation was to be reviewed. We will be looking in particular at litter in water, storage and collection of trade waste, providing and using civic amenity site, fly-tipping, managing trade wastes, litter on private land and easing the route for local authorities to prosecute offenders.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of levels of recycled household waste in(a) the UK and (b) other European countries. [7769]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1052W.

  Departmental Staff Costs
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate total annual staff costs for her Department and its agencies by nation and region of the UK; and if she will make a statement. [6841]

  Mr. Morley
  The estimated staff costs (pay, national insurance contribution, pension provision) for my Department, for the 2001–02 financial year, are given in the table.

  £ million

  English Government Office Regions

  East Midlands

  7.5

  Eastern

  23.4

  London

  78.4

  North East

  9.0

  North West

  16.0

  South East

  115.4

  South West

  26.2

  West Midlands

  11.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  32.6

  Total England

  320.1

  Scotland

  2.9

  Wales

  0.7

  Total

  323.7

  These figures do not include the additional costs incurred in tackling foot and mouth disease. They include full year costs for the following agencies: Central Science Laboratory, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pesticides Safety Directorate, Rural Payments Agency (which came into being formally on 16 October), Veterinary Laboratories Agency and Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The Agency costs have been included in the region where their headquarters is based, for example the Rural Payments Agency has been included in the figures for the south-east. The figures for London reflect the large concentration of the Department's policy and senior staff being based there.

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total amount of spending by her Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of her Department's total spending this constitutes; and if she will make a statement. [6845]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 854W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what was, for each year since 1995, the average response time for providing a substantive answer to(a) hon. Member's correspondence, (b) correspondence from members of the public and (c) written parliamentary questions in the (i) Commons and (ii) Lords; [7043]

  (2) what was, for each year since 1995, the total number of (a) letters from hon. Members (b) letters from members of the public and (c) parliamentary questions from (i) hon. Members and (ii) Lords dealt with by her Department; what percentage took (A) more than one month and (B) more than three months to provide a substantive answer; and if she will make a statement. [7044]

  Mr. Morley
  The effective handling of correspondence and PQs is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance.

  General information on the volumes of correspondence received across Whitehall and on overall performance is published by the Cabinet Office. Figures for 2000 were published on 6 April 2001. Official Report, columns 324–28W, and 19 July 2001, Official Report, columns 454–56W.

  This Department was created on 8 June 2001, bringing together some groups from the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and animal welfare issues and fox hunting from the Home Office. The information requested is therefore not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil (ref 148) on 20 July. [9963]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1073W.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 23 October; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [10369]

  Margaret Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Whitty, attended the meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers in Luxembourg on 23 October.

  We reported on the experiments to identify whether UK sheep had been exposed to BSE. We emphasised that the UK was conducting a large programme of research into BSE, of which the experiments on brain material from the early 1990s was a small part. Other continuing experiments had shown no evidence of BSE in the flock. Commissioner Byrne reported on progress with the EU programme of cattle testing for BSE and concluded that the Council would need to keep current measures under review.
  366W
  The Commission presented a number of new proposals: proposals for measures to improve the monitoring and control of animal diseases transmissible to man; a report on the evaluation of the active substances in agricultural pesticides to which the Council will revert in November; and proposals for improving the control of genetically modified food and feed and for the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms.

  On foot and mouth disease, we updated colleagues on progress towards stamping out the disease in this country. The Council also discussed the situation in the beef market and agreed to keep it under examination.

  There was in addition a brief exchange of views on the Commission's proposal to withdraw the authorisation for use of certain feed additives. A number of member states, including the UK, voiced concern over some of the possible withdrawals. The Commission noted that the necessary technical information had not been supplied to support continued authorisation.

  Over lunch Commissioner Fischler updated Ministers on the agricultural aspects of the preparations for the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting at Doha.

  Livestock Markets
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to announce conclusions about the future of livestock markets. [9627]

  Mr. Morley
  For reasons of foot and mouth disease control, there are no plans to re-open livestock markets in the immediate future. Veterinary and scientific advice is that there is an inherent risk of spreading the disease by mixing animals together and then dispersing them. Any livestock keeper with poor standards of biosecurity might attend markets from anywhere in the country and put at risk others attending the market. Even in designated free counties it would take only one such lapse in biosecurity precautions to spread the disease. It is right to be cautious at this stage but the situation will be kept under review.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations have been made by farmers with regard to the difference in valuations of stock with regard to foot and mouth disease(a) before and (b) after 22 March. [9071]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received representations from 1,224 farmers (as at 21 October) about the valuation of stock with regard to foot and mouth disease. Of these 370 were received before 22 March (when standard values were introduced) and 854 after this date.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met Professor Fred Brown of the US Department of Agriculture to discuss foot and mouth disease; and when she next plans to do so. [7512]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: The Secretary of State has not met with Professor Brown and at the moment does not have a meeting planned.
  367W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from farmers on the fall in income they have incurred since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [8158]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received a number of representations in relation to revenue losses suffered by farmers and farming organisations as a consequence of foot and mouth disease. We are very much aware that the outbreak is having a considerable impact on farming and a range of industries throughout the UK. However it is not possible at this stage to make a reliable estimate of the overall loss of revenue caused by the outbreak. DEFRA is working with a number of other Government Departments to prepare such an estimate and the results of this work will be made publicly available. We are also developing proposals for a survey to collect information from farmers on the direct and indirect impact of foot and mouth disease.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent action she has taken to ensure that the UK is returned to foot and mouth disease-free status. [8156]

  Mr. Morley
  While we cannot rule out the possibility of a resurgence of the disease at this stage, the Department is taking a number of measures to reduce the risk of further outbreaks. We will continue to stamp out disease whenever it occurs and we are conducting a comprehensive programme of blood testing sheep flocks as part of our arrangements for the gradual relaxation of movement controls. We also have in place a system for cleansing and disinfecting previously infected farms.

  We are providing advice to farmers on the controls that need to be exercised when reintroducing animals on to their land. This is not only intended to minimise the risk of foot and mouth disease, but other important diseases of livestock.

  Biosecurity measures are also vital in helping to prevent the spread and resurgence of foot and mouth disease. As part of the on-going campaign to provide timely and accurate information and advice to all concerned, we have mailed biosecurity guidelines, leaflets and letters and placed adverts in local, national and specialist publications. In addition, local veterinary inspectors have contacted their clients to discuss biosecurity and other aspects of the disease.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the farms and farm buildings which have been demolished to eradicate foot and mouth disease, indicating the nature of the building, its age, features of architectural significance and its location. [7249]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: The Department is unable to publicly identify those farmers whose farm buildings have been demolished as part of the measures to control foot and mouth disease because this would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. General information on the type or age of buildings that have been demolished can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Following the suspension and revision of secondary cleansing and disinfection costs, guidelines have been issued making it clear public funds will not be used for
  368W
  betterment of farm buildings, or where they are in poor conditions and health and safety is compromised or where the costs are disproportionate.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if all the previously outstanding payments to farmers in Chorley as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth have been paid. [8429]

  Mr. Morley
  All statutory compensation due to farmers in Chorley for animals slaughtered during the current outbreak has now been paid. The Department has received a number of other claims from farmers related to the outbreak. These are currently under consideration.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the operation and logistics of the cleansing and disinfecting operation following foot and mouth disease. [8154]

  Mr. Morley
  Preliminary cleansing and disinfection (C&D) is carried out during the slaughter and disposal stage on all premises known, or believed, to be contaminated with foot and mouth disease in order to minimise the risk of the virus spreading to neighbouring farms.

  Twenty-four hours after this stage has been completed, secondary cleansing and disinfection can commence, the purpose of which is to allow restocking and reduce the risk of recrudescence. Secondary C&D is generally undertaken by either farmers themselves or commercial contractors. Subject to preparatory work being undertaken by the farmer, secondary C&D is normally undertaken at DEFRA expense.

  The secondary C&D operation is well advanced, with 60 per cent. of premises subject to secondary C&D now complete, and a further 30 per cent. in progress.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on ecological changes arising from the de-stocking of hill areas during the foot and mouth outbreak. [7885]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: There has been little opportunity to observe the changes that are taking place because of biosecurity restrictions. However, it is unlikely that there will be any lasting changes providing normal grazing resumes within a reasonable time.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the promptness of payment of(a) livestock compensation to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered in the foot and mouth crisis and (b) contractors who have assisted in the disposal and clean up operations. [7722]

  Mr. Morley
  Throughout the outbreak the aim has been to make payments as soon as possible subject to the necessary checks to protect public funds, but at the peak of the outbreak payments were delayed due to the large volume of claims received.

  The Department's target is to pay all contractors/suppliers of goods and services we employ within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice. Given the large number of suppliers of goods and services which the Department has

  369W
  contracted—all of whom expect to be paid promptly—this target has proved difficult to meet. However, the time taken to process invoices is being reduced.

  In addition to this, there is a duty to ensure proper, effective and efficient use of public money. This means that the Department cannot pay invoices for goods and/or services that are not accompanied by accurate supporting information as to the nature and extent of the goods and services supplied. Unfortunately this information is not always provided by some of the suppliers we have employed. This has made the Department's task much harder, and it is often one of the reasons for delays.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the(a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average payment of compensation made to farmers following the foot and mouth outbreak. [7652]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: As at 10 October the highest amount paid for a valuation for statutory animal compensation is £4,238,800; the lowest is £20; and the average is £104,395.

  Diesel Storage
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about the health and safety implications of the storage of diesel on domestic premises. [8339]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  Diesel is not a significant fire risk in its own right but would add fuel to any fire which started in other combustible material.

  The storage of diesel on domestic premises is not currently covered by specific health and safety legislation. However, some restrictions are placed on fuel storage spaces in the Building Regulations and (in Scotland) in the Building Standards.

  The Health and Safety Executive is currently reviewing the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928, which controls storage of petrol. It expects to carry out the third and final phase of this review next year, to look at domestic storage of petrol and consider whether in future other vehicle fuels, such as diesel should he covered by safety controls for domestic premises.

  Flood Damage
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what specific measures she plans to take to contribute to the completion of repairs to north Yorkshire's road network following flood damage incurred in autumn 2000. [8144]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply

  The Government have decided to give extra assistance to those authorities where the cost of dealing with flood damage to their highways and bridges incurred during the autumn of 2000 would absorb a high proportion of their available resources for highway and bridge maintenance. £23 million was made available nationally from the Government's emergency reserves, from which north Yorkshire county council received £1.258 million.
  370W
  This was also in addition to a previous additional allocation of £0.7 million towards the repairs to Mercury Bridge in Richmond, which was seriously damaged during flooding in June 2000.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS (Child Abuse)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the policy of the CPS in connection with allegations of child sex abuse in children's homes. [6724]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS applies the code for Crown Prosecutors in all cases referred to it by the police so that it can make fair and consistent decisions about prosecutions. Every case is reviewed to make sure that it meets the evidential and public interest tests set out in the code.

  The more serious the offence the more likely it is that it will be prosecuted. Cases of child sexual abuse committed in children's homes are always regarded as serious and often involve one or more of the public interest factors listed in the code that generally tend in favour of prosecution. These factors include: where the defendant is in a position of trust; where the victim is vulnerable; where there are marked differences in age; or where there is an element of corruption. In such cases, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are strong public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour.

  Criminal Prosecutions
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General what criteria apply in deciding whether to prosecute(a) serious fraud and (b) other criminal offences. [6725]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, and as such it takes over and prosecutes the complete spectrum of criminal cases instituted by the police. This includes serious offences of fraud, although these cases can also be prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

  CPS decisions on whether or not to prosecute an offence, of any kind, are taken in accordance with the principles set out in the code for Crown Prosecutors, issued by the Director of Public Prosecution under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  The code acknowledges that each case is unique and must be considered on its own facts and merits. However, fairness and consistency in assessing these elements are promoted by applying a common framework of key principles, irrespective of the type of offence under consideration.

  CPS Reform
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her plans to reform the CPS. [6726]
  371W
  The Solicitor-General
  Reforms recommended by the Glidewell Review to deliver better justice are presently being implemented in the CPS.

  The CPS is restructuring its front line operations to secure benefits from close working with the police, and enabling lawyers to concentrate on more serious cases. A modern IT infrastructure is being rolled-out and a new electronic case management application is planned for 2003. The recruitment of more lawyers, caseworkers and administrative staff has begun, from resources provided by the last spending review, and an enhanced level of service is being delivered to victims and witnesses.

  CPS (Denman Report)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on progress with the report of Mrs. Sylvia Denman on racism within the CPS. [6727]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Denman report into racism in the Crown Prosecution Service was published on 26 July 2001. The report was welcomed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and all 10 recommendations were accepted. The Crown Prosecution Service has started work on implementing the 10 recommendations. These have already been implemented, a further six are in the process of being implemented and the last recommendation will be implemented in spring 2002.

  The Attorney-General has formed a group called the Attorney-General Race Advisory Group, which will assist the Law Officers in overseeing the service's implementation of these recommendations. Members of the group include Sylvia Denman herself and Gurbux Singh the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

  CPS (Prosecution Rate)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proportion of cases passed by the police to the CPS for prosecution are subsequently dropped. [6728]

  The Solicitor-General
  During the year ending June 2001, 13 per cent. of completed cases were discontinued by the CPS in magistrates courts, and 12.8 per cent. of completed cases were dropped in the Crown court. The magistrates court figures include those cases dropped at court before prosecution evidence was heard as well as those formally discontinued in advance of the hearing. The Crown court figures represent all cases dropped by the CPS before a jury was sworn, including those discontinued under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 implemented in January 2001.

  Human Rights Act
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment has been made of the impact on prosecutions of the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [6723]

  The Solicitor-General
  High quality CPS training and guidance has ensured that prosecuting lawyers are well equipped to advise on and argue their cases, fully respecting human rights. A fast tracking procedure for appeals involving human rights points has proved an effective mechanism for obtaining authoritative judgments from the higher courts, keeping uncertainty and 372W
  delay to a minimum while important points are clarified. Judgments in these cases have contributed to the emerging domestic human rights jurisprudence.

TREASURY

  Regulators
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to restrain the costs of official bodies classified as regulators. [9926]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This February the Treasury published an "External Efficiency Review of Utility Regulators". The purpose of this review was to give the Treasury, the utility regulators concerned (Ofgem, Ofwat, Oftel and ORR) and their stakeholders reassurance that each regulator is efficiently run, to identify any shortcomings and to encourage the spread of good practice.

  The report concluded that the UK regulators are professionally run organisations. The regulators' positive response to this report will lead to further improvements in UK regulatory standards. My officials have discussed the implementation of the report with Ofgem, Oftel, Ofwat and ORR and will continue to monitor progress. Implementation of the report will increase transparency in budget setting, lead to better assessment of the costs and benefits of major projects, spread best practice, and help the regulators recruit and retain quality staff.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the(a) individual and (b) total costs to HM Government of official bodies classified as regulators for each year since May 1997, including predictions for 2002. [9930]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The utility regulators are funded by fees paid by the licence holders in their industries. With one exception for part of Oftel's expenditure, the regulators are therefore not funded through general taxation, although they are all subject to control of gross spending and the use of receipts through Estimates presented to Parliament.

  The best single source of cost information in relation to the utility regulators Ofgem (energy), Ofwat (water), ORR (rail) and Oftel (telecommunications) is contained in the "External Efficiency Review of Utility Regulators" which was published this February. The full report can be found on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pdf/2001/regulators 1902.pdf. (see "Cost Efficiency" section 4—Table 4.1).

  Detailed cost information is published in each of the organisations' annual reports.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total staff costs in real terms; and how many staff were employed, by all official bodies described as regulators in each year since May 1997. [9927]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The best single source of staff cost information in relation to the utility regulators Ofgem (energy), Ofwat (water), ORR (rail) and Oftel (telecommunications) is contained in the WS Atkins report, "External Efficiency Review of Utility Regulators", which
  373W
  was published this February. The full report can be found on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pdf/2001 regulators 1902.pdf.

  Detailed cost information and staff numbers are published in each of the organisations' annual reports.

  Euro
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the First Ministers and others from the devolved Administrations in relation to UK entry into the euro-zone and their role in a referendum on that question. [9847]

  Ruth Kelly
  If the Government recommend UK entry into economic and monetary union, it will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people. A Government decision to recommend UK entry into economic and monetary union is a reserved matter, and therefore a matter for the UK Government.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials in his Department are involved in the preliminary technical work on the five economic tests relating to membership of the euro; which official is in charge of this work; when he expects this work to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [8942]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 67W and 12 July 2001, Official Report, columns 648–49W.

  Child Care
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he plans to consider child care as part of the 2002 Spending Review. [10822]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We intend to conduct an interdepartmental review of child care, whose conclusions will feed into the 2002 Spending Review.

  The review will be led by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, and will involve the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, and the Women and Equality Unit, together with the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  Split-capital Investment Trusts
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of split-capital investment trusts which have breached their banking covenants in the UK in the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [9794]

  Ruth Kelly
  Subject to the requirements on listed companies to make disclosures to the market, individual companies' relationships with their banks is a matter for them.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) increases and (b) decreases in departmental budgets have occurred since May 1999 on the basis of departmental performance in relation to public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [8927]
  374W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information about performance against the targets set in public service agreements is a significant factor when considering departmental budgets. Information on budget allocations and departmental performance is published annually in Departmental Reports.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to report on the success of Departments in achieving their public service agreement targets; and if he will make a statement. [8929]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government Departments will continue to publish information about performance against their public service agreement targets in annual Departmental Reports.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his estimate is of the public sector net cash requirement in the financial year 2001–02 to date; how this compares with the PSNCR at the same stage of the 2000–01 financial year; and if he will make a statement; [8930]

  (2) what his estimate is of the percentage change in (a) income tax, (b) value added tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) excise tax and (e) national insurance contribution receipts, between the period from April to September in (i) fiscal year 2000–01 and (ii) fiscal year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [9956]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested can be obtained from the joint HM Treasury/Office for National Statistics (ONS) public sector finances "First Release", which was published on 18 October. Copies are available in the Library and on the ONS website www.statistics.gov.uk.

  Taxes and Excise Duties
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce deferred increases in taxes and excise duties; and if he will make a statement. [9954]

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

  Corporate Directors (Salaries)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will introduce proposals to use the tax system to control very large salary increases for corporate directors and managers; and if he will make a statement; [9735]

  (2) if he will introduce proposals to restrict the ability of a corporation to deduct as a business expense an increase in the salary of a director or manager which is not approved by shareholders. [9736]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Salary levels are a matter for the organisation concerned and its shareholders, not for the tax system. In general terms the business tax system does not seek to distinguish between one sort of expenditure and another but tests for tax relief by reference to whether or not the expenditure was incurred for business purposes.

  Personal Investment Authority Investigations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the administrative fee levied on financial services firms by the Financial Services Authority for Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman investigations into advice given by such firms. [9253]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) will replace the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau and seven other complaints schemes on 1 December 2001.

  The FOS will be funded by a combination of a general levy (which all authorised firms will pay) and case fees. The FOS will consult on its 2002–03 budget in January 2002.

  International Tax Recoveries
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers there were in the years ending 31 March(a) 1999 and (b) 2000, including as one any group of taxpayers who are for tax assessment purposes a single taxpayer from whom recoveries in terms of tax, duty, interest and penalties of £214 million (1999) and £1,091 million (2000) were made by International Division; what was the total largest recovery from such taxpayers in each of those years; and if the recoveries included penalties. [9384]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue has a duty to maintain taxpayer confidentiality, and it is not therefore possible to disclose precisely how much International Division recovered from any single taxpayer.

  The table provides an analysis of recoveries.

  Year to 31 March

  Current tax yield range

  1999

  2000

  Less than £1 million

  103

  78

  £1 million to £10 million

  11

  18

  £10 million to £50 million

  6

  7

  £50 million to £100 million

  0

  0

  Over £100 million

  0

  2

  Total settlements

  120

  105

  No penalties were included in the tax yield.

  Independent Insurance Company
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had for compensation following the collapse of the Independent Insurance Company; and if he will make a statement. [9050]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has received a number of inquiries relating to Independent Insurance.

  I understand that the provisional liquidators are continuing to go through the process of identifying all policyholders and agreeing claims where appropriate. Many of those claims will be covered by the Policyholders Protection Board (PPB). This means: valid claims under compulsory insurance, including third party motor insurance, are payable in full; and valid claims made by private policyholders (essentially individuals and partnerships, but not small companies) under non-compulsory insurance, including other liability claims,
  376W
  claims for own damage under comprehensive motor policies, buildings and home contents policies etc., are payable to 90 per cent.

  Claims by businesses, except for claims under compulsory insurance policies, will generally rank with other creditors of the company to be paid in due course by the provisional liquidator to the extent that funds are available.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the uptake has been, broken down by region of the advance payable tax credit for clearing and developing brownfield sites; and if he will make a statement. [9386]

  Ruth Kelly
  No regional estimates are available for the take-up of this measure.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury(a) told the Bank of England about the co-ordinated interest rate cuts following the events of September 11 and (b) discussed British response with the Bank. [9772]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: As permitted by the Bank of England Act 1998 the Governor of the Bank, as chair of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), convened a special MPC meeting on 18 September. As with all MPC meetings the Treasury representative was invited to attend.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury has recently varied the instructions to the Bank of England to allow reductions in interest rates to stimulate economic activity. [9773]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Government set, and take responsibility for, the objectives of monetary policy as laid out in the remit given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Governor of the Bank of England, under the Bank of England Act 1998. The inflation target and the remit are renewed annually (last time being in March 2001), as required by the Act. The Government have issued no instructions other than the remit.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to help Working Families Tax Credit recipients who have been refused a mortgage because of the reluctance of mortgage providers to count WFTC payments as income. [9814]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is a discretionary matter for individual mortgage providers to decide whether or not to count WFTC as income when considering mortgage applications.

  Winter Deaths
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many excess winter deaths have occurred in each year since 1979; and what the provisional figures for the winter of 2000–01 are. [9813]
  377W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. David Willetts, dated 24 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the number of excess winter deaths since 1979 and for the provisional figures for 2000–01 (9813). I am replying in his absence.
  The attached table shows these figures. Figures for 2000–2001 are provisional.

  Excess winter deaths1, all ages, all causes, England and Wales, 1979–2000, 2000–012

  Winter (December to March)

  Number of deaths

  1979–80

  330,110

  1980–81

  332,900

  1981–82

  342,380

  1982–83

  342,820

  1983–84

  330,240

  1984–85

  347,380

  1985–86

  349,330

  1986–87

  326,370

  1987–88

  332,970

  1988–89

  321,160

  1989–90

  347,200

  1990–91

  337,940

  1991–92

  334,850

  1992–93

  325,650

  1993–94

  325,900

  1994–95

  327,290

  1995–96

  340,190

  1996–97

  347,680

  1997–98

  322,900

  1998–99

  346,840

  1999–2000

  348,440

  2000–01

  425,000

  1 Excess winter deaths are defined by the Office for National Statistics as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average number of deaths the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July)

  2 Provisional

  3 Rounded to the nearest 10

  4 Provisional, rounded to the nearest 100

  Bank Accounts (Terrorists)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the bank accounts which have been frozen since 11 September on the ground of terrorist associations. [10080]

  Ruth Kelly
  The legislation implementing UNSCR 1373 in the UK does not empower the Government to disclose details of individual accounts frozen without the consent of the financial institutions holding the accounts of suspected terrorists.

  The list of individuals and institutions covered by the freezing order has been published by the Bank of England Sanctions Unit.

  Consultation Documents
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation documents have been issued by(a) his Department, (b) HM Customs and Excise and (c) HM Inland Revenue since 1 April 2000; and if he will list in each case the opening and closing dates of the consultation. [9776]
  378W
  Ruth Kelly
  Details of HM Treasury and Inland Revenue consultation papers, including their opening and closing dates are available on their respective public internet websites. Customs and Excise (C&E) have issued four consultation documents since 1 April 2000. An up to date list of C&E consultation documents is expected to be listed on their public website at the end of December 2001.

  Turkey
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans there are to reschedule Turkey's debts; and if he will make a statement. [9120]

  Ruth Kelly
  Turkey is implementing an IMF programme, supported by $19 billion of IMF resources, which is currently on track. The IMF Board has the flexibility to delay repayments on these loans, if circumstances require. Turkey continues to honour all its bilateral obligations, including to the UK Government.

  Taxation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what criteria he decides which(a) tax levies, (b) tax reliefs and (c) tax credits are administered by (i) HM Customs and Excise and (ii) the Inland Revenue. [9761]

  Ruth Kelly
  In general, direct taxes and associated credits and entitlements, are administered by the Inland Revenue, and indirect taxes and customs control systems are administered by HM Customs and Excise.

  Further information on the administrative responsibilities of HM Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue are set out in their respective annual reports.

  ISAs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the take-up rate of ISAs by each earnings quintile, since their introduction. [9754]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information by earnings quintile is not readily available. However, analysis from the 2000–01 NOP Financial Research Survey suggests that around a fifth of all ISAs and a quarter of mini cash ISAs are held by those earning less than £11,500 per year, compared with around one in five TESSAs and one in six PEPs.

  Gambling
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact upon revenue of the implementation of the recommendations made in the gambling review report. [8617]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is currently consulting on the gambling review report's recommendations and no decisions have been made about their implementation.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the total publicity and advertising budget for HM Customs and Excise was in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; [9183]
  379W
  (2) what the unit cost of administering indirect taxes per trader was in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to the latest date for which information is available; [9176]

  (3) what the total net administration costs of HM Customs and Excise were for the current financial year up to the most recent date for which figures are available; [9211]

  (4) what the actual net programme costs of HM Customs and Excise were for the current financial year to the latest date for which figures are available; what his latest estimate is of the outturn for total net programme costs for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement; [9208]

  (5) what the total net programme costs of HM Customs and Excise for the financial year 2000–01 were; [9209]

  (6) what his latest estimate is for the total net administration costs of HM Customs and Excise for the financial year 2001–02; [9210]

  (7) what the final outturn for the total net administration costs of HM Customs and Excise was for 2000–01. [9212]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Where available, final estimates of these costs will be published in the annual report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise later this year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of complaints against HM Customs and Excise were upheld by the Adjudication Office in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 to the most recent date for which information is available. [9175]

  Mr. Boateng
  The outcome of complaints investigated by the Adjudicator's Office in 2000–01 was set out in the Adjudicator's annual report, published on 11 July 2001. The outcome of complaints investigated in 2001–02 will be set out in the Adjudicator's 2002 annual report due to be published next year.

  European Court of Justice Judgments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) UK tax law and (b) Government revenue of the 9 October Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-409/98, Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise v. Mirror Group plc; and if he will make a statement. [9170]

  Mr. Boateng
  No change in UK tax legislation is needed as a result of this judgment. The impact on tax revenue will depend on the UK courts' decision on an issue which has been referred back to them by the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for(a) UK tax law and (b) Government revenue of the 4 October judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-326/99 "Stichting 'Goed Woren' v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën"; and if he will make a statement. [9168]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the judgment of the European Court of Justice in this Dutch case is in line with UK policy, it has no impact on UK tax legislation or revenue.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many scanners to detect tobacco smuggling in freight containers are deployed by HM Customs and Excise; at which ports the scanners are located; and if he will make a statement. [9042]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs have seven scanners in operation, another three will come into operation soon and a procurement exercise is in process to obtain more. It is Customs policy not to provide details of precise operational deployment. All Customs scanners are mobile and are deployed flexibly throughout the UK to ensure Customs can react to, and tackle, the smuggling threat as it changes.

  Revenue Evasion
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total United Kingdom revenue evasion prevented by HM Customs and Excise was in 2000–01. [9179]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total United Kingdom revenue evasion prevented by HM Customs and Excise in 2000–01 will be published in the Department's annual report that will be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the savings ratio has been for each quarter since May 1992; [9751]

  (2) what the savings ratio has been among families in the lowest income quintile in each year since May 1997. [9747]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 25 October 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on the savings ratio among families in the lowest income quintile in each year since May 1997, and the overall household savings ratio for each quarter since May 1992 (9747, 9751). I am replying in his absence.
  The only data available on household expenditure and income by gross income for the lowest income quintile group are those collected in the Family Expenditure Survey and published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in "Family Spending". However, these data are not on a comparable basis to the National Accounts definition of expenditure and income.
  The information for overall household savings ratios for each quarter since 1992 is available as part of the output of the quarterly National Accounts and is published quarterly in the ONS' First Release, "Quarterly National Accounts". The series is held on the ONS database, using the four digit code NRJS. All sources are available in the House of Commons library.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Signals Passed at Danger
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he
  381W
  will publish the location of the five signals most often passed at danger in the last year for which figures are available. [7449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The details of all signals passed at danger (SPADs) are contained in the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) monthly SPAD reports, copies of which are placed in the House Library and are also available on HSE's website at www.house.gov.uk/railway/spad/index.htm.

  Unadopted Alleyways
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will introduce targets for the condition and safety of unadopted alleyways; and if he will make a statement; [7383]

  (2)what assessment he has made of the number of unadopted alleyways in the United Kingdom; [7380]

  (3)what plans he has to facilitate the improvement of unadopted alleyways; and if he will make a statement; [7385]

  (4) if he will introduce standards and targets to encourage the adoption of unadopted alleyways; and if he will make a statement. [7384]

  Ms Keeble
  Recent figures are not available for the number of unadopted streets or alleyways, In 1972 there were some 40,000 private streets throughout the country.

  Whether or not a street should be adopted is a matter for individual local authorities. They have the power to adopt such streets and to contribute towards the cost of making them up to an adoptable standard, where they deem that to be appropriate. An authority can also carry out urgent repairs to unadopted areas to prevent or remove danger to persons or vehicles, using powers conferred on them by section 230 of the Highways Act 1980, but without necessarily committing themselves to adoption. Any decision about whether to carry out urgent repairs is for the authority to make.

  Transport Journeys
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in each year since 1995, in each region and nation of the UK, what the percentage change in the number of journeys undertaken by(a) car, (b) train, (c) bus, (d) light railways, (e) trams, (f) underground and (g) other forms of transport was; what estimates he has made of trends in journeys undertaken by each category until (i) 2010, (ii) 2020 and (iii) 2030; and if he will make a statement. [6949]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for Great Britain are set out in the tables. Information is not available for all modes in the format requested. However, some greater detail for bus, rail, underground and light rail can be found in Transport Statistics Great Britain 2001 in the Library.

  (a) Journeys by car

  Great Britain trips (million)

  Percentage change

  1994

  35,500

  —

  1995

  35,000

  0

  1996

  36,500

  3

  1997

  37,100

  2

  382W

  (a)Journey by car

  Great Britain trips (million)

  Percentage change

  1998

  37,200

  0

  1999

  37,000

  0

  2000

  36,600

  -1

  Source:

  National Travel Survey

  (b) National Rail

  Great Britain passenger journeys (million)

  Percentage change

  1994–95

  735

  —

  1995–96

  761

  4

  1996–97

  801

  5

  1997–98

  846

  6

  1998–99

  892

  5

  1999–2000

  931

  4

  2000–01

  957

  3

  Source:

  Strategic Rail Authority

  (c) Bus

  Great Britain passenger journeys (million)

  Percentage change

  1994–95

  4,420

  —

  1995–96

  4,383

  -1

  1996–97

  4,350

  -1

  1997–98

  4,330

  0

  1998–99

  4,248

  -2

  1999–2000

  4,279

  1

  2000–01

  14,314

  1

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  DTLR annual survey of PSV operators

  (d) Light rail

  Great Britain passenger journeys (million)

  Percentage change

  1994–95

  63.2

  —

  1995–96

  67.8

  7

  1996–97

  73.3

  8

  1997–98

  79

  8

  1998–99

  85

  8

  1999–2000

  93.9

  10

  2000–01

  119.5

  27

  Source

  DTLR survey of light rail operators

  (e)Underground

  Great Britain passenger journeys (million)

  Percentage change

  1994–95

  778.7

  —

  1995–96

  798.3

  3

  1996–97

  785.7

  -2

  1997–98

  846.1

  8

  1998–99

  880.6

  4

  1999–2000

  941.7

  7

  2000–01

  984.4

  5

  Source:

  London Underground, Strathclyde PTE

  383W

  (f) Other modes (including walking)

  Great Britain trips (million)

  Percentage change

  1994

  20,400

  —

  1995

  19,500

  -4

  1996

  19,100

  -3

  1997

  18,900

  -1

  1998

  18.900

  -0

  1999

  18,200

  -4

  2000

  17,400

  -5

  Source:

  National Travel Survey

  Central Railway
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he will make a statement on the Central Railway proposal; [8332]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the specific recommendations made to Ministers by the Strategic Rail Authority regarding the Central Railway proposal. [8836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has carried out, with the help of consultants, a high level review into Central Railway's proposals and has forwarded its report to my Department. The Government will take a view on the issues raised by the report and respond to Central Railway in due course.

  All-Wales Rail Franchise
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the timetable is for the establishment of a single all-Wales rail franchise; and if he will make a statement. [8643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An announcement will be made in due course.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's policy is on the establishment of a single all-Wales rail franchise; and if he will make a statement. [8644]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The draft Policy Statement on Passenger Rail Franchising issued on 16 July recognises that different approaches will be necessary to achieve the benefits we are looking for from different franchises.

  The Strategic Rail Authority has proposed the creation of a single franchise for Wales. It is considering this alongside the other options for delivering benefits to rail passengers on Welsh routes.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of Railtrack's financial problems on the establishment of a single all-Wales rail franchise; and if he will make a statement. [8642]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We would not expect the establishment of a Welsh franchise to be affected by the High Court's decision to place Railtrack plc in railway administration.

  Car Safety
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 384W
  differences there are between the technical test requirements proposed by Working Group 17 of the EEVC (European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee) and those proposed by the European motor industry for (a) impact speed for a child's head, (b) mass of a child's head, (c) maximum tibia acceleration and (d) maximum knee bend angle; and what ways the different proposals can be expected to produce different test results for pedestrians hit by a car. [9044]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A comparison of the technical requirements is given in the table:

  WG17 proposal

  Negotiated agreement

  Phase 1

  Phase 2

  (a) Child's head impact speed (km/h)

  40

  35

  40

  (b) Child's head mass (kg)

  2.5

  3.5

  2.5

  (c) Max tibia acceleration (g)

  150

  200

  150

  (d) Minimum knee bend angle (deg)

  15

  21

  15

  In comparison with the first phase of a negotiated agreement, the WG17 proposal offers greater protection against head injuries and reduced likelihood of leg injuries, a particular aspect being reduced knee injuries.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the draft timetable for the stages for implementing the proposals of Working Group 17 of EEVC. [9048]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Commission are expected to make a decision on whether to accept the Industry proposal for a negotiated agreement in December this year. If this option is taken, pedestrian protection measures will start to be introduced in 2005, and the Working Group 17 proposals (or equivalent) will be fully implemented by 2015.

  If the negotiated agreement route is not taken, the Commission may decide to propose a Directive. Such a Directive would need to be discussed through the European Council and Parliament through the Co-decision Procedure, and the implementation dates would depend on the timing and outcome of these discussions.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in number and intensity of pedestrian accidents if all cars in the(a) United Kingdom, and (b) EU had fronts that met the requirements of Working Group 17 of EEVC. [9046]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of pedestrian accidents would not be affected by implementation of the Working Group 17 (WG17) proposals. However, past research by TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) estimated that measures similar to those recommended by WG17 would reduce the total number of pedestrian deaths by 8 per cent. and serious injuries by 21 per cent. This was applicable to both the UK and the EU. Other studies suggest a wider range of possible benefits.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the points made in response to consultations on the alternative ways to reduce the consequences of car crashes to pedestrians. [9045]
  385W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the responses we have received. We plan to make the results of the consultation available when we have completed this process.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will decide between the safety proposals put forward by Working Group 17 of EEVC and the alternative proposals. [9047]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the responses we have received to our consultation on the Commission's proposal for a negotiated agreement with manufactures, and hope to have reached a conclusion by mid-November.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the research and development programmes that the Government have funded for the design and production of safer car fronts since 1979. [9069]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The bulk of the UK research into safer car fronts has been carried out under TRL contracts S220C/VF and S222C/VF (pedestrian protection test procedures and design) which cover the period between 1992 and 2002.

  Related research on vehicle/pedestrian safety has taken place under TRL contracts S071M/VF (test requirements for bull bars) and S310B/VF (advanced adaptive safety systems).

  Further work in this general area is being undertaken in three new projects under the Government's foresight programme. These include the SHORSEN and APVRU projects which look at advanced pedestrian detection systems, and PEDSALI, which examines the use of advanced materials for pedestrian-friendly bumpers.

  Regional Air Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ensure that the forthcoming consultation on regional air services and air services in the south east of England and the subsequent White Paper include proposals on guaranteed access for air services from designated UK regional cities to Heathrow or Gatwick, for a minimum of three return services per day with the slots ring fenced by public service obligation status where appropriate; and if he will make a statement. [9353]

  Mr. Spellar
  The forthcoming consultation documents on regional air services and air services in the south-east of England will address the issue of regional connections to London. We are currently reviewing Government policy on air links from UK regions to London in response to recent representations about the importance of Inverness-Gatwick and Belfast International-London Heathrow services. The hon. Friend's suggestions will be taken into account.

  Night Flights
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether his Department will appeal against the European Court ruling on night flights at Heathrow; and if he will make a statement; [9344]
  386W
  (2) if the decision by the European Court on night operations at Heathrow will change Government policy on designation of airports for night operations; if he will consult those companies, groups and individuals who would be most affected by such a change in policy before making any decision; and if he will make a statement; [9357]

  (3) what economic research contingent the Government have commissioned into the need for night flights into London and other UK airports; [9494]

  (4) what discussions he has had with trade unions representing airline and airport employees following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on night flights; and if he will make a statement; [9493]

  (5) if the European Court ruling on night noise at Heathrow will influence the timing of his Department's decision on the application to impose a designation for night noise purposes on East Midlands Airport; whether this will affect the policy for night operations at other UK airports which are not designated for noise purposes; and if he will make a statement. [9356]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 875W, and the remarks by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) during the debate about night flights on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 47WH. We are studying the judgment carefully before deciding what action, if any, may be necessary. The judgment cannot become final for at least three months from its date of publication on 2 October, and there will be no immediate changes to the present situation at Heathrow or elsewhere. It is not the right time to hold meetings with any interested parties, but this may be possible at a later stage.

  Aer Lingus
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make representations to the Irish Government and the EU Transport Commissioner to ensure that any state aid paid to Aer Lingus is not used to subsidise air services from Dublin and that Aer Lingus should reinstate the services between Belfast and New York as part of its operating programme. [9351]

  Mr. Spellar
  In its recent Communication on the repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry, presented to the EU Transport Council on 16 October, the European Commission set out guidelines on emergency aid measures. The Government are confident that the Commission will examine rigorously whether any proposed assistance offered by a member state to an airline is compatible with the EC treaty and with these guidelines.

  A350
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many road accidents occurred in the last 12 months on the A350 dual
  387W
  carriageway between Chippenham and Junction 17 of the M5; and how many of them were caused by vehicles crossing the central reservation. [9383]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is available only for accidents involving personal injury. In the year 2000, there were two such accidents on the A350 dual carriageway between Chippenham and Junction 17 of the M4. Both of these accidents involved at least one vehicle crossing the central reservation.

  Council Houses
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the availability of funding for council house modernisation and repair in local authorities where tenants have voted against stock transfers. [9624]

  Ms Keeble
  Resources for renovating arid repairing council housing stock are provided through the Major Repairs Allowance, the credit approvals issued through the housing annual capital guideline and the maintenance allowance within Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. The levels of resources (£ million) for these for this year and next year agreed in the 2000 Spending Review are as follows:

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Capital works

  Major Repairs Allowance

  1,600

  1,512

  1,403

  Housing credit approvals

  705

  793

  842

  Revenue expenditure

  Maintenance allowance

  1,915

  1,805

  1,685

  It is for local authorities to decide, in consultation with their tenants, whether they wish to pursue the available options for generating increased investment in the housing stock. In addition to housing transfer, additional resources are available through the arms length management (£460 million available over the three years to 2003–04) and Private Finance Initiatives (£760 million over the three years).Where an authority has had an unsuccessful partial or whole housing transfer ballot it will be essential to understand the reasons why tenants voted against the transfer. There is no bar on these authorities revisiting transfer.

  Foundations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what funding has been made available to foundations in advance of their annual budget for the delivery of help to home improvement agencies. [9545]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: "Foundations" operates as the national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies under contract to my Department. Funding under the contract is provided in the form of quarterly payments made in arrears on the basis of evidence that the requirements of the contract have been fulfilled.

  Storage Premises (Fires)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many fires have taken place in warehouse, distribution and other storage premises since 1990. [8233]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: The table shows the total number of fires for each year from 1990 to 1999 for 'warehouses and other distribution' and 'outdoor storage' premises.

  Fires in warehouses and other outdoor storage premises, UK 1990–99

  Year

  Total

  Warehouses and other distribution

  Outdoor Storage

  1990

  2,192

  744

  1,448

  1991

  1,903

  622

  1,281

  1992

  1,782

  551

  1,231

  1993

  1,814

  609

  1,205

  19941,2

  3,193

  883

  2,310

  19951,2

  3,791

  856

  2,935

  19961,2

  4,040

  702

  3,338

  19971,2

  3,975

  726

  3,249

  19981,2

  3,916

  771

  3,145

  19991,2,3

  4,120

  757

  3,363

  1 Figures are based on sample data

  2 Including late call and heat and smoke damage incidents

  3 Provisional

  The number of fires within these categories before 1994 is not directly comparable with data for later years. Since 1994 the statistics have included late calls and heat and smoke damage, and have also been estimates derived from samples.

  Aircraft Air Filters
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of studies into the transmission of disease through the air filter systems of passenger aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [9615]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Consultants commissioned by the Government have reviewed published studies on the transmission of disease in aircraft cabins and have made two medium/low priority recommendations for further research. We are currently considering these recommendations. The House of Lords Select Committee Report on Air Travel and Health, on the basis of the evidence presented to it, concluded that"the modern aircraft cabin environment generally poses no greater risk of transmission of infection between its occupants than crowded situations elsewhere—and may, indeed, be safer than most of them".

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will seek an international agreement to speed up the replacement of air filters on passenger aircraft. [9616]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the use of aircraft cabin air filters is not mandatory, an international agreement on the timing of their replacement is inappropriate. It is for airlines to select a suitable maintenance regime that would ensure industry or in-house performance standards are met.
  389W
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the replacement of aircraft air filters; and if he will make a statement. [9614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Use of aircraft cabin air filters is not mandatory. Therefore it is for airlines to select an appropriate maintenance regime that would ensure industry or in-house performance standards are met.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria his Department uses for the approval of bypasses. [9664]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All bids for new schemes whether bypasses or other classes of scheme are assessed using the New Approach to Appraisal developed during the Roads Review in 1998. NATA is based on the five criteria that underlie our transport policies: environmental impact, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. NATA favours no particular class of scheme nor is it our policy to give special preference to bypasses, although I fully recognise the environmental benefits which such schemes can bring about.

  Radon
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide assistance to homes which have radon concentrations higher than the Action Level. [9599]

  Ms Keeble
  It is already possible to offer such assistance. Local housing authorities may provide discretionary Private Sector Renewal Grants to assist home owners with radon remedial works to their properties where the annual averaged concentration of the gas exceeds the Action Level.

  Bye-law Applications
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many bye-law applications from local authorities there were in each of the past five years, broken down by category, indicating in each case if they were approved. [9666]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authorities are empowered to make a wide range of bye-laws for which confirmation is given by the Secretary of State responsible for the issues to which the bye-law relates. The information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria his Department uses to judge bye-law applications from local authorities. [9665]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In considering applications from local authorities for confirmation of bye-laws regard is had to the relevant matters set out in Home Office Circular 25/1996 which include: that the bye-laws are within the powers of the enabling legislation and that any action required by the legislation, such as consultation with a named public body, has been taken; that they do not duplicate or conflict with the general law, existing 390W
  bye-laws or any local Act or common law; that the nuisance they address merits criminal sanctions and that, to a reasonable person, the penalty available is proportionate; that they directly address a genuine and specific local problem and do not attempt to deal in general terms with essentially national issues; and that they do not conflict with Government policy.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into the applicability of the proposed not-for-profit Railtrack model for re-organising London Underground.[9893]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the 1997 election, London Transport and the Government, advised by PricewaterhouseCoopers, considered a number of different options for the future of the Tube—including the possibility of a not-for-profit private sector trust. We believed then, as we do now, that our modernisation plans are the best way forward for London Underground.

  Public sector London Underground will continue to be responsible for running the railway. The operation of track, signals, trains and stations will remain in public hands. The public sector will also be responsible for managing the contracts to maintain and improve the Tube. London Underground is a not-for-profit organisation.

  Our plans for the modernisation of the Tube will provide the massive long-term investment the underground needs to deliver a 21st century service. There will be more than £13 billion for investment and maintenance over 15 years, providing significant improvements in the quality, capacity and reliability.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the cost to date of advisers on the public-private partnership for London Underground. [10152]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1170W.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, columns 93–94W, who was the author of the document which showed that one of Mr. Kiley's assistants had proposed changes to a draft report by Parsons Brinkerhoff; and in whose ownership this document is. [10223]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton in another place on 24 July 2001,Official Report, House of Lords, column 1845.

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much of the expenditure by his Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated

  391W
  with respect to this Index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [8934]

  Ms Keeble
  The table sets out Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions expenditure, which either partly or wholly, uses measures

  £ million

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Single Regeneration Budget

  277.5

  458.8

  560.9

  691.9

  725.1

  873

  1—

  Land and Property Programme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  370

  1—

  New Deal for Communities

  —

  —

  —

  60

  120

  240

  350

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  300

  400

  Neighbourhood Management

  —

  —

  —

  45

  Housing Capital Allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Both these programmes will be subsumed into 'single pot' for Regional Development Agencies from April 2002. The Department for Trade and Industry will have effective responsibility for all grant in aid to RDAs from November 2001.

  'The Single Regeneration Budget' was based on a competitive bidding process but also included an indicative regional allocation. The methodology for determining the regional 'indicative' allocations from Round 2 onwards was:
  50 per cent. based on region's share of district level deprivation, as set out in the Index of Local Conditions 1991 for areas with above average deprivation;
  50 per cent. based on region's share of 1993 population, again in areas with above average deprivation.

  As part of the Comprehensive Spending Review 1998 there was a Public Service Agreement target that required 80 per cent. of the moneys to be spent in the 50 most deprived local authority areas as measured by the Index of Local Deprivation 1998.

  'The Land and Property Programme' includes an element of the Indices of Deprivation 2000 for the period 2001–02 only. 80 per cent. of the budget was allocated on a criteria basis involving the use of seven indicators, one of which was based on the Indices of Deprivation 2000—a 'deprived wards' indicator which captured the number of people living in the most deprived local authority districts. The Indices element therefore represents only a small aspect of the allocation methodology. No other indices were used in previous years, nor will they be used in future years due to the commencement of the new single pot for Regional Development Agencies from April 2002.

  'New Deal for Communities': The 1998 Index of Local Deprivation has been used as a basis for selection for Rounds 1 and 2 of this programme.

  The overall ranking measuring degree of deprivation at the district level was used as the main indicator for selection as it was the most up to date and robust. To ensure a good geographical spread, a regional quota system was applied in addition.

  'The Neighbourhood Renewal Fund' is distributed to authorities which figure in the 50 most deprived authorities against the six individual district level measures in the Indices of Deprivation 2000. This produces a list of 81 authorities, to which were added seven authorities not included in this list but which were in the 50 most deprived areas on any of the four measures under the Index of Local Deprivation 1998. The
  392W
  of multiple deprivation to decide allocation levels. This question covers a period during which three such measures have been employed by Government. These are:
  The Indices of Deprivation 2000, published August 2000
  The Index of Local Deprivation 1998, published 1998
  The Index of Local Conditions 1991, published 1994

  allocations are based on a standard amount per head of population living in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards nationally.

  'The Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder Programme' is targeted on areas selected from among authorities which include more than one ward in the worst 10 per cent. as measured by the Indices of Deprivation 2000, but excluding any local authority where there is a New Deal for Communities Partnership.

  'Housing Capital Allocations': The needs indices used in the allocation of these resources to local authorities (Generalised Needs Index) and Registered Social Landlords (Housing Needs Index) include an element of targeting of resources to deprived areas, based on the Index of Local Conditions 1991. The way in which the indices are constructed and used means that the targeting does not allocate a specific amount of the available resources. The targeting accounted for 30 per cent. of the Generalised Needs Index (before adjustment for regional cost variations) in 2001–02. This was increased from 20 per cent. in earlier years as a result of the creation of Major Repairs Allowance to allocate resources for maintaining council housing; there is no targeting to deprived areas in these allocations. The targeting within the Housing Needs Index has been 15 per cent. throughout the period.

  'Housing Revenue Account Subsidy': The maintenance allowance within this subsidy system includes a component based on the Index of Local Conditions 1991. This component has accounted for around 10 per cent. of the resources available for the maintenance allowance, which equates to around £200 million, throughout the period.

  Alun Evans
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Alun Evans, former Director of Communication in the DTLR, was the Head of Information for the purpose of managing departmental communications and recording special advisers' contacts with the media under the code of conduct for special advisers. [8225]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: Yes.

  Fireworks
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action is being taken by(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) other parts of his Department to ensure that bulk fireworks entering the UK are taken to licensed storage facilities; and what checks are made at the port of entry. [9788]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: Neither DTLR nor HSE carries out routine checks at the port of entry on bulk fireworks entering Great Britain or on their destination. Any such arrangements would be a disproportionate burden on industry and would not be an effective use of enforcement resources.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from the firework industry on the control and monitoring of bulk supplies of fireworks entering the UK, with particular reference to checks at ports of entry. [9789]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: We have received no representations from the fireworks industry on the control and monitoring of bulk supplies of fireworks entering the UK. HM Customs and Excise undertakes intelligence led risk-based checks at ports of entry and where it has concerns it would notify HSE and/or the relevant local authority for the fireworks' destination.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) the firework industry and (b) local authorities regarding reports of illegal storage of fireworks in (i) the west Midlands, (ii) Lancashire and (iii) Leicestershire; and what action he has taken in response to those representations. [9787]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: We have received no representations from the fireworks industry or from local authorities on reports of illegal storage of fireworks in the west Midlands, Lancashire and Leicestershire. However, I understand local authorities in Lancashire and Leicestershire have contacted HSE for advice about illegal storage of fireworks. I understand that enforcement action has been taken by local authorities.

  Mayors
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he intends to direct local authorities to undertake local referendums to ascertain the public support for directly elected mayors in cases where council has decided to pursue another form of local government under the Local Government Act 2000. [10124]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The circumstances where my right hon. Friend may direct a local authority to undertake a local referendum to ascertain the public support for a directly elected mayor are specified in Schedule 2 to the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (England) Regulations 2000. Simply that a council has decided to pursue a form of local government other than one that involves a directly elected mayor is not one of the specified circumstances. In any case where one or more of the specified circumstances prevails, my 394W
  right hon. Friend will decide whether or not to direct a referendum, having regard to all the circumstances of that case.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if(a) his special advisers and (b) his Department's press office commented on the report on engineering standards on the London Underground by Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. commissioned by Bob Kiley (i) before and (ii) after the report had been published by Transport for London and London Transport; [9902]

  (2) if he will list the matters that his special advisers have (a) given to the press or briefed the press about and (b) commented on, relating to the conduct of Bob Kiley in his capacity as London Transport Commissioner or Chairman of London Transport, since the General Election; [9900]

  (3) if he will list the matters that his Department's communications department have (a) briefed the press about and (b) commented on, relating to the conduct of Bob Kiley in his capacity as London Transport Commissioner or Chairman of London Transport, since the General Election. [9899]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: Press officers, and special advisers, brief the press and comment on matters relating to the range of the Department's responsibilities, in accordance with the guidance on the work of the Government information service.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the procedures for Ministers approving comments to the press made by(a) his Department's press office and (b) special advisers. [9901]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: Staff in the Directorate of Communication and special advisers are authorised to contact the media, clearing statements with Ministers as required, in accordance with the guidance on the work of the Government information service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the record kept under clause 9 of the code of conduct for special advisers of contacts between his special advisers and the news media since July. [8222]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: All civil servants, including special advisers, are expected to keep departmental heads of information informed of contacts with media. Details of such contacts are for internal purposes only.

  Jo Moore
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish the replies to the e-mail sent to officials in his Department by Jo Moore at 14.55 pm on 11 September; [9630]

  (2) if he will publish the e-mails sent to officials in his Department by Jo Moore on the 11 and 12 September. [9631]
  395W
  Mr. Byers
  Under paragraph 2 of Part II of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it is not the practice to disclose details of internal communications.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the Permanent Secretary to the DTLR had a meeting with the DTLR's press officer, Charlotte Morgan, about her conduct in relation to complying with requests from Ms Jo Moore; [9898]

  (2) if the Permanent Secretary to the DTLR had a meeting with the DTLR's director of communications, Alun Evans, about his conduct in relation to complying with requests from Ms Jo Moore. [9897]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 October 2001]: It is not the usual practice to disclose details of internal meetings. This is in accordance with Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 98W, when (a) the Permanent Secretary and (b) he were told of the existence of Ms Moore's e-mail of 11 September to Alun Evans. [10222]

  Mr. Byers
  Under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is not the practice to disclose details of internal communications.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 98W, if, based on a pro-rata full-time salary equivalent, Alun Evans' salary exceeded that of Jo Moore on 11 September. [10224]

  Mr. Byers
  Details of salaries and comparisons between them are confidential.

  Changes to legislation/regulations affecting Railtrack since May 1997

  Legislation/regulations

  Body responsible

  The Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 553)—made on 28 February 1997, came into force on 10 May 1997

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the formal recommendation of the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

  The Finance Act 1997

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  The Railways Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No. 1340)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to implement European Directives 95/18/EC and 95/19/EC

  The Railways (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No. 1519)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Competition Act 1998

  The Department of Trade and Industry

  The Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1999 (SI 1999 No. 1003)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Welsh Office

  The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 2244)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the formal recommendation of the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

  The Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999 (SI 1999 No. 1443)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Health and Safety (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 2597)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Greater London Authority Act 1999

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 2688)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the formal recommendation of the Health and Safety Commission under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

  The Railtrack plc (Rateable Value) (Wales) Order 2000 (SI 2000 No. 555)

  The National Assembly for Wales

  The Railways (Rateable Values) (England) Order 2000 (SI 2000 949)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Railways (Interoperability) (Notified Bodies) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 1674)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Transport Act 2000

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Railways (Closure Provisions) (Exemptions) (St. Pancras) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 1768)

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what guarantees the Government will give to credit ratings agencies in order to restore investment grade rating to the successor company to Railtrack; [9000]

  (2) what evidence he has collated to suggest that a not-for-profit company will be able to raise capital in the markets to the same extent as Railtrack could. [9004]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what date the concept of a not-for-profit company to take over the rail network from Railtrack was first considered by his Department. [8999]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when(a) Ministers in his Department and (b) an official in his Department last contacted Railtrack before 6 October; and what was discussed. [8947]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 954.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the changes to legislation or regulations affecting Railtrack since May 1997, indicating in each case the body responsible for the change. [8948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table lists the information requested.
  397W

  Changes to legislation/regulations affecting Railtrack since May 1997

  Legislation/regulations

  Body responsible

  The Railway Pensions (Designation, Substitution and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No. 2264)

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  The Capital Allowances Act 2001

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  The Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 (SI 2001 No. 3352)

  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the capital projects to which Railtrack plc was committed at 1 April, indicating their estimated dates of completion. [8952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's 2001 Network Management Statement published in May this year listed its committed enhancement schemes, and expenditure plans for maintenance and renewal of the network, including investment. The Network Management Statement is available on Railtrack's website www.railtrack.co.uk. I shall also arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he decided to seek to appoint an administrator for Railtrack. [8946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 954.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will announce the proposed new structure for the successor company to Railtrack plc; and if he will consult on the options. [9779]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public money is to be made available to Railtrack plc in administration and its successor in the(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 financial years; and when the next payment is due. [9782]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Government have committed to provide the Railway administrators with the financial support necessary to ensure that the rail network can remain fully operational throughout the administration of Railtrack plc.

  During administration, Railtrack plc are entitled to receive network grants from the Strategic Rail Authority to the amount and profile agreed as part of the Rail Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the 2 April agreement between Railtrack and Government. A payment of £162 million will be paid as part of these agreements when requested by the administrators. The right to receive these network grant payments will be transferred to Railtrack's successor company.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what decision-making structure has been put in place to decide on new investment plans by Railtrack plc in administration. [9781]
  398W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: The Government have committed to provide the railway administrators with the financial support necessary to ensure that operations continue on a 'business as usual' basis during administration.

  Work on the development of new investment plans will continue on the same basis as before administration. The Strategic Rail Authority's forthcoming Strategic Plan will prioritise investment plans in terms of value for money offered to both rail users and the taxpayer. It will also outline its emerging plans on the framework for delivering major investments through Special Purpose financing vehicles.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what guidance he has given to Ernst and Young in connection with their appointment as Railtrack's administrators and on the successor company to which they will transfer Railtrack's operations and assets. [10190]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend has issued no such guidance.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has for the streamlining of regulations following the creation of the proposed successor to Railtrack. [10193]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 954, as well as the written answer given on 23 October 2001, Official Report, columns 195–97W.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who will set the performance targets for the successor company to Railtrack referred to in his statement of 15 October. [10194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The setting of performance targets is the responsibility of the Rail Regulator. The Government have stated our intention to streamline the existing regulatory structure.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Railtrack in administration and the Government will settle claims from the injured and the families of those killed in recent rail crashes. [10196]

  Mr. Spellar
  Claims against Railtrack plc (in Railway Administration) will continue to be dealt with through and in accordance with the Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's estimate is of the costs of settling all the claims against Railtrack from(a) those injured and (b) the families of those killed in recent rail crashes. [10197]

  Mr. Spellar
  The apportionment of liability between the parties is yet to be fully settled.
  399W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Government gave a guarantee to enable Railtrack in administration to borrow £800 million. [10198]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1230W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what role Ms Jo Moore played in the decision to take Railtrack into administration; and what advice she gave about how to break the news to the media. [9836]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 95W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which(a) special advisers and (b) other staff within his Department have been authorised to brief Labour hon. Members on the recent insolvency of Railtrack; and if he has given permission for (i) Mr. Dan Corry and (ii) Mr. Michael Dugher of his Department to appear as contact points for briefing Labour hon. Members on briefing documents sent out since 8 October to Labour hon. Members; and if he will make a statement. [9469]

  Mr. Byers
  The Code of Conduct for special advisers expressly provides that special advisers may help to brief Party MPs and officials on issues of Government policy. Mr. Corry and Mr. Dugher are special advisers.

  Other staff have not been authorised to brief Labour hon. Members on the recent administration of Railtrack.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to improve the speed of the appeals process in asylum cases; and if she will make a statement. [9459]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) is working closely with its Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department colleagues to improve the end-to-end processing time for asylum appeals.

  The IAA has set up a new listing system; is making more effective use of judicial time; is reducing unnecessary adjournments and speeding up the service of decisions; and is introducing twilight working for administrative staff.

  Dudley Magistracy
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women (i) applied to join, (ii) were appointed to and (iii) left the Dudley magistracy in each of the last five years. [9623]

  Mr. Wills
  The table sets out the breakdown of applications, appointments and 'leavers' (resignations, retirements and deaths) for the Dudley bench for the last four years. The figures for applications received include 400W
  those for Stourbridge and Halesowen bench as well because they are recorded for the Advisory Committee area as a whole and not broken down by bench. No breakdown is available for the years before that because the information was not recorded until my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor introduced a new, more comprehensive Annual Report form in 1998.

  Breakdown of applications, appointments and 'leavers' (resignations, retirements and deaths) for the Dudley bench

  Applied1

  Appointed

  Left2

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  2000–01

  17

  18

  4

  7

  5

  6

  1999–2000

  30

  14

  8

  6

  3

  4

  1998–99

  12

  17

  2

  8

  14

  5

  1997–98

  23

  12

  5

  3

  8

  0

  1 Includes Stourbridge and Halesowen

  2 Retired/Died/Resigned

  Golden Jubilee
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the applicants for the grant of a Lord Mayoralty or Lord Provostship to mark Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [10823]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Applications for the grant of a Lord Mayoralty have been received from the following cities and are under consideration:

  Bath

  Cambridge

  Carlisle

  Chichester

  Derby

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Lancaster

  Lincoln

  St. Albans

  St. David's

  Salford

  Southampton

  Sunderland

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what special arrangements he has made for the issue of death certificates to relatives of UK citizens killed abroad following the terrorist attacks in the United States. [9274]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The US authorities are allowing expatriate (ie non-resident in the USA) Next-of-Kin (NOK) of British victims to obtain death certificates by completing and signing an affidavit before a US Consular Officer in the United Kingdom. Police Family Liaison Offices in the UK are fully briefed to be able to help relatives with the procedures, and a group of American lawyers in London have offered their services on a pro bono basis if any relative needs help with the US requirements.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Manufacturing Industry
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the estimate that the Transport and General Workers' Union gave to the recent Trades Union Conference that 250,000 manufacturing jobs will be lost in the next two years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government recognise the difficulties of the manufacturing sector at the moment. However, the problems reflect the global economic situation. Comparing the latest available three months with the previous three months, manufacturing output fell by 4 per cent in Japan, 1.7 per cent in the USA, 1.2 per cent in the Eurozone and by 1 per cent in the UK.
The relationship between output and employment is very uncertain and varies from firm to firm. Therefore, the Government do not, in line with the convention adopted by previous administrations, produce forecasts of employment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Given that the figure mentioned at the TUC conference, which appears in my Question, was given before the tragic events of 11th September, I should like to go back a little if I may. The earlier figure relating to the number of jobs lost in manufacturing industry was 360,000 since 1997. Does that mean that the Government have presided over a boom or a bust?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, of course the Government, in terms of the general economy, have presided over a steady increase in both wealth and employment, which is due entirely to a very sound macro-economic policy. We have resisted the temptation of the previous government to go from a boom to a bust as their only strategy.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the decline in manufacturing industry has been going on for a long period of time? Indeed, since 1973 its percentage of GDP has dropped from 32 per cent to 19 per cent at the present time. It is therefore a long-term business. Britain, instead of being the workshop of the world, has become the dumping ground of the world, which is most unfortunate.
1096
May I recommend to the noble Lord that he reads the Select Committee report of 1985 on overseas trade? I am sure that he will find many recommendations there which unfortunately were not taken up by the party opposite when it was in government.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I remember answering a similar Question a few months ago. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that I pointed out then that in every industrialised country in the world, consistently over the past three decades, manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has declined. In 1999, the share of manufacturing in GDP in the UK was 19.2 per cent. That compares with 16.1 per cent in the US. If we are in difficulties because of manufacturing, we have to assume that the American economy is in even greater difficulties.
The reality is that there are two factors which mean that manufacturing as a percentage of GDP goes down; the first is increasing productivity in manufacturing and the second is the fact that as people become wealthier they buy as a percentage of their income fewer products. The result is that in every country manufacturing goes down as a percentage of GDP. The question to ask is whether that manufacturing is modernised manufacturing and whether it is adding real value to the economy. The percentage is largely irrelevant.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept that two questions should be asked in addition to the question that he posed himself? First, does he accept that one of the major reasons for the loss of manufacturing jobs is that the pound is too high, in particular against the euro? Will he therefore accept that one practical action that the Government could take to lower that rate of exchange and therefore save manufacturing jobs would be to commit to a definite timetable for the pound sterling to join the euro?
Secondly, does the Minister also accept that a number of business regulations bear down particularly heavily on manufacturing industry? One obvious example is the climate change levy when what we should have is a proper system of taxation of carbon emissions. Does he further accept that in that respect the Government can do something to lift the burden from manufacturing industry?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that I answered that question, too, last time we discussed the issue. I hope it was clear from the figures I originally gave that this is not a UK problem uniquely. In fact, quite the contrary; the UK economy in this respect is doing rather better than other economies and for very good reasons. Therefore, arguments that this is due to regulations look simply as though people are not following what is happening out there in manufacturing industry, which is to do essentially with the slow-down in the economy.

1097
Of course we accept that the pound is higher against the euro than we would wish. I do not think that that is a reason for taking a sudden dash into the euro without looking at what the conditions are.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, leaving aside boom and bust and what previous governments have or have not achieved, have this Government any estimate or projection of the loss of jobs in manufacturing industry over the next two years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, following a convention which is now well established, we do not give forecasts of employment in the future, which is in any case extremely difficult to do.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, following on from the question asked by my noble friend Lord Razzall, would it not have a galvanising effect on manufacturing industry if we announced, first, that subject to a referendum we would be joining the euro; and, secondly, that we would seek to do so within a range of, say, 1.25 to 1.45 euros to the pound, enabling us then actively to intervene in the exchange markets to move towards that range?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may refer back to one of my previous answers. To rush into the euro without considering the conditions in which we do so would be a grave mistake. I am not certain that it would galvanise manufacturing industry in this context. It might be extremely worried about the basis on which it was being done.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, the Minister spoke about boom and bust under the previous Conservative administration. As unemployment fell consistently from the late 1980s and productivity, output and exports all rose by record amounts to record levels, when exactly did the bust occur?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there was a very good bust in the early 1980s. There was another good bust in the later 1980s and there was one in the early 1990s. If the noble Lord was not aware of those, it reflects on his knowledge of manufacturing.

British Airlines: Cutbacks
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the social and economic consequences of the recently announced cuts and reductions in services by British airlines.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it is too early to assess the consequences of the recently announced cuts and
1098
reductions in services by British airlines. British Airways' new timetable, for example, comes into force on 28th October. The Government would welcome representations on these changes. Operational changes must remain a matter for the commercial judgment of the operators. September 11th has had a significant impact on airlines, which need to be able to match their operations to demand.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while accepting the difficulties of airlines and their need to make cutbacks to avoid losing money, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is particularly disappointing at the present time that British Airways has used the events of 11th September as a reason to cut back its services between Heathrow and Belfast, which represents a vote of no confidence in the Northern Ireland economy? Will the Minister consider making representations to British Airways that it should reverse its decision, given that it is difficult to believe that demand for services between London and Belfast has been affected by the events of 11th September?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government very much recognise the importance of the air links between Belfast and London. It is not for the Government to get involved in the commercial decisions of airlines, and I cannot comment on the precise reasons for the withdrawal by British Airways of its flights between Belfast International and London Heathrow. Up until 28th October 2001 the number of flights between Belfast International and Belfast City to any London airport, including Stansted, Luton and City, is 34. When the new timetables come into force after that date the total will be 31, which is a net loss of three. The reason why the total loss is not the same number of flights that British Airways has removed is that British Midland has increased its flights from Belfast City to Gatwick.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree, first, that the air passenger duty which is unique to British airlines should be deferred for the time being? Secondly, does the Minister agree that the Atlantic carriers should also be compensated and he should take up that matter with the transport directorate of the European Commission? Thirdly, does my noble and learned friend agree that the extra costs of security should be borne by the Government rather than the airlines?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the question of aid to British airlines, including the deferment of any tax, is a matter for the EU Commission. The Commission has indicated the categories of aid: insurance, the direct consequences of airspace having been closed for four days and the direct cost of security as a result of the events of 11th September. At the moment the British Government are considering how to proceed in the light of that decision by the European

1099
Commission. I believe that the right course is for those discussions to continue and for the UK to operate in line with the rest of Europe.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what prospect does the noble and learned Lord hold out for progress on liberalisation of the air service agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States? Furthermore, what discussions have the Government had with the European Commission on this issue?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I pointed out on Monday, discussions continue between the US Government and the British Government on the air service agreement between them. That is a matter between Britain and the USA. The role of the European Commission and Europe generally in relation to that is the subject of a court case before the ECJ. I cannot tell the noble Viscount when that court case will be decided. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment on how the discussions between the UK and US are proceeding.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that the slots freed up at Heathrow as a result of British Airways giving up the Belfast-Heathrow route are offered to other potential carriers between Heathrow and Belfast and are not used for UK non-domestic routes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am afraid that British Airways is free to put those slots to a different use and it is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. If BA does not use the slots normally they will be returned to the Heathrow pool for the following season. Although I have tried to find out, at the moment I do not know the intention of British Airways in relation to those slots.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the prevailing view is that if the present economic circumstances continue, European airlines will be reduced to only three major carriers, of which British Airways is assumed to be one? If so, does the noble and learned Lord regard that as a desirable outcome, or will the British Government simply leave that to market forces?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not want to comment on the economic prospects, which I leave to others. The Government have said over a period of time that they regard the restructuring of the EU airline industry as important. At a meeting of Transport Ministers on 16th October my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport circulated a paper calling for member states and the Commission to try to prevent the ownership and control clauses in bilateral air service agreements becoming an obstacle to airline consolidation. Therefore, we are in favour of a process of consolidation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord examine carefully the large subsidies that have been paid to American airlines by the US Government so as to ensure that British airlines that cross the Atlantic are not disadvantaged?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my own examination of these subsidies may be altogether beside the point, but as to the issues involved they are matters in discussion between the two countries.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that every forecast about air traffic in the immediate future shows a very severe downturn which is due to a combination of the events of 11th September and the recession. Can my noble and learned friend give the House an assurance that the Government will not rush into an early announcement about the future of a possible fifth terminal at London Heathrow and will use the intervening time to do even more to build up the use of regional airports, especially those such as Birmingham International?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on getting in his question at the fourth attempt. As far as concerns the decision about the fifth terminal, the Government will take the decision and announce it when the time is right. I agree with my noble friend that regional airports have a very important part to play and their future should be encouraged.

Specialist Schools
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose that specialist schools should share facilities and expertise with the community and neighbouring schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, specialist schools are required to work with a minimum of five non-specialist schools, including at least one secondary partner and target groups in their wider community. Their outreach work should be based on needs identified in consultation with their partners. This will be different for each specialist school but will typically include the sharing of equipment or facilities to teach the relevant specialist subjects, INSET provision for teachers in partner schools and courses in the local community.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is the noble Baroness aware that in the recent Ofsted report on specialist schools, the sharing of facilities with the community was the one area where it found those schools to be defective? Given that each specialist school receives on average an extra £½ million over the course of the first five years

1101
or so, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that they share that money and resources with the other schools? There is a good deal of evidence to show that they are linking up with partner primary schools because they help to feed in pupils. Does the Minister believe that they are doing enough to link up with other secondary schools in their neighbourhood?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the DfES has commissioned research on the main part of the specialist schools programme. We were aware that work needed to be done on the community strand. When Ofsted told us that it wanted to do some survey work on specialist schools we encouraged it to look at the community side. As there has been a good deal of negative press reporting it is perhaps worth repeating the words of the chief inspector reported in The Times:
"We are not saying that schools are not sharing; we are simply saying this is not as strong an area of their work as it could be. There are good examples, but it needs to be developed further".
We are very conscious of this. It is only since 1999 that they have been required to share a third of their resources—an average of £40,000—with the community. We are keen that they link up with other secondary schools and primary schools, but we are equally keen that they work with the community. The notable exception to Ofsted's comments were schools specialising in sport which were commended on what they were doing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that specialist schools are funded on the condition that they fulfil their obligations under the regulations? If a school does not do so should it not have that money withdrawn? Has any specialist school lost its status simply because it has not fulfilled its obligation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I repeat again what the chief inspector said. He was not suggesting that schools were not sharing, but that it is a weaker aspect of their work. We are clear that in four years, when schools reapply for their status, that will be an element that we shall look for. We recognise that the Ofsted research was done within the first year of schools being required to do this. Therefore, we expect to see some serious ground being made between now and the next time that we look at the matter.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, will the Minister accept that one of the reasons for the undoubted success of specialist schools is the freedom that they have in managing their own budgets and the lack of interference from local authorities and central government? If the Minister accepts that, will the Government consider that maybe one of the best ways of improving schools in the surrounding area would be to reverse their policy on abolishing grant-maintained schools and to give all schools that kind of freedom?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that we should reverse our policy, but I accept that allowing schools to manage a great proportion of their budgets is a good thing. That is indeed why we have increasingly moved in that direction. However, I recognise that LEAs have an important part to play, not least in looking after our children's special educational needs and dealing with other issues which are best coming from an LEA source. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck. I believe that we have moved in the right direction as regards that balance.

Privy Council Silver Collection
3.21 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Treasury is selling its Privy Council silver collection.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government attach great importance to their programme of asset sales. We of course consider carefully the historical and heritage value of particular assets. In the case of silver owned by Her Majesty's Treasury, it has been decided not to sell items valued at over £1 million with the greatest historical and heritage significance. However, the items to which the Question refers have been offered for sale by auction at Bonham & Brooks next Tuesday.
The Government are open to representations on the particular items planned for sale next week. I can assure the House that any representations, particularly including views which noble Lords may want to express this afternoon, will be considered carefully, sympathetically and quickly.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am disappointed that the Government are willing to see such items being lost to the nation. I urge the Government to reconsider and re-examine their policy with regard to works of art held in government departments.
The DCMS recently managed to get an exemption for items that are in its department. Could that be extended to other departments? Furthermore, can the Government re-examine the way that the Treasury looks at the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the offer that I made of the Treasury listening to representations applies specifically to the items which are in Bonham & Brooks' catalogue for sale next Tuesday. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will find the Treasury less sympathetic to a general review of the policy on disposal of assets.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, the Treasury holds about 1,000 antique or national heritage items. How many of those will be earmarked for disposal under the present deplorable policy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the 1990s the items which had been held as part of the civil estate by property holding were divided between departments. I do not know whether the figure of 1,000 quoted by my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is correct. It is certainly true that there are substantial assets which have been allocated to the Treasury and to other departments of state as a result of this policy.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a few years ago when Liverpool City Council planned to sell some of that city's silver from its splendid collection, the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside made a good case for acquiring it for the purposes of local heritage interest. It occurs to me that in this particular case the Government may consider creating, setting up or building a museum of parliamentary heritage, in which not only this Privy Council silver and the other hundreds of exhibits to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred could be exhibited, but also the public could be reminded of the significance and historic value of your Lordships' House before the recent reforms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall leave aside the last few words of the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. The noble Baroness makes a valuable and helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, from the present point of view, it is something that would take a considerable time. The offer that I made—I make it in the hope that museums and galleries all around the country will look at these items—is that someone should make a proposition to the Treasury quickly before next Tuesday.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords—
Lord Best: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, first.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, in the Minister's earlier reply one could be excused for thinking that the criteria for disposing of assets of this kind was purely on their predicted value in the sale room. The noble Lord will be as familiar as I am with them. I was at Bonhams this morning and looked closely at the catalogue. Unfortunately, the items are not available to see before next Tuesday's sale until tomorrow. The collection of silver is an interesting and charming one. Some of the items in the catalogue are at a relatively low level of cost, some even between £500 and £700. But they all have a historical resonance. Will the Minister agree that, when one has a number of items which were commissioned either by governments or by monarchs, some of them for the Privy Council and so on, there is an argument that—low value though some of those items may be—they represent an interesting part of Britain's history? One has a slight fear, from
1104
what the Minister says, that if the Government sell pictures it may be difficult to get a clear idea of the criteria that the Government have in mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in my original Answer I referred to historical and heritage value; I did not refer to the price at all. So I do not think that the noble Viscount should get that idea. I have also looked at the catalogue. They appear to me to be not only charming items—as the noble Viscount says—but also, if one looks at the inscriptions on them and their provenance, of considerable historical and heritage significance.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why this generous offer—so to speak—is made but four days before the sale? If the Treasury is taking the matter seriously, surely it should have been publicised weeks before this auction. My second point is a rather modest question. Those of us who have sat, or are sitting, in the Privy Council will be aware of the magnificent 18th century inkstands in the Privy Council room. Are they to be included in the sale?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the items to which I referred in my first Answer that are not being sold include inkstands and candlesticks. Those are probably the ones to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, refers. As a member of the Privy Council, the noble and learned Lord has standing in this matter and is entitled to make representations. The question arises today because the matter was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, as a topical Question for the day.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if the Government are determined, as the noble Lord has said, to sell the Privy Council silver collection., should not the right of first refusal be given to members of the Privy Council"
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I a:m not a member of the Privy Council, I am not consulted on such matters. Indeed, I do not think that I ought to be hearing what is being said by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I have said, I believe that members of the Privy Council have a standing—a locus, should I say?—in this matter.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree fully with his view of this matter? Can he indicate the greatest antiquity of the silver to be offered for sale next week?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the view I expressed was an aesthetic opinion. The political views I express are those of the Treasury. The most important items are as follows: James II silver snuffers and tray dating from 1685; William and Mary silver snuffers and tray from 1693; and a matched pair of silver snuffers from 1685.

International Development Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Development assistance]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Restriction on the provision of assistance),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the difference between this House and a harbour is that, in a harbour, anyone sailing a ship has to wait for the tide to come in before the ship can be brought over the bar. In this House, one has to wait for the tide to go out to the Bar before one can put any business before the House. I am moved to entertain noble Lords in a similar fashion for a moment or two longer in order that the substance of what I have to say should not be lost in the movement of those not concerned with its content.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2, which is grouped with it. I am deeply obliged to the Chief Whip for his guidance in this matter, which should not have been necessary. Amendment No. 2 is the substantive amendment, the effects of which I shall remind your Lordships in a moment. Before I do so, I should tell the House that my noble friend Lady Cox, in whose name Amendment No. 2 is tabled, has to be away from Westminster at a time which may fall before the House decides what should be done with the amendment. Because only the mover of an amendment has a right to reply to the debate, my noble friend has asked me to move the amendment and it is my privilege so to do. I cannot pretend to speak with anything like the authority of my noble friend on this or any other humanitarian matter, but I shall attempt clearly to put the issues before noble Lords. Before my noble friend leaves the Chamber, she will tell noble Lords whether I have got them right.
The situation is this. The Bill before the House seeks to confer on the Secretary of State the power to give development assistance to institutions and governments outside this country. In the past that assistance has consisted, and will in the future consist, of very substantial amounts of money, as well as other forms of aid. Therefore it is a matter on which both Parliament as a whole and the taxpayers of this country have a legitimate interest. The effect of Amendment No. 2 would be to deprive the Secretary of State of the power to give aid to certain organisations; namely, those which use coercive methods to achieve policies of population limitation.
In the past and, under the Bill as drafted, in the future, money and aid could be given to a large number of bodies. Among those are the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Population Fund. The amount which in recent years has been given fairly regularly to the Planned Parenthood Association is £5 million per year. In the calendar year 1999, that aid amounted to £5,883,000. When she joins the debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, will be able to confirm that in her reply.
Before I continue, I take it that the noble Baroness will be replying to our debates.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I think that I can help the House at this point. In moving the Motion for Third Reading on behalf of my noble friend Lady Amos, I should tell the House that she is unable to attend the House today because she is presently in Zimbabwe, along with other Commonwealth representatives. I am sure that the House will approve of her visit to Zimbabwe, since noble Lords have always demonstrated their keen interest in matters associated with that country.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining that he is to reply to our debates. In this case, I think that the word "she" should embrace the word "he".
In his response the Minister will be able to confirm, first, whether that sum was the correct amount and, secondly, what restrictions were placed on a proportion of it. I should like to know what proportion of the funds was unrestricted and what proportion was restricted. That answer will be important because the association's published accounts show clearly that last year it, in its turn, provided funds to a body called the China Family Planning Association, an organisation run by officials of the Chinese state. The association placed no constraints whatever on how the money should be used. In a moment I shall tell noble Lords how that money was used.
The Minister can also tell the House on what terms we paid our rather larger subscription, if I may call it that, of about £15 million to the other organisation, the United Nations Population Fund, which confusingly uses an acronym which derives from an earlier title, UNFPA. On what proportion of that money did the Government place restrictions, and with what result? The UN Population Fund also publishes annual accounts. Those accounts show that it, in turn, provided funding to the State Family Planning Commission of China, which is a part of the Chinese Government. How did the commission use that money?
Both the China Family Planning Association and the State Family Planning Commission of China are agents for the implementation—or rather, I should say the enforcement—of a stated policy of the Chinese Government, which is to stabilise the population of China at its present level. The achievement of that goal, allowing for existing natural mortality rates, would require an average birth rate of 2.1 live births per couple. However, enforcement is not equally successful everywhere and the result is that where officials do have control they opt for far more stringent targets to make up for those areas where they do not have control. In large areas of China, and I believe also in Tibet, officials enforce what we have come to call a one-child policy, and pursue it with a savage ferocity.

1107
The UNFPA claims that it neither uses nor condones coercion. During the debate on Report last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, appeared to have accepted the association's protestations. She stated that:
"The areas where UNFPA works have seen the abolition of birth quotas, evidence of a shift from administratively-oriented family planning services to client-oriented services, and … a decrease in induced abortion rates".—[Official Report, 18/10/01; col. 730.]
I find it rather hideous to have to welcome a decrease in the rate of compulsorily induced abortion, but there it is. That comment was made for our comfort.
We are not the only legislature to be deeply concerned about what is going on in China. In the United States, in spite of the disruption caused by anthrax attacks, a Congressional hearing has been receiving evidence which squarely rebuts the UNFPA's claims not to be complicit in coercion, and its claim of reforming China's population control programme.
An investigation conducted last month in areas where UNFPA is currently active in China found that:
"UNFPA's claims are false … Within counties where the UNFPA is active … contrary to UNFPA claims, the one-child policy, with its attendant targets and quotas, is still in place … there is no real distinction between the one-child policy as carried out in the 32 counties where the UNFPA is active and the one-child policy found throughout China as a whole. The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilization in China".
That confirms earlier US State Department findings. I wonder whether the Minister, on behalf of the Government, still feels able to dispute them. Zhang Weiging, the Minister of China's State Family Planning Commission, was reported in the IPPF News on 3rd November last as saying that China intends to continue to control the growth of population.
It is clear, is it not, that, despite 20 years of UNFPA involvement in China, nothing has changed. May one ask why? It is an immensely well-funded organisation. Last year alone, our Government, acting on behalf of us, gave it £47 million of our money. The UNFPA spends millions annually in China. So it is certainly not for lack of experience or money that it has not eliminated coercion from the Chinese policy. Whatever its words, its deeds are in support of China's coercive one-child policy.
Amnesty International reported as recently as 1999 that,
"women must sign personal birth limitation contracts…The contracts indicate that contraception is compulsory and that abortion is the only remedy in the case of unauthorised pregnancies".
The second body I mentioned, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, IPPF, has also been closely involved in the one-child policy for almost as long as the policy has existed. This has been through its member organisation, the Chinese Family Planning Association, China FPA. There is very little difference between IPPF and China FPA. IPPF is a federation of member organisations and China FPA has been an IPPF member for 18 years. Only a political
1108
philosopher could make a distinction between China FPA and the Chinese Government as regards policy. It has been run by Chinese Government officials since its creation in 1980.
When China FPA was created, the official communiqué announcing its creation. stated clearly:
"The association will implement government population control policies".
In a 1993 report, China FPA admitted that it had,
"participated and supervised that the awarding and punishing policies relating to family planning were properly executed".
IPPF itself has admitted that China FPA,
"volunteers sometimes collect the occasional fine when a couple break the birth plan rules".
An astonishing understatement.
What does enforcement involve? I quote Dr John Aird, the former senior research specialist on China of the United States Bureau of the Census, who calculates that between 1971 and 1985 alone there were roughly 100 million coercive birth control "operations", including forced sterilisation and forced abortions. Neither the UNFPA nor China FPA, supported as they were by British money, is moderating this policy.
On the contrary, on 25th September last, the BBC reported an editorial in the People's Daily, the Communist Party's official paper, which said:
"We cannot just be content with current success, we must make population control a permanent policy".
In March this year, Amnesty International reported that in China even children are not safe from state violence and that family planning officials get away with torturing parents who flout the policy. Yesterday, I read of one case where a mother, who had committed the dreadful crime of becoming pregnant for a second time, sought to escape compulsory abortion by running away from home and not telling a single soul where she had gone. Unfortunately, the officials in charge of the policy did not believe that she had not told a single soul where she had gone and they arrested her husband and tortured him. He was eventually released. Being under a cloud of terror, he went to the authorities again to swear his ignorance of her whereabouts. He was re-arrested and tortured, and as a result he died.
On 25th February 2000, another branch of the United States Government, the Department of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, published a report on human rights practices in China which concluded, among other things:
"According to the latest figures…the number of children abandoned each year is approximately 1.7 million".
It referred to a particular orphanage, with well-paid staff and a brand-new facility, where it was reported that,
"the mortality for children under 2 approached 100%, even for those infants who entered in fair health".
These are horrifying facts.
Noble Lords who saw the television programme The Dying Room will know why I cannot bring before the House the true facts of how some of those orphanages are conducted. They are not fit for

1109
repetition in this Chamber. It is for your Lordships to decide whether this kind of practice—that we, through our Government, have been supporting—should be countenanced, let alone paid for.
I understand that it is possible for a Minister to put his hand on his heart and say, "This is something we shall never do again", but the fact is that these organisations have been supported by governments of both colours over a number of years. Therefore this is not a party issue. The Government have, after all, set their hand to the task of defending human rights throughout the world. It is difficult to say whether they were led or followed in the matter by the Liberal Democrat Party when they espoused that policy. My own party undertook in its latest manifesto that, while supporting education and access to family planning practices, we would in no way countenance compulsion to do so. I intended to have the manifesto in my hand, but I am certain that that is an accurate paraphrase. I have it here. It is an accurate paraphrase.
I should say in conclusion that the initiative for this substantive amendment sprang from my noble friend Lady Young before she fell ill. Noble Lords will know from a letter which she sent to many Members of the House that she is warmly in support of the substantive amendment. I hope that your Lordships will also support the amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we proceed with the debate and in order to avoid confusion, the noble Lord said that he was moving Amendment No. 1 and speaking to Amendment No. 2. He then said that he would be moving Amendment No. 2. There is, of course, no need for that because the amendments are in a single group. The decision on Amendment No. 1, which is a paving amendment, will cover Amendment No. 2. So there is only one debate to be held.
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is a great relief. I thought it was understood. I am rather alarmed to discover that I have managed to put confusion in the noble Lord's mind on such a simple matter. The main matter is complex. I beg your Lordships, if you are in doubt, to ask questions. I do have a right to reply.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for introducing these amendments so effectively, helpfully and comprehensively. In speaking to them, I shall not repeat the arguments made by my noble friend, nor those that I made at Report stage, which all demonstrate that these amendments are designed simply to prevent government funds and taxpayers' money from being used to finance coercive policies of forced abortion and sterilisation. My noble friend Lord Elton has given an indication of exactly what such policies mean in terms of human suffering.
I should like, first, to make a general point. Attention has focused on China and it may be a matter of some concern to noble Lords whether or not these
1110
amendments would affect trade or diplomatic relations with China. The categorical answer is that they would not; they are very specific amendments.
In replying for the Government last week, the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, were less than convincing. For example, the noble Baroness claimed that the organisations receiving British money were "forces for positive change". But there is much evidence to challenge that interpretation. For example, the United States Congress International Relations Committee is conducting hearings into,
"Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion & Forced Sterilisation".
The evidence indicates that organisations receiving United Kingdom funding remain heavily implicated in coercive population control.
The divergence in approach between the United States and United Kingdom administrations is very notable. Whereas the United States conclusions are based upon testimony and evidence submitted to various committees of Congress over a number of years—and, indeed, very recently—neither House in this country, to my knowledge, has seen fit to investigate the extent of our Government's involvement in supporting persons or bodies engaged in coercive population control.
The question must therefore arise as to what evidence leads the Government to their conclusion that,
"United Kingdom assistance for sexual and reproductive health anywhere in the world is provided in support of the principles of free and informed choice",
and that they are,
"totally opposed to any kind of coercion in matters relating to childbearing".
Where is the evidence underpinning such assertions?
It is essential to highlight once again the issues that are at stake. My noble friend indicated them, but they bear repetition. Programmes of coercive population control, supported by HMG funding, are not only associated with forced abortions and sterilisations. They have other side-effects, including: the placing of thousands of children in the kinds of orphanages and institutions described by my noble friend leading to their premature death; infanticide of baby girls; a distorted demographic structure; and psychological ill-effects on over-protected single male children—well documented in research on what is termed "young emperor syndrome". These are the very serious results of the policy supported by the Government.
The second argument behind the Government's unwillingness to support the amendments appeared to arise from a concern that they would impede the Government's efforts to eradicate poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said during the Report stage last Thursday:
"embedding current policies and priorities in legislation could restrict our ability to make the most effective contribution possible to the elimination of poverty and to the welfare of people".—[Official Report, 18/10/01; col. 730.]

1111
I hope that I am as deeply committed as the Government are to the elimination of poverty and to welfare, but that is a non sequitur in this debate. The argument is misleading. As the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, admitted last Thursday, the amendments are designed solely to prohibit assistance to those organisations or individuals that promote or practise "coercive" population control policies. The amendments in no way hinder those organisations or individuals involved in the fight against poverty. They would not prevent funding for abortion or family planning services; nor would they prevent the Government from giving funding to providers of those services so long as they are not complicit in coercion.
Sadly, it is demonstrably clear that organisations funded by Her Majesty's Government remain complicit in promoting and practising coercive population control policies. The amendments seek to end such funding—and only such funding. They enshrine respect for human rights and provide the Chinese Government with an opportunity to improve their family planning programme to meet internationally agreed standards. They also provide our own Government with an opportunity to demonstrate their self-avowed commitment to an ethical foreign policy.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who have spoken to the amendment so eloquently and effectively.
As the noble Lord reminded us, the amendment has its genesis in an amendment tabled at Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I supported the amendment then and am happy to do so again today. Perhaps I may associate myself with remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in connection with the health of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Many Members from other parts of the House will join with friends of the noble Baroness in wishing her a swift recovery to full health. We want to see her back in her place taking part in our debates very soon.
In Committee I suggested a simple test for the amendment. Would we permit such policies or practices to take place here, and, if not, what on earth were we doing funding them in other parts of the world? Following that debate and my Unstarred Question on the issue in July, I was grateful to the BBC for transmitting a report from Beijing highlighting the way in which the "one child policy", as it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, targets little girls. I am grateful to the corporation for the moving footage that it showed of the brave Chinese woman who had rescued five new-born baby girls who had been dumped on the local garbage heap because their parents were in breach of the "one child" quota. Sadly, that same woman said that she had to leave behind many others.
We understand the good reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, cannot be present today, and acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will be most effective in dealing with the Government's
1112
arguments in her place. At earlier stages of the Bill, the noble Baroness set out five arguments in total as to why the amendment should be resisted. Perhaps I may summarise them.
The first concerned free choice. The noble Baroness said that the Government are totally opposed to any kind of coercion in matters relating to childbearing. I doubt whether anyone in this House would disagree. The second and third arguments suggested that, by working from within, we should somehow be changing policies with which we disagreed. The noble Baroness specifically said that the IPPF and UNFPA could act as forces for positive change. The fourth argument was that, because some good is being done, we could be relaxed about policies of which we disapprove, with particular regard to China. The final argument was that if we accepted the proposed amendments,
"embedding current policies and priorities in legislation [we] could restrict our ability to make the most effective contribution possible to the elimination of poverty and to the welfare of people.—[Official Report, 18/10/01; col. 730.]
It is proper to address those arguments, which have run through all stages of the Bill.
In the United States, the same arguments have been put. But our American allies have reached conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of Her Majesty's Government. Their decision to end all funding of what they describe as brutal and inhumane policies of coercion is one that we have a chance to emulate today. It is my belief that we should redeploy the resources that are currently used for such policies into the humanitarian relief programmes that are so desperately needed in places such as Afghanistan. Although my remarks are made with regard to the continuing human rights abuses in China, the amendment applies more widely, wherever UK government funding is complicit in coercive population control.
As I said, the Government place great stock on bilateral human rights dialogue with China and on the role of the UNFPA and the IPPF as positive forces for change. During the debate on my Unstarred Question on 18th July, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, illustrated the problem. The noble Lord asked:
"Has China been persuaded to live up to the standards of the UN covenants it has signed, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'? Has China been persuaded to resume dialogue with the Dalai Lama? Has it given Tibet real control over its own affairs? Has China's persecution of Tibetans and the suppression of their traditional culture and religion ended? Has the boy designated as the Panchen Lama been produced? … The answer on all counts is a resounding 'No".—[Official Report, 18/7/01; col. 1559.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, admitted on behalf of the Government that the human rights situation in China "remains bleak" and the process of dialogue,
"has achieved little in terms of promoting positive change in Tibet and on the freedom of religion and the treatment of Falun Gong practitioners".—[Official Report, 18/7/01; col. 1575.]
So, by the Government's own admission, the bilateral human rights dialogue with China is failing to curb widespread and appalling human rights abuses.

1113
Looking more specifically at population control in China, up-to-date evidence suggests that the UNFPA and the IPPF, which together receive about £20 million in unrestricted government grants each year, are not only failing to prevent coercive population control but are implicated in the coercive practices of the Chinese state family planning organisations.
Only last week, the United States Congress International Relations Committee held a hearing into,
"Coercive Population Control in China: New Evidence of Forced Abortion and Forced Sterilisation".
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I have been disappointed that the International Development Select Committee and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place have never examined these policies in the detail with which they have been examined in Congress. Nor has any Select Committee in this place. If nothing else comes out of our debates during the course of the Bill, we fervently hope that one of those committees will do as the United States has done and call evidence on these questions.
The US committee heard last week that in January 1998 the UNFPA signed a four-year agreement with Beijing. Under it, the UNFPA would operate in 32 counties throughout China. In each of those counties the central local authorities agreed that there would be no coercion and no birth quotas and that abortion would not be promoted as a method of family planning. Indeed, when I spoke to the Secretary of State, Ms Clare Short, about this issue some three years ago, she pointed to that project and said that we must wait and see what happened there. She said that it might well denote a change in the attitude of the Chinese administration.
Yet after hearing last week first-hand testimony from one of those counties, Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House of Congress International Relations Committee, concluded,
"that, after three years, the new arrangement is not working".
That directly contradicts the Government's arguments that we must give the UNFPA and the IPPF more time and that somehow they might then be able to act as positive forces for change and that assistance given is based upon principles of free and informed choice. None of those arguments stands up to scrutiny; they simply are not true.
First-hand testimony of the persistence of coercive population control in areas in China where the UNFPA operates, and, indeed, the collusion of the UNFPA in such coercion, was provided to the committee on international relations by Josephine Guy, the director of governmental affairs of America 21. Her investigation in China began as recently as 27th September of this year. The evidence she uncovered cannot therefore be dismissed as out-of-date, rather it demonstrates the continuing horrors of coercive population control which we aid and abet
1114
through continued funding of the UNFPA and the IPPF. I shall provide your Lordships with some examples.
On 27th September, Guy's team interviewed women in a family planning clinic about a mile from the county office of the UNFPA. They interviewed a 19 year-old who told them that she was too young to be pregnant according to the unbending family planning policy. While she was receiving a non-voluntary abortion in an adjacent room, her friends pleaded that she be allowed to keep the baby. However, they were told that there was no choice as the law forbade that. At another location a woman testified to that same group—this evidence was also presented to the committee last week—that she became pregnant despite an earlier attempt by family planning officials forcibly to sterilise her. That attempt failed. She became pregnant again and was forcibly sterilised a second time. She told Guy's team that had she refused, family planning crews would have torn her house down. The House will recall that in Committee I provided evidence of that happening on a regular and systematic basis in many parts of China.
Josephine Guy was also told of the non-voluntary use of IUDs and mandatory examination so that family planning officials could ensure that women had not removed IUDs in violation of policy. Fines and imprisonment for contravening family planning policy are commonplace and, according to Harry Wu, the executive director of the Laogai Research Foundation, who also gave evidence to the committee, local officials acting upon government orders still strictly enforce quotas.
We should be absolutely clear that the Chinese Government remain firmly committed to the need for coercion in family planning. The Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, said on 13th October 1999 that,
"China will continue to enforce its effective family planning policy in the new century in order to create a favourable environment for further development".
In its White Paper on population, released on 19th December 2000, the People's Republic of China avowed to continue the one-child policy for another 50 years. The CFPA, which is run by government officials with the declared aim to "implement government population polices", is, of course, a full member of the IPPF whom we fund.
The UNFPA is highly implicated in the Chinese Government's coercive programme and yet continues to receive millions of pounds of UK taxpayers' money. Josephine Guy's team graphically illustrate the extent of collusion between the UNFPA and Chinese family planning officials. Following last month's investigations they concluded that,
"Through discrete contact made with local officials, we located the County Government Building. Within this building, we located the Office of Family Planning. And within the Office of Family Planning, we located the UNFPA office. Through local officials, we learned the UNFPA works in and through this Office of Family Planning. We photographed the UNFPA office desk, which faces—in fact touches—a desk of the Chinese Office of Family Planning".
The US based Population Research Institute (PRI) has stated:

1115
"UNFPA's claims are false … Within counties where the UNFPA is active … contrary to UNFPA claims, the one-child policy, with its attendant targets and quotas, is still in place … there is no real distinction between the one-child policy as carried out in the 32 counties where the UNFPA is active and the one-child policy found throughout China as a whole. The UNFPA, contrary to its own statements, is participating in the management and support of a program of forced abortion and forced sterilisation in China".
That PRI investigation took place in September of this year.
Furthermore, these claims are not unsubstantiated. The US State Department has reported that three years of UNFPA's programme has met only with what is called "mixed" success, with some counties having made "relatively little" progress while others have not begun to eliminate strict birth control quotas.
The amendments before the House today would not stop funding for abortion or family planning services. Many noble Lords will be aware of my personal views on some of these questions and they will have their own views. I should make it abundantly clear that those are not the issue before the House today. The amendment would stop government funding only where there is evidence of coercion. In addition, the amendments are not anti-China but would assist China as it strives to meet its international obligations. If UNFPA funding was stopped, the Chinese would be given a clear signal that if it is to resume coercion must cease.
I fail to see how the amendments would prejudice the Government's fight to eliminate or to eradicate poverty. There are plenty of organisations in the world involved in the fight against poverty that are not complicit in coercion and there is no reason why funding for those should cease. It is simply scaremongering to suggest otherwise. It is complacent to say, "We do not approve of coercion but there is nothing we can realistically do about it", or, "We are in sympathy with your views but this is not the way to do it". If it is not the way to do it, the House is entitled to be told what is the way to do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, conceded the purpose behind the amendments on Report last week when she said that they,
"would require the Secretary of State not to provide assistance to any organisations or individuals who were involved in promoting or practising coercive population policies".—[Official Report, 18/ 10/01; col. 729.]
She was right. That is all that these amendments seek to do. That is their straightforward intent. A coercive policy is in direct contradiction of the Government's stated aim that assistance should be provided based upon principles of free and informed choice. The Government's "softly, softly" approach to the Chinese is not working; rather it allows a conspiracy of silence to persist where, as Henry Hyde said in Congress last week,
"coercion is cloaked behind the rhetoric of voluntarism, shielded from criticism by yet another international seal of approval".
China is the only country in the world where it is illegal to have a brother or a sister. The draconian way in which this policy is enforced is an affront to civilised values. It is a disgrace that we continue to aid and abet
1116
those policies. I urge your Lordships to support these amendments and help to end the brutal violation of women's rights.
4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish briefly to support these amendments. I do so in spite of the fact that for many years I regarded excessive population as one of the principal causes of poverty, as impeding human progress and sometimes even as being a cause of war. Indeed, in the 1970s I tabled a Motion in the other House, supported by Members of all parties and carried by more than half the Members of the other House, calling upon the Government to control the population of the United Kingdom.
So far as China is concerned, I have a grandson who up to last July had spent 10 months at Beijing University and thought that China was a wonderful place and the Chinese civilised and delightful people. He learned Mandarin Chinese. But their policy for controlling population seems to me not only inhuman and uncivilised, but also probably unnecessary. There are various ways in which people can be dissuaded from having excessive families. Some married couples fail to have any family at all, and that is tragic for them. It so happens, for reasons that I need not go into, that I was an only child and very happy, and my parents were very happy. But we really cannot persuade the people of the United Kingdom, our taxpayers, to support the coercive policy that is being carried out in such an inhuman way in China. Therefore I think that these amendments are important.
I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in the tribute that he paid to ray noble friend Lady Young. I join with him in expressing the hope that she will recover.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am broadly sympathetic to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Alton in particular in relation to China and, above all, in relation to Tibet. It seems to me that the Tibetans are in serious danger of seeing their culture and their race gradually exterminated over the years as a result of these policies. It is slow genocide.
However, I am worried by the inclusion of the word "financial" in paragraph (2) of Amendment N o. 2. If a country, for example India, promises substantial financial grants or tax rebates to couples who practise strict birth control but denies such financial assistance to impoverished peasants who refuse to limit the size of their families, could not that be construed as intimidation of a financial kind? It is the one matter which worries me about the amendment. I hope that the sponsors of the amendment will be able to answer it satisfactorily.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, having listened to the five speeches supportive of the amendment, I wish to add my small contribution.
Surely it is wholly repugnant to all noble Lords that British taxpayers' money should be used to support coercive population control policies of either forced

1117
abortion or forced sterilisation. It is a simple, straightforward, clear proposition. That is what the amendment is about. It seems to me that those who oppose the amendment for one reason or another will lay themselves open at least to the charge that they are implicitly supporting such repugnant policies. Therefore it is important that the House should express its view clearly on this matter. Politicians are criticised continually for weasel words, clever drafting and fudged activity. We are in a position to be quite clear and unfudged by supporting the amendments. I trust that the House will do so.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will he be kind enough to tell the House whether coercive population control would be legal in this country? If it would not be legal, why should our taxpayers' money be used to fund it elsewhere in the world?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, on these Benches we support the sentiments expressed in the amendments. It would be strange not to find coercive abortion an abhorrent practice. I speak as someone who is awaiting the birth of a second child in February.
However, I cannot support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, that those who question the amendments support coercive abortion. I do not believe that it is DfID's policy to support coercive abortion. The UNFPA and the IPPF work in 150 countries. They do extremely worthwhile work. Their work is welcomed and is valuable for people in developing countries who wish to plan their own families. It is often forgotten that in developing countries—for example, Malawi and Mozambique—women have too many children far too quickly because they do not have the ability and understanding to limit their families.
I do not support paragraph (2) of Amendment No. 2. Although I understand why the amendments were drafted in that way, in particular in the context of China, the justifications could be used by those in many countries who oppose family planning—a large lobby does so on moral and conscientious grounds—to bring about a possible judicial review of DfID's action and support of family planning. This is the danger area that we on these Benches are considering. It is not that we support the policy within China. The most important way of bringing about population control is through education and especially through literacy among women.
Therefore, although we find shocking the stories raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and support the sentiments underlying the amendment, we do not support the amendments. However, I support wholeheartedly the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that this issue should be discussed by the Select Committee on International Development in another place. I very much hope that
1118
in giving his reply the Minister can reiterate most strongly that coercive abortion has no place within DfID's policy.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I fully support the remarks of my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Hayhoe and Lord Swinfen. I also add our good wishes to my noble friend Lady Young and regret that she is not with us today. We wish her a speedy recovery.
I should like to reiterate the last paragraph that I stated in Committee.
"We want women in developing countries to have the best possible access to birth control and family planning. We also believe that all people should be free to decide the size of their own family. However, we will not support any policies or agencies that practise coercive abortion".—[Official Report, 16/7/01: col. 1328.]
I support the amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I add my support for the amendment. The speeches have covered all the issues.
I am concerned, as are many ordinary folk, that the Government claim to have a policy opposing compulsory abortion and sterilisation; and yet the Government continue to make funds available to organisations which hand over a proportion of the funds to the Chinese Government to continue the policy that has been outlined today.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, noble Lords have referred to the contribution made to these debates in the past by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I very much wish to be associated with wishing her a speedy recovery.
There is a surprising amount of agreement to be found among those who support the amendments and those who, like myself, will ask the House to resist the amendments. I shall try to explain some of those points. However, I need to explain the consequences of the amendments if passed.
The concerns expressed by noble Lords are well known. They are expressed with great sincerity and passion as indeed they were at earlier stages of the Bill. We have had a long, detailed analysis of the Bill. The various clauses have been rigorously tested. This issue has been dealt with at all stages—in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading. I am slowly becoming used to the procedures of your Lordships' House and no one can say that the procedures are not rigorous. We have considered these issues on three occasions; it is right that we should because they are very important. However, the amendment would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to provide assistance to bodies that were working with countries to try to reform their coercive population policies.
China was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lords, Lord Elton, Lord Alton and others. The net cast by the amendment would be so wide that the Department for International Development would be unable to provide support in any country in the world through a body that had anything to do with improving reproductive health care in China. We could not support the UNFPA or the IPPF in any way.

1119
That matter has been aired during the passage of this Bill. I need hardly repeat the words of my noble friend Lady Amos in Committee when she said:
"UK assistance for all family planning is provided in line with the principles of free and informed choice upheld at the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994. The Government are totally opposed to any kind of coercion in matters related to childbearing."
She went on to emphasise:
"The Government disagree with China's one child policy".
I am sure that all noble Lords expect me to say that, so I am doing so slowly and deliberately. Those who have contributed, to the debate have spelt out some of the dreadful practices. There is no disagreement about our concern about those policies. My noble friend said:
"The Government disagree with China's one child policy and do not support it. Coercion should have no place in family planning.".—[Official Report, 16/7/01; col. 1341.]
We stand firmly by our view that the work of UNFPA has had a clearly beneficial effect in China. In areas in which UNFPA works, birth quotas have been abolished and there has been evidence of a movement away from a preoccupation with meeting targets and towards improving the quality of information and services, and choice of family planning methods that are available to people. There has also been a decrease in induced abortion rates. We do not believe that these changes would have taken place without the engagement in China of the UNFPA.
Birth quotas and targets have been abolished in 47 counties in China as a result of UNFPA involvement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask when that happened? That fact has been denied by a number of organisations.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can only refer to the number of counties. I would list them if I could pronounce them, but the evidence is there.
I should say, too, that in June this year a review of the UNFPA's programme in China—this is important in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—by UNFPA's executive board, including those from the United Kingdom, other EU countries, the USA and developing countries, concluded that the UNFPA is playing an important role in fostering change in China.
The latest human rights report on China, which was issued by the United States State Department, notes progress in this area and shows higher public awareness of UNFPA's programme and the elimination of birth quotas in the counties in which UNFPA is working.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, with regard to the 47 counties, what percentage of China is that? Are we talking about, say, half the parish council of Scunthorpe or the whole of China?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my pronunciation is not too good and neither is my maths, so I cannot give the noble Lord an immediate answer. It is clearly a substantial number. The crucial point is not so much
1120
the number but the fact that UNFPA's involvement produces significant improvements in all the areas that have been raised in the debate.
We stand by our support for those bodies. Indeed, we are convinced that it, is essential to maintain the ability of bodies such as UNFPA to engage in policy dialogue with countries where reform is so much needed, as in China. No one denies that coercion takes place in China. The point is that reform and change will take time. UNFPA's engagement in the process is an important force in promoting that change.
To undermine UNFPA's work would be to seriously damage the ability of the international community to protect the reproductive rights of women around the world. UNFPA's work means that many millions of women are able to choose when to have children and to deliver them more safely. The fund also supports a wide programme of activities to tackle maternal mortality through the training of midwives. It supports female education and equips health facilities with drugs and essential supplies.
Another aspect to which I should refer briefly is that the amendment would also damage the vital global effort against the spread of HIV and AIDS. UNFPA works at present on HIV and AIDS in about 140 countries world wide, and spends about a quarter of its budget on HIV prevention activities. The United Kingdom's support for all those activities would come to a halt if the amendment were accepted.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as one of the proposers of the amendment, I ask him to look at Amendment No. 2, which refers to
"any form of coercion in relation to those said activities".
If the Government were to accept the principle of the amendment and perhaps add a codicil stating that it related only to abortion and the forced sterilisation of women, that would be a great advance. It would also address the point that he has just made about HIV, which is not covered by the amendment.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the amendment needs to be dealt with as it stands. Its effect would be as I have described, which I have done as accurately as possible. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords., before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to answer my question? Is coercive population control legal in this country? If not, why should taxpayers' money be spent on that practice overseas?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, that is precisely my point. Of course it is illegal in this country. We are totally opposed to it wherever it occurs. The effect of the amendment would be to make it more difficult to assist in those countries where this form of coercion takes place.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he accept that his advice to the House on this occasion has been based on rather general evidence? It contrasts quite strongly with the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has made a powerful case based on experience in the United States. Is it possible for the department to present a detailed reply, whatever the outcome of the vote?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the information provided by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was powerful—but it was powerful in spelling out the consequences of a coercive policy, to which the Government, like everyone else, are totally opposed. The position of the United States is not that different in crucial respects. The United States still funds the UNFPA. This year it increased its funding from 25 million dollars to 39 million dollars. Again, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the Minister turns into a yo-yo, I congratulate him on my first encounter with him at the Dispatch Box and thank him for doing an honest job of trying to make a circle into a square.
The Minister has told us that 47 counties have done away with birth quotas, although neither he nor we know what small percentage of the surface of Chinese soil that represents. The continued failure of the UNFPA to moderate China's coercive policy was exposed only last month, when the US-based Population Research Institute sent a team to observe China's so-called voluntary programme and interview women and officials in the counties where the UNFPA is active. The institute found the statements to be misleading, because, although the quotas were said to be removed, the policy persisted.
In March this year, a report entitled Torture in China—a growing scourge in China: Time for action said:
"Numerous public reports from China indicate that local annual birth quotas still play a prominent part in the policy, upheld by stiff penalties as well as rewards. Whilst exceptions have recently been made in some municipalities,"—
I take it that that means counties—
"pregnancy without permission and so 'outside the plan' may still be punished by heavy fines and dismissal. Officials may also be demoted, fired or fined for failing to uphold the plan and quotas".
I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a fine is economic coercion, but a grant is an economic inducement. The amendment is aimed at coercion and fines. The policy ought to be aimed at grants and inducements. The report goes on:
"With pressure to perform, and popular opposition to enforcement, officials continue to resort to violence, torture and ill-treatment including physically coerced abortions and sterilisations. In recently publicised cases, some officials who have engaged in extreme violence have received only suspended sentences".
I must give your Lordships one more example to bring into the focus of actuality what we are talking about. We are not talking about mere statistics.
1122
Hearing of 1 million children being abandoned is so horrific that one cannot take it into cognisance. Let us look at a report about one child:
"Public outrage and reports to local newspapers disclosed the brutal battering and killing of a new born 'out of plan' baby by birth control officials in Caidian village, Hubei Province"—
how nice it would have been to know if it was in one of the counties referred to by the Minister—
"on 15th August 2000.
Liu Juyu, a former medical practitioner, reportedly rescued the baby boy from the cess pit of a men's public toilet behind the village government offices. Liu took the baby to the local clinic to remove his umbilical cord and administer vaccination. Liu was reportedly feeding the baby on her doorstep when 5 birth control officials approached, grabbed the baby and threw him on the ground. In front of several witnesses, they reportedly kicked the baby repeatedly as he convulsed on the ground, then took him away to a paddy field where they drowned him, witnessed by other villagers".
That is not fantasy; it is the Amnesty International report of March this year. It fills us with outrage and compassion. This is what the Government's money is being directed to support, whatever the Minister says.
Noble Lords: Nonsense.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is no good saying "nonsense". The annual reports and accounts of these organisations show that the money goes to those two bodies, which are the effective arms for enforcement of that policy. It is there for Deloitte and Touche or anyone else to go and illuminate. Our simple request is that there should be in statute a disincentive for the Government to subscribe to that. The Minister has said that the amendment would prevent good bodies from doing good work elsewhere in the world. They can remove that disability themselves by ceasing to support the policy in China.
It is not a small thing that I am asking your Lordships to do. If there is any defect in the drafting of the amendment, your Lordships should remember that we are the first House to scrutinise the Bill. I am minded to divide the House and I hope that the Government will be forced to accept the amendment. When they bring the Bill to the other place in its new form, the representatives of the taxpayers who are paying the money that the Government are giving away will have their say and I very much hope that they support your Lordships.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Biffen, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Boardman, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1123

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buscombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Cox, B. [Teller]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Patten, L.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rogan, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hanham, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Swinfen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Waddington, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Weatherill, L.

Monson, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Addington, L.

Filkin, L.

Ahmed, L.

Freyberg, L.

Andrews, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gale, B.

Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.

Geraint, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Golding, B.

Barker, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goodhart, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goudie, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Greengross, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bragg, L.

Grocott, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harrison, L.

Brookman, L.

Haskel, L.

Burlison, L.

Hayman, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Chandos, V.

Hooson, L.

Christopher, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Craig of Radley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jacobs, L.

Crawley, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Joffe, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jones, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Judd, L.

Desai, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dubs, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Elder, L.

Levy, L.

Enroll, E.

Lipsey, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

1124

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Russell, E.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sandwich, E.

McNally, L.

Sawyer, L.

Maddock, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Serota, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sewel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mishcon, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mitchell, L.

Simon, V.

Morgan, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Naseby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Ouseley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Pendry, L.

Turnberg, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Uddin, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walmsley, B.

Razzall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Rea, L.

Whitaker, B.

Redesdale, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Rooker, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may not appoint a date under subsection (2) until a bill to give effect to the Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions is introduced into either House of Parliament."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 3 tabled in my name. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to the Dispatch Box today for, I believe, the first time on a Bill. Your Lordships will be aware that we discussed this issue in Committee and then again on Report. Therefore, I do not intend to keep the House long on this matter. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for his kind words, if not support, during the Report stage. I also thank my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for his support.
This is an important and serious matter, and the Government have failed to act as swiftly as we and others would wish in implementing the agreement that they made on the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. The amendment tabled today varies from those which I tabled in Committee and on Report in a significant way which I hope will help the Minister to concede and agree to my amendment.
As I said previously, the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials has been ratified by the UK Government but has yet to pass into UK law. The Minister said:
"We are committed to introducing legislation that will give effect to that convention".
However, she went on to say:
"I am unable at this stage to say when that legislation will be in trod uced".—[Official Report, 18/10/01; col. 740.]
I press this matter because in Committee the Minister was quite emphatic that a Bill would be introduced in this Session of Parliament. She said:
"I am therefore pleased that the Government have confirmed that a criminal justice Bill containing provisions that demonstrate our compliance with the OECD convention will be introduced into Parliament in the current Session".—[Official Report, 16/7/ 01: col. 1349.]
I have only one question for the Minister. Is he able to tell us now whether his Government will introduce a criminal justice Bill which will breathe life into the dead words of our commitment to the convention?
On page 198 of its report, Global Corruption Report 2001, Transparency International said:
"In the UK, the government will soon submit to parliament new legislation that will specifically apply to bribery of foreign public officials".
How much longer will it have to wait?
We support the Bill. We believe that the Government are moving in the right direction. Nevertheless, we believe that the war on corruption is equally important. Although our amendment seeks to delay the Bill, the means, in this case, justify the end. Our amendment would halt implementation of the Bill unless or until a Bill to give effect to the Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions is introduced. My previous amendment referred to enactment of legislation. The amendment before us today will shorten any delay to implementation of the Bill, and I hope that that will gain the support of the Minister.
Corruption is hindering British business and the environment, and it is hurting those whom we seek to protect—the poor and the disadvantaged. In its conclusion, Transparency International's global report states:
"Overall, the results of the two years of monitoring are very encouraging. To ensure a level playing field for companies from all states that are party to the Convention, it is important that the remaining countries ratify and adopt implementing legislation as soon as possible".
Our amendment would enable that to happen with greater urgency. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Transparency International. I have been pressing this matter on the Government for some years. I very much welcome the noble Baroness's approach to the Bill and the way in which she has presented her case and I wholly support the thrust of her remarks. I am not sure, I am bound to tell her, that I approve of the amendment's text. It is not a wise course to seek to delay this very important Bill
1126
over this matter. Nevertheless, this matter is of great importance. The delays from the government side have done the Government unnecessary discredit for quite a long time now. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will give a positive reply.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we support the amendment's aims. My one reservation was expressed by my noble friend. My problem with the amendment is that it uses the word "introduced", which implies not that the legislation should be enacted but that during this Session it should be introduced. I have been put in the enviable position of directing whether we support the amendment or the Government, depending on the Minister's response. I very much hope that the Minister, who is on his first outing on this Bill, will give a sufficiently strong reply to sway these Benches.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is wrong to make such a big fuss about what I call "big corruption". Big corruption is a division of surplus among the élite—how much ministers get from multinational corporations. It is very bad and rightly should be abolished but, so far as the poor are concerned, it happens at the top, not at the bottom. To stop the Bill for that purpose is frivolous.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for being generous to me on my debut at the Third Reading of a Bill in this House. The procedures are a lot simpler in the other place—a debate on general principles is much more straightforward than dealing with detailed amendments, as we are doing this afternoon.
As the noble Baroness said, this issue has been raised on previous occasions. I appreciate the fact that the revised wording softens the amendment and makes it rather more flexible. However, as was made clear by my noble friend Lady Amos on Report, our view very much remains that the ability of the Secretary of State to provide effective assistance under the Bill should not be dependent on the passage of other legislation.
We strongly support the views of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the importance of legislation to deal with corruption. I have been asked by the Liberal Democrat Benches to do something that I am sure they know in their hearts would be extraordinarily difficult for me to do. I have been around in politics long enough to know that the progress of government legislation is dependent on figures such as the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip both in this House and in the other place. I know my place, and it is not for me to spell out precisely the way in which the legislative programme will run.
In response to the points that were made by the noble Baroness, there was a crucial difference between our debate in Committee and on Report because, as we all recall, the debate in Committee occurred before the Summer Recess and what happened between the Committee stage and the Report stage were the horrendous events in the United States on 11th September. Pressure on the legislative programme has increased significantly as a

1127
result of the urgent need to introduce emergency antiterrorism legislation. The proposal to introduce such legislation—but not, of course, its detail—has been broadly supported in both Houses and by both Opposition parties in both Houses. The Bill will enable us to continue our efforts to fight corruption in all its forms in developing countries. On Report, my noble friend Lady Amos made clear the Government's commitment to fighting bribery and corruption in developing countries and she provided examples of the work that had been done by the Department for International Development.
In our White Paper, Making Globalisation Work for the Poor, we made clear our commitment to tackling corruption. Corruption hurts the poorest people most severely. It diverts public services from those who need them and it strangles private sector investment and growth. World Bank analysis shows that a corrupt country is likely to lose about half a percentage point of gross domestic product per year compared with a relatively uncorrupt country.
DfID supports those countries that are determined to tackle corruption seriously through a wide range of governance reform programmes, which often include specific anti-corruption measures. DfID's country strategy papers assess the extent of corruption in the country concerned, its government's commitment to tackling the problem and DfID's potential role in supporting anti-corruption programmes.
I want very briefly to mention two or three examples. We are supporting national anti-corruption strategies, which often include the establishment of anti-corruption agencies, in Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda and a number of other countries. We are strengthening public sector capacity for budget and financial management in countries such as Bangladesh, Ghana and Nepal. We are helping governments in Uganda, Jamaica, Malawi and South Africa, among other countries, to improve their procurement, accounting and audit functions and to reform their civil service management. We are also giving support to strengthen the legal sector, including the judiciary, in India, Malawi and Uganda. The total committed by DIM to bilateral projects that contribute towards governmental reform is running at about £350 million annually.
Now that this Bill is nearing its conclusion, I repeat that there has been tremendous, reassuring support from all sections of the House for the Bill. The Government greatly appreciate the support that they have received. It has been scrutinised properly and neither the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, nor the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have let us off the hook. In view of the widespread support within the House for the implementation of this Bill at the earliest opportunity, and reinforcing the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that we need to have it on the statute book and to deal with the other problem as well, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for
1128
his partial support. Perhaps I was not clear enough for the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. This convention has been passed and ratified; but it has not been incorporated into UK legislation, and that is what worries us.
On these Benches, we have pressed for this point at all stages of the Bill. We feel that the UK should implement the OECD Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, which has been ratified. As the Government feel unable to accept the amendment, or to give us a date for the criminal justice Bill, I shall have to seek the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 107.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kingsland, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kirkham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Biffen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Buscombe, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Naseby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northesk, E.

Cox, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Rawlings, B.

Ferrers, E.

Rotherwick, L

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Glentoran, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Home, E.

Strathdyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Waddington, L.

Hylton, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Andrews, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bragg, L.

Dealing, L.

Brett, L.

Desai, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brookman, L.

Dubs, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Elder, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Chandos, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

1129

Filkin, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Mishcon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Mitchell, L.

Gale, B.

Monson, L.

Gilbert, L.

Morgan, L.

Golding, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Goudie, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Grenfell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Grocott, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rooker, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sewel, L.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Joffe, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jones, L.

Turnberg, L.

Judd, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Uddin, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Levy, L.

Whitaker, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Wilkins, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Grocott)
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I begin by saying, for the reassurance of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as much as for the reassurance of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that my unaccustomed appearance at this unusual point in the proceedings is not intended to pose any serious threat to the Bill's passage.
I want to add my expressions of sympathy and encouragement to my noble friend Lady Young, whose birthday it was yesterday and to whom we all wish a swift recovery hereafter.
I intervene because this is an opportunity to re-express, and indeed to reaffirm, an anxiety that I share with others about what may be one of the unintended consequences of the shift in posture, implied in the Bill's passage, towards the priorities for the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I say "reaffirm" because our anxieties have already been expressed in representations to Ministers, by myself in writing on
1130
more than one occasion, and by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, who is unable to be here now, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
If I may be allowed to do so, on behalf of all three of us, I declare a common interest because we are all trustees of the Thomson Foundation, which exists to promote instruction and understanding of the principles of journalism and the free press around the world. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is the acting chairman of that trust. I declare an additional interest as president of the Great Britain China Centre.
The point arises from the continuance or non-continuance of a programme of instruction in the principles of journalism which the Thomson Foundation has been running, in concert with some help from Her Majesty's Government, for a number of years. Indeed, it started during my time as Secretary of State in the Foreign Office. I was encouraged then to give it help by my noble friend Lord Campbell, who came with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to make representations to me. It is a programme whose very existence at one time would have seemed very remarkable—that, over the years, we should be giving help, in concert with Xinhua, the Chinese news agency, in instruction in the principles of objective journalism. The programme looked in danger of foundering, as colleagues will understand, at the time of Tiananmen square. None the less, it has continued.
The anxieties arose at the beginning of this year when, in a letter written on 26th January from DfID to the Thomson Foundation, it was said, by way of warning about the prospect of continuing the programme:
"It is not clear that further support to this programme will have the desired poverty focus".
My anxiety is that undue concentration on that particular focus could lead to the reduction or elimination of programmes that are otherwise extremely desirable. The very same letter said that DfID was expressing that view,
"although we are pleased with the project's outcomes to date".
Here we have a good project of long standing, which nevertheless has not yet secured assurance of continuing support after many years of pursuing it.
Since then, my noble friend Lord Campbell and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, who is here to speak for himself, have made representations about this point. I received a long letter from the Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, reaffirming the Department's negative posture. We have continued to pursue the point basically because it seems to us that although the relief of poverty must, of course, be an aspect of the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards a country such as China, as are the matters that we were discussing in relation to the previous amendment to the Bill, so also is what we can do to help to promote good governance. Colleagues will know that we have been running a number of programmes, in which the Prime Minister himself has taken part, promoting an understanding of the rule of law in China. Those are being financed by another part of the Government's programme.

1131
Our anxiety is that the unduly strict application by DfID of the poverty focus, which is understandable, is jeopardising programmes that have other justifications in the promotion of good governance, which is equally important for the promotion of sustainable development in these countries. That anxiety spills over into other areas, because there seems to be a lack of consistency in what is happening on this front. Some cases of exactly this kind have received help in a new form from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights fund; for example, in Namibia and Belarus, Thomson Foundation programmes are still running, with money coming from a different pocket. In another case, programmes have been run in Georgia for some time, but diminuendo, largely because our ambassador in Georgia was himself in charge of the Know-How Fund, and knew how to have access to those funds to sustain the programmes.
Finally, the Department itself is financing programmes of that kind in some places. In Sierra Leone, for understandable reasons, the Thomson Foundation has its largest DfID contract. It is required to carry out the promotion of media integrity in that country, as part of what is known as the reconstruction of civil society. For another example of the links between press freedom and good governance, one has only to look at Zimbabwe, where it is so manifest that economic stability is linked to good governance and that one aspect of good, or bad, governance is the intolerance of press freedom.
There is no argument in principle between any of us. In principle, we all want those programmes to be maintained. My anxiety, and this is not a political point, is the division between the Overseas Development Administration, as it used to be, and the FCO. In my days in that office, the two were part of one all-embracing organisation, and joined-up government was quite easy. I had only to chat to my noble friend Lady Chalker, my last colleague in that post, to resolve a problem under one umbrella, as it were. The departments have since been divided and there may be a lack of integration between the two.
None of this angst is intended and I should like to refer to an observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, in the Second Reading debate in this House. She said:
"[The Bill] does not place any constraint on the types of activities or on the particular organisations or funds that a Secretary of State can support … Nor does the Bill constrain the Secretary of State to support only activities and organisations that tackle poverty directly".—[Official Report, 2/7/01; col. 703.]
Most recently when I raised the issue with the Foreign Secretary in a letter of 10th July, I secured the following response in a letter from him of 24th July:
"Encouraging the process of positive change in China, including better human rights, is a central element in the Government's overall strategy towards China. I regret, however, that I cannot yet give you a specific answer on the future funding of the Thompson Foundation programme. My officials are meeting with their DfID counterparts shortly to discuss this".
1132
That is the unresolved question about which we have anxieties not just in this case but because it may reveal an inadvertent shortcoming in the way in which things are being managed.
Perhaps I may sum up my concern in a couple of sentences. A programme for the funding of journalism training in China, which has been running for many years, may now be discontinued. I believe that such an outcome would send a profoundly wrong signal to the Chinese at a time when signs of increasing liberalisation, of course within relatively narrow limits, of their press and media are moving forward hopefully, albeit slowly.
The link between that kind of progress and other economic and social changes which are calculated not only to alleviate poverty but to promote an improvement in human rights is surely hard to dispute. And both those propositions are important aspects, of British foreign policy towards China. One would like to be reassured that discontinuity will not arise because of some interdepartmental glitch, or whatever. All the objectives are good and we want to see them being maintained.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I believe that all noble Lords will want to thank Ministers for the understanding way in which they responded to the points put to them during earlier deliberations on the Bill. It is particularly good today to see my noble friend Lord Grocott at the Dispatch Box. He and I have known each other for many years and I hope he will not be embarrassed if I say that it is another example of the right person in the right place. I know that his commitment to these issues has been strong throughout his political career.
I shall not surprise the Front Bench if I say that I remain a little agnostic about the Bill. I am riot altogether convinced about what it has added to the scope, power and effectiveness of a department which I greatly admire. In fact, because I admire the department so much and because I admire the political leadership of all the ministerial team at the department, I find the Bill a little disappointing in that it has missed an opportunity to include so many key commitments which I know the Ministers and the department take seriously.
It has been strong on legalistic pre-occupations and inhibitions but short on specifics. As we move forward to vote on the question that the Bill do now pass, there must still be an anxiety—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, referred to it from another angle—about the definition of poverty. There must also be some anxiety about the absence of a clear definition of what humanitarian aid is and should be. The present situation surrounding Afghanistan is a good illustration of why it is so important to be clear on this matter.
I have listened to Ministers closely and conclude by saying that if I am reassured at all, it is by the unequivocal language used by my noble friend Lady Amos from the Dispatch Box. With all her commitment and understanding she said without

1133
hesitation that if people such as me are worried that the Bill mentions only the reduction of world poverty, whereas White Papers had mentioned elimination, the Government are determined that the reduction must always be a tangible and measurable move towards its elimination. The Government are totally committed to the elimination of poverty, which is some reassurance.
Secondly, if some of us were worried that it was a strangely permissive Bill in the sense that it gave the department the right to use funds where it was going to move towards a reduction in and elimination of world poverty but did not not do so if it was not, we had the words of the Minister not once but repeatedly, saying that it would be only where it was demonstrated that money going towards proposed action would be justifiable in terms of the elimination of world poverty that it would be approved.
Furthermore, we received specific reassurance on the Government's commitment to multilateralism and on the Government's determination to see everything they are doing on development related to their commitments on environmental policy. Less clear is the Government's reassurance on what happens when they are properly and understandably—and in many ways I would applaud their doing this—co-operating with the private sector or other institutions. The Government's statement did not make it absolutely clear that the overriding consideration would be that anything done in this respect must be towards the elimination of world poverty.
However, whatever disappointments, candidly, there may be on my part and perhaps on the part of others about missed opportunities, we nevertheless have nothing but admiration for the department and its work and for its Ministers. We find the reassurances that Ministers have given from the Front Bench a little encouraging in those respects and we wish them well.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I want to follow the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about the work of the Thomson Foundation in China. However, I want briefly to put it in a wider context against the background of the Government's overall aid strategy, the path of which is expressed in the Bill. In doing that at this late stage on the question that the Bill do now pass. I am conscious that like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I appear in the discussions on the Bill for the first time. I apologise for that discourtesy. He is appearing for the first time with the best excuse of all; that he is a new Minister, whom we welcome to his responsibilities.
I congratulate the Government and the formidable Secretary of State of the DfID on the fresh drive and impetus that has been given to the Government's overall aid strategy over recent years. I do not dispute that the ultimate correct priority is to tackle world poverty. However, I agree with the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, during Second Reading of the Bill. He said:
"The poverty focus must be capable of wider interpretation than just direct aid to the poor".—[Official Report, 2/7/01; col. 715.]
1134
Here I declare a number of interests; the interest in the Thomson Foundation which was revealed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe; as patron and founder of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth; trustee of the John Smith Trust; and trustee of various similar worthy bodies. All of those concentrate on the contribution which education and training can make to the development of good governance. We believe that good governance helps to lay the foundations on which developing countries can tackle their own problems of poverty more successfully as well as building decent and tolerant pluralist societies.
The Government promote good work in this field in various ways, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, mentioned. They do so through their Chevening scholarships, through the Know-How Fund, through the Westminster Foundation and through the grant to the Thomson Foundation, which is under so much, in our belief unjustified, threat. I hope that the grant which is now threatened can be reconsidered.
The attitude of the Government to this matter reflects far too narrow a test for an aid policy. There are other issues apart from the particular matter which concerns us about the grant to the Thomson Foundation. There are similar issues about educational aid. I believe that that is far too narrowly focused on primary education, important though that is. Developing countries need highly trained educational administrators if they are to tackle the poverty of their own school systems. I believe that that underlines the importance of the Commonwealth scholarships and fellowships scheme and similar aid policies in the field of higher education.
I recognise the reluctance of MID and its formidable Secretary of State to have their poverty policy as they see it diluted by all the various claims that inevitably emerge in any parliamentary system. But even the policy in this Bill has been compelled to make exceptions to the basic poverty test, for example in relation to Overseas Dependent Territories, the policy on humanitarian aid, which is now urgent and very much in our minds, and the multilateral aid that is provided through the European Union. I am glad that the EU, with which I had an involvement, has a rather wider vision of the overall purposes of aid policy than the very narrow focus which I believe to be the core of this Bill.
I wish the Government and Secretary of State well in their aim to eliminate poverty, but I plead for the widest possible vision of how it can be achieved. I make a particular plea for recognition of how education, training and good governance can make an essential contribution to a wise aid policy.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, in broad terms I certainly give the assurances that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, seek. Good governance is a very important contributor to the reduction of poverty and is entirely consistent with the fundamental principle which underlies this Bill. I refer to a free press, an

1135
opposition, debate in the media and all the matters associated with it. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a long-standing member of the National Union of Journalists. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that I have a long-standing interest in television. Those matters are quite consistent with the objectives of the Bill. At this stage of the Bill it would not be right to comment on decisions in respect of individual pieces of funding, but I hope that I can provide reassurance on that front.
Although it is customary to do so, I express my sincere thanks to all those who have taken part in the Bill. I thank them for their efforts over long debates. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and various contributors on this side of the House, not least my very good, honourable and noble friend Lord Judd. Throughout much of our two careers the positions have been reversed; I have sat where he is, criticising the person who stands here. I know that his support for the Bill is warm and strong and that he brings great expertise to it. My noble friend Lord Desai, with his cryptic interventions, and others have also contributed. The hour is late. I am pleased that the Bill has reached this stage.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, we on these Benches wish this Bill well as it leaves your Lordships' House and wends its way to another place. It would be extraordinary if we did otherwise given that we pressed very hard during the passage of the Transport Act 2000 for the equalisation of age eligibility for men and women. We remain concerned and disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to widen the scope of this Bill to another age-related group, namely young people between 16 and 19 years of age. To have done so would have opened up opportunities in terms of accident reduction, sustainability and, most of all, access to services for a group of people who should be given every encouragement to stay in full-time education.
We also remain concerned about the costs to local authorities given that any shortfall between government grant and local authority expenditure can be met only by cutting other services. We already hear stories emerging from local authorities. We are still concerned about the underlying state of the bus industry. We hope that the Government will take very seriously some of the concerns which are being
1136
expressed, because, however good the concessionary fare scheme may be, without a good underlying bus service there is very little point in having it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I, too, wish the Bill well. Although the Bill is not very long it has been well scrutinised, as has the concessionary fare scheme in general. That may not have been quite what was intended when the Bill was brought forward. I reiterate the concern about compensating local authorities. Specifically, I refer to those authorities in London where the scheme is already widely operated and in some areas is mandatory, whereas in the country it is discretionary, and where it is probable that the implications of men travelling to work on concessionary bus passes has not been sufficiently taken into account. We have, however, addressed those matters during the course of the Bill. I hope that there will be discussion with the Association of London Government about the amount to be included in the standard spending assessment.
I note with some irony that equal opportunities have now worked in reverse. For once women are ahead of men, but, sadly, in this Bill it will be short-lived because in due course they will be married and hitched up to a lesser benefit.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Chief Whip deplores speeches being made on this occasion. However, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Hanham, for their support for the Bill. I believe that the measure has been very well scrutinised, and I hope that it goes to the other place with their blessing.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Registered Designs Regulations 2001
5.38 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to implement European Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs into United Kingdom law. This directive has had a long history. A Green Paper in June 1991 led to the first proposal for a directive in 1993, which was finally adopted in 1998. Throughout that time, and afterwards in preparing these regulations, the Department of Trade and Industry was in consultation with designers, manufacturers of consumer products and others who will be affected.
The appearance of a product can make the difference between success and failure of even the most functional of items. Good design is becoming ever more important in marketing a new range. The IJK has recognised the importance of protecting the investment of designers by protecting their designs from copying since the 18th century. The need to protect designs is recognised by several international treaties, most notably the Paris Convention of 1883

1137
and the TRIPS Agreement. However, the actual extent and effect of protection of designs is probably the least harmonised of intellectual property laws across the world.
Harmonisation of laws helps businesses plan their activities with more certainty. Designers cannot understand why their design might be protectable in some countries but not in others. Similarly, their competitors may be faced with determining whether rights which have been registered in different countries are actually all valid.
The individual assessment of the legal position which applies in different parts of Europe's internal market is unnecessarily time-consuming and expensive, particularly for small businesses which do not have their own legal departments. It can put designers off applying for protection, or put a manufacturer off launching a product in case it cannot be marketed across the whole Community.
The Commission and member states have sought to find the most appropriate protection for the benefit of Europe, recognising the investment made by designers and the need for fair competition for the benefit of consumers. Much of what the directive requires is similar to the protection already provided by the Registered Designs Act. There are, however, a few differences that are particularly significant: first, protection will be for the design itself, rather than a particular article bearing the design. This makes little difference when the design is the product itself but makes protection much simpler for designers of ornamentation—a floral pattern perhaps—which can be applied to many different types of product. Secondly, protection is extended to handicraft and one-off items. Up until now we have only protected designs applied to articles by an industrial process.
Thirdly, the protection offered by registration is improved. It gives the owner the sole right to use any design which gives the same overall impression as the design which he has registered. Until now, competitors have sometimes been able to sidestep the protection by making relatively minor changes to the design.
Fourthly, the quid pro quo for this is that the test to gain protection becomes conversely stiffer. Protection is only available if the design is both new and gives a "different overall impression" from earlier designs. Previously a design could be registered as long as it differed in a material detail.
Finally, in the past designs have had to be absolutely new to be registered. Almost any public disclosure before filing an application at the Patent Office meant that a registration would be invalid. The directive introduces a 12-month "grace period" where a designer can show and use his design in public to test the market and gain backing without prejudice to his right to apply for protection.
I must finally mention the significant area that this directive does not harmonise. That was one of the major reasons why it took so long to negotiate. Member states and the European Parliament could not agree on how to treat products which can be used
1138
as spare parts for complex products and have to match the original part to perform a satisfactory repair—car body panels and light clusters, for example.
The UK excluded such parts from registration in 1988 after it was found that some original manufacturers were using intellectual property rights to the detriment of consumers to maintain a monopoly on spare parts. Other member states allow full protection. It was finally agreed that it was important to bring the parts of the directive which could be agreed into force as soon as possible. The Commission would continue to review this area, to report in 2004 and make a further proposal in 2005. In the meantime, member states would keep their existing laws regarding the use of such parts for repair purposes. The UK's law presently excludes such designs from registration, meaning that they lack protection from others using them in original products as well as for repair purposes. The directive allows us the option of retaining this position. However, consultation with independent spare parts manufacturers concluded that that was not appropriate. The regulations allow registration of such designs, but the rights cannot be enforced against those producing, selling or using the products as spare parts. That is consistent with the interim solution which has been agreed for the forthcoming equivalent Community-wide right, the regulation for which should be adopted soon.
It is the practice for a Minister inviting Parliament to approve a draft statutory instrument to volunteer a view regarding its compatibility with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. In my view, the provisions of the draft regulations are compatible with the convention rights. I commend these draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, this is an uncontroversial regulation which serves, in these days of global commerce, to make sure that throughout the EC registered designs are treated in the same way.
Registration of designs protects businesses from having their goods and logos copied by unscrupulous pirates who produce cheap and usually inferior copies of high value or well-known products.
The regulation is in compliance with an EC directive. I trust that when the directive becomes fully operational by the end of this month our European partners will be as assiduous as the UK will undoubtedly be in ensuring that it is fully complied with.
We support the Motion to approve the regulations.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, we also support the Government in bringing in these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, indicated that the regulations are non-controversial. They may be non-controversial but they are clearly complex. The regulations are brought in under EU Directive 98/71,

1139
a 1998 directive. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Government have until Sunday to ensure that UK laws are consistent with that directive. Therefore, by any stretch of the imagination, the Government are leaving it fairly late.
I raise two points of detail for the Minister and make two general points. As the noble Lord indicated, the test for novelty will now change. The current position for registered designs is that one cannot register one's design in the UK if it is known anywhere else in the UK. Under these regulations that restriction will apply to it being known anywhere in the world. I should be interested to hear the Government's perspective on how that requirement will be enforced. It is obviously a particular concern of SMEs, which the Government are trying to encourage in this area, to discover how they can become aware of the fact that their design is known anywhere else in the world as opposed to solely in the UK.
The second point of detail is that the regulations introduce a test for individual character. In other words, while a design-seeking registration may differ from others, the question will have to be asked whether it differs enough. The test will be undertaken by an informed user or one who is familiar with the products in question. That is clearly a fairly subjective test. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how that will be enforced. That again will be of concern particularly to the SMEs which do not employ a myriad of advisers on these kinds of subjects.
I raise finally two general points. One is with regard to the European directive in general. It is not designed to ensure that people registering their designs will have automatic protection across EU states. There will in due course be a Community design directive that will give the owners of registered designs automatic protection across the EU. Can the Minister give any indication as to the timing of that directive and whether the Government have a negotiating position they would be interested in drawing to the attention of this House?
My final point is that these proposals are extremely important for the small and medium-sized enterprise areas. The Government clearly have a policy in the DTI of encouraging the SMEs in particular to develop their intellectual property rights and to stress the importance of those rights for small businesses. I know that some correspondence has taken place with Melanie Johnson, the Minister in another place, regarding what the DTI is doing to increase the knowledge of intellectual property rights, particularly among the SMEs. I should be grateful if the Minister can give me some comfort that that campaign is continuing.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, is quite right to point out that the regulations should be brought into force on 28th October. They will be brought in on 9th December. The reason for the delay is that users of the system who are aware of the effects of the
1140
regulations have asked for notice before they are brought into force. They need a short delay to provide time for them to notify partners and clients.
It has taken an extremely long time to turn the directive into legislation, for the very reasons pointed out by the noble Lord. Some aspects of the regulations break new ground. It has proved quite difficult to find a form of wording which makes the position clear. Indeed, the problem was finally solved when a certain amount of copy was taken from the directive and put directly into the legislation.
We regard this legislation as important because it relates to SMEs and we shall continue to campaign to help such enterprises in a number of ways, in particular with regard to intellectual property rights. As regards the question of novelty worldwide, that is for the courts to decide. The restriction is similar to that which has been applied for many years in the field of patents. Occasions can arise when worldwide novelty may be extremely difficult to establish.
Agreement has been reached in the EU Council on Community design legislation, which will give Community-wide protection. Those regulations will be adopted shortly. On the question of individual character, again this is very similar to a well-known concept used in patent law; namely, the inventive step. We are sure that the courts will have little difficulty in assessing whether the same overall impression is made. Again, this is a new concept, but it should prove to be manageable.
Designers across the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe are looking forward to the simplification and new opportunities offered by this harmonisation directive. It represents the result of many years of consultation and negotiation. I commend the regulations implementing the directive to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Student Finance
5.52 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what principles will underlie their review of student finance.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a matter of pleasure and, indeed, a matter of pride to speak from the Benches of a party of which an academic need never be ashamed. Nevertheless, what I offer today is a personal speech. It is based on individual experience as a university tutor and would be better compared with a constituency speech in another place. If the Minister should be eagle-eyed enough to spot some trivial difference between what I have to say and Liberal Democrat Party policy, he will note that my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford is to speak for the party. I shall speak from my experience.
I declare an interest as a serving professor of history at King's College, London; a member of one of the best departments of the one of the best colleges of one of the best universities in the United Kingdom. But when, at the end of the debate, the Minister

1141
reaches for his Roget's Thesaurus for some adjectives, I do not think that "rosy tinted" will be near the top of his list.
I welcome also the long and distinguished list of speakers who have been attracted to contribute to the Question. I mean no derogation of anyone else if I offer a special welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. My son was a pupil in the Department of International Politics at the University of Aberystwyth when the noble Lord was in charge. My son received what would have been a world-class education by the standards upheld before 1979. I should like to say that that is appreciated.
I welcome the fact that there is to be a review. I have asked a Question because one cannot get right a review unless one appreciates what was wrong in the first place. I am not sure whether that knowledge exists in the Government, and it is principally to probe that point that I have tabled the Question.
The rumour working its way along the grapevine suggests that we may be moving in something of a Cubie direction; away from the up-front payment of a tuition fee and towards a graduate tax. Should that be the case, there will be many reasons for welcoming it. Averages, like fig leaves, conceal more than they reveal. Many graduates, in particular those who go on to choose professions such as teaching—and we need more of them—earn a great deal less than those averages. The case for gearing more closely than before repayment to the graduate salary is strong.
During the last election I recall sharing a platform with one of our more promising parliamentary candidates. She was a solicitor and a graduate of Cambridge. She told me that one of her best friends and colleagues had a younger sister even more able than herself. The sister had to face the prospect of paying the tuition fee. The family had decided collectively that they simply could not raise the money. Now, that extremely able sister is working in a menial job, testing brakes for Ford. First, that is a waste; secondly, it means that when the Secretary of State criticises universities for the high percentage of middle-class intake, she is demonstrating what John Stuart Mill described as,
"the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork".
But what is most wrong with this package is its size. If that is all that is to be put right, all we shall achieve is putting student finances back to the position they were left in by John Major. If, after two full terms, that is the best that this Government have to offer, they can do as much as they like to make voting easier, but I do not think that they will be able to persuade many of my pupils to do so.
The main reason for saying that this package is not enough is the number of people who have to take paid employment during term time in order to sustain themselves. Before 1990, that was almost unknown. Now it is almost universal. I do not think that noble Lords realise quite how serious it is. That is because we observe the practice in America, where it does not do
1142
desperate damage. But American students take on over four years the amount of work that English graduates are required to undertake in three. The three-year intensive English degree is compatible only with the full-time student. But the full-time student is now very nearly extinct.
The only full-time students to be found are those with rich parents who receive from them financial support, very often in the order of £2,000 a year, over and above the package of finance provided by the state. This is simply another way in which middle-class children enter university with a special advantage, and it is not the doing of the universities. We shall not take the blame for it. It is a point about which we have protested since the very beginning.
I wish also to ask the Government—I have given the Minister's office notice of this—whether they will look again at the application to students of the Housing Act 1988. That is the legislation which requires halls of residence to charge market rates. A number of cases are known to me where the rent charged by the hall of residence is greater than the whole of the student financial package put together. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it was quite easy to argue that the package is not large enough. As a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, I shall declare an interest in the view that London students should not be entirely confined to areas such as Whitechapel. They should not be ghettoised; they should be able to live in the same range of areas as the rest of us. But until the 1988 Act is tackled, they will not be able to do so. Furthermore, until the Act is tackled, vice-chancellors will continue to get the blame for something over which they have absolutely no control. One can say, as I once said of Queen Elizabeth I: she left her officials to collect the unpopularity. Those who suffer that do not forget it in a hurry.
Everyone, at one stage or another, suffers some kind of special financial misfortune. That is why I think that everyone should have the right of access to the social security safety net. The absence of that net is causing gross and extreme hardship in some cases. The worst examples are those students who are estranged from their parents. I am responsible for two such cases at present. One student has recently failed to obtain a degree when he should have ended up with a First. That I regard as entirely a government responsibility. If you are working in the part-time labour market, at low wages, without housing benefit, you simply cannot earn enough money to house yourself. In my opinion, people in that position would be well advised not to attempt to come to university. I know that that is also the view of the student concerned, who has expressed it to me in words of one syllable or occasionally less.
The same problem arises with single parents. The cost of childcare is a familiar problem. I had a student in that position. We even managed to get the whole of her year to club together to provide an organisation for baby sitting for her—we could not have done much more—but it still was not enough and she withdrew. I regard that as a failure, but it is a failure that I do not have the power to put right.
Before the Minister starts to give a reply about providing university nurseries or crèches, he should consider the pressure put on university space by expansion. That is extreme. I do not know whether the remarks attributed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Sunday before last in the Independent on Sunday that there was no new money for this package were official, speculative or entirely mistaken. That matters because the Prime Minister is committing himself to further expansion. That simply cannot be done without expenditure. If I say that in my lectures there is standing room only, I am being optimistic; I am not even sure that there is standing room. But before the Minister replies to that with a graceful compliment, it is also the case with all my colleagues to whom I have spoken. I do not take it as a personal tribute.
If there is not to be additional money, there must be a scaling back of expansion; otherwise we shall not be giving students higher education but a mockery that pretends to be higher education.
Clearly the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have got to get their act together. I believe that they are on worse terms than any pair of senior Ministers since Russell and Palmerston. But Russell and Palmerston could talk to each other. Can they?
6.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I am honoured to speak early in the debate and I thank the noble Earl. Lord Russell, for introducing it. My particular concern is very close to that of the noble Earl, which is to draw government attention to some of the personal and pastoral needs of students at new universities—I am thinking of new universities in my own region of the West Midlands—needs arising in part from precisely that wider access to university education in which we rejoice.
In their review of student finance, therefore, perhaps I may ask the Government to remember someone like Malcolm. Malcolm is an intelligent mature student who wanted to do better for his own family and for his future. He gained entrance to his regional university and now travels 15 miles a day to study there. But his initial small amount of debt has escalated, and despite hardship funds and other sources, plus working for 20 hours per week in paid employment—a point underlined by the noble Earl—Malcolm is now unable to pay his rent regularly. In the middle of his second year, therefore, he is being counselled for stress. Just the other day, I heard of his decision to withdraw. For him, university will be an experience of failure which may last for the rest of his life. I hope that the Government review of student finance will consider the Malcolms.
And also the Cathys. Cathy is a younger student of 18. For her first two years she worked as a waitress, part time, to make ends meet. But her strength and concentration ran out, and university, again, has become a place from which she has withdrawn. Should this happen in a decent society which made wider access in the first place?
1144
In one way, I am rather proud to report that some students are receiving regular food pa reels from local churches, along with the covert collusion, I am glad to say, of college chaplains.
In conclusion, I remind the Government—they should need no reminding—of the three key players they should consider in the review. I have already mentioned the students but I shall say a further word about them. Many years back, in the 1960s, I was a university chaplain in Cambridge. As I look back to those years, one of my overwhelming remaining impressions is that of vulnerability. At that time, Cambridge had one of the highest suicide rates in the UK. Universities can provide some of the most creative times but also some of the most stressful and anxious.
But in the Midlands, the Malcolms and the Cathys do not even start from a level playing field. They did not grow up in families accustomed to mortgages and investments. Such students, if they graduate, do not walk into highly paid jobs. They do not expect to pay back their student loans within five years. They do not receive usually a golden handshake from an employer to pay off their student loan and bank overdraft on the first day of employment.
That is the students. But there are also the employers. What will be the role of the employers as the new government review goes forward? Many employers are beneficiaries of the new wider access to education; in what ways can they become contributors? I recall attending, several years ago, a memorable lunch meeting on a sunny day in the Birmingham boardroom of a highly successful manufacturing company. The lunch guest and speaker, whom I remember hearing with delight, was the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is in his place today. He held us in thrall by his vision for the renewal of school education.
Can the Government now take such firms into effective partnership in funding this crucial, exciting stage of regional university education itself? Is the contribution of such employers fairly distributed? Should those employers who can afford golden handshakes contribute more towards the whole?
Finally, what of society's contribution. I believe that some countries raise financial contributions from former students by collecting a graduate tax spread throughout their employment life. Others within higher education call for the reinstatement of government grants. These questions are too high for me; they are for others present today in your Lordships' House. I simply ask the Government in their review not to forget the Malcolms and the Cathys. They are there because of that very widening access which the Government have done so well to bring about in the first place.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the debate. I also thank him for his extraordinarily warm tribute to the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth.

1145
It is deeply gratifying. It was the first such department in the world. It has produced many brilliant students, including, as it happens, my immediate neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I am much gratified by what the noble Earl said.
Like the noble Earl, I am an academic. Academics have been accused this week in The Times Higher Education Supplement of being whingers, comparable only to farmers. So let me begin by not whinging but by stating that the Government have been very positive in many ways about higher education. They have tried to increase the participation rate and to link universities with a process of lifelong learning. They have introduced some new money. And they have provided stability in terms of the horizon for funding, which I never experienced as a vice-chancellor in six and half years.
The Government do not always help themselves. There was the Laura Spence affair of ill memory, which was dreadfully unfair to Oxford. Even Estelle Morris's speech a few days ago combined some sensible observations with references to "ivory towers" and "elitism"—a term which politicians have almost drained of meaning. However, the Government have done many good things. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Davies, who is a former university teacher and chairman of a funding council, will be able to elaborate on them.
But one of the good policies has not been student finance, which is the nub of the Question. It is clear that, perhaps for the best reasons, the policy that the Government introduced has not worked. No one need be smug about this. University finance, like housing finance, is an extremely technical matter. There are no quick fixes, no easy options for the Government. I do not believe that they have found the right one. The Dearing proposals—I am honoured that the noble Lord is to speak next—were not adopted. The maintenance grant, which the noble Lord wanted to be preserved, has been abolished and the system has been described by a Minister as "an administrative nightmare".
We have a situation that was intended to assist the deserving poor while removing a subsidy for the apparently not-so-deserving middle class. What has in fact happened is that students over a wide range of social categories have been discouraged and are certainly accumulating debts. The Secretary of State referred the other day to the "perception of debt". "Perception" is a word that might be dropped, along with "elitism", in the dustbin of history. The difficulties are not a matter of "perception"; they are real. Students are penalised. The right reverend Prelate has given a moving example of the kind of problems that occur.
The additional money has not affected the universities in the way that was intended. Many of the most impoverished universities are those that are the most deserving. They have suffered from a fall in student recruitment, with the result that they have been penalised in failing to recruit in sufficient numbers. Yet these are commonly the universities that
1146
are doing most in an attempt to promote social inclusion, to bring in ethnic minorities, to work among those in inner cities, former mining valleys or whatever.
The effect has been to widen the differential between those universities which are successful and the majority which are not. In 1991, when I was vice-chancellor, it was thought that all institutions would have parity of esteem as the binary division was removed. In fact, levels of inequality are worse than they were in a variety of measurable ways.
Tuition fees may not be the main hardship. The sum of £1,000 must be paid up-front, but it is commonly paid by the student's parents. It was thought for some time that having to pay the fees had deterred students and harmed recruitment. It is good to see that the recruitment figure has risen this year—to 18,000—although it is the first time for some years that it has occurred. So that vital principle—although I regretted it at the time—has been surrendered.
The ending of the maintenance grant has been harmful. It has produced the effects indicated by the two previous speakers. It has diminished the whole point and quality of the university experience. The fact that students commonly have to engage in other activities during university vacations means that a three-year university course is cut back by half. Essential reading and preparation has to be done during term time, not in the vacations. So if one thinks of universities in terms of quality rather than simply the quantity of warm bodies which can be inserted on the campus, that seems to me less satisfactory. We have Walter Bagehot's famous doctrine of "mere numbers" in place in this context.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the Cubie report. England may increasingly be the odd man out. The Northern Ireland Education Committee has voted in favour of the Cubie principle. In Scotland, the means-testing of grants is already in operation; tuition fees are not paid by the students themselves; and finance is provided through student endowments. I have spoken to Mr Cubie and he appears to be perfectly content with the financial basis from which that position derives. There is certainly some support for this approach in Wales, notably from the Welsh teachers' union, Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru.
Scotland takes a different view on these matters. It seems to regard higher education as a public good, a basic component of social citizenship. There is no cheap talk about it being the "birthright of the middle class" or use of the kind of slogans that we have heard on this side of the Border. Higher education is seen as an essential feature of citizenship which will repay society many times over through a skilled and cultured population. I wish that the same view could be imported here. Among other things, it is an example of the liberated and refreshing effect of devolution bringing in different philosophies about education.
The Question refers to "principles". I shall briefly suggest four. Clearly, access must be widened. We are well short of achieving that: an extra 100,000 places

1147
and a 50 per cent participation range are far in the distance. Any payment by students through fees, loans or endowments should be geared to means and spread out over a long period. That is a problem, as indicated in the report on social justice chaired by my noble friend Lord Borne some years ago—the problem being that if students are charged initially, they are the least equipped to pay. Equally, if the payments are phased over a long period, the funds are slow coming in. Clearly, the present system is not geared to means, although the intention is that it should be.
Thirdly, the principles should be nationally comparable across England and Wales. The system should not depend on the vagaries of local circumstances, including the policies of local authorities, which can vary considerably—for example, with regard to the recruitment and support of mature students.
Finally, I say with feeling as someone who was in charge of a university for six and half years, if there is extra money—please—the university ought to get the benefit. The funds are so often clawed back by the Treasury and by funding councils. Universities experience precisely the kind of problems in relation to their facilities and infrastructure that were described by the two previous speakers. I hope that that will be so. I should) like to believe that universities are still free, autonomous institutions, able to spend their money as they themselves see fit, as professional agencies. They are not nationalised creators of wealth, as they were in the past—but as a historian, I tend to be in favour of the past.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Earl for initiating the debate, so that our collective experience and wisdom may contribute to guide the moving finger in the department—which, once having writ, we may not change a word. I hope that we have got in first!
I am no philosopher, but I remember the saying of George Santayana:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
The House may remember the circumstances that led the committee that I chaired to offer some recommendations regarding contributions from students. We commented that over the preceding 20 years there had been a 40 per cent reduction in the unit of funding for students in our institutions of higher education. On the then government's planned expenditure up to the year 1999–00 there would have been a fall of 50 per cent. In 1995, 41 institutions were in deficit. In 1996, the figure had risen to 66. Capital expenditure on buildings and equipment was being deferred, as was course maintenance. Research in our greatest research universities was imperilled by the decay of their infrastructure. Other universities from overseas said, "Unless you can remedy this we cannot see ourselves continuing to be research partners with you". There was, in short, a crisis in funding.
1148
Against that background there was an accumulating view that there needed to be a new source of funding. People looked to industry but, of course, also to students who, as research has shown, are the major beneficiaries of higher education. After consulting its members the National Union of Students came to the conclusion—I believe I am right in this—that, while a minority of the members of that union were opposed to any change in the then maintenance grants, a majority were prepared to recognise that they should make some contribution, possibly through a loan.
Many others were also of that view. My committee came down against the abolition of maintenance grants because the great problem in our society is the imbalance between representation in higher education according to social class. If you were born into a family of professional middle class parents, the odds were that you went to university. If you were not born into such a family, the strong odds were that you did not go to university. I say from memory that those in social class 5 provided about 2 per cent of the university population. Our view was that to remove the one special grant that favoured those people would make it that much more unlikely that we would solve that problem. Therefore, we chose instead the concept of a postgraduation income contingent contribution to the cost of tuition. We thought that that was equitable because the prime beneficiaries of that public expenditure were those who enjoyed the benefits of higher education in terms of greater security of employment and higher pay. There was a return on their investment, including forgone income, of 11 to 14 per cent in real terms. However, that benefit was not available to all members of society; it was available only to those who had the right DNA and the right parents to give them the best chance of qualifying for higher education while those who were not so gifted did not benefit from that opportunity.
The great issue today is to maintain quality and to increase participation. I say in parentheses that the first big battle that has to be fought in that context is to improve participation in continuing education at 17. Our participation rate is 72 per cent; in the OECD it is over 80 per cent. In France, Germany and Japan it is over 90 per cent. We must lift the perfonnance there and commit the resources to secure major improvement if we are to have any hope of obtaining the 50 per cent participation rate in higher education and involving more people from less well-off homes—that is the big battle that must be fought.
I turn to the particular matter of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell; that is, the matter of principles. I have seen and welcome the four principles offered by the Government as the foundation for the review. I can identify with those of the noble Lord, Lord Morgan. I have written down five of my own—I have a little list—which I offer to the department through the House: first, recognition of the equity of a post-graduate contribution to the cost of tuition on an income contingent basis; secondly, recognition that the form of post-graduation contribution should reflect the need to minimise the risk of deterring students from the sections of society which have

1149
historically—and still do so today—participated least in higher education; thirdly, recognition of the principle that students should not be denied access to higher education through lack of access to funding; fourthly, recognition that higher education needs to be adequately funded to maintain quality while continuing to expand student numbers; and, fifthly—the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, made this point—recognition that the graduate contribution should supplement and not replace state funding, and, I add, should supplement the cost of tuition rather than research because under-graduates come to university essentially to receive tuition.
I do not claim that my committee got the matter completely right as we came late in the day to the idea of a differential rate of tax. I confess that we did not evaluate that option adequately and did not have time to address its difficulties. There may be a better way to meet the criteria I have mentioned. However, I believe that my committee got the principle right. Now we have to get right the practice. I offer three key rallying points in three words: access, equity and quality.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is a quarter of a century since I last held a university post and nearer to half a century since I was an officer of the National Union of Students. Therefore, I have no interest to declare today. However, I have a general interest which is probably shared by all of your Lordships here this evening, and that is an interest in trying to ensure that all those who are capable of benefiting from higher education have a reasonable chance to obtain it.
This is an extremely timely debate and I am grateful to the noble Earl for initiating it as all the signs are that there is to be some kind of major shift in government policy. In recent years one of the biggest factors that has influenced government policy has been the fact that, by and large, graduates are more likely to earn more substantial salaries over their lifetime than their non-graduate contemporaries. If that is so, the argument goes, because the community has assisted them financially in enabling them to become graduates through the payment of tuition fees and the availability of grants, they should pay something back to the community. That argument has been used to justify a shift to loans from grants and a belief in the right of the community to obtain a repayment of those loans over the graduates' years of earnings.
It is also pointed out how unfair it has been in the past that taxpayers, who provided out of their taxes for the non-repayable fees and grants, should be left with the bill when so many taxpayers earn less than graduates are likely to do. Unfortunately, despite what I still consider the reasonableness of the idea of graduates paying more of the costs of their university education out of their higher and rising earnings as graduates, potential university students and their parents have viewed the prospect of substantial debt hanging around their necks as a major turn-off. In an adjournment debate in the other place in June, soon after the general election, my honourable friend the
1150
Minister responsible for lifelong learning, Margaret Hodge, admitted that the rate of participation in higher education among people from the lower socioeconomic groups had remained, as she put it, "stubbornly low" since 1993 at about 25 per cent. In contrast the proportion of people from professional backgrounds going into higher education has gone up from about 55 per cent in 1991 to 70 per cent in 2001.
It is evident that despite the various forms of increased funding for students from disadvantaged groups made available by this Government, the prospect of starting one's working life with debt is a major deterrent. Other noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, have mentioned that during one's university life the fact of debt is a real hardship and has created a seriously wasteful drop-out rate.
It may well be that students from poorer backgrounds are risk averse to an unreasonable extent. It may be, as the Minister reminded us in the debate in another place in June, that, set against an average increase in earnings over a lifetime of £400,000 for a graduate, a debt of, say, £10,000 is surely manageable. However, it is the prospect of debt—I hesitate to use the word "perception" in view of what my noble friend Lord Morgan said—that matters to a 20 year-old and his or her parents. The prospect of what seems to them a great burden of debt is putting off too many potential students, especially from families with no history of higher education and who are unconvinced, or only partially convinced, of the value of higher education.
The way forward—it is a bigger question than I can manage in a minute or two so noble Lords must forgive my shortening what I should like to say—must be some way of eliminating any element of debt that is likely to be perceived as serious or substantial. Instead of loans and the burden of repayment, we should think in terms of an adequate means-tested grant and a graduate tax for graduates who receive such grants when, in due course, they are earning above a certain income. As a starting point, I suggest something like twice average earnings.
At the initiative of the noble Earl, we are talking today about the financing of students. However, it is important that improving student finances, enabling them to cope with life while they are students, is not carried forward at the expense of basic university funding bearing in mind the present backlog of building maintenance work, the need for replacement of equipment and the continuing low level of staff salaries. It is no good reaching the government target of 50 per cent of everyone under 30 in higher education by 2010 if that higher education is an impoverished, low quality, shadow of what it ought to be.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for this Question. He said that he spoke from a personal perspective: that if he were in another place it would be at the time of an election. It was a speech from the hustings, from the strand. However, I felt at times that

1151
it was also a speech from the trenches. I was moved by the way in which he related the experience of individual students and their hardships. I wish to speak about principles but I do not want to do so from the point of view of triumphalism or suggesting that there is an easy answer. I do not think that there is an easy answer but we should know where we are going.
I mention three principles. I do so against the background of having been a university teacher for 20 years—I did not go back into university teaching after having been an adviser at No. 10 because I found the situation so demoralising—and having given lectures at a number of foreign universities.
One important principle is that the review should be conducted in the context of universities as a whole and not student finance as a stand-alone issue. The form of student finance has a profound implication for the character of the university system which emerges. I give two examples. When I was an undergraduate at the London School of Economics, we had a maintenance grant and no fees. That system relied heavily on government. When I became part of that system, I found that managing a university department and then running a business school was intolerable. One was squeezed by the Treasury. Whether it was payment of staff, the ratio of senior to junior staff, student numbers (even if one was running successful courses), one felt that one was part of a mini-soviet, a planned economy where creativity and initiative were totally penned in.
The alternative is a world where universities are free to set their own fees, where they attract a considerable number of students who are in some way or another raising the money themselves through loans, savings, scholarships and so on, and where the university sector as a result is freed up. I see those as two alternatives. I do not think that governments of either persuasion over the past 30 to 40 years have chosen between one or the other. Part of the desperate problem of our universities is that we are in between.
I empathise with the situation of the students the noble Earl mentioned. However, I felt that simply saying that we need a little more money was a quick fix to solve a short term problem. The real issue involves a longer term problem. In undertaking the review, we should be thinking along that horizon. The universities have become demoralised. They are not attracting the right quality of staff, and there seems to be an increasing divergence between us and the United States. That is one important principle.
On my second principle, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that students should pay a significant proportion of the cost of their education. I have never believed that the primary purpose of a university education was to enable an individual to earn more money. If it came, so be it. I believe that the purpose of a university education is to teach people how to think, opening them up to a different world and encouraging them to move outside their subject.
I specialised in teaching economics, money and banking. I had the greatest difficulty including in courses the fact that people should look at the history
1152
of monetary thought which is so important to understanding the present. However, it has also to be recognised that having a university degree tends to increase the income of that student. It seems only fair that those people should be asked to pay something for that. The present loan scheme has disadvantages. Those can be changed. I agree with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, of an income-contingent loan over a much longer period of time. However, I should be nervous about the introduction of a graduate income tax. There is no complete correlation between the amount of higher education which someone receives and the extra income they earn. It would be a wonderful idea. But because there is no such correlation I prefer to stick with the present.
The third principle—it is one in which I very much believe—is that of encouraging access. It is important that students of parents who did not go to university are not discouraged because of a system of finance.
Having said that universities should be free to set fees, that should be done on condition that there is something in place to ensure that students will be looked after. We could return to the system of maintenance grants that we had, which was effectively free education. We could have a system of means-tested grants, which would be better.
I should like a system whereby every university has an endowment fund that is kicked off by central government but to which the business community and alumni can make contributions. That happens in America and is successful in helping marginal students and those who might be deterred from going to university.
As I said, I do not think that the review will solve all problems. But it would be a terrible misfortune if it reached a conclusion that sent us back in the direction from which we have emerged in which the state unfortunately cast such a shadow over university faculties that they became a depressing environment.
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undereliffe: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in complimenting the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on raising this timely issue.
I should declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. In this capacity, I can bring to the debate a view from university heads about an issue that has concerned them for some time. It led to their call for a rethink on student support at our annual conference last month.
Vice-chancellors have seen growing evidence of students facing hardship, particularly in the longer hours that students are having to work in paid jobs to support themselves. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to that problem. Vice-chancellors are also concerned about the adverse prospect as well as perception of debt. For many potential students. debt is indeed a perception. They are the very people whom we want to encourage into higher education. Universities UK was therefore delighted to see the Government responding to the call for a review of student support.

1153
From what we have read in the newspapers—I can think of the Guardian today—there is clearly detailed debate behind the doors of government on the best way of proceeding. I hope that the Minister will agree to share some of these ideas with universities, through Universities UK and, of course, the House, to ensure that they are workable. I hope that the Government will address the needs of the worst-off students.
What is needed? First, it is vital that the review focuses on the needs of students from poorer backgrounds. They are the students who need to be attracted to university if we are to meet the target of 50 per cent participation. At the moment, 74 per cent of students from the more affluent backgrounds enter higher education, yet only 15 per cent of young people from working class backgrounds do so. One has to reflect that despite the current situation, we used to have one of the most generous support systems for students in developed countries, but we have still not been successful in attracting those very students whom we want to attract now.
These are the students who are likely to struggle financially and they are also most likely to drop out. The UK has a good record on student retention but any student lost to the system because of financial hardship is a bitter loss. It is therefore important that the review considers how to retain students, as well as how to encourage them to enter higher education. It is inevitable that there will need to be a return to some form of mandatory maintenance support scheme for students.
My second principle is simplicity. Students need to be able to understand what they are entitled to. The current plethora of schemes—a staggering 21 at the last count—is ridiculously complex, difficult to navigate and expensive for universities to administer. The higher education Minister said to our members in September that the current system was a nightmare. The Secretary of State said on Monday that one needed a degree to understand how to access the support that is available.
Any new scheme of student support must be easily understood, well publicised and easy to access. We also need to be clear about what we mean by student support. There has been much confusion about tuition fees and we need to separate the issues of tuition fees and student support. Using tuition fees as a shorthand for the whole debate is unhelpful if we want to set up a new system that encourages wider participation in higher education.
Too many people from lower socio-economic groups believe that they have to pay fees when they do not. The Government have ensured that 50 per cent of all students will be exempt from paying fees. For those students, it is not tuition fees that lead to hardship, but the cost of supporting themselves.
Universities UK is opposed to scrapping means-tested tuition fee contributions. We believe that those students and families who can afford to make an upfront contribution to the costs of their higher education should do so. They receive a real tangible
1154
benefit in return. Universities rely on that substantial income stream. We should not forget that this now raises £350 million a year. Without that money, the funding that universities receive per student would have continued its historic decline. Any radical change in the system would jeopardise universities' financial stability, unless the Government are prepared to fill that gap in income.
It is important when considering the issue of student funding not to forget funding for institutions. If we are to widen participation in higher education, further investment in institutions is essential. All noble Lords who have spoken have reinforced that point. It is vital that once we have attracted students into higher education we do not short-change them when they get there. It is for that reason that Owain James of the National Union of Students backed Universities UK's view about investment in universities at the recent party conferences.
It is for that reason, too, that we shall be making the case for extra investment in high education institutions in the forthcoming spending review. Earlier this year, Universities UK report, New Directions for Higher Education Funding, showed that higher education needs at least an extra £900 million each year.
The findings that are emerging from the research that we are conducting for the spending review submissions show that the final figure may be a great deal more. I mention the figures to set in context the £350 million that is generated by the current tuition fee contribution scheme.
It is crucial that the much-needed shake-up in student support funding is not achieved at the expense of the student experience. Universities UK will be making it very clear in our submission to the forthcoming spending review that we need significant additional investment in our universities to ensure that the students whom we want to attract are well served; otherwise the world-class provision of which this country can be so proud will be in jeopardy.
In urging the Government to make access and simplicity the two guiding principles of their review, perhaps I may add a third, which is the quality of the student experience.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Russell for initiating this debate on this important subject. I must also declare an interest as a fairly recently retired university teacher with a continuing interest in the university sector.
From these Benches, we welcome the Government's change of mind about student finance. Perhaps I should say that there is a certain amount of schadenfreude. For at least two years we have been saying to the Government that there was inconsistency in their stance. While pursuing a policy of widening access to university, they imposed tuition fees simultaneously. Above all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, maintenance grants were replaced by loans. That impacted particularly on the

1155
poorer students. The net effect has been that, whereas under the old regime of grants topped up by loans the average student emerged from university with debts of £5,000 to £7,000, they now emerge with debts of £12,000 and a probable burden of £.16,000 or even £20,000 in the future, unless daddy is wealthy enough to pay for it all.
The Liberal Democrats have pointed out time after time that the people who were hit hardest by the change were precisely those whom the Government were trying to entice into higher education. I do not understand why the Secretary of State was so surprised to find that some of those in the lower income brackets were risk-averse. Your Lordships have probably all heard of the law of diminishing returns, which is a fundamental principle for economists. There is also a law of diminishing utility. The more money that someone has, the less utility. For those who have very little money, it has very great utility. I am astonished by the figures for savings and assets held in this country, because a remarkable number of people have remarkably little in the way of savings. For many people in the lower income brackets, even finding £300 to mend the car when it breaks down is very difficult. For such people, the concept of an unsecured loan of £12,000 or £15,000 was a very difficult prospect.
As a consequence, many students are now in debt and working very long hours, to the detriment of their studies, trying to find a way out of their debt. This debate is about the principles that should underlie the new student finance system. The principles that I have jotted down accord very well with those of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Griffiths.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to widening access to our universities. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, quoted the figures. Some 74 per cent of those from professional families now go to university, but from families of manual workers in the lowest income bracket the figure is only 13 per cent. That is an unacceptable differential. It is very important to find ways of widening access, particularly for those in the lower income brackets.
However, we find it difficult to accept the 50 per cent target unless there is more money in the system. My noble friend Lord Russell pointed out that he and his colleagues now face overcrowded lecture rooms with standing room only. That situation is repeated in university after university, and not just in lecture rooms, but seminar rooms and everything else. Everywhere is overcrowded and the facilities are rundown and crummy. We cannot take on the proposed extra 250,000 students because there is no room for them at the moment. We will have to spend more money. By all means let us have the 50 per cent target—although we cannot see any particular rhyme or reason for the figure—but not without more funding.
We also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that the highest priority at the moment is the shortages in vocational education. We need to look at the education framework for 16 to 19 year-olds and do something about vocational education. In summary, we want increased access, but not at any cost.
1156
Our second principle is equity. I pose to your Lordships two concepts of equity. The first is called vertical equity—to those according to need, from those according to ability. By all means let us pay according to ability. It makes more sense for there to be some income contingency in whatever loan repayment method is adopted, whether it is in the form of the Cubie endowment, or a graduate tax. However, we have to ask whose income it is anyhow. Do we look to the parents' income or to the student's income?
That brings us to the other concept of equity, which is also very important. Many of those who have taught in universities know that many parents do not pay up according to their assessment under the maintenance grant. It is very important that we have some mechanism whereby those students whose parents do not pay up are able to take out loans and pay them back afterwards.
From a Liberal Democrat point of view, it is also important to distinguish between tuition and maintenance. Our view is similar to that of the Scottish Executive, which was enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Morgan: there is a public good element to higher education, tuition should be free, those who benefit should pay and there should be some repayment after the event either through the endowment, as in Scotland, or through some form of graduate tax. At the moment, we favour the Cubie type of endowment. From the point of view of access, it is vital that we tackle the maintenance element of student finance properly.
My final plea to the Government is that, in looking at the issue, they should take account of the current inequity between part-time and full-time students. Many students these days work 16 or 20 hours a week. They are, in effect, part-time students, but because they do not check in as part-time students, they get most of their tuition fees paid. Those who are registered as part-time students pay full tuition fees. Mothers who are part-time students do not get the benefit of all the childcare allowances that are available. There is great inequity here. Increasingly we shall have to look to a world in which students fund themselves through college. We need horizontal equity between the part-timers and the full-timers.
I welcome this timely debate and I hope that the Government will listen to some of the advice that they are given.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for this timely debate. These short debates are always very valuable. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, I hope that the Government will inwardly digest before the onset of the review.
Before the 1997 election, I attended a meeting with sixth-formers, together with candidates from other parties who were contesting that election. Among the questions asked of each candidate was whether they had any plans to introduce tuition fees. It was not a surprising question, because there were rumours around at the time to that effect. The Dearing

1157
committee had been set up with all-party support and was also considering the financing of the higher education sector, and student finance in particular.
However, the then Labour Party candidate gave an assurance that his party had no plans to introduce tuition fees. His views were endorsed by the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—in an article under his name in the Evening Standard on 14th April 1997. He said:
"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education".
That was further supported by the right honourable Robin Cook MP, who also agreed that his party was clear that tuition fees must be met by the state.
In July 1997, the Dearing report was published. Among its many recommendations was that students should pay a flat tuition fee and that the maintenance grant should be retained for students from low-income families. Within a matter of days, and without any consultation, the Government ignored the advice of the Dearing report. They reneged on those promises by announcing the introduction of tuition fees and, I believe more significantly, the wholesale abolition of maintenance grants. I said then, and subsequently during the passage of the Bill giving effect to those measures, that students could be forgiven for feeling that they had been double-crossed by the Government and by the Prime Minister in particular.
I also said then—I stand by it today—that the greatest impact on students from low-income families was the abolition of maintenance grants. That now accounts for £12,000-plus of accumulated debt after three years. Not only that, but the implementation date announced by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—the Minister at that time—and its impact on students who were taking a gap year had to be retracted and modified to take the gap year into account.
All that was further complicated by the unfortunate effect that followed concerning what came to be known as the "Scottish anomaly". The tuition fees for Scottish students were waived and the concession was awarded to students from all other European countries but not to students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Again, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland can be forgiven for believing that, as British citizens and as citizens of the European Union, they would be treated equally with, for example, southern Irish, French and Italian students.
A number of concessionary arrangements were also put in place which created even more unfairness; for example, four-year Bachelor of Education student teachers received no help whatever, but teachers doing a PGCE course had their fees waived.
The 1997 proposals have now been in place for three years and many of the predictions have come to pass. Poorer students are leaving university with a higher level of debt than their more affluent colleagues. Many students are inhibited from entering higher education, particularly the poorest and many from ethnic
1158
communities, by the fear of mounting debt. Contrary to government predictions, the result has not been massive additional funding for universities.
Alongside that unsatisfactory state of affairs, the Government have set a target for 50 per cent of young people under the age of 30 to enter higher education. The limit on time in this debate does not allow for any expansion on this policy. Suffice it to say that the appropriateness of degree courses, the quality of the experience for the student in higher education, the quality of degree courses themselves, academic freedom, academic standards and the resources needed to deliver the 50 per cent target are all very real issues which, I believe, require further discussion on another occasion.
With regard to the issue of access, my noble friend Lord Norton, who, sadly, has had to leave, particularly wanted a point to be made about access to PhD courses, which he considers to be critical at this time. However, what are we now to believe? A review has been proposed, and perhaps tonight all will be revealed. It is clear that very late in the day the Government, or, at least if we are to believe what we read and hear in the media, 10 Downing Street, have accepted that concern among young people and their families, especially those on low incomes, is considerable.
First, we heard that all options were to be considered. Then we heard that only two systems were under discussion. Therefore, my first question tonight is: which of those is correct? On the one hand, we hear that grants are to be reintroduced, tuition fees are to be scrapped and a graduate tax is to be introduced. However, now we also understand that the dead hand of the Treasury has intervened. This morning, the Guardian published an interesting article setting out Treasury-led proposals.
On first reading, I must say that one bad set of proposals is in danger of being replaced by another, hastily thought-out, bad set of proposals. As I said, we understand that there is to be a review. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I want to ask the Government what principles they will put in place to underpin the review. Who will carry it out? I hope that it will not merely be an exchange between officials within the education department and behind closed doors. What evidence has been collected and analysed to inform the review, and can that evidence be made public?
What outside influence will be brought to bear on the review? In particular, will students, higher education and parental interests be taken into account and, if so, how? What is the time-scale for the outcome of the review, and when is it envisaged that the changes in the present system can be brought into effect? In the mean time, what will be the position of students under the present system who have already left and are still leaving higher education with debt?
As the present target is for a percentage of young people to enter higher education, a point that may need to be revisited by the review—it has been repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—is the argument that a graduate has greater security of

1159
employment and higher pay. Increasingly, that is not the case. As the mother of a graduate doctor, I can tell the House that academic salaries do not put him in the category of earning a great deal extra and, certainly, security of employment does not feature at all for him.
Finally, just as the Dearing report was set up with the support of all parties, why do we not take an all-party approach to the issue of student finance? More particularly, why do we not take that approach to the funding of higher education? As the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said, it is a challenge for all of us and for all parties, and it is a subject that would benefit from a much wider discussion. I, too, thank the noble Earl for providing the opportunity to discuss this issue.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is customary, as many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have done, to congratulate the originator of the debate on its timeliness. On this occasion, I do not believe that we are merely going through the form and courtesy of doing so but I consider that we are reflecting the fact that this debate is, indeed, timely.
The review to which reference has been made will continue over the next few months. The deliberations of this House will, of course, be taken into consideration. I very much doubt whether this will be the last occasion on which this House will discuss these important topics, not least because it is recognised that many noble Lords have a great interest in higher education and because debates such as these help to enlighten all of us about the way in which we may proceed.
The question addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, concerns the principles that will underlie the review. Therefore, I shall do him the courtesy of seeking to respond immediately to the forthrightness and straightforwardness of that question. The aim of the review, and the principles on which it will be based, is to tackle concerns about student debt, especially among students from lower-income backgrounds. It will aim to reflect the general view expressed by many contributors to the debate that a perception exists that debt may deter students, particularly those from poorer backgrounds.
Against that perspective, it should be recognised that student applications have not reduced in number since the introduction of the present financial arrangements. Indeed, the position this year gives the lie to the concept that debt is a major deterrent to students. Nevertheless, in so far as it raises serious questions and discussion, it is important that we get this factor right. It is certainly important in relation to the second principle that will underline the review; namely, that the Government are committed to a target of 50 per cent participation in higher education by the year 2010. Therefore, so far as possible, any barriers which may obstruct application to higher education should be removed.
Against that background, I detected in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, some anxiety about whether that target could be reached without having
1160
deleterious effects on higher education. That is not the Government's view. We do not see why we should present to young people and mature students a lesser prospect of enjoying higher education than is common among their counterparts in other countries. However, we recognise that that makes a substantial charge on resources because, as my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, emphasised, the quality of the experience must receive due attention. That means that we have to consider what resources are available.
The third principle must be that we provide sufficient resources to continue the standard of excellence in our universities. The right reverend Prelate discussed the difficulties experienced by students on courses. We must ensure that adequate resources are available during the years of study so that students can fulfil their course requirements. We should maintain that which we have delighted in for many decades; namely, a relatively low drop-out rate, which has shown no sign of increasing, among students in higher education. I am seeking to identify and to make clear the four principles that underpin the review. They represent a response to all the contributions that have been made in this debate.
I have a slight reservation—the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, may have identified the strategy about which the Government are unconvinced. I refer to what is vulgarly called top-up fees, although the noble Lord used much more delicate terms, and to freeing certain universities so that they can obtain resources—the market—rather more readily than they can at present. The Government are not persuaded by that argument although we have heard what the noble Lord said. Others have articulated that case, which will no doubt be taken into consideration in the review.
I hasten to add, lest it be thought otherwise, that the review will not be conducted solely behind closed doors; full consultation will take place. It may be suggested that the Government appear to be engaging in such an important issue without the adequate participation of the wider community, not least of higher education institutions. However, I have only to look around the Chamber to recognise that there is small chance of the Government being able to evade their responsibility, which is to ensure that the review is open and that the issues are widely discussed. That will allow us to reach a due consensus and a proper solution to what we all recognise is an immensely thorny problem.
The only other jarring note to which, I confess, I have to respond was the suggestion—I believe that it was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—that different arrangements in different parts of the United Kingdom had been arrived at, and that that was a disadvantage to students in general. The consequences of devolution are bound to work their way through in that regard. We all recognise that difficulties are attendant upon that. We hope that there is a solution that commands assent across the different parts of the UK. However, it has not been so thus far. The objective

1161
relating to the situation in England and with regard to the review lies within the proper provenance of the Department for Education and Skills.
The review is taking place because the Government have no intention of letting obstacles get in the way of the goal of successful expansion. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, expressed reservations about certain matters relating to employment. Despite that, all noble Lords who contributed to this debate recognised that there is a gain to be had from higher education—a utilitarian gain. Earnings for graduates are still significantly above earnings for people who have not graduated, and unemployment levels are also lower among graduates than among others. Real utilitarian advantages, if I may use the phrase, can be gained from graduate status. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, may think that it is typical that I, a product of University College, London, should stress that which is utilitarian. That is the nature of our debate. I hasten to add that I recognise that the advantages of higher education involve much more than the way in which one earns one's living.
The fact that those advantages obtain encourages us in our view of the expansion of higher education. The background to that is the fact that we cannot possibly accept the situation in which, although a reasonable percentage of people from homes of relatively high incomes expect almost automatically to achieve the A-levels and entry requirements that are needed to get into higher education, the level of participation among our lower socio-economic groups is well below international comparisons. That is intolerable. That is why the issue needs to be addressed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister accept that that undesirable situation will persist until the total package of student support is big enough for people not to need to depend on their parents for support while they are students?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have to recognise that this situation will be long running in terms of participation in higher education. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, identified, the problem goes back to the time when a maintenance grant system was in place and when there were no tuition fees. We should not exaggerate the extent to which the issue of student maintenance plays a part in this crucial aspect of how we advance educational opportunities.
Increased resources are needed and that is why some of the resources should come in the form of contributions from those who are the beneficiaries;
1162
namely, the students. We must ensure that more students are able to position themselves for entry into higher education. A major emphasis of the Government is to ensure that hard-won and important resources are directed towards schools and further education colleges to ensure that an increasing percentage of our young people are able to present themselves for entry into higher education because at present the figures are too low.
That is why the foundation degree, which creates a bridge, has been introduced. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the issue of vocational education, which is of significant importance. The foundation degree is meant to act as a bridge to encourage those who are committed to advancing their vocational skills, but at present do not do so, to take the opportunity of raising their skill level to graduate level.
We should also recognise that the Government have been concerned to increase investment in higher education. The investment in universities and HE colleges has been an extra £1.7 billion of publicly planned expenditure, 18 per cent in real terms, over the six years to 2003–04. There is not a noble Lord who does not recognise that that money could be spent usefully and intelligently. That is always the case with as good a cause as higher education, but there is no doubt that the Government are concerned to ensure that additional resources are placed in the system.
As a prudent Government, we have been monitoring the effects of the changes brought about by our policies. Demand for places is buoyant. UCAS showed an increase in allocated places of 5.5 per cent this year compared with last year. None the less, the Government have announced that they are undertaking a student review. I have set out the aims of the review and I have given a clear undertaking that consultation will take place. This debate has given us a good start in identifying some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the review.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister say who is to carry out the review?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the review is to be conducted by the Department for Education and Skills, the department responsible for higher education policy. That does not alter the fact that the department will be open to consultation and will ensure that consultation takes place.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock.

  Golden Jubilee: Grant of City Status
  Golden Jubilee: Grant of City Status
  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Campaign against Angling
  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: Campaign against Angling
  Privy Council Silver Collection
  Privy Council Silver Collection
  Broadband Services
  Broadband Services
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 8 October
  Employment and Social Policy Council, 8 October
  Civil Service Legislation
  Civil Service Legislation
  Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease